Medical algorithm: Diagnosis and treatment of hypersensitivity reactions to cancer chemotherapy

Effectiveness of Carboplatin-Prescreening Intradermal Skin Tests to Reduce Unanticipated Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Carboplatin administration poses a risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) that tend to increase with repeated administration and are mostly IgE-mediated.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the usefulness of carboplatin-prescreening intradermal skin tests (IDTs).

METHODS

Carboplatin-prescreening IDTs were routinely conducted in patients with a history of receiving six or more carboplatin cycles beginning in January 2021. The primary objective was to assess disparities in the incidence of unanticipated IHRs to carboplatin administration. We compared patients in the intervention group (from 2021 to 2022) and those who did not undergo prescreening IDTs under the same conditions (preintervention group, from 2019 to 2020). Secondary objectives included evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the prescreening IDT and the incidence of carboplatin IHR according to the number of infusion cycles.

RESULTS

The intervention group was composed of 67 patients who were administered 347 carboplatin cycles whereas the preintervention group included 96 patients who were administered 464 carboplatin cycles. The risk of unanticipated carboplatin IHRs decreased by 83.2% in the intervention group compared with results in the preintervention group (preintervention group, 3.45%, n = 16 vs intervention group, 0.58%, n = 2; P = .005). The prescreening IDT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 77.78% and 99.41%, respectively. The risk of newly developed IHRs based on the number of carboplatin cycles was less than 1% (cycles 1-5), 2.11% (cycle 6), 3.90% (cycles 7-12), 2.90% (cycles 13-18), and 0.74% (cycles 19 and greater), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating carboplatin-prescreening IDTs from the seventh cycle on significantly reduced the risk of unanticipated IHRs.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

A Three-Step Taxane Titration Protocol Decreases Hypersensitivity Reactions During First and Second Exposures

INTRODUCTION

Patients receiving taxanes are at risk for developing hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) primarily during first and second lifetime exposures. Immediate HSRs require emergency care and can interfere with the continuation of preferred treatment. Although different approaches to slow titration have been used successfully for desensitization after HSR occurrence, there are no standardized recommendations for taxane titration to prevent HSRs.

PURPOSE

To determine if a gradual, three-step infusion rate titration decreases the rate and severity of immediate HSRs during first and second lifetime exposures to paclitaxel and docetaxel.

METHODS

We used a prospective, interventional design with historical comparisons to evaluate a sample of 222 first and second lifetime exposure paclitaxel and docetaxel infusions. The intervention was a three-step infusion rate titration provided at the initiation of first and second lifetime exposures. Ninety-nine titrated infusions were compared with 123 historical records of nontitrated infusions.

RESULTS

Compared with the nontitrated group (n = 123), the titrated group (n = 99) had significantly less HSRs (19% v 7%; P = .017). No significant difference in HSR severity was found between groups (P = 1.00). However, four nontitrated patients received epinephrine, and one required transfer to the emergency department (ED) because of reaction severity. In contrast, no titrated patients received epinephrine or required transfer to the ED. In the nontitrated group, seven patients did not complete their infusions versus one patient in the titrated group.

CONCLUSION

A standardized, three-step infusion rate titration prevented HSR occurrence. Significant issues affecting practice feasibility and sustainability were addressed.

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).

Drug allergy desensitization is not a unique recipe

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug desensitization is the only therapeutic option for patients with drug allergies who need to receive the drugs they are allergic to, and it is especially critical in patients with an urgent need for chemotherapy, biologics, or antibiotics, where equally effective alternatives might not be available. However, drug desensitization is not a cookbook where anyone with no experience or specific training can find a general recipe. This review article will approach the singularities that make personalized and highly specialized care essential in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Drug desensitization needs to be personalized for each individual patient bearing in mind countless factors. Recent articles have tried to define the optimal resources and the most important factors to account for in personalization. However, drug desensitization is only a tool within the wider management pathway, and we will discuss recent findings in allergy delabelling in chemotherapy, biologics, and antibiotics.

SUMMARY

Risk-assessment, delabelling, and desensitization protocols, as a part of wider management pathways, can be adapted locally along with comprehensive and multifactorial risk-management strategies. These high-complexity and high-risk procedures, such as drug desensitization, need to be managed by expert allergists who can provide personalization, innovation, continuous improvement, research, and teaching in expert centres.

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy: an EAACI Position Paper

Chemotherapeutic drugs have been widely used in the treatment of cancer disease for about 70 years. The development of new treatments has not hindered their use, and oncologists still prescribe them routinely, alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents. However, all chemotherapeutic agents can induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), with different incidences depending on the culprit drug. These reactions are the third leading cause of fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis in the United States. In Europe, deaths related to chemotherapy have also been reported. In particular, most reactions are caused by platinum compounds, taxanes, epipodophyllotoxins and asparaginase. Despite their prevalence and relevance, the ideal pathways for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these reactions are still unclear, and practice remains considerably heterogeneous with vast differences from center to center. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the allergological work-up in this field of drug hypersensitivity reactions. This position paper aims to provide consensus on the investigation of HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs and give practical recommendations for clinicians that treat these patients, such as oncologists, allergologists and internists. Key sections cover risk factors, pathogenesis, symptoms, the role of skin tests, in vitro tests, indications and contraindications of drug provocation tests and desensitization of neoplastic patients with allergic reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs. Statements, recommendations and unmet needs were discussed and proposed at the end of each section.

Rapid drug desensitization with platin-based chemotherapy: Analysis of risk factors for breakthrough reactions

Background

All platin-based chemotherapeutics can cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). With rapid drug desensitization (RDD), few patients experience breakthrough reactions (BTR) during desensitization. However, data about risk factors for BTRs during RDD in patients with HSRs to platins are limited. We first aimed to describe characteristics of our platin-reactive population and to validate the Brigham and Women's Hospital's (BWH's) RDD protocol in our population along with their outcomes with RDD. Our second aim was to identify the risk factors for BTRs.

Method

This was a retrospective chart review (2013–2020) of patients with symptoms of immediate HSRs to platins. Initial HSRs were classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on their severity. Skin prick tests (SPT)/intradermal tests (IDT) were performed with implicated platins. A 12-step protocol was used during RDD.

Results

The study comprised 65 women and seven men (mean age 57.78 ± 8.73 years). Initial HSRs to carboplatin, cisplatin, and oxaliplatin occurred in 38, 13, and 21 patients, respectively. All patients reacted at the fifth (median) recurrent infusions (min:1, max:20). The median values for carboplatin, cisplatin, and oxaliplatin were 6 (1–20), 3 (1–15), and 3 (1–11), respectively. Most initial HSRs were grade 2 (n = 40, 55.6%) and 3 (n = 27, 37.5%); only 6.9% (n = 5) were grade 1. Patients with grade 1, 2, and 3 initial HSRs had positive platin skin test results at rates of 80%, 74%, and 88%, respectively.

A total of 232 RDDs were performed in 72 patients and 98.7% of these desensitizations were completed. BTRs occurred in 56 (24.1%) (grade 1 n = 14, 25%; grade 2 n = 32, 57%; grade 3 n = 10, 18%) of these desensitizations. Breakthrough reactions were more severe in patients with positive SPTs or 1:100 or 1:10 dilutions of IDT (p = 0.014). BTR was not observed during RDD in any of the patients with positive 1:1 dilutions of IDT. Positivity on prick or 1:100 or 1:10 IDT increased the risk of BTR 5.058 times. There was no significant association between the risk of BTRs and age, drug cycle, sex, comorbidities, or atopy.

Conclusion

In our experience, 98.7% of 232 RDDs to platins were completed successfully, showing that RDD was safe and effective. Drug skin test positivity is a potential marker for identifying high-risk patients who will have BTRs during RDDs to platins.