Management of hypersensitivity reactions to Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in an outpatient oncology infusion center: a 5-year review

BACKGROUND

A high incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to carboplatin and Taxol is limiting the use of carboplatin and Taxol.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a 5-year study of all patients with HSR to carboplatin or Taxol to better understand the nature of infusion HSR and success or failure of management plans after the initial HSR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all safety reports from the Massachusetts General Hospital outpatient chemotherapy infusion center between January 2006 and February 2011. All the patients with HSRs to carboplatin or Taxol were identified and included in the final analysis. We reviewed patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, timing, and treatment of the initial HSR, and determined if the patient was rechallenged despite an initial HSR.

RESULTS

We identified 152 patients with HSR to carboplatin (n = 45) or Taxol (n = 107). Carboplatin HSR was less severe than Taxol HSR. When comparing the 2 groups, the patients with carboplatin HSRs more commonly described itchy palms and feet, generalized itch, and general urticaria and/or erythema, whereas patients with Taxol HSR more commonly described facial flushing, back pain, and chest or throat tightness (all P < .05). Among 40 patients with mild-to-moderate carboplatin HSRs, only 7 were rechallenged, and 100% tolerated rechallenge without desensitization. None of the patients with severe carboplatin HSRs (n = 5) were rechallenged. Most patients (75%) with Taxol HSRs were rechallenged, and 91% tolerated rechallenge without desensitization; the patients with a severe HSR to Taxol were less likely to be rechallenged.

CONCLUSION

The clinical symptoms and timing of carboplatin HSR are distinct from Taxol HSR. Most patients with carboplatin HSR were not rechallenged, whereas most patients with Taxol HSR were successfully rechallenged.

Antibiotics Are the Most Commonly Identified Cause of Perioperative Hypersensitivity Reactions

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) during the perioperative period are unpredictable and can be life threatening. Prospective studies for the evaluation of perioperative HSRs are lacking, and data on causative agents vary between different studies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to prospectively determine the success of a comprehensive allergy evaluation plan for patients with HSRs during anesthesia, including identification of a causative agent and outcomes during subsequent anesthesia exposure.

METHODS

All patients referred for a perioperative HSR between November 2013 and March 2015, from a Boston teaching hospital, were evaluated using a standardized protocol with skin testing (ST) within 6 months of HSR. Comprehensive allergy evaluation included collection of patient information, including characteristics of HSR during anesthesia. We reviewed the results of ST and/or test doses for all potential causative medications Event-related tryptase levels were reviewed when available.

RESULTS

Over 17 months, 25 patients completed the comprehensive allergy evaluation. Fifty-two percent (13 of 25) were female with a median age of 52 (interquartile range 43-66) years. The most frequently observed HSR systems were cutaneous (68%), cardiovascular (64%), and pulmonary (24%). A culprit drug, defined as a positive ST, was identified in 36% (9 of 25) of patients. The most common agent identified was cefazolin (6 of 9). After our comprehensive evaluation and management plan, 7 (7 of 8, 88%) patients tolerated subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefazolin was the most commonly identified cause of a perioperative HSR in our study population. Skin testing patients within 6 months of a perioperative HSR may improve the odds of finding a positive result. Tolerance of subsequent anesthesia is generally achieved in patients undergoing our comprehensive evaluation.

Allergy Electronic Health Record Documentation: A 2022 Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee

The allergy section of the electronic health record (EHR) is ideally reviewed and updated by health care workers during routine outpatient visits, emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and surgical procedures. This EHR section has the potential to help proactively and comprehensively avoid exposures to drugs, contact irritants, foods, and other agents for which, based on an individual's medical history and/or genetics, there is increased risk for adverse outcomes with future exposures. Because clinical decisions are made and clinical decision support is triggered based on allergy details from the EHR, the allergy module needs to provide meaningful, accurate, timely, and comprehensive allergy information. Although the allergy section of the EHR must meet these requirements to guide appropriate clinical decisions and treatment plans, current EHR allergy modules have not achieved this standard. We urge EHR vendors to collaborate with allergists to optimize and modernize allergy documentation. A work group within the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology was formed to create recommendations for allergy documentation in the EHR. Whereas it is recognized that the term "allergy" is often used incorrectly because most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are not true immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, "allergy" in this article includes allergies and hypersensitivities as well as side effects and intolerances. Our primary objective is to provide guidance for the current state of allergy documentation in the EHR. This guidance includes clarification of the definition of specific ADR types, reconciliation of confirmed ADRs, and removal of disproved or erroneous ADRs. This document includes a proposal for the creation, education, and implementation of a drug allergy labeling system that may allow for more accurate EHR documentation for improved patient safety.

Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines are needed in the United States to improve evaluation of perioperative allergic reactions including recommendations for subsequent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To identify causative agent(s) and evaluate patients' tolerability of subsequent anesthesia in patients evaluated by Allergy/Immunology (A/I) at Massachusetts General Hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to the outpatient A/I clinic for perioperative allergic reactions between October 2003 and May 2017. Patient demographics, atopic history, and prior adverse drug reactions were reviewed. Patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with testing including skin testing (ST), drug challenges (when appropriate), tryptase level measurement, and specific IgE to latex measurement. Tolerance of subsequent procedures requiring anesthesia was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients referred, 74 (60%) were female and the mean age was 46 (±18) years. At least 1 causative agent was identified in 28 patients (24%, n = 28 of 118). Seventeen of 28 (61%) patients were ST positive to an antibiotic, including 13 (46%) positive to cefazolin; 3 patients (11%) had a positive latex specific IgE. Of 85 patients who had subsequent anesthesia with a known outcome, 78 (91%) did not have another perioperative allergic reaction. Two of 5 patients with an elevated baseline tryptase level did not tolerate subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients safely received subsequent anesthesia after comprehensive A/I evaluation for their perioperative allergic reactions; however, improved algorithmic care is needed in the United States. Among ST-positive patients (24%), antibiotics (especially cefazolin) were the most common culprits. An elevated baseline tryptase level was associated with an increased risk of recurrent perioperative allergic reactions.

Current characteristics associated with hereditary angioedema attacks and treatment: the home infusion based patient experience

This article presents a current perspective on the characteristics of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks and treatment as captured by a home infusion service. Retrospective data on 158 HAE patients who were enrolled in this acute treatment program were analyzed for factors surrounding an attack. The majority of patients had a high level of disease severity at baseline (88%), with a higher than expected likelihood of having a positive family history (87.8%). The most likely times for patients to call for home treatment were just before and during working hours (6:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.). Eighty-three percent had more than one alternate mode of medication. Factors associated with a severe attack included an overall severe rating of HAE attacks in the previous year, an abdominal attack alone or a combination of peripheral and abdominal attacks versus a peripheral attack alone, and the use of two doses rather than one for treatment of the current attack. Average time to relief onset was 43.5 minutes. One dose of ecallantide was sufficient to treat the majority of attacks, and a second dose was needed in 23.6% of patients experiencing a severe attack. However, patients who reported both a severe attack rating during the previous year and experiencing only a peripheral current attack were more likely to experience a severe current attack. Acute treatment paradigms for HAE remain diverse. Understanding factors driving these decisions could help alleviate the overall burden of this disease and help overcome some of the challenges faced by the patients and their caretakers and improve their quality of life. Enhanced capture and analysis of prodromal factors in future studies should help us further alleviate the burden of this disease.

Tackling the Patient with Multiple Drug "Allergies": Multiple Drug Intolerance Syndrome

As populations age, the prevalence of reported drug "allergy" increases, often leading to suboptimal care and increased morbidity because of unnecessary avoidance of safe and effective medications. Evaluation by a drug allergy specialist is often warranted when a patient has more than 2 unrelated drug "allergies" listed in the medical record. In this commentary, we clarify and propose standard terminology to use when evaluating patients with multiple drug allergy labels including and more specifically when diagnosing multiple drug intolerance syndrome and the much rarer multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We review epidemiology and key features of multiple drug intolerance syndrome and multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We summarize the methodologic and practical diagnostic workup and management of individuals with MDIS to assist with the accurate delabeling of drug "allergies" in the electronic health record.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation Should Be Performed Proactively in Patients With a Penicillin Allergy Label

Penicillin allergy is the most common drug allergy in the US population. A penicillin allergy label is associated with poor patient outcomes including increased hospital length of stay, increased perioperative infections, and overall increased mortality. A penicillin allergy evaluation accurately identifies approximately 9 of 10 patients who, despite reporting a history of penicillin allergy, can receive penicillins safely. Penicillin allergy evaluations should be offered proactively to healthy patients during routine visits, including children and pregnant women, in advance of antibiotic need.

New Approaches to Chemotherapeutic Drug Allergy: From Drug Challenge to Desensitization

This review explores the latest clinical advances in the evaluation and management of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapeutic agents. There is a critical need for standardized terminology and classification systems, and we discuss improved diagnostic tools and risk-management strategies that enhance the choice of using drug challenge or drug desensitization protocols. In addition, we examine established organizational models that promote patient safety and ensure continuity of care in oncology settings. By synthesizing current knowledge and practices, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art clinical approaches to managing HSRs to chemotherapeutic agents, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and quality of care. The insights presented here underscore the importance of ongoing research and collaboration among health care professionals to refine classification systems for drug HSRs and enhance the overall management of HSRs in oncology patients.

AAAAI Position Statement on Changing Electronic Health Record Allergy Documentation to "Alerts" to Lead to Easily Understood, Actionable Labels

The term "allergy" is inaccurate for the vast majority of the contents in the current allergy fields of electronic health records (EHRs). While EHRs have transformed access to health information and streamlined the delivery of care, their ability to reliably indicate medications, vaccines, or foods that mandate avoidance versus preferences or mild intolerances, is suboptimal. The current systems are reactive instead of being proactive and frequently fail to communicate the appropriate course of action. This Position Statement of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) advocates for a change in terminology. The section of the EHR currently labeled "allergies" should be renamed "alerts." The term "alert" accurately captures the purpose of this section without incorrectly assigning an allergic mechanism, and prioritizes easily understood and actionable labels. This change has the potential to simultaneously improve patient safety and care. This shift will be the first step in the transformation of the alerts section of the EHR. This document provides a framework for categorizing what should be included in this section. Enacting these changes will require EHR and clinical decision support vendors, healthcare and data standard regulators, allergists, and the larger health care community to work together to bring about these important advances.

Predictors of immediate and delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel

Paclitaxel is one of the first-line treatments for breast, ovarian, and lung cancers. However, its use is limited by the high frequency of hypersensitivity reactions. In this retrospective chart review at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, we assess clinical factors associated with immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel and characterize delayed hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel in patients with breast cancer. 12,274 patients were treated with paclitaxel. 6,165 had breast cancer and 1,233 were seen by a dermatologist. 734 patients (11.9%) developed an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Age (p < 0.001), race (p < 0.001), and prior history of allergy (p = 0.05) were associated with immediate hypersensitivity reactions. 147 patients (4.0%) had a rash of interest. The most common phenotypes were maculopapular (52%) and urticaria (36%). Race (p < 0.001) and history of allergy (p < 0.001) were associated with development of a cutaneous reaction. Patients with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction were more likely to have developed a delayed cutaneous reaction (OR = 1.80). Risk factors for development of immediate hypersensitivity reactions in this study were younger age, race, and history of allergy. Patients who developed an immediate hypersensitivity reaction were more likely to develop a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. Risk factors for development of the rash included Asian race and history of allergy. Identification of risk factors is critical to guide care coordination. Awareness of these clinical factors which are associated with development of a rash could guide providers in choosing treatment with paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. If the cutaneous reactions are bothersome to the patient, the transition of treatment from paclitaxel to nab-paclitaxel may be warranted, or a consideration of re-challenge or desensitization may be discussed.

A call to address penicillin allergy labels in patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplants: How to avoid rash decisions

Among patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplants, infections, particularly multidrug-resistant infections, pose a grave threat. In this setting, penicillin allergy labels are both common and harmful. Though the majority of patients who report penicillin allergy can actually tolerate penicillin, penicillin allergy labels are associated with use of alternative antibiotics, which are often more broad spectrum, less effective, and more toxic. In turn, they are associated with more severe infections, multidrug-resistant infections, Clostridium difficile, and increased mortality. Evaluating penicillin allergy labels can immediately expand access to preferred therapeutic options, which are critical to care in patients with recent hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Point-of-care assessment and clinical decision tools now exist to aid the nonallergist in assessment of penicillin allergy. This can aid in expanding use of other beta-lactam antibiotics and assist in risk-stratifying patients to determine a testing strategy. In patients with low-risk reaction histories, direct oral challenges can be employed to efficiently delabel patients across clinical care settings. We advocate for multidisciplinary efforts to evaluate patients with penicillin allergy labels prior to transplantation.