Drug Desensitizations for Chemotherapy: Safety and Efficacy in Preventing Anaphylaxis

Rapid Desensitization to Antitumoral Agents. Result from a Retrospective Study, DESARCh

Antitumoral drugs (ADs) can induce drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) protocols represent an important option to mitigate recurrent DHRs thus allowing the safe administration of ADs at therapeutic doses. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the effectiveness of the RDD protocols performed at our institution. The "DESARCh" study was a retrospective, observational study that included consecutive patients who underwent RDD protocols from January 2011 to December 2022 at IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria in Negrar di Valpolicella, Verona, Italy. The RDD protocol consisted of a 5-step protocol with 5 different concentrations of the drugs at 1:1, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1,000 and 1:10,000 dilution given intravenously over a 1-hour infusion each, with concentrations increasing from the most diluted to the most concentrated form, preceded by a 30-min premedication regimen. A total of 66 RDD protocols were administered to 25 female patients with ovarian (64%; n = 16/25), breast (12%; n = 3/25), endometrium (8%; n = 2/25), cervix (8%; n = 2/25), uterine (4%; n = 1/25) and fallopian tubes (4%; n = 1/25) cancers. A known history of atopy/allergy was reported by 36% (n = 9/25) of patients. Patients received RDD protocols because of DHRs to carboplatin (n = 23/66, 34.85%), paclitaxel (n = 18/66, 27.27%), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (n = 3/66, 4.55%), and trastuzumab (n = 22/66, 33.33%). DHRs were mild-moderate, severe and life-threatening in 60.72%, 28.57% and 10.71% of cases, respectively. The success rate of RDD protocols, defined as the rate of complete administration of full target dose with no breakthrough reactions, was 81.82% (n = 54/66). Success rate was lower for carboplatin compared to other drugs (65.22% vs 90.7%; P = .017678). The RDD protocol used in our institution was found to be safe, with a meaningful success rate. However, further research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms of DHRs and to enhance effectiveness, particularly for patients experiencing DHRs to platinum compounds. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Verona and Rovigo (Italy) with approval number 15476 on 10/03/2023 and it was registered with the Register of Observational Studies of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) (available since 31 January 2023), with ID n. 109, on 28/02/2023 (https://www.aifa.gov.it/en/registro-studi-osservazionali).

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.

Knowledge mapping and global trends of drug hypersensitivity from 2013 to 2023: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug hypersensitivity is a major global public health issue with a significant increase in prevalence in populations. Here, we provide a deep insight into the frontier hotspot and future direction in the field of drug hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A knowledge map is portrayed based on publications related to drug hypersensitivity from Web of Science Core Collection using CiteSpace. Co-occurrence relationships of countries, institutes, authors, journals, references, and keywords are constructed. According to the co-occurrence relationships, hotspots and future trends are overviewed.

RESULTS

The United States ranked first in the world and China with the second highest publications was the only developing country. Torres, Mayorga, and Blanca were highly productive authors. Harvard University was the institution with the most research publications. Keywords co-occurrence analysis suggested applications in emerging causes, potential mechanisms, and clinical diagnosis as the research hotspots and development frontiers.

CONCLUSION

Research on drug hypersensitivity is in a rapid development stage and an emerging trend in reports of anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycols is identified. Developing algorithms for understanding the standardization process of culprit drugs, clinical manifestations, and diagnostic methods will be the focus of future direction. In addition, a better understanding of the mechanisms to culprit drugs with immunological precise phenotypic definitions and high-throughput platforms is needed.

Hypersensitivity reactions with first-line antituberculosis drugs and outcomes of rapid desensitizations

Background

Data about drug hypersensitivity reactions with first-line antituberculosis drugs and their management is limited. Rapid drug desensitization seems to be an appropriate management.

Objective

Evaluate the efficacy of the rapid desensitization protocols in patients who had a reaction phenotypically compatible with immediate-type drug hypersensitivity with first-line antituberculosis drugs and identify possible risk factors of breakthrough reactions during the protocols.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of active tuberculosis patients who had a reaction phenotypically compatible with immediate-type drug hypersensitivity with first-line antituberculosis drugs and underwent desensitization with the drugs used during the reaction. Characteristics of drug hypersensitivity and breakthrough reactions, and outcomes of rapid desensitizations were recorded.

Results

One hundred and seventy-nine patients were included in the study. Most of the initial reactions (n = 132, 73.7%) occurred within the first week of treatment and were mild (n = 146, 81.6%). A total of 690 desensitizations were performed. Desensitizations were successfully completed without any breakthrough reaction in 103 (57.5%) patients and in 29 of 36 (80.6%) patients after a breakthrough reaction. The overall success of desensitizations were found to be 95% (132 of 139 patients). Most of the breakthrough reactions (84%) were mild. Sixteen patients had breakthrough reactions with multiple drugs. Although pyrazinamide was the most common culprit of breakthrough reactions and had the lowest desensitization success, it had the highest rate of a single breakthrough reaction (p < 0.001). Timing of the initial reaction and concomitant breakthrough reaction with ethambutol were found to have increased the risk for breakthrough reaction caused by rifampicin (p = 0.017 and p = 0.010 respectively).

Conclusion

The rapid desensitization protocols used in this study provide a successful and effective management of the patients with a reaction phenotypically compatible with immediate-type drug hypersensitivity with first-line antituberculosis drugs.

Immune Reactions in Major Types of Oncological Treatment

In recent years, there has been a noticeable development in oncological treatment, including chemotherapy and biological treatment. Despite their significant effectiveness, they are not free from side effects, such as allergic and dermatological reactions. These reactions can vary in severity and outcome, including potential death. Examples, among others, are type I-IV hypersensitivity reactions of various origins and skin reactions including rashes, itching and redness, but also severe cutaneous syndromes. Due to the therapy used, these may include Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. In some cases, it is necessary to interrupt therapy, which may result in a poorer outcome and shorten the patient's survival. This paper reviews various types of research documents published since 2016. It aims to systematize the latest knowledge and highlight the need for further research into ways to avoid adverse reactions.

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

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

Inflammation Control and Tumor Growth Inhibition of Ovarian Cancer by Targeting Adhesion Molecules of E-Selectin

Objective: The aim is to use E-selectin-binding peptide (ESBP) to actively recognize E-selectin, so allowing a drug delivery system to actively recognize the cells and inhibit the tumor growth of ovarian cancer by targeting adhesion molecules of E-selectin. An ovarian-cancer-directed drug delivery system was designed based on the high affinity of E-selectin-binding peptide (ESBP) to E-selectin. The effects and mechanisms of ESBP-bovine serum albumin (BSA) polymerized nanoparticles were investigated. Methods: BSA polymerized nanoparticles (BSANPs) and ESBP-BSANPs-paclitaxel (PTX) were prepared and their characteristics were measured. The in vitro targetability and cytotoxicity of ESBP-BSANPs-PTX were evaluated through in vitro drug uptake and MTT experiments. The mechanisms of ESBP-BSANPs-PTX were investigated via apoptosis, wound healing and immunohistochemistry assays. The in vivo targeting properties and drug effects were observed in a mouse tumor-bearing model. Results: In vitro experiments revealed an increase in the uptake of ESBP-BSANPs-FITC. The cytotoxicity of ESBP-BSANPs-PTX in A2780/CP70, HUVEC, RAW264.7 and ID8 cells was higher than that of PTX alone. ESBP-BSANPs-PTX increased cell apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner and exhibited a greater ability to inhibit cell migration than BSANPs-PTX. In vivo experiments demonstrated the targetability and good effects of ESBP-BSANPs. Conclusions: ESBP-BSANPs-PTX improve PTX targetability, provide tumor-specific and potent therapeutic activities, and show promise for the development of agents in preclinical epithelial ovarian cancer.

Utilizing Biologics in Drug Desensitization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review was to review the latest advancements with biologics in rapid drug desensitization. Our methodology was to highlight both desensitization to biologics themselves and the use of biologics in desensitization to both biologic and nonbiologic drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Biologics are a vast category of drugs that include monoclonal antibodies, nanobodies, modern vaccinations, and even hormones. Desensitization to biologics can be safely performed through standardized procedure. Biomarkers are used both in vitro and in vivo to help identify and classify hypersensitivity reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions to the mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 present their own unique challenges to management. There are specific excipients in monoclonal antibodies that are thought to be responsible for many of their hypersensitivity reactions. Certain biologics can even be used to assist in desensitization to other drugs. Rapid drug desensitization is a standardized procedure that may be able to help many patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions to biologics and would best be treated with them to continue to receive them. Biologic drugs have opened a new era in medicine for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, cancer, and inflammatory diseases. Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics are quite common. This literature review presents the latest advancements in our understanding of hypersensitivity reactions to biologics, how rapid drug desensitization can be used to continue therapy despite history of hypersensitivity, and how biologics themselves can be used to aid in desensitization itself.

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.

Drug hypersensitivity, in vitro tools, biomarkers, and burden with COVID-19 vaccines

Hypersensitivity reactions to drugs are increasing worldwide. They display a large degree of variability in the immunological mechanisms involved, which impacts both disease severity and the optimal diagnostic procedure. Therefore, drug hypersensitivity diagnosis relies on both in vitro and in vivo assessments, although most of the methods are not well standardized. Moreover, several biomarkers can be used as valuable parameters for precision medicine that provide information on the endotypes, diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of drug hypersensitivity development, as well on the identification of therapeutic targets and treatment efficacy monitoring. Furthermore, in the last 2 years, the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus) pandemic has had an important impact on health system, leading us to update approaches on how to manage hypersensitivity reactions to drugs used for its treatment and on COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccines used for its prevention. This article reviews recent advances in these 3 areas regarding drug hypersensitivity: in vitro tools for drug hypersensitivity diagnosis, recently identified biomarkers that could guide clinical decision making and management of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines used for COVID-19.

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.

Clinical and Translational Significance of Basophils in Patients with Cancer

Despite comprising a very small proportion of circulating blood leukocytes, basophils are potent immune effector cells. The high-affinity receptor for IgE (FcɛRI) is expressed on the basophil cell surface and powerful inflammatory mediators such as histamine, granzyme B, and cytokines are stored in dense cytoplasmic granules, ready to be secreted in response to a range of immune stimuli. Basophils play key roles in eliciting potent effector functions in allergic diseases and type 1 hypersensitivity. Beyond allergies, basophils can be recruited to tissues in chronic and autoimmune inflammation, and in response to parasitic, bacterial, and viral infections. While their activation states and functions can be influenced by Th2-biased inflammatory signals, which are also known features of several tumor types, basophils have received little attention in cancer. Here, we discuss the presence and functional significance of basophils in the circulation of cancer patients and in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Interrogating publicly available datasets, we conduct gene expression analyses to explore basophil signatures and associations with clinical outcomes in several cancers. Furthermore, we assess how basophils can be harnessed to predict hypersensitivity to cancer treatments and to monitor the desensitization of patients to oncology drugs, using assays such as the basophil activation test (BAT).

Use of Rapid Drug Desensitization in Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy and Monoclonal Antibodies

Background:

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) allows first-line therapies in patients with immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) to chemotherapeutic drugs (ChD) and monoclonal antibodies (mAb). Desensitization in delayed drug reactions has traditionally used slow protocols extending up to several weeks; RDD protocols have been scarcely reported.

Patients and Method:

We retrospectively analyzed the patients referred to the Allergy Department, who had experienced a delayed DHR (&gt; 6 h) related to a ChD or mAb and underwent an RDD protocol. The rate of successful administration of the offending drug and the presence of adverse reactions were evaluated.

Results:

A total of 93 RDDs were performed in 11 patients (including 6 men and 5 women, with a median age of 61 years). The primary DHR were maculopapular exanthema (MPE) (8), generalized delayed urticaria (1), MPE with pustulosis and facial edema (1), and facial edema with desquamative eczema (1). The meantime for the onset of symptoms was 3 days (range 1–16 days). RDD was performed using a protocol involving 8–13 steps, with temozolomide (25), bendamustine (4), rituximab (9), infliximab (24), gemcitabine (23), and docetaxel (8), within 4.6–6.5 h. Sixteen breakthrough reactions were reported during the RDD (17.2 %) in 5 patients; all were mild reactions including 11 delayed and 5 immediate reactions. All patients completed their treatment.

Conclusions:

RDD is a potentially safe and effective procedure in patients suffering from delayed reactions to ChD and mAb. It allows them to receive full treatment in a short period, thereby reducing time and hospital visits.

How to Prevent and Mitigate Hypersensitivity Reactions to Biologicals Induced by Anti-Drug Antibodies?

Biologicals are widely used therapeutic agents for rheumatologic diseases, cancers, and other chronic inflammatory diseases. They are characterized by complex structures and content of variable amounts of foreign regions, which may lead to anti-drug antibodies (ADA) development. ADA onset may limit the clinical usage of biologicals because they may decrease their safety. In fact they are mainly associated with immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Development of ADAs is reduced by concomitant immunosuppressive treatment, while it is increased by longer intervals between drug administrations; thus, regular infusion regimens should be preferred to reduce HSRs. Once ADAs have formed, some procedures can be implemented to reduce the risk of HSRs. ADAs may belong to different isotype; the detection of IgE ADA is advisable to be assessed when high and early ADAs are detected, in order to reduce the risk of severe HRs. In patients who need to reintroduce the biological culprit, as alternative therapies are not available, drug desensitization (DD) may be applied. Desensitization should be conceptually dedicated to patients with an IgE-mediated HSR; however, it can be performed also in patients who had developed non-IgE-mediated HSRs. Although the underlying mechanisms behind successful DD has not been fully clarified, the DD procedure is associated with the inhibition of mast cell degranulation and cytokine production. Additionally, some data are emerging about the inhibition of drug-specific immune responses during DD.