Paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reactions: experience of the gynecologic oncology program of the Cleveland Clinic Cancer Center

Mirvetuximab after anaphylaxis to Paclitaxel: A case report

Introduction

Patients with platinum resistant epithelial ovarian cancer have limited treatment options which are further limited by hypersensitivity reactions to first line medications such as paclitaxel. Paclitaxel is a taxane that inhibits microtubules and has a high incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV) is a folate receptor alpha (FRα) directed antibody and microtubule inhibitor that is approved for patients with FRα positive platinum resistant recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Both medications are microtubule-targeting agents with similar binding sites, therefore a theoretical risk of cross reactivity between paclitaxel and MIRV may exist. Additionally, phase II clinical trial, SORAYA, did not include data on patients with prior hypersensitivity to paclitaxel.

Case

This is the case of a 33-year-old female with recurrent stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer with a history of severe anaphylaxis to paclitaxel. She was deemed eligible for MIRV after progression on multiple regimens, but MIRV was given with caution given her severe reaction history. With proper pre-treatment and monitoring, she was treated with MIRV without a reaction.

Discussion

It is suspected that most paclitaxel reactions are due to the cremophor solvent rather than paclitaxel itself; however, cross reactivity with docetaxel which is suspended in a polysorbate solution can also occur. Therefore, there is no clear way to determine the risk of cross reactivity between paclitaxel and similar medications. MIRV is also suspended in polysorbate and has a similar mechanism to taxanes, therefore it was unknown if a patient with a prior grade 5 reaction to paclitaxel would also have a reaction to MIRV. Though this is one case, patients with a history of severe hypersensitivity to paclitaxel and meet the criteria for MIRV could be treated with MIRV with careful monitoring.

Hypersensitivity reactions to anticancer chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies: Safety and efficacy of desensitization

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions to anticancer chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies may lead to discontinuation of first-line treatment options. Identification of these reactions can provide specific diagnosis and treatment by rapid drug desensitizations.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the hypersensitivity reactions involved in anticancer chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, and the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitization.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of hypersensitivity reaction presented after the administration of anticancer chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies in Mexico. We documented the symptoms of initial reaction and their severity, and the results of skin tests. We also report our experience of the administration of 12-step (mild-moderate reactions) and 16-step (severe reactions) desensitization protocols in these patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 93 patients received 336 rapid drug desensitization; 105 to taxanes, 115 to platinum drugs, 101 to monoclonal antibodies, and 15 other anticancer chemotherapy. Hypersensitivity reaction to taxanes occurred in the first or second administration, platinum drugs after the sixth cycle, and rituximab in the first cycle. The most common symptom in carboplatin was urticaria, paclitaxel back pain, oxaliplatin and docetaxel dyspnea, and in the monoclonal antibodies cardiovascular symptoms. Skin tests were positive in 75% of the carboplatin group, and only 16.7% in docetaxel. There was a rapid drug desensitization success rate of 99.4% and 85.7% did not present any related hypersensitivity reaction.

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis of hypersensitivity reaction to anticancer chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies offers a panorama in the management of oncological diseases. Our standardized desensitization protocol is safe and effective and can be reproduced in other centers to treat patients who need to maintain first-line treatment.

Is a low dose of dexamethasone sufficient to prevent paclitaxel-related hypersensitivity reactions? A retrospective study in patients with gynecologic malignancy

BACKGROUND

Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are prevalent, especially in females. The common paclitaxel pretreatment, dexamethasone, may inhibit chemotherapy efficacy and accelerate tumor progression. We aimed to balance paclitaxel HSRs and the lowest dexamethasone dose for gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined 1,074 cycles of 3-weekly paclitaxel-containing treatment for 231 gynecologic malignancies at Xiangya Hospital. HSR incidence with different dexamethasone regimens was the primary outcome. Risk factors were examined in all cycles using univariate and multivariate models with generalized estimating equations. A subgroup analysis of initial exposure to paclitaxel was also conducted.

RESULTS

HSR occurred in 33 patients (14.29%) and 49 cycles (4.56%), including 69.39% in cycles 1-2. There were no severe HSRs (grade ≥3). Different premedication regimens, including dexamethasone dosage and route, ranitidine presence or absence, didn't affect HSR incidence in univariate and multivariate analyzes (p > 0.05). Premenopausal women exerted fewer HSRs (ORadj 0.22, 95%CI 0.08-0.58; p = 0.002). At the first exposure to paclitaxel, more than 10 mg of dexamethasone didn't diminish HSRs (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.27-2.59; p = 0.753).

CONCLUSIONS

In gynecologic malignancies, 10 mg dexamethasone along with 20 mg diphenhydramine may be adequate to prevent paclitaxel HSRs without ranitidine. It is necessary to reevaluate paclitaxel premedication regimens.

Rates of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions using a modified Markman's infusion protocol as primary prophylaxis

PURPOSE

Markman's desensitisation protocol allows successful retreatment of patients who have had significant paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions. We aimed to reduce the risk and severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions by introducing this protocol as primary prophylaxis.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients with a gynaecological malignancy receiving paclitaxel before (December 2018 to September 2019) and after (October 2019 to July 2020) the implementation of a modified Markman's desensitisation protocol. The pre-implementation group received paclitaxel over a gradually up-titrated rate from 60 to 180 ml/h. The post-implementation group received paclitaxel via 3 fixed-dose infusion bags in the first 2 cycles. Rates and severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 426 paclitaxel infusions were administered to 78 patients. The median age was 64 years (range 34-81), and the most common diagnosis was ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer (67%, n = 52/78). Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reaction rates were similar in the pre-implementation (8%, n = 16/195) and post-implementation groups (9%, n = 20/231; p = 0.87). Most paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 30 min (pre- vs. post-implementation, 88% [n = 14/16] vs. 75% [n = 15/20]; p = 0.45) and were grade 2 in severity (pre- vs. post-implementation, 81% [n = 13/16] vs. 75% [n = 15/20]; p = 0.37). There was one grade 3 paclitaxel hypersensitivity reaction in the pre-implementation group. All patients were successfully rechallenged in the post-implementation group compared to 81% (n = 13/16) in the pre-implementation group (p = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

The modified Markman's desensitisation protocol as primary prophylaxis did not reduce the rate or severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions, although all patients could be successfully rechallenged.

Management of infusion-related reactions in cancer therapy: strategies and challenges

Several anticancer therapies have the potential to cause infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the form of adverse events that typically occur within minutes to hours after drug infusion. IRRs can range in severity from mild to severe anaphylaxis-like reactions. Careful monitoring at infusion initiation, prompt recognition, and appropriate clinical assessment of the IRR and its severity, followed by immediate management, are required to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. Lack of standardization in the prevention, management, and reporting of IRRs across cancer-treating institutions represents not only a quality and safety gap but also a disparity in cancer care. The present article, supported by recently published data, was developed to standardize these procedures across institutions and provide a useful tool for health care providers in clinical practice to recognize early signs and symptoms of an IRR and promptly and appropriately manage the event.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Taxanes: A Multicenter Study for Outcomes and Safety of Rapid Drug Desensitization

PURPOSE

Taxanes can cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), which pose a significant challenge in the treatment of malignancies. Patients who are eligible for rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can continue treatment; however, some patients experience breakthrough reactions (BTRs). Data about risk factors for BTRs during RDDs in patients with HSRs to taxanes are limited.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study of patients with immediate-HSRs to taxanes. Initial HSRs were classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on severity. Prick/intradermal skin tests were performed with implicated taxanes. A 12-step protocol was used during RDD.

RESULTS

The study comprised 75 patients (F/M: 63/12, mean age 49.92 ± 11.72 years, 43 HSRs to paclitaxel, 32 HSRs to docetaxel). The majority of reactions (86.7%) occurred during the first or second exposure. The prevalence of drug allergy history was higher in patients with paclitaxel HSR than in those with docetaxel HSR, although it was not statistically significant (23.3% vs. 6.3%). The initial HSRs were mostly grade 2 (n = 50, 66.7%) or grade 3 (n = 22, 29.3%). Skin tests with implicated taxanes were done on 48 patients, and the rate of positive response in patients with grade 1, 2, and 3 initial HSRs were 50%, 17.6%, and 16.7%, respectively. . A total of 255 RDDs were completely performed, although BTRs occurred in 27 (grade 1, 55.6%; grade 2, 40.7%; grade 3, 3.7%). There were no statistically significant correlations between the risk of BTR and age, drug cycle, gender, positivity of skin test or atopy. The step reduction was successfully done on 9 eligible patients with mild or moderate HSRs during the 12-step RDDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates a 100% success rate in completing the 255 RDDs for taxanes, affirming the safety and efficacy of the RDD within the study population.

Anti-cancer effects of DHP107 on canine mammary gland cancer examined through in-vitro and in-vivo mouse xenograft models

BACKGROUND

Canine mammary gland cancer (CMGC) is a common neoplasm in intact bitches. However, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the anti-proliferative effects of paclitaxel on CMGC in in-vitro and in-vivo settings.

RESULTS

Paclitaxel dose-dependently inhibited viability and induced G2/M phase cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in both primary and metastatic CMGC cell lines (CIPp and CIPm). In animal experiments, the average tumour volume decreased significantly in proportion to the administered oral paclitaxel dose. By examining tumour tissue using a TUNEL assay and immunohistochemical staining with anti-CD31 as a marker of endothelial differentiation, respectively, it was confirmed that oral paclitaxel induced apoptosis and exerted an anti-angiogenetic effect in tumour tissues. Further, downregulation of cyclin D1 in tumour tissues suggested that oral paclitaxel induced cell cycle arrest in tumour tissues in-vivo.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that paclitaxel may have anti-cancer effects on CMGC through cell cycle arrest, induction of apoptosis, and anti-angiogenesis. This study could provide a novel approach to treat CMGC.

Microtubule-Targeting Agents: Disruption of the Cellular Cytoskeleton as a Backbone of Ovarian Cancer Therapy

Microtubules are dynamic polymers composed of α- and β-tubulin heterodimers. Microtubules are universally conserved among eukaryotes and participate in nearly every cellular process, including intracellular trafficking, replication, polarity, cytoskeletal shape, and motility. Due to their fundamental role in mitosis, they represent a classic target of anti-cancer therapy. Microtubule-stabilizing agents currently constitute a component of the most effective regimens for ovarian cancer therapy in both primary and recurrent settings. Unfortunately, the development of resistance continues to present a therapeutic challenge. An understanding of the underlying mechanisms of resistance to microtubule-active agents may facilitate the development of novel and improved approaches to this disease.

Desensitization in patients with hypersensitivity to platinum and taxane in gynecological cancers

BACKGROUND

Exposure to paclitaxel and carboplatin has the risk of developing hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), which could necessitate using less effective treatments to avoid anaphylaxis. Desensitization to platinum and taxane HSRs can be used to complete chemotherapy according to the standard regimen; therefore, this study investigated rates and benefits of successful desensitization in patients with gynecologic cancers (GC).

METHODS

We collected data from 241 patients with GC who had at least one cycle of platinum or taxane chemotherapy. The rate of HSRs and successful desensitization were evaluated, and an outcome analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

The rate of HSRs to platinum and taxane was 6.39% and 13.07%, respectively. We observed a 100% success rate of desensitization in our cohort. Patients with HSR were significantly younger (57.1 vs. 64.9 years, p = 0.030) in the taxane cohort. Importantly, the overall survival (OS) of patients with platinum and taxane HSRs who underwent desensitization was comparable to that of patients with no HSRs (platinum vs. controls; median OS 60.36 vs. 60.39 months, p = 0.31; taxane vs. controls; OS 80.29 vs. 60.00 months, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

Thus, we show that desensitization for platinum and taxane HSRs is safe and effective, resulting in an outcome that is well comparable to patients without HSR. Based on these observations, desensitization procedures might be considered as standard of care before switching to less effective treatment for patients with GC.

Management of chemotherapy hypersensitivity reactions and desensitization: An SGO clinical practice statement

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this practice statement is to help members and their multidisciplinary teams recognize infusion reactions and hypersensitivity reactions in the clinical setting. It will provide recommendations to help guide response to reactions and desensitization when appropriate, to promote safe use of chemotherapeutic agents among all providers in the delivery process.

METHODS

A multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Education Committee collaborated to review peer reviewed literature and guidelines to develop a practice statement on the management of chemotherapy hypersensitivity reactions and desensitization regimens.

RESULTS

There is always potential for a patient to have a reaction to any medication, with both infusion reactions and hypersensitivity reactions potentially occurring in the treatment of gynecologic cancers. Premedication to prevent reactions should be given at least prior to infusion for regimens that include the most common agents associated with reactions. At the time when reaction is occurring it might be difficult to distinguish between an infusion reaction versus true hypersensitivity given the similarities in signs and symptoms, therefore it is important that orders to manage reactions be included in every chemotherapy order set so the infusion nurse can provide immediate interventions while waiting for the provider to arrive to assess the patient. Desensitization is a potential option to allow the patient to continue to receive the offending agent. While a variety of desensitization regimens have been presented in the literature, the goal is to minimize steps and variability to decrease opportunity for errors during chemotherapy preparation or administration.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating a review of the literature and clinical experience from the SGO Education Committee, this paper provides an overview of current approaches for prevention and management of reactions to commonly used chemotherapy agents for gynecologic cancers.

Is ranitidine necessary as premedication for regimens containing paclitaxel? A non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Histamine type-2-receptor antagonist drugs (H2-antagonists) have been used as standard treatment to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in paclitaxel-containing regimens, however, their use has been strongly questioned. Ranitidine has been the most widely used H2-antagonist. Therefore, especially after its withdrawal from the market, the objective of this study is to determine the impact of its elimination from premedication on HR incidence.

METHODS

A cohort, multicenter, observational, prospective, and non-inferiority study, including paclitaxel-naïve cancer patients, designed to determine the incidence of HRs of any grade associated with paclitaxel administration and analyze non-inferiority against the incidence estimated in the literature (20%), with 5% as the maximum difference (Δ). Patients with a solid neoplasm of any type/stage, who initiated treatment with paclitaxel without H2-antagonists in the premedication regimen were enrolled.

RESULTS

A total of 441 patients were included, of whom 50 presented 54 HRs of any grade. The cumulative incidence was 11.3% (95%CI 8.5-14.7), thus fulfilling the hypothesis of non-inferiority. Of the overall HRs detected, 15 were grade ≥ 3 with a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (95%CI 1.9-5.5).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the elimination of ranitidine from paclitaxel premedication schedules is non-inferior in the development of HRs of any grade compared to the administration of H2-antagonists.

A systemic review of taxanes and their side effects in metastatic breast cancer

Taxanes-containing chemotherapy constitutes an essential backbone for both early and metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, the two major taxane drugs—paclitaxel and docetaxel—have distinct safety profiles. In this review, we summarize the safety outcome and management following treatment with both taxanes from selected clinical trials. We utilized PubMed to perform literature search before April 2021. Five phase III randomized controlled trials with reports of individual taxane adverse events (AEs) were included in this review. Grade 3/4 AEs were summarized and discussed extensively. The rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia were higher with docetaxel than with paclitaxel. For non-hematologic grade 3/4 AEs, peripheral neuropathy was more frequent with paclitaxel while fluid retention was more frequent with docetaxel. Compared to paclitaxel, docetaxel had a higher rate of grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AEs. Grade 3/4 myalgia were generally comparable between the two taxanes. Except for neutropenia, the incidence rate of grade 3/4 AEs of taxanes was generally manageable. Peripheral neuropathy was more common with paclitaxel while grade 3/4 neutropenia was more common with docetaxel.

Histamine-2 (H2 ) antagonists can be safely removed from standard paclitaxel premedication regimens

AIMS

The aim of this study is to investigate the rates of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in patients receiving paclitaxel chemotherapy, with and without a histamine-2 (H2 ) antagonists.

METHOD

This prospective, multi-centre, cohort study compared patients receiving paclitaxel treated with premedication regimens containing chlorphenamine, dexamethasone and an H2 antagonist vs patients treated without an H2 antagonist. Rates of HSRs were described and logistic multivariable regression was used to investigate any associations with H2 antagonist treatment, adjusting for confounding variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1043 individuals were included in the study; of these, 638 (61%) patients received an H2 antagonist and 405 (49%) were not given an H2 antagonist. Incidence of HSR in the cohort treated with H2 antagonists was 11.31% (n = 70) vs 9.86% (n = 41) in the cohort without. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of HSR observed in those receiving and not receiving an H2 antagonist (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.65, 1.66, P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

Results presented within the study are consistent with other recently published evidence to suggest that H2 antagonists do not confer any advantage as part of premedication regimens in reducing the incidence of HSR in patients treated with paclitaxel.

Basophil Activation Test as a Biomarker for Taxanes Anaphylaxis

Introduction

Taxanes are widely used chemotherapy agents, and their administration, despite premedication, is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HR) in up to 9% of patients, 1% of which are severe. The mechanisms of these reactions are not fully understood. Finding biomarkers for early diagnosis and better understanding the underlying mechanisms of these reactions are key to defining the best treatment strategy for patients.

Methods

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the basophil activation test (BAT) to diagnose patients with anaphylactic reactions to taxanes. Patients with anaphylaxis to taxane compounds (n = 15) were assessed through clinical history, skin testing (when possible), and BAT. BAT was performed immediately before rapid drug desensitization or before skin testing using anti-CD123 conjugated (APC-Biolegend), anti-HLADR conjugated (FITC-Biolegend) to gate Basophils and anti-CD63 conjugated (PE-Biolegend), and anti-CD203c conjugated (BV-Biolegend) to assess CD203c and CD63 expression on basophils under taxane stimulation. BAT was also performed in eight healthy volunteers.

Results

BAT was positive for CD203c in eight out of 15 patients and for CD63 in four out of 15 patients and in two out of eight controls. The sensitivity for CD203c was 53%, the specificity was 87%, and the area under the curve was 0.66 (p = 0.19%). For CD63, these rates were 33%, 87%, and 0.6 (p = 0.4). In a subgroup analysis of patients with positive skin tests (11 patients), CD203c was positive in six patients (sensitivity of 54.5% and specificity of 87.5%), and CD63 was positive in five patients (sensitivity of 45% and specificity of 75%).

Conclusions

BAT as a diagnostic tool for immediate hypersensitivity reactions to taxanes may be relevant in patients with selected phenotypes and endotypes, especially those with severe reactions or when the diagnosis cannot be established by the skin test. Increased expression of CD203c was more frequent than of CD63 in patients with positive results, and the sensitivity of this biomarker was higher in patient sub-group with positive skin tests, i.e., patients with IgE-mediated endotypes.

Same-Day Desensitization in Patients Who Experience Their First Reaction to a Platin Agent at the Oncology Day Unit: A Pilot Study to Safely Include This Technique Within the Multidisciplinary Pathways for the Diagnosis & Management of Hypersensitivity to Platin Agents

One of the main objectives when assessing patients who react to antineoplastics must be to ensure that they receive the required treatments without delay. From January to July 2021, at the Allergy Department at the Provincial University Consortium Hospital a pilot study was performed in which those patients suspected of having suffered a type I hypersensitivity reaction (grade 1 or 2) following Brown's anaphylaxis severity grading to a platin agent at the Provincial University Consortium oncology day unit, and once the reaction was properly treated and completely resolved, were subjected to a new procedure named as Same-Day Desensitization, which consists in the reintroduction and administration of full chemotherapy dose by allergists on the same day of the reaction by following the 1 bag/10 step protocol, looking forwards to systematize same-day reexposure using Same-Day Desensitization, doing it in the safest way possible. In total, 9 oncological patients suspected of having suffered a type I hypersensitivity reaction (grade 1 or 2) to a platin agent received total dose administration the same day of the initial reaction by following Same-Day Desensitization 1 bag/10 step protocol, without presenting further reactions. The manuscript describes a new approach in the use of Rapid Drug Desensitizations in reactive oncologic patients in treatment with platin agents, presenting the first 9 cases of oncologic patients who have been submitted to this procedure.

Premedication Protocols to Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy: a Literature Review

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy may prevent patients from receiving the most effective therapy. This review was undertaken to identify evidence-based preventive premedication strategies that reduce the likelihood of HSR in the first instance and improve the safety of subsequent infusions in patients who have demonstrated HSR to a certain class of chemotherapy. PubMed was searched until October 2021 using the key words: "hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs," "hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents," "taxanes hypersensitivity," "platinum compound hypersensitivity," "premedication," "dexamethasone," "prednisone," "hydrocortisone," "antihistamine," "diphenhydramine," "cetirizine," "famotidine," "meperidine," "aspirin," "ibuprofen," and "montelukast." The search was restricted to articles published in English. A total of 73 abstracts were selected for inclusion in the review. Most premedication regimens have been derived empirically rather than determined through randomized trials. Based on the available evidence, we provide an update on likely HSR mechanisms and a practical guide for classifying systemic HSR. The evidence indicates that a combination of prevention strategies using newer antihistamines, H2 antagonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids and other interventions used judiciously reduces the occurrence and severity of HSR and improves safety.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients. Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally. The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe. This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Desensitization for the prevention of drug hypersensitivity reactions

Drug desensitization is the temporary induction of tolerance to a sensitized drug by administering slow increments of the drug, starting from a very small amount to a full therapeutic dose. It can be used as a therapeutic strategy for patients with drug hypersensitivity when no comparable alternatives are available. Desensitization has been recommended for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated immediate hypersensitivity; however, its indications have recently been expanded to include non-IgE-mediated, non-immunological, or delayed T cell-mediated reactions. Currently, the mechanism of desensitization is not fully understood. However, the attenuation of various intracellular signals in target cells is an area of active research, such as high-affinity IgE receptor (FcεRI) internalization, anti-drug IgG4 blocking antibody, altered signaling pathways in mast cells and basophils, and reduced Ca2+ influx. Agents commonly requiring desensitization include antineoplastic agents, antibiotics, antituberculous agents, and aspirin/nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Various desensitization protocols (rapid or slow, multi-bag or one-bag, with different target doses) have been proposed for each drug. An appropriate protocol should be selected with the appropriate concentration, dosage, dosing interval, and route of administration. In addition, the protocol should be adjusted with consideration of the severity of the initial reaction, the characteristics of the drug itself, as well as the frequency, pattern, and degree of breakthrough reactions.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologicals: An EAACI position paper

Biologicals are crucial targeted therapeutic agents in oncological, immunological, and inflammatory diseases, and their use in clinical practice is broadening. In recent years, the spread of Personalized Precision Medicine has facilitated a proliferation of new treatment options, especially biologicals. Consequently, biologicals are now among the drugs that most frequently cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Patients can develop HSRs to these agents during the first-lifetime exposure or after repeated exposure, and these HSRs can be potentially life-threatening or limit therapeutic options. Despite the relatively high prevalence, the underlying mechanisms of these HSRs remain obscure, and the optimal management pathways are still a matter of discussion. In this Position Paper, the authors will provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and managing HSRs to biologicals. Additionally, the document defines unmet needs as an opportunity to shape future research.

Prospective Study Testing a Simplified Paclitaxel Premedication Regimen in Patients with Early Breast Cancer

Background

In early trials, hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel were common, thus prompting the administration of antihistamines and corticosteroids before every paclitaxel dose. We tested the safety of omitting corticosteroids after cycle 2 during the paclitaxel portion of the dose‐dense (DD) doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide (AC)–paclitaxel regimen.

Patients, Materials, and Methods

In this prospective, single‐arm study, patients who completed four cycles of DD‐AC for stage I–III breast cancer received paclitaxel 175 mg/m² every 2 weeks for four cycles. Patients received a standard premedication protocol containing dexamethasone, diphenhydramine, and a histamine H2 blocker prior to the first two paclitaxel cycles. Dexamethasone was omitted in cycles three and four if there were no HSRs in previous cycles. We estimated the rate of grade 3–4 HSRs.

Results

Among 127 patients enrolled, 125 received more than one dose of protocol therapy and are included in the analysis. Fourteen (11.2%; 90% confidence interval, 6.9%–20.0%) patients had any‐grade HSRs, for a total of 22 (4.5%; 3.1%–6.4%) HSRs over 486 paclitaxel cycles. Any‐grade HSRs occurred in 1.6% (0.3%–5.0%), 6.5% (3.3%–11.3%), 7.4% (3.9%–12.5%), and 2.6% (0.7%–6.6%) of patients after paclitaxel cycles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Dexamethasone use was decreased by 92.8% in cycles 3 and 4. Only one patient experienced grade 3 HSR in cycles 3 or 4, for a rate of grade 3/4 HSR 0.4% (0.02%–2.0%) (1/237 paclitaxel infusions). That patient had grade 2 HSR during cycle 2, and the subsequent grade 3 event occurred despite usual dexamethasone premedication. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients not known to have received dexamethasone in cycles 3 and 4 found that any‐grade HSRs occurred in 2.7% (3/111; 0.7%–6.8%) and 0.9% (1/109; 0.05%–4.3%) of patients in cycle 3 and 4, respectively.

Conclusion

Corticosteroid premedication can be safely omitted in cycles 3 and 4 of dose‐dense paclitaxel if HSRs are not observed during cycles 1 and 2.

Implications for Practice

Because of the potential for hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel, corticosteroids are routinely prescribed prior to each dose, on an indefinite basis. This prospective study, including 125 patients treated with 486 paclitaxel cycles, demonstrates that corticosteroids can be safely omitted in future cycles if HSRs did not occur during cycles 1 and 2 of paclitaxel and that this strategy reduces the use of corticosteroids in cycles 3 and 4 by 92.8% relative to current standard of care.

To avoid hypersensitivity reactions, corticosteroids are routinely prescribed before each dose of paclitaxel. This article reports the results of a study that focused on whether corticosteroids could be safely omitted in later cycles of treatment if reactions did not occur during earlier cycles.

Outcomes in 36 Patients with Stage IIIA-N2 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung Treated with Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin as Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Prospective Study from a Single Center

Background

Whether nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin as neoadjuvant therapy can benefit patients with resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the lung remains unclear. This prospective study aimed to investigate outcomes in patients with stage IIIA-N2 squamous cell carcinoma of the lung treated with nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin as neoadjuvant therapy.

Material/Methods

Patients with stage IIIA-N2 squamous cell carcinoma of the lung were treated with nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m², days 1, 8, and 15) and carboplatin (5 mg/(mL·min), day 1) for two 21-day cycles. The patients were followed every 3 months for 2 years and every 6 months after that. The primary endpoint was the downstaging rate. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), margin-free (R0) resection, pathologic complete response (pCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

Results

Among the 36 enrolled patients, 33 completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 23 underwent surgery. The preoperative ORR was 50.0% (18/36). R0 resection was achieved in 22 (95.7%) of 23 patients. Major pathologic response and pCR were achieved in 8 (34.8%) and 2 (8.7%) patients, respectively. The overall downstaging rate was 47.8% (11/23). The median follow-up was 39.8 (32.5–41.0) months. For patients who underwent surgery, the median PFS and OS were 31.4 (95%CI: 10.4-not reached (NR)) and 45.0 (95%CI: 22.6-NR) months, respectively. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, anemia, and leukopenia.

Conclusions

This study preliminarily indicated a favorable effect of nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin as neoadjuvant therapy without significant adverse events for stage IIIA-N2 squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Platinum Agents and Taxanes

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy agents can present a serious challenge to treating patients with preferred or first-line therapies. Allergic reactions through an immunologic mechanism have been established for platinum and taxane agents, which are used to treat a wide variety of cancers including gynecologic cancers. Platin HSRs typically occur after multiple cycles of chemotherapy, reflecting the development of drug IgE sensitization, while taxane HSRs often occur on first or second exposure. Despite observed differences between platin and taxane HSRs, drug desensitization has been an effective method to reintroduce both chemotherapeutic agents safely. Skin testing is the primary diagnostic tool used to risk-stratify patients after initial HSRs, with more widespread use for platinum agents than taxanes. Different practices exist around the use of skin testing, drug challenge, and choice of desensitization protocol. Here, we review the epidemiology, mechanism, and clinical presentation of HSRs to platinum and taxane agents, as well as key controversies in their evaluation and management.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

The added value of H2 antagonists in premedication regimens during paclitaxel treatment

BACKGROUND

Ranitidine, a histamine 2 blocker, is the standard of care to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) caused by paclitaxel infusion. However, the added value of ranitidine in this premedication regimen is controversial. Therefore, we compared the incidence of HSRs during paclitaxel treatment between a standard regimen including ranitidine and a regimen without ranitidine.

METHODS

This prospective, pre-post interventional, non-inferiority study compared the standard premedication regimen (N = 183) with dexamethasone, clemastine and ranitidine with a premedication regimen without ranitidine (N = 183). The primary outcome was the incidence of HSR grade ≥3. Non-inferiority was determined by checking whether the upper bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in HSR rates excluded the +6% non-inferiority margin.

RESULTS

In both the pre-intervention (with ranitidine) and post-intervention (without ranitidine) group 183 patients were included. The incidence of HSR grade ≥3 was 4.4% (N = 8) in the pre-intervention group and 1.6% (N = 3) in the post-intervention group: difference -2.7% (90% CI: -6.2 to 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

As the upper boundary of the 90% CI does not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of +6%, it can be concluded that a premedication regimen without ranitidine is non-inferior to a premedication regimen with ranitidine.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.trialregister.nl ; NL8173.

Evaluation of novel paclitaxel-loaded NO-donating polymeric micelles for an improved therapy for gastroenteric tumor

A NO-releasing polymer (mPEG-PLA-NO) is developed as a micellar nanoparticle delivery system for the carrier of antitumor drug paclitaxel.

Mast cells activation and high blood tryptase levels due to paclitaxel administration. Is Cremophor EL the culprit?: A case report

RATIONALE

Although the cancer incidence continues to rise, cancer mortality has declined over the past decade, in large part due to more efficacious chemotherapeutic regimens thus, the ability to use first-line chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of patients with cancer is crucial. Antineoplastic agents can potentially cause toxic and/or hypersensitivity reactions, that can have serious consequences. Anaphylaxis is a big pitfall in oncological patients; the most important aspect in diagnosing anaphylaxis is to precisely identify the offending agent to prevent future events. Paclitaxel (Taxol) is widely used as antitumor medication in the ovarian, breast, non-small-cell lung, and other cancers. Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions are frequently described in the literature, but fatalities are rarely reported. Due to the low solubility of paclitaxel, the compound requires dissolution in Cremophor EL, a derivative of castor oil.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 79-year-old man was affected by high-grade non-papillary urothelial carcinoma and underwent a radical cystectomy and prostatectomy with locoregional lymphadenectomy.

DIAGNOSIS

Eight months later, relapse was detected, and penis amputation and left nephrostomy were performed. Multiple metastases to lymph nodes were detected.

INTERVENTIONS

Palliative chemotherapy was started with Paclitaxel (110 mg) infused at a rate of 50 mL/h. Despite premedication with cetirizine dihydrochloride, dexamethasone, ondansetron, ranitidine, 20 min after Paclitaxel infusion starts, the patient developed general distress, followed by cardiac arrest.

OUTCOMES

The mechanism of fatal paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reaction is uncertain and its solvent vehicle Cremophor EL may be involved. Several mechanisms have been postulated: an IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation induced by paclitaxel or Cremophor EL, a non-IgE-mediated idiosyncratic mast cell degranulation by paclitaxel or by Cremophor EL, and complement activation. Severe hypersensitivity reactions with fatal outcome are considered rare.

LESSONS

The unpredictability and often dramatic reactions of Taxol cause substantial anxiety for doctors and caretakers. They also represent a significant logistic and financial burden on hospitals. Despite premedication, skin testing, and desensitization protocols administration of taxane-based, chemotherapy cannot be considered safe and severe to fatal hypersensitivity reactions cannot be prevented.

Safe administration of chemotherapy in mast cell activation syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) is an immunogenic disorder typically presenting with episodic multi-organ symptoms, caused by the inappropriate and aberrant release of mast cell mediators. Symptoms may be severe, including anaphylaxis and often occur in response to specific triggers which include many drugs and potentially chemotherapeutic agents. The administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in endometrial cancer significantly reduces the risk of reoccurrence in patients with high risk disease. Currently there is no evidence or case reports to guide the safe administration of chemotherapy in MCAS patients.

CASE REPORT

We present the case of a 59-year-old lady with stage 3 A grade 2 endometroid endometrial cancer who underwent successful surgical management. She then received 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy in the form of carboplatin and paclitaxel. This case describes a staged approach to chemotherapy administration and the utilisation of a carboplatin desensitization regimen to reduce the risk of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity sequalae.Management & outcome: Utilising an enhanced pre-medication strategy and a staged approach to chemotherapy administration, she was able to complete adjuvant treatment without any serious complications. At the date of censoring (May 2020) she has not shown any evidence of disease re-occurrence.Discussion & conclusion: Administering chemotherapy to patients with any mast cell disorder remains challenging. We hope that this case may provide the framework for safer chemotherapy administration for any patients at high risk of serious hypersensitivity sequalae in endometrial cancer and beyond.

First-line carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer patients, after hypersensitivity reaction to solvent-based taxanes: a single-institution experience

One of the major challenges related to solvent-based taxanes administration in clinical practice is the high rate of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Nab-paclitaxel is a solvent-free, albumin-bound, paclitaxel, which minimize the risk of HSR occurrence. In this single-institution, retrospective analysis, we evaluated stage IIIc-IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients, treated with first-line carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel (± bevacizumab), after the occurrence of an HSR with solvent-based paclitaxel (and/or docetaxel). Between April 2012 and December 2018, ten patients (20.8%) received carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel (± bevacizumab) after the occurrence of an HSR to solvent-based taxanes. Among the evaluable patients, ORR was 100%. At median follow-up of 28.5 months, median PFS was 16.7 months, and median OS was 65.4 months, respectively. Median received dose intensity (DI) was 86% and 80% of the projected DI for nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin, respectively. There were no treatment-related grade 4 adverse events. Most relevant treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were: asthenia (10%), hypertransaminasemia (10%), neutropenia (20%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (10%). No HSR recurrence was observed. The high rate of HSR occurrence could limit first-line treatment options in clinical practice. Carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel association could represent a valid treatment option in this setting.

Antitumour effects of Liporaxel (oral paclitaxel) for canine melanoma in a mouse xenograft model

Paclitaxel, a member of the taxane family, exhibits antitumour effects by targeting the microtubules in cancer cells. Recently, oral paclitaxel has been developed to overcome the side effects of intravenous paclitaxel administration in human patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the antitumour effects of oral paclitaxel in vitro and in vivo. Three weeks after inoculation, oral paclitaxel (25 and 50 mg/kg) or saline was administered every week for three consecutive weeks. To explore the underlying mechanism, tumour angiogenesis was examined by immunohistochemistry with an anti-CD31 antibody. Tumour cell apoptosis was detected by Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP Nick-End Labeling assay, and cell cycle arrest was confirmed by western blot analysis. Oral paclitaxel treatment of canine melanoma cells exerted mediated antiproliferative effects and mediated cell cycle arrest in vitro. In animal experiments, after oral paclitaxel administration, the average tumour size decreased to approximately 30% of that in the control. Histologically, oral paclitaxel showed anti-angiogenic effects and induced the apoptosis in tumour tissues. Oral paclitaxel also downregulated the intratumoural expression of cyclin D1 and inhibited cell proliferation. The study findings support potential application of oral paclitaxel as a novel chemotherapeutic strategy to treat canine melanoma. This is the first study to investigate the potential of oral paclitaxel as a therapeutic drug against canine tumours.

The Involvement of the RhoA/ROCK Signaling Pathway in Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by Paclitaxel Injection

A high incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) largely limits the use of paclitaxel injection. Currently, these reactions are considered to be mediated by histamine release and complement activation. However, the evidence is insufficient and the molecular mechanism involved in paclitaxel injection-induced HSRs is still incompletely understood. In this study, a mice model mimicking vascular hyperpermeability was applied. The vascular leakage induced merely by excipients (polyoxyl 35 castor oil) was equivalent to the reactions evoked by paclitaxel injection under the same conditions. Treatment with paclitaxel injection could cause rapid histamine release. The vascular exudation was dramatically inhibited by pretreatment with a histamine antagonist. No significant change in paclitaxel injection-induced HSRs was observed in complement-deficient and complement-depleted mice. The RhoA/ROCK signaling pathway was activated by paclitaxel injection. Moreover, the ROCK inhibitor showed a protective effect on vascular leakage in the ears and on inflammation in the lungs. In conclusion, this study provided a suitable mice model for investigating the HSRs characterized by vascular hyperpermeability and confirmed the main sensitization of excipients in paclitaxel injection. Histamine release and RhoA/ROCK pathway activation, rather than complement activation, played an important role in paclitaxel injection-induced HSRs. Furthermore, the ROCK inhibitor may provide a potential preventive approach for paclitaxel injection side effects.

Desensitization for Allergic Reactions to Chemotherapy

Drug desensitization is procedure by which patients can be tolerized to medications that have previously induced hypersensitivity reactions. Initially used in treating hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, desensitization is now frequently used in the setting of allergy to chemotherapy drugs and biologics, thus widening the clinical applicability of this procedure which has been proven to be quite safe and effective in improving clinical outcomes, mainly by allowing patients to remain on preferred first-line therapy. This paper reviews the history, application, and safety studies of drug desensitization for chemotherapy and biologics.

The combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel as a novel effective treatment strategy for undifferentiated soft-tissue sarcoma in a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) nude-mouse model

Undifferentiated/unclassified soft-tissue sarcomas (USTS) is recalcitrant neoplasms that is usually treated with doxorubicin (DOX)-containing regimens as first-line therapy. Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) is a nanotechnology-based drug and is widely used in pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine (GEM). The major goal of the present study was to determine the efficacy of nab-PTX in combination with GEM, compared to conventional drugs such as docetaxel (DOC), GEM combined with DOC, or first-line drug DOX on a USTS not-otherwise specified (USTS/NOS) from a striated muscle implanted in the right biceps femoris muscle of nude mice to establish a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) model. USTS PDOX models were randomized into six groups: untreated control; DOX; DOC; nab-PTX; GEM combined with DOC; and GEM combined with nab-PTX. Tumor size and body weight were measured. Tumor growth was inhibited to the greatest extent by GEM combined with nab-PTX. Tumors treated with GEM combined with nab-PTX had the most necrosis. Body weight of the treated mice was not significantly different from the untreated controls. The present study demonstrates the power of the PDOX model to identify a novel effective treatment strategy of the combination of GEM and nab-PTX for recalcitrant soft-tissue sarcomas. These results suggest that combination of GEM and nab-PTX could be a promising therapeutic strategy for USTS.

Roadmap and strategy for overcoming infusion reactions to nanomedicines

Infusion reactions (IRs) are complex, immune-mediated side effects that mainly occur within minutes to hours of receiving a therapeutic dose of intravenously administered pharmaceutical products. These products are diverse and include both traditional pharmaceuticals (for example biological agents and small molecules) and new ones (for example nanotechnology-based products). Although IRs are not unique to nanomedicines, they represent a hurdle for the translation of nanotechnology-based drug products. This Perspective offers a big picture of the pharmaceutical field and examines current understanding of mechanisms responsible for IRs to nanomedicines. We outline outstanding questions, review currently available experimental evidence to provide some answers and highlight the gaps. We review advantages and limitations of the in vitro tests and animal models used for studying IRs to nanomedicines. Finally, we propose a roadmap to improve current understanding, and we recommend a strategy for overcoming the problem.

Diagnoses and Management of Drug Hypersensitivity and Anaphylaxis in Cancer and Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: Reactions to Taxanes and Monoclonal Antibodies

Due to the increase in utilization of chemotherapies and antibodies, drug hypersensitivity reactions have increased dramatically worldwide, preventing the use of first-line therapies and impacting patients' survival and quality of life. Some of the more frequently used medications in cancer include taxanes for ovarian, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Monoclonal antibodies are used in the treatment of neoplastic, autoimmune, and inflammatory diseases, and their clinical applications are becoming broader. Monoclonal antibody targets include CD20, HER-2, EGFR, IL-6 receptor, TNF-α, CD30, VEGF-A, IgE, and more, and examples of immune-mediated and inflammatory diseases that respond to monoclonal antibodies include rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Wegener's granulomatosis, microscopic polyangiitis, ankylosing spondylitis, plaque psoriasis, and asthma. Neoplastic diseases include non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and colorectal, breast, gastric, and lung cancer. The clinical presentation of drug hypersensitivity reactions ranges from mild cutaneous reactions to life-threatening symptoms including anaphylaxis. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) has become a groundbreaking approach to the management of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions IgE and non-IgE mediated. It is the only effective procedure that enables sensitized patients to receive the full treatment dose safely, thus representing an important advance in the patients' treatment and prognosis. The aim of this review is to provide an update on hypersensitivity reactions to commonly used monoclonal and taxanes, their clinical presentations, diagnosis, and the use of RDD for their management.

Understanding the Role of Anti-PEG Antibodies in the Complement Activation by Doxil in Vitro

Infusion reactions (IRs) are common immune-mediated side effects in patients treated with a variety of drug products, including, but not limited to, nanotechnology formulations. The mechanism of IRs is not fully understood. One of the best studied mechanisms of IRs to nanomedicines is the complement activation. However, it is largely unknown why some patients develop reactions to nanomedicines while others do not, and why some nanoparticles are more reactogenic than others. One of the theories is that the pre-existing anti-polyethylene glycol (PEG) antibodies initiate the complement activation and IRs in patients. In this study, we investigated this hypothesis in the case of PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil), which, when used in a clinical setting, is known to induce IRs; referred to as complement activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA) in sensitive individuals. We conducted the study in vitro using plasma derived from C57BL/6 mice and twenty human donor volunteers. We used mouse plasma to test a library of well-characterized mouse monoclonal antibodies with different specificity and affinity to PEG as it relates to the complement activation by Doxil. We determined the levels of pre-existing polyclonal antibodies that bind to PEG, methoxy-PEG, and PEGylated liposomes in human plasma, and we also assessed complement activation by Doxil and concentrations of complement inhibitory factors H and I in these human plasma specimens. The affinity, specificity, and other characteristics of the human polyclonal antibodies are not known at this time. Our data demonstrate that under in vitro conditions, some anti-PEG antibodies contribute to the complement activation by Doxil. Such contribution, however, needs to be considered in the context of other factors, including, but not limited to, antibody class, type, clonality, epitope specificity, affinity, and titer. In addition, our data contribute to the knowledge base used to understand and improve nanomedicine safety.

Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Other Drug-associated Angioedema

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents, β-lactam antibiotics, non-β lactam antibiotics, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are the most common classes of drugs that cause angioedema. Drug-induced angioedema is known to occur via mechanisms mediated by histamine, bradykinin, or leukotriene, and an understanding of these mechanisms is crucial in guiding therapeutic decisions. Nonallergic angioedema occurs in patients with genetic variants that affect metabolism or synthesis of bradykinin, substance P, prostaglandins, or leukotrienes, or when patients are taking drugs that have synergistic mechanisms. The mainstay in treatment of nonallergic drug-induced angioedema is cessation of the offending agents.

Incidence of infusion hypersensitivity reaction after withholding dexamethasone premedication in early breast cancer patients not experiencing two previous cycles of infusion hypersensitivity reaction for weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Premedication with dexamethasone is an essential part of the prevention of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) associated with taxane administration. However, the possibility of stopping dexamethasone premedication has been investigated in previous studies to reduce the steroid's adverse events; however, either the result or the particular protocol was limited. Thus, our study aimed to evaluate the incidence of HSR after dexamethasone premedication discontinuation after lack of HSR in two previous weekly paclitaxel infusions.

METHOD

Early breast cancer patients who received adjuvant weekly paclitaxel in a retrospective cohort from January 2012 through February 2016 at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were reviewed. All patients received a standard premedication protocol prior to the first and second paclitaxel infusion. Dexamethasone was omitted in later cycles in all patients who did not undergo infusion HSR. Patients who developed HSR during the first or second cycles of paclitaxel infusion were excluded. The incidence of HSR during the later cycle of paclitaxel administration and factors associated with this adverse reaction were collected.

RESULTS

Eighty-one of 85 patients who did not undergo infusion HSR after 2 cycles of weekly paclitaxel administration were retrospectively reviewed. The median age was 51 years (range 27-74 years). Only 16% of the patients had a BMI greater than 30 kg/m², 57.8% were premenopausal, 67.9% had no comorbidity, none had a history of allergy or asthma, 65.4% received weekly paclitaxel as a single agent, and 34.6% received weekly paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab. Five of 81 patients reported grade I-II HSR (6.25%), which occurred mostly during the first 6 cycles (60%). Temporary discontinuation of paclitaxel infusion was observed in all HSR patients. No differences regarding age, BMI, menopausal status, and underlying disease between the HSR and no HSR groups were identified. Concerning the safety profile, peripheral neuropathy (gr I 60%, gr II 13.5%, and gr III 2.4%), myalgia (43.4%), and edema (10.5%) were commonly reported, whereas dyspepsia (5.3%) and insomnia (14.5%) were rarely described in withholding patients.

CONCLUSION

Withholding dexamethasone premedication in non-experiencing HSR patients after two previous cycles of weekly paclitaxel administration was safe and did not impact the higher incidence of HSR. A discontinuing dexamethasone protocol should be recommended generally in these patients, especially those with a high risk for steroid-induced side effects.

The Two Faces of Adjuvant Glucocorticoid Treatment in Ovarian Cancer

Adjuvant glucocorticoid treatment is routinely used in the treatment of ovarian cancer to mitigate the undesirable side effects of chemotherapy, thereby enhancing tolerability to higher cytotoxic drug doses and frequency of treatment cycles. However, in vitro and preclinical in vivo and ex vivo studies indicate that glucocorticoids may spare tumor cells from undergoing cell death through enhanced cell adhesion, promotion of anti-inflammatory signaling, and/or inhibition of apoptotic pathways. The implications of laboratory studies showing potential negative impact on the efficacy of chemotherapy have been long overlooked since clinical investigations have found no apparent survival detriment attributable to adjuvant glucocorticoid use. Importantly, these clinical studies were not randomized and most did not consider glucocorticoid receptor status, a vital determinant of tumor response to glucocorticoid administration. Additionally, the clinically beneficial elements of increased chemotherapy treatment adherence and dosing afforded by adjuvant glucocorticoids may offset and therefore mask their anti-chemotherapy activities. This review summarizes the current evidence on the impact of glucocorticoids in ovarian cancer and discusses the need for further research and development of alternative strategies to ameliorate untoward side effects of chemotherapy.

Universal tolerance of nab-paclitaxel for gynecologic malignancies in patients with prior taxane hypersensitivity reactions

OBJECTIVE

To report on the incidence of nab-paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in patients with prior taxane HSR.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2015, all patients who received nab-paclitaxel for a gynecologic malignancy were identified. Chart abstraction included pathology, prior therapy, indication for nab-paclitaxel, dosing, response, toxicities including any HSR, and reason for discontinuation of nab-paclitaxel therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 37 patients with gynecologic malignancies with a history of paclitaxel HSR who received nab-paclitaxel. Six patients (16.2%) had a prior HSR to both paclitaxel and docetaxel while the other 31 patients had not received docetaxel. No patients experienced a HSR to nab-paclitaxel. Median number of cycles of nab-paclitaxel was 6 (range 2-20). Twelve patients received weekly dosing at 60 to 100 mg/m². The remainder of patients received 135 mg/m² (n=13), 175 mg/m² (n=9), or 225 mg/m² (n=3). Thirty four patients (91.9%) received nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin (n=28, 75.7%), IP cisplatin (n=1, 2.7%), carboplatin and bevacizumab (n=3, 8.1%), or carboplatin and gemcitabine (n=2, 5.4%). Reasons for discontinuing nab-paclitaxel included completion of adjuvant therapy (n=16), progressive disease (n=18), toxicity (n=1), and death (n=1). There were no grade 4 complications identified during nab-paclitaxel administration. Grade 3 complications included: neutropenia (n=9), thrombocytopenia (n=4), anemia (n=1), and neurotoxicity (n=1).

CONCLUSION

Nab-paclitaxel is well-tolerated with no HSRs observed in this series of patients with prior taxane HSR. Given the important role of taxane therapy in nearly all gynecologic malignancies, administration of nab-paclitaxel should be considered prior to abandoning taxane therapy.

Self-Administered Premedication: Improving Taxane Chemotherapy Treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving taxane therapy are at risk for hypersensitivity reactions without appropriate premedication management. Patients must understand the importance of taking premedications as prescribed to prevent reactions.
.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to implement and evaluate a multidisciplinary practice protocol comprised of standardized nursing documentation of premedication regimens, teaching, and patient adherence to at-home premedication in an electronic health record (EHR).
.

METHODS

A new process was developed to provide standardized prescriptions, a personalized instruction sheet for patients and families, and a standardized approach to document adherence and teaching in the EHR. Pre- and post-EHR audits were used twice to evaluate the practice changes.
.

FINDINGS

The findings of the first audit suggested improvement in all practice changes. After the first audit, reinforcement of the changes occurred within the group and with one-on-one meetings. The goal of 90% adherence was met at the second audit.

Dexamethasone prophylaxis for paclitaxel hypersensitivity

Objective. To evaluate single-dose intravenous (IV) dexamethasone as a viable alternative to the standard two-dose oral protocol and as a method for the administration of corticosteroid prophylaxis in the prevention of paclitaxel-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSR).

Method. A retrospective analysis of pharmacy dispensing and medical records was undertaken to ascertain those patients who had received IV corticosteroid prophylaxis, details of therapy and incidence of HSR. A comprehensive literature review was also undertaken to determine the incidence of HSR to paclitaxel in patients receiving a similar IV dexamethasone premedication protocol.

Results. Thirty-five patients received prophylactic dexamethasone 20 mg IV, given 30 minutes before paclitaxel infusion. Patients also received promethazine 25 mg IV and ranitidine 50 mg IV. No HSR were reported. A number of studies were identified in which IV corticosteroid prophylaxis was used, including retrospective analyses, a prospective report, clinical studies involving paclitaxel employing IV corticosteroids as part of the premedication regimen, and comparative retrospective studies. Only one study described IV corticosteroid therapy adversely.

Conclusions. For the safe administration of paclitaxel, premedication with corticosteroids, and H1 and H2 receptor antagonists, is essential. The administration of IV dexamethasone 20 mg, given 30 minutes before paclitaxel infusion, is an appealing and practical alternative to the standard oral prophylactic regimen and offers benefits to patients in terms of compliance, convenience, ease of administration and flexibility.

Risk stratification and skin testing to guide re-exposure in taxane-induced hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to patients with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to taxanes has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of risk stratification based on the severity of the initial HSR and skin testing for guiding taxane reintroduction in patients with an HSR to these agents.

METHODS

Data on 164 patients treated for a taxane-related HSR from April 2011 to August 2014 at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital were collected retrospectively. Patients were re-exposed to taxanes either through desensitization, challenge, or regular infusion based on the severity of the initial HSR and skin test response. Depending on the initial risk stratification and tolerance to re-exposure, patients were then treated with shorter desensitization protocols, challenge, or both with the aim of resuming regular infusions, except in patients with a severe immediate initial HSR.

RESULTS

Of 138 patients desensitized, 29 (21%) had an immediate and 20 (14%) had a delayed HSR with the procedure. Of 49 patients challenged, 2 (4%) had a mild immediate and 1 (2%) had a delayed HSR with the procedure. No patients had a severe immediate HSR with desensitization or challenge. Thirty-six (22%) patients eventually resumed regular infusions. These patients were more likely to have negative skin test responses and to have experienced a delayed or mild immediate initial HSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification based on the severity of the initial HSR and skin testing to guide taxane reintroduction is safe and allows a significant number of patients to resume regular infusions.

Delving into cornerstones of hypersensitivity to antineoplastic and biological agents: value of diagnostic tools prior to desensitization

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding drug provocation test (DPT) with antineoplastic and biological agents is scarce. Our aim was to assess the usefulness of including DPT as a paramount gold standard diagnostic tool (prior to desensitization).

METHODS

Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with patients who, during a 3-year period, were referred to the Desensitization Program at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital. Patients underwent a structured diagnostic protocol by means of anamnesis, skin tests (ST), risk assessment, and DPT. Oxaliplatin-specific IgE was determined in oxaliplatin-reactive patients (who underwent DPT regardless of oxaliplatin-specific IgE results). Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used to identify predictors of the final diagnosis among several variables.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients were assessed. A total of 104 (56%) patients underwent DPT. Sixty-four percent of all DPTs were negative (i.e., hypersensitivity was excluded). Sensitivity for oxaliplatin-specific IgE (0.35 UI/l cutoff point) was 34%, specificity 90.3%, negative predictive value 45.9%, positive predictive value 85%, negative likelihood ratio 0.7, and positive likelihood ratio 3.5.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first reported data based on more than 100 DPTs with antineoplastic and biological agents (paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, rituximab, infliximab, irinotecan, and other drugs). Implementation of DPT in diagnostic protocols helps exclude hypersensitivity (in 36% of all referred patients), and avoids unnecessary desensitizations in nonhypersensitive patients (30-56% of patients, depending on culprit-drug). Drug provocation test is vital to validate diagnostic tools; consequently, quality data are shown on oxaliplatin-specific IgE and oxaliplatin-ST in the largest series of oxaliplatin-reactive patients reported to date (74 oxaliplatin-reactive patients). Identifying phenotypes and predictors of a diagnosis of hypersensitivity may be helpful for tailored plans.