Type I allergic reaction to rituximab upon first lifetime exposure: a case report

The Efficacy of Bepotastine Besilate Compared With Hydroxyzine Pamoate for Preventing Infusion Reactions to the First Dose of Rituximab in Patients With Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Protocol for a Phase II, Double-Blind, Multicenter Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, can cause infusion reactions (IRs), especially during the initial rituximab infusion therapy. Generally, patients are administered a histamine H1-receptor antagonist before the rituximab infusion, along with an antipyretic analgesic, to prevent or reduce IRs. Multiple retrospective case-control studies indicate that the second generation of histamine H1-receptor antagonists might be more effective than the first generation in suppressing IRs caused by the rituximab infusion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of first- and second-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists for preventing IRs resulting from the initial infusion of rituximab in patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

METHODS

This is a phase II, double-blind, active-controlled randomized trial. It will be a multicenter study conducted across 3 facilities that aims to enroll a total of 40 patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who will receive their initial rituximab infusion. Participating patients will be administered hydroxyzine pamoate or bepotastine besilate, representing first- or second-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists, respectively. This will be combined with 400-mg acetaminophen tablets taken approximately 30 minutes before the first infusion of rituximab. The primary end point of this trial is to assess severe IRs, equivalent to grade 2 or higher as defined by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0, that occur within a 4-hour period after the initiation of rituximab infusion. The secondary end points include assessing the severity of the initial IR, the maximum severity of the IR, and the duration between rituximab infusion initiation and the onset of the first IR within a 4-hour period. Additionally, the trial will evaluate histamine H1-receptor antagonist-induced drowsiness using the visual analogue scale, with each patient providing their individual response.

RESULTS

This study began with patient recruitment in April 2023, with 17 participants enrolled as of November 12, 2023. The anticipated study completion is set for February 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of oral first- and second-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists in preventing IRs induced by the initial administration of rituximab. The findings from this study hold the potential to establish the rationale for a phase III study aimed at determining the standard premedication protocol for rituximab infusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs051220169; https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs051220169.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/54882.

ALSUntangled #67: rituximab

ALSUntangled reviews alternative and off-label treatments on behalf of people with ALS who ask about them. Here we review rituximab, a drug which specifically depletes B lymphocytes. We show a current lack of evidence for a role of these cells in ALS progression. The one patient we found who described using Rituximab for their ALS found no benefit. Given all this, and the known serious risks of rituximab, we advise against its use as an ALS treatment.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents - A practical guide for the oncologist

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to antineoplastic agents occur frequently, and every oncologist will encounter these reactions in their clinical practice at some point. The clinical signature of IHRs can range from mild to life-threatening, and their occurrence can substantially impede the treatment course of patients with cancer. Yet, clear guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management are scarce, especially from an oncologic point of view. Therefore, herein, we review the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IHRs to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies. First, we focus on defining the specific entities that comprise IHRs and discuss their underlying mechanisms. Then, we summarize the epidemiology for the antineoplastic agents that represent the most common causes of IHRs, i.e., platinum compounds, taxanes and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Next, we describe the possible clinical pictures and the comprehensive diagnostic work-up that should be executed to identify the culprit and safe alternatives for the future. Finally, we finish with reviewing the treatment options in both the acute phase and after recovery, with the aim to improve the oncologic care of patients with cancer.

Diagnosis and Treatment Challenges of an Atypical Case of Pemphigus vulgaris During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Pemphigus defines a group of rare autoimmune blistering diseases that affect the skin and mucous membranes, with pemphigus vulgaris being the most common form that has increased morbidity and mortality in the absence of an early diagnosis and treatment.

We report the case of a 24-year-old male with an atypical form of pemphigus vulgaris with cutaneous onset and subsequent involvement of the oral cavity. The management of the patient initially consisted of long-term systemic corticosteroid therapy. Following a mild form of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a flare-up of the disease in this context, which was not controlled with high doses of systemic corticosteroids, targeted therapy with rituximab was initiated but immediately stopped due to the manifestations of urticaria and angioedema. Considering the magnitude of these reactions, dapsone systemic therapy i.e., a steroid-sparing agent with minimal risk of infections, was started and managed to control the underlying disease.

The management of this case of pemphigus vulgaris was challenging for both the patient and his physician, as the patient developed COVID-19 which caused disease complications and implied additional costs. This case highlights the importance of an accurate diagnosis given the atypical onset of the disease and the financial limitations with the impossibility of performing all confirmatory diagnostic tests.

Skin testing and drug challenge in the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions

Immediate hypersensitivity to drugs is characterized by symptoms such as hives, swelling, and wheezing. To prevent a negative impact on care, assessment by an allergist is important. Evaluation requires a clear clinical history, but it is often lacking or vague, which makes a diagnosis difficult. Allergists instead can use skin testing and drug challenge to evaluate drug hypersensitivity reactions, which help the patient and provider understand the causative drug(s) and, more importantly, enables the use of the exonerated drug(s). Although penicillin skin testing is standardized, well described, and widely used, skin testing for most other drugs requires the use of a nonirritating skin testing concentration that can have a low negative predictive value. Drug challenges are the criterion standard for confirming tolerance. The allergist must obtain an in-depth clinical history and then follow with skin testing and/or drug challenges when indicated to determine which drugs can be de-labelled and which should be avoided. In this review, we focused on the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, perioperative agents, biologics, and chemotherapeutics.