Reações infusionais imediatas a agentes imunobiológicos endovenosos no tratamento de doenças autoimunes: experiência de 2.126 procedimentos em um centro de infusão não oncológico

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.

Pediatric rheumatology infusion center: report on therapeutic protocols and infusions given over 4 Years with focus on adverse events over 1 Year

BACKGROUND

Children with chronic rheumatic disease often require intravenous (IV) therapy. Our center has instituted standardized protocols for use of IV medications in rheumatology patients. Herein, we introduce the therapeutic protocols and report on their short-term safety.

METHODS

This was an institutional review board (IRB) approved retrospective chart review of all patients who had received IV infusions between the years 2012 and 2015 at a single center, prescribed by a pediatric rheumatologist. Infusion medications included abatacept, belimumab, cyclophosphamide, immune globulin, infliximab, methylprednisolone, N-acetylcysteine, pamidronate disodium, rituximab, and tocilizumab. For calendar year 2015, all adverse infusions reactions were recorded along with treatment strategies used to manage them, and outcomes. Rates of adverse events were calculated per infusion medication.

RESULTS

During calendar years 2012-2015, 7585 IV infusions were administered to 398 unique patients. In the year 2015, 2187 infusions were administered to 224 patients, with 34 patients experiencing 41 infusion reactions (1.9% of all infusions). Rituximab had the highest rate of adverse drug reactions with 10 patients experiencing reactions during 106 infusions (9.4%). None of the reactions were life-threatening, and only 6 resulted in discontinuation of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In a recent 4-year span, the UAB Pediatric Rheumatology Infusion Center has given thousands of IV infusions with minimal adverse reactions over a one-year reporting period. The combination of standard infusion protocols, experience of and communication between physicians and nurses who staff the center, and safety of the medications themselves, allows for safe IV administration of a variety of therapies for pediatric rheumatology patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable; this was a retrospective study.

Infliximab-Related Infusion Reactions: Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Administration of infliximab is associated with a well-recognised risk of infusion reactions. Lack of a mechanism-based rationale for their prevention, and absence of adequate and well-controlled studies, has led to the use of diverse empirical administration protocols. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the evidence behind the strategies for preventing infusion reactions to infliximab, and for controlling the reactions once they occur.

METHODS

We conducted extensive search of electronic databases of MEDLINE [PubMed] for reports that communicate various aspects of infusion reactions to infliximab in IBD patients.

RESULTS

We examined full texts of 105 potentially eligible articles. No randomised controlled trials that pre-defined infusion reaction as a primary outcome were found. Three RCTs evaluated infusion reactions as a secondary outcome; another four RCTs included infusion reactions in the safety evaluation analysis; and 62 additional studies focused on various aspects of mechanism/s, risk, primary and secondary preventive measures, and management algorithms. Seven studies were added by a manual search of reference lists of the relevant articles. A total of 76 original studies were included in quantitative analysis of the existing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still paucity of systematic and controlled data on the risk, prevention, and management of infusion reactions to infliximab. We present working algorithms based on systematic and extensive review of the available data. More randomised controlled trials are needed in order to investigate the efficacy of the proposed preventive and management algorithms.