Hypersensitivity Reactions to Biologic Agents

Targeted Delivery Strategies for Multiple Myeloma and Their Adverse Drug Reactions

Currently, multiple myeloma (MM) is a prevalent hematopoietic system malignancy, known for its insidious onset and unfavorable prognosis. Recently developed chemotherapy drugs for MM have exhibited promising therapeutic outcomes. Nevertheless, to overcome the shortcomings of traditional clinical drug treatment, such as off-target effects, multiple drug resistance, and systemic toxicity, targeted drug delivery systems are optimizing the conventional pharmaceuticals for precise delivery to designated sites at controlled rates, striving for maximal efficacy and safety, presenting a promising approach for MM treatment. This review will delve into the outstanding performance of antibody-drug conjugates, peptide-drug conjugates, aptamer-drug conjugates, and nanocarrier drug delivery systems in preclinical studies or clinical trials for MM and monitor their adverse reactions during treatment.

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.

Infusion-Related Reactions Subsequent to Avelumab, Durvalumab, and Atezolizumab Administration: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Avelumab, durvalumab, and atezolizumab are anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies approved for clinical application in Japan. Despite targeting the same molecule, avelumab elicits a different frequency of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) compared with durvalumab and atezolizumab, leading to differences in premedication recommendations. This study aimed to collect information to verify the relationship during IRRs and the characteristics of antibody molecules, by investigating the frequency of IRRs caused by three types of antibodies and the actual status of prophylactic measures.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective observational study collected the medical records of 73 patients who received avelumab, durvalumab, or atezolizumab at Osaka University Hospital.

RESULTS

The frequency of IRRs was 50.0% (12/24) for avelumab, 31.0% (8/27) for durvalumab, and 18.2% (4/22) for atezolizumab. The IRRs were grade 2 in seven patients and grade 1 in five patients treated with avelumab, grade 2 in six patients and grade 1 in two patients treated with durvalumab, and grade 1 in all patients treated with atezolizumab. Among patients in whom symptoms were observed during the first administration, measures were taken to prevent IRRs for the second administration, but cases were confirmed in which symptoms reappeared, especially in patients who received durvalumab.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the frequency of IRRs due to anti-PD-L1 antibodies is higher than that previously reported in clinical trials and different modifications in antibody molecules may affect the difference in IRR frequency.

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).

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.

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.

Mechanisms of Drug Desensitization: Not Only Mast Cells

Drug desensitization (DD) allows transient clinical tolerance to the drug in reactive patients and it is frequently and successfully used in the management of both IgE and non IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions (HRs). The underlying mechanisms behind this process is not well understood. The desensitization procedure is associated with the inhibition of mast cells degranulation and cytokine production, that, is attributable, at least partially, to the abrogation of Ca2+ mobilization; in vitro findings and in vivo mouse models of rapid desensitization show that the organization and spatial distribution of actin is critical for Ca2+ mobilization. Some clinical observations may suggest the induction of a longer memory of tolerance by DD and they raise the suspicion that other cells and mechanisms are involved in DD. Some data are emerging about the modifications of immune responses during DD in patients with previous immediate HRs. In particular, an increase of regulatory cytokines, mainly represented by IL-10, has been shown, and more importantly, the appearance of IL-35 producing T regulatory cells has been described during DD. The release of controlled cellular mediators by mast cells over time and the development of the antigen-specific regulation of adaptive response allow to safely and successfully reach the target dose of a first line drug during DD.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics (part II): classifications and current diagnostic and treatment approaches

Purpose

Biotechnological substances (BS) have rapidly expanded their clinical use. In parallel, there is an increase in expected or unexpected immunological or non-immunological adverse effects. In this part of the review, the current nomenclature of BSs, the classification of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR), as well as diagnostic and treatment approaches are documented to provide the tools to understand the nomenclature used throughout the databases and the need to harmonize it where applicable.

Methods

Detailed searches were performed on Pubmed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to include all available publications. The search terms, such as specific BS, allergy, anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity, reactions, classification, diagnosis, grading, management, and desensitization, were determined for the search. Case reports, articles, and reviews on this subject were included.

Results

Today, a variety of non-standardized methods are used to support the clinical diagnosis. These include prick-to-prick tests and intradermal tests with the drug itself and its potentially allergenic ingredients. More rarely, anti-drug antibodies are detected and basophil activation tests are used by centers with research facilities. Although the treatment protocols for acute conditions vary, the overall approach is the same.

Conclusion

HSRs to BS are gradually increasing with the widening of their clinical use and indications. It is very important to prevent HSRs and to know the degree of severity as well as the emergency treatment algorithm. This review summarizes the diagnostic tests that should be applied: (a) immediately during/after a reaction, and (b) subsequently, and in the case that a switch of BS is not possible, desensitization is an option.

Desensitization to biological agents used in rheumatology

Biological agents such as monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins are widely used for the treatment of patients with various rheumatic disorders, influencing the quality of life, disability and even mortality in patients. However, biological agents can evoke adverse reactions of different grades of severity. Although drug avoidance remains a gold standard in the care of patients hypersensitive to medication, in certain clinical situations the culprit drug is the drug of choice and cannot be replaced by another equally effective compound. In such cases, desensitization can allow the patient to be treated within current guidelines and with the most effective treatment. The authors searched Medline and Scopus databases for English-language sources using the following key words: hypersensitivity, desensitization, biologicals, adalimumab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, rituximab, infliximab, ixekizumab, tocilizumab, anakinra and canakinumab. The aim of our review is to present the current knowledge about desensitization to biological agents and some guidelines according to patient inclusion, contraindications, procedures, and safety requirements. Drug desensitization is a new issue in rheumatology, and the solution to the problem of allergic reactions to biological drugs, which gives patients with rheumatic diseases the opportunity to extend and prolong their therapy. The present article is one of the first widely discussing this topic in the biological treatment of rheumatic diseases.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Biologicals: from Bench to Bedside

Purpose of Review

Biologic agents are new treatment options for chronic inflammatory diseases and cancers. As a result of their unique mechanism of action, they are more effective and less toxic treatment option and their clinical usage is increasing. While they are more commonly used, various adverse effects have been observed including life-threatening ones, including anaphylaxis. The aim of this review is to distinguish the anaphylaxis from other hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) and provide a management algorithm for the anaphylactic reactions induced by biological agents.

Recent Findings

Many case reports and series have been published regarding anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions (concerning cytokine release syndrome, acute infusion–related reactions) due to biologic agents. Although acute treatment of HSR varies according to the clinical presentation, desensitization with the drug is the major management option for subsequent administrations in the case of anaphylactic reactions.

Summary

Anaphylaxis and other immediate onset hypersensitivity reactions are occasionally difficult to differentiate from each other, and mixed-type reactions may be observed. Immediate management of anaphylaxis includes discontinuation of infusion, immediate administration of adrenaline, antihistamines, corticosteroids, and other treatment options depending on the symptoms. After 30–120 min of the reaction, a blood sample for serum tryptase levels should be obtained and after 4–6 weeks skin testing with the culprit drug should be performed for decision of long-term management via either graded challenge or desensitization.

[Cutaneous drug reactions]

Cutaneous drug reactions are a common reason for calls and visits. This term chiefly refers to hypersensitivity reactions ranging from benign rash without contraindication of treatment to severe life-threatening clinical pictures, such as anaphylactic shock and epidermal necrolysis. They should be carefully managed from the outset. Indeed, history taking and precise semiological description of the lesions are crucial to the formulation of recommendations for the patient. Allergological investigation of such reactions has developed greatly in recent decades and must now be carried out much more extensively. The arrival of new drug families such as biotherapies and the development of drug habituation protocols constitute the challenges of tomorrow for cutaneous drug reactions.

Adverse infusion reactions to rituximab in systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective analysis

Background

To undertake a retrospective review of patients with SLE who had received Rituximab in order to determine the rates and associated patient characteristics of clinically significant adverse infusion reactions.

Methods

A descriptive analysis was undertaken of each infusion reaction, which was then assessed using the clinical information available to hypothesise on the possible underlying mechanism(s).

Results

Records of 136 SLE patients previously treated with 481 individual infusions of Rituximab were reviewed. A total of 22 patients (17.6%) had 28 (5.8% of total infusions) documented clinically significant adverse infusion reactions. Average age at first Rituximab infusion in patients without a reaction was 37 years (range 16–73) compared with 30 years (range 18–56) in those with a reaction. A high proportion of men (18.2%) experienced an infusion reaction. Severity and type of reaction varied. 6.4% of those who had a reaction were not retreated.

Conclusions

While Rituximab remains an important tool in the treatment of SLE it is important to be aware that rates of infusion reactions may be more significant in SLE than in other diseases. A prospective study is required to better characterise the reactions.

Long-term safety of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: integrated pooled clinical trial and post-marketing surveillance data

BACKGROUND

Secukinumab, a fully human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A, has been shown to have robust efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) demonstrating a rapid onset of action and sustained long-term clinical responses with a consistently favorable safety profile in multiple Phase 2 and 3 trials. Here, we report longer-term pooled safety and tolerability data for secukinumab across three indications (up to 5 years of treatment in PsO and PsA; up to 4 years in AS).

METHODS

The integrated clinical trial safety dataset included data pooled from 21 randomized controlled clinical trials of secukinumab 300 or 150 or 75 mg in PsO (14 Phase 3 trials and 1 Phase 4 trial), PsA (3 Phase 3 trials), and AS (3 Phase 3 trials), along with post-marketing safety surveillance data with a cut-off date of June 25, 2017. Adverse events (AEs) were reported as exposure-adjusted incident rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years. Analyses included all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of secukinumab.

RESULTS

A total of 5181, 1380, and 794 patients from PsO, PsA, and AS clinical trials representing secukinumab exposures of 10,416.9, 3866.9, and 1943.1 patient-years, respectively, and post-marketing data from patients with a cumulative exposure to secukinumab of ~ 96,054 patient-years were included in the analysis. The most frequent AE was upper respiratory tract infection. EAIRs across PsO, PsA, and AS indications were generally low for serious infections (1.4, 1.9, and 1.2, respectively), Candida infections (2.2, 1.5, and 0.7, respectively), inflammatory bowel disease (0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively), and major adverse cardiac events (0.3, 0.4, and 0.6, respectively). No cases of tuberculosis reactivation were reported. The incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies was low with secukinumab across all studies, with no discernible loss of efficacy, unexpected alterations in pharmacokinetics, or association with immunogenicity-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile over long-term treatment in patients with PsO, PsA, and AS. This comprehensive assessment demonstrated that the safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with previous reports in patients with PsO, PsA, and AS, supporting its long-term use in these chronic conditions.

Eight-year survival study of first-line tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from a university centre registry

Objective.

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety and survival of TNF-α inhibitors in patients with RA.

Methods.

A total of 178 patients >18 years of age were treated with TNF-α inhibitors. A total of 74 patients were treated with infliximab, 75 with adalimumab and 29 with etanercept. Each patient was followed-up for a period of 8 years.

Results.

Anti-TNF-α therapy resulted in rapid clinical improvement. The rate of good/moderate response according to EULAR response criteria for the index 28-joint DAS with CRP in the first 6 months was 82% for infliximab, 89.6% for adalimumab and 95.6% for etanercept. The rate of withdrawal in 8 years was 80% for patients on infliximab, 61.4% for patients on adalimumab and 47.6% for patients on etanercept. The main reasons for discontinuation were allergic reactions for infliximab (rate of discontinuation 25.7%) and inefficacy for adalimumab and etanercept (17.5% and 23.8%, respectively). Systemic allergic reactions and infections were significantly more frequent in the infliximab group (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference among the three drugs concerning serious infections. According to Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, a significantly faster withdrawal for infliximab patients was depicted compared with adalimumab (P = 0.003) and etanercept (P = 0.019), while adalimumab and etanercept were not statistically different (P = 0.089).

Conclusions.

TNF-α inhibitors establish an effective therapeutic option in RA showing an acceptable safety profile. Infections and allergic reactions appear more often with infliximab, while serious infections did not differ among them. RA patients treated with infliximab are more likely to discontinue treatment earlier compared with the other alternatives.

Drug allergy

Drug allergy encompasses a spectrum of immunologically-mediated hypersensitivity reactions with varying mechanisms and clinical presentations. This type of adverse drug reaction not only affects patient quality of life, but may also lead to delayed treatment, unnecessary investigations, and even mortality. Given the myriad of symptoms associated with the condition, diagnosis is often challenging. Therefore, referral to an allergist experienced in the identification, diagnosis and management of drug allergy is recommended if a drug-induced allergic reaction is suspected. Diagnosis relies on a careful history and physical examination and, in some instances, skin testing and graded challenges. Induction of drug tolerance procedures may also be required. The most effective strategy for the management of drug allergy is avoidance or discontinuation of the offending drug. When available, alternative medications with unrelated chemical structures should be substituted. Cross-reactivity among drugs should be taken into consideration when choosing alternative agents. Additional therapy for drug hypersensitivity reactions is largely supportive and may include topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines and, in severe cases, systemic corticosteroids. In the event of anaphylaxis, the treatment of choice is injectable epinephrine. If a particular drug to which the patient is allergic is indicated and there is no suitable alternative, induction of drug tolerance procedures may be considered to induce temporary tolerance to the drug. This article provides a background on drug allergy and strategies for the diagnosis and management of some of the most common drug-induced allergic reactions, such as penicillin, sulfonamides, cephalosporins, radiocontrast media, local anesthetics, general anesthetics, acetylsalicylic acid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.

Anaphylaxis in the 21st century: phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers

Anaphylaxis is the most serious of all allergic reactions and can be fatal. The diagnosis is frequently delayed, and misdiagnosis often occurs with asthma or urticaria. Biomarkers such as tryptase are not routinely checked, and appropriate treatment with epinephrine is not administered in a majority of cases, increasing the risk of poor outcomes. The objective of this review is to provide a better understanding of the pathophysiology of anaphylaxis with a description of phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers available in both the clinical and research settings. Expanding knowledge with regard to the presentation, causes, and triggers for anaphylaxis among health care providers will improve its diagnosis and management, increase patient safety, and decrease morbidity and mortality.

Virus-like particle display of HER2 induces potent anti-cancer responses

Overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) occurs in 20–30% of invasive breast cancers. Monoclonal antibody therapy is effective in treating HER2-driven mammary carcinomas, but its utility is limited by high costs, side effects and development of resistance. Active vaccination may represent a safer, more effective and cheaper alternative, although the induction of strong and durable autoantibody responses is hampered by immune-tolerogenic mechanisms. Using a novel virus-like particle (VLP) based vaccine platform we show that directional, high-density display of human HER2 on the surface of VLPs, allows induction of therapeutically potent anti-HER2 autoantibody responses. Prophylactic vaccination reduced spontaneous development of mammary carcinomas by 50%-100% in human HER2 transgenic mice and inhibited the growth of HER2-positive tumors implanted in wild-type mice. The HER2-VLP vaccine shows promise as a new cost-effective modality for prevention and treatment of HER2-positive cancer. The VLP platform may represent an effective tool for development of vaccines against other non-communicable diseases.

Immunogenicity and loss of response to TNF inhibitors: implications for rheumatoid arthritis treatment

The availability of monoclonal antibodies has revolutionized the treatment of an increasingly broad spectrum of diseases. Inflammatory diseases are among those most widely treated with protein-based therapeutics, termed biologics. Following the first large-scale clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies performed in the 1990s by rheumatologists and clinical immunologists, the approval of these agents for use in daily clinical practice led to substantial progress in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Despite this progress, however, only a proportion of patients achieve a long-term clinical response. Data on the use of agents blocking TNF, which were among the first biologics introduced into clinical practice, provide ample evidence of primary and secondary treatment inefficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Important issues relevant to primary and secondary failure of these agents in RA include immunogenicity, methodological problems for the detection of antidrug antibodies and trough drug levels, and the implications for treatment strategies. Although there is no strong evidence to support the routine estimation of antidrug antibodies or serum trough levels during anti-TNF therapy, these assessments might be helpful in a few clinical situations; in particular, they might guide decisions on switching the therapeutic biologic in certain instances of secondary clinical failure.

Glycan and Peptide IgE Epitopes of the TNF-alpha Blockers Infliximab and Adalimumab - Precision Diagnostics by Cross-Reactivity Immune Profiling of Patient Sera

Biological drugs like therapeutic antibodies are widely used for the treatment of various diseases like inflammatory disorders and cancer. A drawback of these novel treatments is the substantial proportion of patients experiencing adverse reactions such as loss-of-drug effect or hypersensitivity reactions. These reactions are associated with pre-existing and/or developing anti-drug antibodies. Especially IgE development is a risk factor for life-threatening systemic anaphylaxis.

Methods: In order to characterize the individual drug-specific serum IgE, an IgE cross-reactivity immune profiling (ICRIP) assay was developed. Individual IgG epitopes of anti-drug antibodies against adalimumab were identified by epitope mapping via peptide microarray.

Results: ICRIP analyses of sera from patients treated with the therapeutic antibodies adalimumab (ADL) and infliximab (IFX) reveal individual, distinct IgE binding patterns. IgG epitopes were identified mostly located in the variable region of ADL.

Conclusions: Using ICRIP and peptide microarrays for pharmacovigilance of the TNF-α blockers IFX and ADL, risk factors and biomarkers before and during therapy shall be identified. These diagnostic systems provide the basis for a safe and efficacious therapy decision for each patient in cases of adverse drug reactions mediated by different types of anti-drug antibodies.

The safety of monoclonal antibodies in asthma

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades the knowledge of the mechanisms of the inflammatory processes underlying asthma rapidly evolved, several key mediators (cytokines and receptors) were identified, and the laboratory techniques have allowed us to synthesize monoclonal antibodies highly specific for those target molecules. Nowadays, many biological agents are investigated in asthma (with anti IgE being the only commercially available). The clinical efficacy of some biologics was demonstrated in many cases, however, the safety issue has progressively emerged and has been recognized as a crucial aspect.

AREAS COVERED

We summarized the currently available knowledge on the safety and side effects of biologics in asthma, as derived by reviews, meta analyses and clinical trials. PubMed was searched with the terms anti IL-x [AND] safety [OR] side effects, within the categories "clinical trial", meta-analysis" and "review". Case reports were excluded. The authors collegially selected the relevant entries to be included.

EXPERT OPINION

Overall, the safety of most of the investigated agents seems to be satisfactory, a certain risk of side effects remains present, and is variable for the different molecules. Thus caution must be paid in evaluating the risk to benefit ratio. Specific biomarkers to predict the response to each biological are urgently needed to improve the safety profile.

Proof of concept study with an HER-2 mimotope anticancer vaccine deduced from a novel AAV-mimotope library platform

Background: Anticancer vaccines could represent a valuable complementary strategy to established therapies, especially in settings of early stage and minimal residual disease. HER-2 is an important target for immunotherapy and addressed by the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab. We have previously generated HER-2 mimotope peptides from phage display libraries. The synthesized peptides were coupled to carriers and applied for epitope-specific induction of trastuzumab-like IgG. For simplification and to avoid methodological limitations of synthesis and coupling chemistry, we herewith present a novel and optimized approach by using adeno-associated viruses (AAV) as effective and high-density mimotope-display system, which can be directly used for vaccination. Methods: An AAV capsid display library was constructed by genetically incorporating random peptides in a plasmid encoding the wild-type AAV2 capsid protein. AAV clones, expressing peptides specifically reactive to trastuzumab, were employed to immunize BALB/c mice. Antibody titers against human HER-2 were determined, and the isotype composition and functional properties of these were tested. Finally, prophylactically immunized mice were challenged with human HER-2 transfected mouse D2F2/E2 cells. Results: HER-2 mimotope AAV-vaccines induced antibodies specific to human HER-2. Two clones were selected for immunization of mice, which were subsequently grafted D2F2/E2 cells. Both mimotope AAV clones delayed the growth of tumors significantly, as compared to controls. Conclusion: In this study, a novel mimotope AAV-based platform was created allowing the isolation of mimotopes, which can be directly used as anticancer vaccines. The example of trastuzumab AAV-mimotopes demonstrates that this vaccine strategy could help to establish active immunotherapy for breast-cancer patients.

Anaphylaxis to chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies

Hypersensitivity reactions are increasingly prevalent, although underrecognized and underreported. Platins induce immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitization; taxenes and some monoclonal antibodies can induce reactions at first exposure. Severe hypersensitivity can preclude first-line therapy. Tryptase level at the time of a reaction is a useful diagnostic tool. Skin testing provides a specific diagnosis. Newer tests are promising diagnostic tools to help identify patients at risk before first exposure. Safe management includes rapid drug desensitization. This review provides information regarding the scope of hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions induced by chemotherapy and biological drugs, as well as diagnosis, management, and treatment options.

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.