A new non-dilution rapid desensitization protocol successfully applied to all-grade platinum hypersensitivity

Oxaliplatin-associated shock in stage III colorectal cancer patients: real-world evidence in Taiwan

Background

Oxaliplatin-associated shock (referred to as shock) is a rare but life-threatening adverse event.

Objectives

This pioneering cohort study aimed to quantitatively investigate the association between oxaliplatin use and shock in patients with stage III colorectal cancer (CRC), identify potential independent risk factors for shock, and assess the cycle-to-shock during oxaliplatin treatment.

Design

The study utilized a nested case-control (NCC) design to assess the association between oxaliplatin and shock and employed a case-crossover approach to address unmeasured confounders.

Methods

All newly diagnosed stage III CRC patients were identified from the CRC Health Database (2012-2016). Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for oxaliplatin's link to shock incidence.

Results

Among 6932 oxaliplatin recipients, 331 suffered shock. In all, 3309 controls were selected via risk-set sampling for the shock cases. Oxaliplatin use is associated with a doubled risk of shock (adjusted OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.23-3.52). Two independent risk factors were male sex (adjusted OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.05-1.69) and heart diseases (adjusted OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.17-2.32). The case-crossover analysis revealed a more than fourfold risk (OR: 4.4, 95% CI: 1.67-11.62). In total, 22 of 331 shock cases were exposed to oxaliplatin within 2 days of shock onset, with a median cycle-to-shock time at the seventh cycle.

Conclusion

Oxaliplatin use significantly increased shock risk in stage III CRC patients. Male sex and heart disease are two independent risk factors.

Carboplatin desensitization - simplified 4-step 2-bag method

INTRODUCTION

Our cancer program adopted a method for carboplatin desensitization (4-step 2-bag method) that administers the same intensity of drug exposure with a simplified approach to product management in comparison to a published protocol (4-step 4-bag method).

METHODS

The intensity of carboplatin administration for 1:1,000, 1:100, 1:10, and 1:1 dilutions and concomitant fluid administration were compared for the 4-step 2-bag (bags A, B) and 4-step 4-bag (bags 1, 2, 3, 4) methods. Pharmacy preparation of bags A and B is described. A succinct overview of the desensitization procedure is provided. Important considerations germane to pharmacy practice are presented. Chart review of patients who underwent carboplatin desensitization with the 4-step 2-bag method between 7/13/2021 and 11/22/2023 was performed to demonstrate institutional use.

RESULTS

The 4-step 2-bag method delivers similar rates of drug intensity from start of desensitization to completion of the planned dose as the previously published 4-step 4-bag method. Accuracy of regimen-based dose administration is assured by infusion of bag B contents irrespective of infusion interruptions or rate changes necessitated by patient tolerance. Bag A provides the 1:1000 dilution in a pharmaceutically elegant manner using administration rates and volumes compatible with clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The 4-step 2-bag method for carboplatin desensitization administers controlled drug titration corresponding to 1:1000, 1:100, 1:10, and 1:1 dilutions for dose administration using two compounded admixture bags. Inaugural clinical use of the 4-step 2-bag method for carboplatin desensitization at our healthcare facility has proceeded with expected patient tolerance.

Outcomes of a Undiluted, One-Bag Desensitization Protocol for Chemotherapeutic Agents

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitive reactions (HSRs) often require that the provoking medication be discontinued but chemotherapeutic drugs are often essential for the treatment of the disease. Rapid drug desensitization is a procedure that induces temporary tolerance to the drug allowing continuation of treatment in patients who have presented HSRs. Most of the desensitization protocols use 3 bags with sequential dilutions of the drug, which are infused in gradual steps. However, it has not been sufficiently investigated whether dilution is essential for successful desensitization.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new one-bag desensitization protocol which uses a single solution of 1 mg/mL throughout the procedure allowing to reduce time and simplifying the desensitization procedure.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study was carried out in adult patients with HSRs to chemotherapy agents who received a new nondilution one-bag desensitization protocol between 2016 and 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 130 desensitization procedures with an undiluted one-bag protocol were performed on 17 patients with HSRs to chemotherapy. One hundred and seven (82.3%) were for desensitization to CBDCA, 15 (11.5%) for oxaliplatin, 4 (3.1%) for paclitaxel and 4 (3.1%) for brentuximab. All of the 130 procedures were successfully accomplished, and all patients could receive their target dose. No breakthrough reactions (BTRs) occurred in 77% (100/130) of desensitizations, and only mild reactions (grade 1) with skin symptoms were observed in 23% (30/130) of desensitizations.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The undiluted one-bag desensitization protocol was safe and effective and has been adopted as the standard of care at our institution in treating patients with HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs as it requires less time and simplifies the desensitization procedure, optimizing risk management.

Platin desensitizations in thoracic malignancies and risk factors for breakthrough reactions

Although platin desensitization is a safe and effective alternative for patients with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), sometimes breakthrough reactions (BTRs) can be encountered. However, data about the risk factors for BTRs are limited. The aim of this study is to define the outcomes of desensitization, the characteristics of BTRs, and to identify the risk factors for BTRs with platins in thoracic malignancies. This is a retrospective report of patients with thoracic malignancies who underwent platin desensitization. Patients' demographics, initial HSR characteristics, skin test results, desensitization outcomes, and BTR characteristics were recorded. Thirty-three lung cancer and 14 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients were included in the study. The culprit drug was cisplatin in 29 and was carboplatin in 18 patients. Skin test positivity was 43.5% with cisplatin, 50% with carboplatin, and it was found to be higher if the interval between the initial HSR and skin testing (ST) was ˃20 days (p = 0.027). One hundred and five desensitization courses were performed. Twenty-two patients had 33 BTRs. Skin test positivity was higher in the BTR-positive group (p = 0.025). BTRs (18.2%; n = 6) were more severe than initial HSR. In the case of epinephrine administration during initial HSR, epinephrine administration during the first BTR was found to be more (p = 0.036). The target dose was achieved in 92.4% of desensitization courses. The number of previous platin infusions ≥10 was found to be an independent risk factor for BTR development (p = 0.036 OR:17.641, 95% CI: 1.211-256.971). Identification of risk factors for BTR will guide appropriate management and desensitization approaches for platin HSRs.

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).

Efficacy and Adverse Events of Carboplatin Desensitisation Therapy for Gynaecological Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Background: Carboplatin, the key drug used in treating gynaecological cancer, has an approximately 12–16% risk of hypersensitivity reactions. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and adverse effects of carboplatin desensitisation therapy for gynaecological cancer. Methods: The desensitisation protocol was standardised as a four-step, 4-h, carboplatin administration in the hospital. A retrospective medical record review was conducted on 15 patients who underwent carboplatin desensitisation for gynaecological malignancies at our hospital. Patients’ data were analysed to evaluate the treatment success rate, therapeutic effect of desensitisation, adverse events, and treatment. Results: Of 91 carboplatin desensitisation cycles scheduled; the completion rate was 93.4% (85/91). Adverse events occurred in 23 of these 91 (25.3%). In four (4.4%) of the 23 cycles, hypersensitivity reactions could be treated only by discontinuing the infusion and slowing the administration, while in the remaining 19 (20.9%), medication was administered intravenously after discontinuing the infusion to manage hypersensitivity reactions. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Overall, 23 series of anti-cancer agent regimens, including carboplatin desensitisation, were administered to the 15 patients. The therapeutic response rate was 82.6% and the disease control rate was 95.7%. Conclusions: Carboplatin desensitisation was beneficial in patients with a history of carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Analysis of Breakthrough Reactions in 1,143 Desensitization Procedures in a Single Tertiary Hospital Using a One-Bag Desensitization Protocol

Background

Drug desensitization is helpful for patients who have experienced significant hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antineoplastic agents. One-bag desensitization protocols, attracting attention in recent years, need to be validated on their safety and efficacy in a large number.

Methods

One-bag desensitization procedures conducted from 2018 to 2020 were analyzed; their outcomes and the risk factors for breakthrough reactions (BTRs) were assessed in desensitization procedures to major drug types (platins, taxanes, and monoclonal antibodies).

Results

A total of 1,143 procedures of one-bag desensitization were performed in 228 patients with 99% completion rate. BTRs occurred in 26% of the total desensitization procedures—34% in platins, 12% in taxanes, and 18% in mAbs. BTR occurrence rate decreased along the desensitization process with 80% of BTRs occurring within the 6th desensitization attempts. Severe BTR occurred more frequently with severe initial HSRs (1% in mild to moderate initial HSRs vs. 16% in severe). Severe initial HSR was also a significant risk factor for moderate to severe BTR in platins (odds ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–2.29, p = 0.025). The use of steroid was also associated with lower occurrence of moderate to severe BTR (odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.35–0.72, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Most patients with HSRs to antineoplastic agents can safely receive chemotherapy through a one-bag desensitization protocol. Further studies on each drug with larger sample size can help verify the risk factors of BTRs and evaluate the efficacy of steroid premedication in improving the safety of desensitization in high-risk patients.

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.

High concentration of oxaliplatin may be a risk factor for vascular pain

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Oxaliplatin (L-OHP) is an antineoplastic agent that frequently causes vascular pain. However, the risk factors for vascular pain are unclear, and prevention methods have not been established. We retrospectively investigated patients who were treated with L-OHP to examine the influence of patient characteristics and concomitant analgesic use on the incidence of vascular pain.

METHODS

We collected information about the presence or absence of vascular pain, age, sex, treatment dose and analgesic use of patients who received L-OHP at Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center. We analysed the relevance of each factor between the vascular pain onset and non-onset groups.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thirty-two patients (average age: 68.6 years; 69.8% and 30.2% men and women, respectively) were classified into the vascular pain onset (n = 64) and non-onset groups (n = 68). The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that L-OHP concentration (>358.5 mg/L) was an independent determinant of vascular pain development (odds ratio: 2.422, 95% CI: 1.117-5.252). Intergroup differences in age, sex, body mass index, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and underlying pain from cancer and other comorbidities were not significant.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

High L-OHP concentration was identified as a significant risk factor for L-OHP-induced vascular pain. Our results indicate that the dilution of L-OHP may reduce the incidence of vascular pain.

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.

Drug Desensitizations for Chemotherapy: Safety and Efficacy in Preventing Anaphylaxis

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antineoplastic drugs are increasing due to the expanding use of classical and new drugs in a wide variety of malignancies. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to provide current best practices in the diagnosis and management of HSRs based on data and evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: A plethora of studies have provided evidence of the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitizations (RDD) to allow for the reintroduction of antineoplastic drugs following an HSR, based on risk stratification. Recently described biomarkers such as basophil activation test, total IgE, BRCA genotyping, and serum IL-6 can aid in guiding improved precision desensitization protocols. Personalized premedication regimens and protocols have improved RDD safety and outcomes. RDD allows for the continued use of chemotherapeutic drugs without impaired drug efficacy. RDD represents the best approach to maintain cancer patients on their most effective treatments.

One-Dilution Rapid Desensitization Protocol to Chemotherapeutic and Biological Agents: A Five-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) becomes a crucial procedure to allow treatment continuation in patients who suffer drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic (CMT) and biological agents (BA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-bag dilution protocol (1DP) with a conventional three-bag dilution protocol (3DP) for desensitization of patients with CMT or BA hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with immediate DHRs to CMT or BA who underwent at least 1 RDD procedure in our department between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Demographical data, clinical history, skin tests, tryptase levels, and risk assessment were registered. The safety, tolerability, occurrence, and severity of breakthrough reactions (BTR) with 3DP and 1DP were compared.

RESULTS

After the allergy workup, 157 patients fulfilled criteria to undergo RDD (137 females, mean age: 60.44 ± 12.6 years). A total of 639 RDDs (543 CMT and 96 BA) were performed using 3DP in 205 (48 patients) and 1DP in 434 (109 patients). Almost all procedures (636) were completed successfully. No BTR occurred in the first RDD in 52% and 51% of the 3DP and 1DP, respectively. Most BTR were mild. Moderate-severe BTR occurred in 17% with 3DP and 9% with 1DP. There were no statistical differences between protocols regarding the rate and severity of BTR.

CONCLUSIONS

RDD with 1DP to CMT and BA has equivalent outcomes to a 3DP desensitization in a selected population of patients in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, 1DP reduces the time required for RDD and simplifies the logistics.

HIPEC with cisplatin in a patient with a prior hypersensitivity reaction to systemic oxaliplatin

Platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents are commonly used in the treatment of several cancers. While effective, they are often discontinued due to toxicities and hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) that occur more frequently with repeated exposure. Following discontinuation of one agent, therapy may be continued with a second platinum salt, though the cross-reactivity between agents in this class is not well understood. This is particularly true for alternative routes of administration such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). In this case report, we describe the use of cisplatin during HIPEC in a patient who previously experienced an HSR to systemic oxaliplatin. The patient tolerated HIPEC including 200 mg cisplatin for 1 hour without any adverse effects and did not require a desensitization protocol prior to therapy. This case suggests that HIPEC with platinum-based agents can be performed in patients with prior HSRs to systemic therapy, though further studies are needed to understand safety parameters, the cross-reactivity between agents and the necessity of skin testing or desensitization protocols.

Does Carboplatin Rapid Desensitization Change Its Adverse Drug Reactions Other than Hypersensitivity and Efficacy in Patients With Ovarian Cancer?

Purpose

Rapid drug desensitization is known to be a good strategy in patients with drug hypersensitivity to chemotherapy. However, changes in maximal drug concentration and exposure time in blood through desensitization may alter other adverse reactions and efficacy of the drug. We investigated rapid desensitization for carboplatin in terms of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and efficacy compared with the standard infusion.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who received carboplatin chemotherapy from 2017 to 2019. We compared serious adverse events (SAEs), ADRs according to organ classes, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS).

Results

Of 108 desensitization procedures performed in 21 patients, 104 were successfully accomplished (96.3%). There were compared with 271 procedures in 41 patients who received the standard infusion method. There were 8 (7.7%) SAEs in the rapid desensitization group and 34 (12.5%) in the control group. One drug-related death occurred in the rapid desensitization group. In the rapid desensitized group, except for neutropenia, there was no statistically significant increase in SAEs and over grade 3 of ADRs according to organ classes compared with the control group. In the efficacy analysis, TTP and OS were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Rapid desensitization of carboplatin can lower the risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions without changing the inherent effect and severe ADRs.

Recent developments and highlights in drug hypersensitivity

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are nowadays the third cause of allergy after rhinitis and asthma with a significant increase in prevalence in both adults and paediatric population with new drugs included as culprit. For this, DHRs represent not only a health problem but also a significant financial burden for affected individuals and health systems. Mislabelling DHRs is showing to be a relevant problem for both, false label of drug allergic and false label of nonallergic. All this reinforces the need to improve accurate diagnostic approaches that allow an appropriate management. Moreover, there is a need for training both, nonallergist stakeholders and patients to improve the reaction identification and therefore decrease the mislabelling. The use of allergy cards has shown to be relevant to avoid the induction of DHRs due to the prescription of wrong medication. Recent developments over the last 2 years and highlights about risk factors, diagnostic approaches, mechanisms involved as well as prevention actions, and management have been reviewed. In these papers, it has been outlined the need for correct diagnosis and de-labelling of patients previously false-reported as allergic, which will improve the management and treatment of patients with DHRs.

A One-Bag Rapid Desensitization Protocol for Paclitaxel Hypersensitivity: A Noninferior Alternative to a Multi-Bag Rapid Desensitization Protocol

BACKGROUND

Desensitization is used to safely continue treatment with a culprit drug in patients with drug hypersensitivity. Currently, a multi-bag protocol is widely used for rapid desensitization, but performing the desensitization procedure is labor intensive as pharmacists and nurses need to prepare and administer diluted solutions. However, it has not been investigated whether dilution is essential for successful desensitization.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a nondilution, 1-bag protocol in comparison with a conventional multi-bag protocol for desensitization of patients with paclitaxel hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Patients who underwent paclitaxel desensitization between 2011 and 2018 were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. The completion rate, time to completion, and occurrence and severity of breakthrough reaction (BTR) between a 1-bag protocol and a multi-bag protocol were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 211 desensitization procedures were performed, of which 207 procedures (98.1%) were completed successfully. The administration time was significantly shorter in the 1-bag protocol group compared with the conventional multi-bag protocol group (266.0 ± 149.3 minutes vs 484.2 ± 178.6 minutes, P < .05) without differences in the completion rate (97.6% vs 98.9%, P = .645), the incidence of BTR (16.1% vs 27.6%, P = .778), and the proportion of severe BTR (2.6% vs 5.7%, P = .134).

CONCLUSIONS

A nondilution, 1-bag protocol is noninferior to a multi-bag rapid desensitization protocol and can be a safe and effective option for paclitaxel desensitization.