Prevention and management of antineoplastic-induced hypersensitivity reactions

Omission of dexamethasone in paclitaxel premedication regimens: protocol of the multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority DEXASTOP trial

INTRODUCTION

Standard premedication for paclitaxel-based chemotherapy includes dexamethasone and an histamine 1-antagonist to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the pharmacological rationale for dexamethasone is limited, and its use is associated with adverse effects such as hyperglycaemia, insomnia and immunodeficiency, negatively impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). No clear link has been established between dexamethasone dose, administration route and HSR incidence. Previous studies suggest that discontinuing dexamethasone beyond the second administration does not increase HSR risk. Despite this, dexamethasone remains standard practice. This trial evaluates whether complete omission of dexamethasone as paclitaxel premedication is non-inferior to the standard regimen in preventing clinically relevant HSRs (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade≥3).

METHODS

The DEXASTOP trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority study conducted in four hospitals in the Netherlands. 500 adult patients receiving paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for any solid tumour indication will be randomised 1:1 to receive either standard premedication with dexamethasone or an experimental regimen without dexamethasone for up to five paclitaxel administrations. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinically relevant HSRs (CTCAE grade≥3). Secondary endpoints include the incidence and severity of all-grade HSRs, the number of paclitaxel administrations before the first HSR, dexamethasone-related adverse events, HRQoL and cost-effectiveness from a healthcare and societal perspective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Erasmus Medical Centre Ethics Committee (reference MEC-2024-0030, protocol version 3, May 2024). Study findings will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international meetings. Results will be shared with patients, healthcare professionals and the public. Positive outcomes will be implemented in clinical practice, and trial data will be submitted to the EU Clinical Trials Information System for public access.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06118710.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Plus a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies Evaluating a Conventional Prophylactic Regimen of Oral Dexamethasone vs Short-Course Intravenous Dexamethasone in Preventing Paclitaxel-Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions in Patients With Gynecologic Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are often encountered in patients receiving paclitaxel infusions. The conventional method, comprising dexamethasone 20 mg (Dex20) taken 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel plus histamine (H)1 and H2-antagonists administered 30 minutes before paclitaxel, is an effective but cumbersome method in reducing HSRs in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the effectiveness of a simplified premedication method (short-course) comprising Dex20 and H1 and H2 antagonists administered 30 minutes before paclitaxel vs the conventional method in preventing HSRs.

METHODS

The effectiveness of the short-course vs the conventional method was investigated via a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 4, 2024. Primary outcomes were any-grade and grade ≥3 HSRs. Differences in effectiveness were presented as risk difference (RD) using the Mantel-Haenszel estimation and expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Newcastle-Ottawa Score determined the quality of RCTs and observational studies.

RESULTS

Three RCTs and 2 observational studies totaling 905 patients were analyzed. The short-course method showed a significantly higher incidence of any-grade HSRs than the conventional method (RD = 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3% to 12.8%, P = 0.04). Although in favor of the conventional method, there was no significant difference in grade ≥3 HSRs (RD = 2%, 95% CI = -0.4% to 4.8%, P = 0.09). Subgroup analyses of RCTs showed no significant differences in any-grade HSRs (RD = 6%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 12.8%, P = 0.39) or grade ≥3 HSRs (RD = 1%, 95% CI = -1.1% to 2.4%, P = 0.48).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The conventional method is favored over the short-course in preventing paclitaxel-associated HSRs. The short-course method is a plausible alternative for patients unable to comply with the conventional method's requirements. Included studies were either observational studies prone to bias and inconclusive inferences or RCTs, which may not be statistically powerful enough to produce reliable results. Larger sample size prospective studies are needed to authenticate findings.

Evaluating the Effect of Oral Famotidine in Preventing Hypersensitivity Reactions in Individuals Receiving Platinum-Based Agents or Taxanes

INTRODUCTION

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), an unpredictable and sometimes harmful reaction, may hamper the effectiveness of chemotherapy and lead to the need for drug switching. The recall of ranitidine from the drug market due to the N-nitrosodimethylamine production necessitates the identification of a proper alternative for the prevention of HSRs. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oral famotidine in the prevention of HSRs in patients who received chemotherapy agents, particularly platinum-based and taxanes.

METHODS

A total of 426 patients who were treated with platinum-based agents or taxanes as part of their regimen were divided into two groups. The famotidine group, including 213 patients, received the standard premedication along with an oral dose of 40 mg famotidine the night before and 1 h prior to the chemotherapy session. The control group, also including 213 patients, received only the standard premedication without famotidine.

RESULTS

Based on the results of this study, six patients in the control group experienced HSRs with a range of varying severities. No HSRs were observed by any of the patients in the famotidine group (p-value = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Administration of oral famotidine is beneficial in preventing chemotherapy-induced HSRs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

It was also registered with the Iran Clinical Trial Centre under code IRCT20160310026998N13.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Model for Paclitaxel Hypersensitivity Reaction on the Basis of Real-World Data: Pac-HSR Score

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel is effective chemotherapy against various cancers but can cause hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). This study aimed to identify predictors associated with paclitaxel HSR and develop a clinical prediction model to guide clinical decisions.

METHODS

Data were collected from the medical records database of Rajavithi Hospital. Patients with cancer treated with paclitaxel from 2015 to 2022 were included, and a multivariable logistic regression analysis identified predictors associated with paclitaxel HSR. The scoring system was transformed and calibrated on the basis of diagnostic parameters. Discrimination and calibration performances were assessed. Internal validation was conducted using bootstrap resampling with 1,000 replications.

RESULTS

This study involved 3,708 patients with cancer, with an incidence of paclitaxel HSR of 10.11%. An 11-predictor-based Pac-HSR scoring system was developed, involving the following factors: younger age; poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; previous history of paclitaxel HSR; medication allergy history; chronic obstructive airway disease; lung and cervical cancers; high actual dose of paclitaxel; no diphenhydramine premedication; low hemoglobin level; high WBC count; and high absolute lymphocyte count. The C-statistics was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.76), indicating acceptable discrimination. The P value of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was 0.751. The ratio of observed and expected values was 1.00, indicating good calibration. At a cutoff point of 8, specificity was 75.28% and sensitivity was 57.07%. Internal validation indicated good performance with minimal bias, and decision curve analysis demonstrated improved prediction with the use of this scoring system in clinical decision making.

CONCLUSION

This study developed the 11-predictor-based Pac-HSR scoring system for predicting paclitaxel HSR in patients with cancer. High-risk patients identified by this score should be prioritized for close monitoring and early treatment prophylaxis.

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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of an outpatient 12-step desensitization protocol for antineoplastic agents

OBJECTIVE

Antineoplastic agents can cause hypersensitivity reactions that may preclude further treatment, possibly compromising patient outcome if the tumor remains sensitive to such agent. Although desensitization protocols can be used to re-introduce agents after the development of a hypersensitivity reaction, these protocols vary across institutions. Our study evaluated the safety and efficacy of our desensitization protocol.

METHODS

All patients who underwent desensitization to platinum, taxane, liposomal doxorubicin, or trastuzumab between November 2016 and May 2021 after a prior hypersensitivity reaction to the specific agent were included in a retrospective review. The 12-step, outpatient desensitization protocol included pretreatment with a leukotriene receptor antagonist, antihistamines, and corticosteroids, as well as extended infusion times. Successful desensitization was defined as the completion of ≥3 cycles without discontinuation of the agent due to a hypersensitivity reaction.

RESULTS

A total of 186 eligible patients were included. Median age was 59.5 years (range 26-87). 155 (83%) patients were treated with platinum. 55 (30%) patients were treated for colorectal cancer and 52 (28%) for ovarian cancer. 104 (56%) patients completed ≥3 cycles of therapy during desensitization. The median infusion time was 380 min (range 325-360 min). The median number of desensitization cycles was 3, with 694 cycles completed among all patients. A total of 79 (42%) patients had a breakthrough hypersensitivity reaction during desensitization, 4 of whom required epinephrine, and 84 (45%) patients discontinued the agent undergoing desensitization due to progression of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our outpatient 12-step, institutional desensitization protocol for antineoplastic therapy proved safe and efficacious, with 56% of patients successfully completing ≥3 cycles and not requiring an inpatient admission.

Premedication Protocols to Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy: a Literature Review

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy may prevent patients from receiving the most effective therapy. This review was undertaken to identify evidence-based preventive premedication strategies that reduce the likelihood of HSR in the first instance and improve the safety of subsequent infusions in patients who have demonstrated HSR to a certain class of chemotherapy. PubMed was searched until October 2021 using the key words: "hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs," "hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents," "taxanes hypersensitivity," "platinum compound hypersensitivity," "premedication," "dexamethasone," "prednisone," "hydrocortisone," "antihistamine," "diphenhydramine," "cetirizine," "famotidine," "meperidine," "aspirin," "ibuprofen," and "montelukast." The search was restricted to articles published in English. A total of 73 abstracts were selected for inclusion in the review. Most premedication regimens have been derived empirically rather than determined through randomized trials. Based on the available evidence, we provide an update on likely HSR mechanisms and a practical guide for classifying systemic HSR. The evidence indicates that a combination of prevention strategies using newer antihistamines, H2 antagonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids and other interventions used judiciously reduces the occurrence and severity of HSR and improves safety.

Impact of Glucocorticoid Use in Oncology in the Immunotherapy Era

Thanks to their anti-inflammatory, anti-oedema, and anti-allergy properties, glucocorticoids are among the most widely prescribed drugs in patients with cancer. The indications for glucocorticoid use are very wide and varied in the context of cancer and include the symptomatic management of cancer-related symptoms (compression, pain, oedema, altered general state) but also prevention or treatment of common side effects of anti-cancer therapies (nausea, allergies, etc.) or immune-related adverse events (irAE). In this review, we first give an overview of the different clinical situations where glucocorticoids are used in oncology. Next, we describe the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of these molecules on immune response, in particular anti-tumour response, and we summarize available data evaluating how these effects may interfere with the efficacy of immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors.

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.

Comparative Assessment of Platinum Salts and Taxane Group Hypersensitivity Reactions, The Role of Skin Tests in Diagnosis?

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the role of skin tests (ST) in the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) with platinum salts (PS) and taxane (TX) groups drugs and their reliability in patient management.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Patients' data who developed immediate HSR with PS and TX were recorded and ST was performed. The gradual challenge was applied to all patients with ST negative and grade 1-2 with the suspect drug.

RESULTS

In total, the data of 104 patients (74 with PS, 30 with TX) who developed HSR against PS and TX were shared. The gradual challenge was applied to 72 ST negative and grade 1-2 patients (46 PS group, 26 TX group). The gradual challenge was negative in 39 patients in the PS group and 23 patients in the Tx group. The negative predictive value (NPV) for PS was 83% and NPV for TX was 88%. We found significantly higher skin test positivity in patients with PS and TX and grade 3 HSR (p = 0.007, p = 0.001). A significant correlation was found between skin test positivity and early onset of symptoms (p = 0.001 for PS, p = 0.015 for TX). In terms of symptoms witnessed in HSR, we observed the itching, urticaria, hypotension, syncope, and abdominal pain symptoms significantly more in the group with a positive skin test (p < 0.024, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.002, and p < 0.025, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found very high NPV values for PS and TX. We found that the gradual challenge applied to patients with negative skin tests is reliable if Grade 3 HSR is not observed and with this approach, unnecessary desensitization processes and/or drug alterations can be avoided.

Preparations of exploration of immediate hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents: An oncology pharmacy perspective

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are being exposed to antineoplastic drugs more frequently and for longer periods, resulting in a higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmaceutical time and direct cost of drug allergy explorations following immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents.

METHODS

A micro-costing method was used to collect data on consumption of human and material resources for allergy exploration preparations. The monetisation was carried out on the basis of prices and hourly wage costs applied in 2018. The number and type of allergy explorations prepared by the pharmacy as well as nature of antineoplastic drugs tested, and the number of culprit drugs reintroductions were collected.

RESULTS

Almost 1.5 h is required to realise allergy tests for one patient including pharmacist time for prescription analysis and pharmacy technician's time for tests preparation. The mean manufacturing cost of these tests is estimated at €62.87 (€57.82-65.49) per culprit drug for one patient. Programming patients according to culprit drugs tested allows rationalising healthcare provider time and increasing efficiency. From January 2010 to December 2018, 277 patients were tested and 490 allergy explorations were performed, corresponding to more than 5000 preparations. Mostly, the culprit drug could be reintroduced (n = 383, 78.2%) allowing patients to receive the best possible treatment.

CONCLUSION

Management of hypersensitivity reactions is constantly progressing, as it contributes to improving patient care in oncology. This activity is time-consuming for the pharmacy team but allows patients with previous hypersensitivity reaction to continue effective treatment.

Prospective Study Testing a Simplified Paclitaxel Premedication Regimen in Patients with Early Breast Cancer

Background

In early trials, hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel were common, thus prompting the administration of antihistamines and corticosteroids before every paclitaxel dose. We tested the safety of omitting corticosteroids after cycle 2 during the paclitaxel portion of the dose‐dense (DD) doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide (AC)–paclitaxel regimen.

Patients, Materials, and Methods

In this prospective, single‐arm study, patients who completed four cycles of DD‐AC for stage I–III breast cancer received paclitaxel 175 mg/m² every 2 weeks for four cycles. Patients received a standard premedication protocol containing dexamethasone, diphenhydramine, and a histamine H2 blocker prior to the first two paclitaxel cycles. Dexamethasone was omitted in cycles three and four if there were no HSRs in previous cycles. We estimated the rate of grade 3–4 HSRs.

Results

Among 127 patients enrolled, 125 received more than one dose of protocol therapy and are included in the analysis. Fourteen (11.2%; 90% confidence interval, 6.9%–20.0%) patients had any‐grade HSRs, for a total of 22 (4.5%; 3.1%–6.4%) HSRs over 486 paclitaxel cycles. Any‐grade HSRs occurred in 1.6% (0.3%–5.0%), 6.5% (3.3%–11.3%), 7.4% (3.9%–12.5%), and 2.6% (0.7%–6.6%) of patients after paclitaxel cycles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Dexamethasone use was decreased by 92.8% in cycles 3 and 4. Only one patient experienced grade 3 HSR in cycles 3 or 4, for a rate of grade 3/4 HSR 0.4% (0.02%–2.0%) (1/237 paclitaxel infusions). That patient had grade 2 HSR during cycle 2, and the subsequent grade 3 event occurred despite usual dexamethasone premedication. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients not known to have received dexamethasone in cycles 3 and 4 found that any‐grade HSRs occurred in 2.7% (3/111; 0.7%–6.8%) and 0.9% (1/109; 0.05%–4.3%) of patients in cycle 3 and 4, respectively.

Conclusion

Corticosteroid premedication can be safely omitted in cycles 3 and 4 of dose‐dense paclitaxel if HSRs are not observed during cycles 1 and 2.

Implications for Practice

Because of the potential for hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel, corticosteroids are routinely prescribed prior to each dose, on an indefinite basis. This prospective study, including 125 patients treated with 486 paclitaxel cycles, demonstrates that corticosteroids can be safely omitted in future cycles if HSRs did not occur during cycles 1 and 2 of paclitaxel and that this strategy reduces the use of corticosteroids in cycles 3 and 4 by 92.8% relative to current standard of care.

To avoid hypersensitivity reactions, corticosteroids are routinely prescribed before each dose of paclitaxel. This article reports the results of a study that focused on whether corticosteroids could be safely omitted in later cycles of treatment if reactions did not occur during earlier cycles.

Do Steroids Matter? A Retrospective Review of Premedication for Taxane Chemotherapy and Hypersensitivity Reactions

PURPOSE

Despite the widespread use of the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel for a variety of cancers and their well-known association with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), there is still significant variation in the prescribing practices of steroids for premedication. Premedication almost always includes dexamethasone, which can be associated with multiple adverse effects if taken for extended periods of time. This study reviews the pattern of steroid premedication in patients who received paclitaxel or docetaxel at Stanford Cancer Institute between January 2010 and June 2020.

METHODS

We used an electronic query of the electronic medical record followed up with a manual review of patient charts to ask whether we could find a correlation between steroid premedication dosing and the incidence or severity of HSRs with the first taxane dose. Variables considered included steroid dose and route, dose and type of taxane, clinical cancer group, sex, and race.

RESULTS

Five thousand two hundred seventeen patients were identified as having received paclitaxel or docetaxel, and 3,181 met criteria for our analysis. There were 264 (8.3%) HSRs. In adjusted multivariate analysis, we found no correlation of HSR rate or severity among any of the variables evaluated except gynecology oncology clinic patients, who had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.34) of HSRs overall and high-grade HSRs (HR 2.34), and female patients, who had a higher rate of HSRs overall (HR 1.26), but not high-grade HSRs.

CONCLUSION

Neither dexamethasone dose nor route correlated with subsequent HSRs. Given the potential for adverse events from repeated high-dose steroids, our findings suggest that routine use of lower doses, such as a single 10 mg dose of dexamethasone, as premedication for taxanes to prevent HSRs is preferable to the current prescribing guidelines.

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.

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PLD in treating of in patients who experience epithelial ovarian, fallopian tubal, and peritoneal cancer progression within 12 months after the first-line platinum-based therapy.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single-arm and multicenter clinical trial. The ORR was the interim primary objective, and the DCR, AEs and QOL were the secondary objectives. The impact of factors on efficacy outcomes, the change trend of CA125 and the artificial platinum-free interval were exploratory endpoints.

RESULTS

Totally, 115 patients were enrolled in this study and included in the ITT population. Moreover, 101 patients were included in the safety population. The median follow-up time was 4 months (IQR 2-6). In the ITT population, the confirmed ORR was 37.4% (95% CI, 28.4-46.4%), and the DCR was 65.2% (95% CI, 56.4-74.1%). The previous response status to platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline CA125 levels were significantly correlated with the ORR. The ORR was significantly higher in patients with a CA125 decrease after the first cycle than in the patients with a CA125 increase. The most common grade 3 or higher AE was hand-foot syndrome (3 [3.0%] of 101 patients). No statistically significant differences existed between the baseline and the postbaseline questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who experience platinum-resistant and platinum-refractory relapse, the use of PLD may be acceptable because of the associated satisfactory efficacy, low frequency of AEs and high patient QOL. Moreover, a low CA125 level at baseline and a reduction in CA125 after the first cycle are predictive factors for satisfactory efficacy.

Effects of Diluent Volume and Administration Time on the Incidence of Anaphylaxis Following Docetaxel Therapy in Breast Cancer

Hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, are common side effects associated with docetaxel treatment in breast cancer patients. However, preventive measures have not yet been established. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for developing anaphylaxis in 182 female breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel. We found that 6.6% of all patients (n = 12) experienced anaphylaxis. Multivariate analyses indicated that concentration of docetaxel higher than 0.275 mg/m²/mL, docetaxel dose rate higher than 1.15 mg/m²/min, and white blood cell count less than 4290 cells/mL are risk factors for developing docetaxel-related anaphylaxis. In particular, concentrations of docetaxel or doses per administration time were associated with a high odds ratio (11.88 or 11.60) for docetaxel-related anaphylaxis. Moreover, patients receiving doses in 250 mL volume experienced anaphylaxis more frequently than those receiving doses in 500 mL (7.0 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.0236). Additionally, patients receiving treatments over 60 min tended to experience anaphylaxis more frequently than those who were treated over 90 min (6.7 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.0637). The present results indicate that high docetaxel concentrations, high dose rates, and low white blood cell counts are risk factors for developing docetaxel-related anaphylaxis, and administering docetaxel diluted in 500 mL over 90 min may limit docetaxel-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

The incidence of infusion reactions associated with monoclonal antibody drugs targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of patient and study characteristics

Background

Systemic cancer therapies may induce infusion reactions (IRs) or hypersensitivities. Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with anti‐EGFR therapies, including cetuximab and panitumumab, may be subject to these reactions. We conducted a meta‐analysis to estimate the IR incidence in this population and identify variations in this incidence by patient or study characteristics.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify observational studies or clinical trials of mCRC patients treated with anti‐EGFR therapies that reported occurrences of IRs, hypersensitivity, or allergy/anaphylaxis. The objective of the study was to estimate the incidence of IRs. Random effects models were used to meta‐analyze the incidence of IRs overall and stratified by therapy type, study design, geographic location, RAS or KRAS mutation status, grade of reaction severity, and terminology used to describe the reaction.

Results

The pooled estimate for IR incidence was 4.9% (95% confidence interval: 3.6%‐6.5%). Lower‐grade reactions were more common than higher‐grade reactions overall and the incidence of reactions among cetuximab patients was nearly four times that of panitumumab patients (6.1% vs 1.6%).

Conclusions

IRs occur in approximately 5% of mCRC patients treated with anti‐EGFR therapies, and the incidence varies significantly by grade of severity and therapy type. Studies evaluating these outcomes should consider investigating survival outcomes by IR status to determine its prognostic relevance.

Incidence of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Carboplatin or Paclitaxel in Patients With Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer With or Without BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

The association of BRCA mutation status with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to carboplatin has gained interest in recent years, particularly in patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether the presence of BRCA mutations increased the likelihood of HSRs to carboplatin. The incidence of HSRs to paclitaxel and symptom grade based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, were explored as secondary endpoints. A retrospective chart review of patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer at the University of Arizona Cancer Center who underwent treatment with carboplatin-containing regimens and received genetic testing was performed. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the primary outcome. Out of 167 initial patients, 62 with germline test results constituted the evaluable sample. 15 of 62 (24.2%) BRCA-tested patients were treated with carboplatin monotherapy, while 44 of 62 (71.0%) patients were treated with paclitaxel-containing regimens. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 4 of 13 (30.8%) BRCA-mutated patients and 22 of 49 (44.9%) BRCA wild-type patients (p = .5291). Hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel occurred in 1 of 13 (7.7%) BRCA-mutated patients and 26 of 49 (53.1%) BRCA wild-type patients (p = .0039). Overall, there were 11 grade 1 reactions, 14 grade 2 reactions, and 16 grade 3 reactions to carboplatin. All reactions to carboplatin in BRCA-mutated patients were grade 1. All paclitaxel reactions manifested as grade 2. The sample size was the main study limitation. The presence of BRCA mutations was not statistically significantly associated with a higher incidence of HSRs to carboplatin, but was statistically significant with regards to paclitaxel.

Brentuximab Vedotin: A Nursing Perspective on Best Practices and Management of Associated Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an antibody-drug conjugate that targets CD30-expressing cells.

OBJECTIVES

This article assesses the occurrence and management of the most frequent and clinically relevant BV-associated adverse events (AEs), with a focus on Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma trials, and shares practical tips that may help decrease occurrence and severity.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed literature was surveyed to collect safety data from sponsored clinical trials of BV and to compile associated management guidelines.

FINDINGS

Peripheral neuropathy was the most common BV-associated AE across clinical trials. Other clinically relevant AEs included neutropenia, infection, and infusion-related reactions. Awareness of and preparedness for these common BV-associated AEs and other less common but significant AEs will help nurse clinicians and patients maximize the clinical benefit for patients receiving BV.

A cohort study of hypersensitivity reaction in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with carboplatin

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and risk factors of hypersensitivity reaction of in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with platinum are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the clinical characteristics and management of hypersensitivity reaction of carboplatin in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and to determine its effects on prognoses.

METHODS

Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2013 and January 2016 were identified. Data were retrospectively collected by reviewing the medical records of a single tertiary teaching hospital. Patients' demographic characteristics, symptoms, and treatment were described and compared between the hypersensitivity reaction and non-hypersensitivity reaction groups. The effects of hypersensitivity reaction on survival outcomes were analyzed in univariate and multivariate models.

RESULTS

A total of 860 patients were identified, including 76 (8.8%) patients with 86 incidents of hypersensitivity reaction in 5807 courses of chemotherapy. Of all patients with a first attack of hypersensitivity reaction, 79% were classified as grade 1-2. The most common symptoms were shortness of breath and tightness in the chest (70/76 cases, 92.1%). Subsequent management included chemotherapy suspension, switching to a non-platinum regimen, desensitization therapy, separated infusion of drugs, adherence to the original therapy, and switching to cisplatin. However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with recurring hypersensitivity reaction among patients treated with different management methods (p=0.915). Disease relapse and chemotherapy courses ≥6 for primary epithelial ovarian cancer or ≥7 for recurrent disease were risk factors for platinum-based hypersensitivity reaction. There were no significant differences in median progression-free survival between the hypersensitivity reaction group and the non-hypersensitivity reaction group (p=0.144).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with a carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reaction had mild symptoms and favorable outcomes, and their progression-free survival was not influenced. Disease relapse and the number of courses of chemotherapy were risk factors for a hypersensitivity reaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03291262.

Adverse drug reactions of anticancer drugs derived from natural sources

Cancer, a life threatening disease adversely affects huge population worldwide. Naturally derived drug discovery has emerged as a potential pathway in search of anticancers. Natural products-based drugs are generally considered safe, compared to their synthetic counterparts. A systematic review on adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) of the anticancer natural products has not been performed till date. We reviewed anticancer drugs, derived from plants, microbes and marine sources with their mechanistic action and reported ADRs. PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus were searched through Boolean information retrieval method using keywords "natural products", "cancer", "herbal", "marine drugs" and "adverse drug reaction". We documented ADRs of natural products based anticancer agents, mechanisms of action and chemical structures. It was observed that majority of the natural products based anticancer drugs possess ample adverse effects, dominantly hematological toxicities, alopecia, neurotoxicity and cardiotoxicity. These findings deviate from the preconceived notion about safer nature of herbal drugs. We also came across some anti-cancer natural products with less/no reported adverse events like Cabazitaxel and Arglabin. Comprehensive pharmacovigilance studies are needed to report ADRs and thereby predicting safety of anti-cancer drugs, either originated from natural sources or chemically synthesized.

Retrospective evaluation of a rechallenge protocol in patients experiencing hypersensitivity reactions with prior chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital

When encountering a hypersensitivity reaction to chemotherapy, a dilemma arises whether to continue the current regimen. In our institution, a standardized protocol has been developed. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of our rechallenge protocol in rechallenging patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions of grades 1 to 2 to paclitaxel, docetaxel, carboplatin and oxaliplatin. The protocol consisted of intensification of premedication and lengthening of infusion time. A retrospective review of electronic medical records was conducted. Patients who attempted rechallenge with paclitaxel, docetaxel, carboplatin and oxaliplatin under the protocol during the time period from August 2014 to December 2015 were included. Forty-six rechallenge cases were included (12 paclitaxel, 15 docetaxel, 5 carboplatin and 15 oxaliplatin cases). The first rechallenge cycle was completed successfully in 43/46 patients (93.5%) and 42/46 patients (91.3%) were hypersensitivity reaction-free throughout the treatment course under the rechallenge protocol. A total of 133/137 cycles (97.1%) were completed successfully under the protocol. Among patients who continued chemotherapy until disease progression or treatment completion, a median of three additional cycles (range: 1 to 9 cycles) were administered under the protocol. The four cases of recurrent hypersensitivity reactions responded well to infusion interruption and symptomatic treatment and all four patients were discharged uneventfully. Further rechallenge was not performed. Our study demonstrated that a combined strategy of intensification of premedication and lengthening of infusion duration is effective and probably safe in rechallenging patients with previous grades 1 to 2 hypersensitivity reaction to paclitaxel, docetaxel, carboplatin and oxaliplatin.

From the Children's Oncology Group: Evidence-Based Recommendations for PEG-Asparaginase Nurse Monitoring, Hypersensitivity Reaction Management, and Patient/Family Education

PEG-aspariginase is a backbone chemotherapy agent in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia and in some non-Hodgkin lymphoma therapies. Nurses lack standardized guidelines for monitoring patients receiving PEG-asparaginase and for educating patients/families about hypersensitivity reaction risks. An electronic search of 6 databases using publication years 2000-2015 and multiple professional organizations and clinical resources was conducted. Evidence sources were reviewed for topic applicability. Each of the final 23 sources was appraised by 2 team members. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assign a quality and strength rating for each recommendation. Multiple recommendations were developed: 4 relating to nurse monitoring of patients during and after drug administration, 8 guiding hypersensitivity reaction management, and 4 concerning patient/family educational content. These strong recommendations were based on moderate, low, or very-low-quality evidence. Several recommendations relied on generalized drug hypersensitivity guidelines. Additional research is needed to safely guide PEG-asparaginase monitoring, hypersensitivity reaction management, and patient/family education. Nurses administering PEG-asparaginase play a critical role in the early identification and management of hypersensitivity reactions.

Incidence of infusion reactions to anti-neoplastic agents in early phase clinical trials: The MD Anderson Cancer Center experience

Infusion reactions (IRs) to anti-neoplastic agents require prompt recognition and immediate treatment to avert significant complications. We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of consecutive patients who received anti-neoplastic therapy in the outpatient treatment center of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics from January 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013. Of the 597 patients who received treatment, 9 (1.5 %) had IRs (all ≤ grade 2). The most common IRs observed on first occurrence were chills (n = 5), itching, rash, and facial flushing (n = 3 each). There were no IR-related deaths. All the IRs were reversible with appropriate symptomatic treatment and the therapy was completed after temporary cessation of infusion in 7 of the 9 patients. The infusion was stopped in 2 patients due to symptoms suggestive of IgE-mediated allergic reaction and cytokine storm. Five of the 8 patients who were re-challenged with the same therapy developed a similar reaction. However, the infusion was completed in 4 of the 5 patients after administration of intravenous diphenhydramine and/or hydrocortisone, or slowing the rate of infusion. And, subsequent cycles with the same agents were uneventful. IRs to anti-neoplastic agents are rare. Though the clinical presentations are overlapping, most IRs are not IgE-mediated allergic reactions. Appropriate premedication and slow rate of infusion facilitates uneventful administration of the anti-neoplastic agents in subsequent cycles. Further study in a larger cohort of patients to identify biomarkers of hypersensitivity is warranted.

Dexamethasone prophylaxis for paclitaxel hypersensitivity

Objective. To evaluate single-dose intravenous (IV) dexamethasone as a viable alternative to the standard two-dose oral protocol and as a method for the administration of corticosteroid prophylaxis in the prevention of paclitaxel-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSR).

Method. A retrospective analysis of pharmacy dispensing and medical records was undertaken to ascertain those patients who had received IV corticosteroid prophylaxis, details of therapy and incidence of HSR. A comprehensive literature review was also undertaken to determine the incidence of HSR to paclitaxel in patients receiving a similar IV dexamethasone premedication protocol.

Results. Thirty-five patients received prophylactic dexamethasone 20 mg IV, given 30 minutes before paclitaxel infusion. Patients also received promethazine 25 mg IV and ranitidine 50 mg IV. No HSR were reported. A number of studies were identified in which IV corticosteroid prophylaxis was used, including retrospective analyses, a prospective report, clinical studies involving paclitaxel employing IV corticosteroids as part of the premedication regimen, and comparative retrospective studies. Only one study described IV corticosteroid therapy adversely.

Conclusions. For the safe administration of paclitaxel, premedication with corticosteroids, and H1 and H2 receptor antagonists, is essential. The administration of IV dexamethasone 20 mg, given 30 minutes before paclitaxel infusion, is an appealing and practical alternative to the standard oral prophylactic regimen and offers benefits to patients in terms of compliance, convenience, ease of administration and flexibility.

Paclitaxel pre-medication: A comparison of two steroid pre-medication protocols

Purpose To evaluate and compare the rate of hypersensitivity reactions between two low-dose steroid pre-medication regimens for paclitaxel-based treatments. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective, descriptive study, comparing the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in two different dexamethasone pre-medication regimens that took place between July 2013 to December 2014. Patients who were paclitaxel-naïve with a diagnosis of breast or gynecological cancers were included. Patients in the early termination protocol were pre-medicated with a standard pre-medication regimen and if tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction occurrence, all pre-medications were discontinued after the first two infusions. Patients in the low-dose steroid continuation protocol were pre-medicated with lower doses of dexamethasone, and if the infusion was tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction, dexamethasone doses were further reduced after the first two infusions. Results A total of 120 patients were included for data analysis. The hypersensitivity reaction rate in the early termination protocol group was 7% (4 out of 60 patients). The hypersensitivity reaction rate in the low-dose continuation protocol group was 5% (3 out of 60 patients). All hypersensitivity reactions occurred during the first infusion, with no hypersensitivity reactions occurring once the dexamethasone pre-medications were discontinued or dose-reduced. All of the patients who experienced a hypersensitivity reaction were successfully re-challenged with paclitaxel and were able to continue their therapy uninterrupted. Conclusion Discontinuing dexamethasone pre-medication altogether after two uneventful infusions or decreasing the dose of dexamethasone paclitaxel pre-medication are both safe alternatives to high-dose steroid pre-medications recommended in product labeling.

Immunology of infusion reactions in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Infusion reactions are potentially dose-limiting adverse events associated with intravenous administration of several common agents used to treat patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. True clinical hypersensitivity reactions are antibody-mediated and can occur only after repeated exposure to an antigen. Conversely, anaphylactoid infusion reactions are nonantibody-mediated and often occur on the initial exposure to a drug. Cytokine-release syndrome comprises a subset of nonantibody-mediated infusion reactions associated with the use of monoclonal antibodies and immune therapies. Clinical symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and nonantibody-mediated infusion reactions heavily overlap and can be difficult to distinguish in practice. Regardless of the underlying mechanism, any infusion reaction can negatively affect treatment efficacy and patient safety. These events require prompt response, and potentially, modification of subsequent therapy.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Daratumumab, a Novel CD38 Monoclonal Antibody, in Myeloma

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a recent addition to multiple myeloma (MM) therapies and a number of mAbs directed at myeloma cell surface molecules are in development. Daratumumab is a CD38 mAb that has demonstrated substantial activity and good tolerability in four phase I, phase I/II and phase II studies as monotherapy, as well as in combination with current standard treatments in MM. The positive results obtained in the relapsed/refractory setting in patients with advanced-stage disease and in a small number of patients with newly diagnosed disease provide the rationale for the investigation of the agent in a number of ongoing phase III trials. mAbs are generally better tolerated than conventional chemotherapy; however, their use requires other special considerations. Such factors include those common to all mAbs, namely infusion-related reactions, but also factors that are observed with mAbs used in myeloma, such as interference with response assessment, or factors that are related to CD38 mAbs such as daratumumab, for instance blood typing interference. Our review provides an overview of the results from the daratumumab clinical trials conducted to date, as well as practical management considerations for the use of daratumumab based on our experience with the agent.

Adverse events to nontargeted and targeted chemotherapeutic agents: emphasis on hypersensitivity responses

Use of cytotoxic agents is associated with potential hypersensitivity reactions which are common with platinum compounds, L-asparaginase, taxanes, procarbazine and epipodophyllotoxins. Mechanisms underlying the reactions may involve IgE, non-allergic or a number of pathogenetically unclear events. Targeted therapies produce less collateral damage but demonstrate their own unique reactions. Cytopenias occur less often and mucocutaneous reactions to EGFR inhibitors, including papulopustular rash, are common. Fifteen currently approved mAbs provoke all four types of hypersensitivities including immune cytopenias, vasculitis, serum sickness and pulmonary events. Some successful desensitization protocols have been developed. Prevention of hypersensitivity reactions is based on skin testing, premedication and/or desensitization.

Doxorubicin and Dacarbazine (AD) Regimen for Soft Tissue Sarcomas

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases. Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr, President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc., 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@comcast.net; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net.

Evaluation and management of hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy agents

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy drugs pose significant difficulties in management, especially when no suitable alternative is available or acceptable and delay in continuation of treatment may be life-threatening. Such reactions may be IgE- or non-IgE-mediated and have varied manifestations. Timely recognition and treatment of life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions are essential. Identification of patients at high risk of developing hypersensitivity reactions allows risk stratification to guide clinical decision-making. Skin testing for carboplatin hypersensitivity has good predictive value but is not yet established for oxaliplatin and taxane hypersensitivity. Rapid desensitisation may be considered if no suitable alternative drug is available. Available protocols have shown good safety and efficacy but must be performed in an appropriate setting with adequate monitoring. There are many avenues for research into the utility of skin testing for other chemotherapy agents as well as in vitro tests.

Stopping paclitaxel premedication after two doses in patients not experiencing a previous infusion hypersensitivity reaction

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel-based chemotherapy continues to be an integral component of breast cancer treatment. Prolonged use of paclitaxel may result in repeated doses of premedications that can have unwanted side effects. Infusion hypersensitivity reactions occurring beyond the second dose of paclitaxel are infrequent and not well characterized. We previously published the results of a small, prospective pilot trial demonstrating the safety and feasibility of discontinuing premedications in patients who received the first two doses of paclitaxel-based chemotherapy without experiencing an infusion hypersensitivity reaction. In this study, we aimed to retrospectively characterize the incidence of rescue medication using this abbreviated premedication regimen in our institution following the publication of the pilot study.

METHODS

Patients with stages I-IV breast cancer who received paclitaxel from January 2011 through June 2013 were screened for eligibility. Patients who did not experience an infusion hypersensitivity reaction with their first or second dose of paclitaxel and discontinued paclitaxel premedication for subsequent doses were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was to estimate the incidence of rescue medication use for the treatment of paclitaxel infusion hypersensitivity during doses three to six of paclitaxel in the study population.

RESULTS

In total, 449 patients received paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer during the interval time period. After receiving the first two doses of paclitaxel-based chemotherapy without experiencing an infusion hypersensitivity reaction, 234 breast cancer patients had their premedications discontinued for all remaining paclitaxel doses. These patients tolerated future paclitaxel doses without severe or life-threatening complications related to infusion hypersensitivity. The majority of patients did not have any symptoms of an infusion reaction, with only two of these patients requiring rescue medication to treat an infusion hypersensitivity reaction with subsequent paclitaxel doses (0.85; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.10-3.05 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation of paclitaxel premedications in breast cancer patients who have not experienced an infusion hypersensitivity reaction with the first two doses of paclitaxel is not associated with increased rate of rescue medication use for infusion hypersensitivity.

Irinotecan and Carboplatin (IC) Regimen for Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases. Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr, President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc., 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@comcast.net; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net.

Hypersensitivity reactions associated with oxaliplatin and their clinical management

INTRODUCTION

Oxaliplatin , has become an integral part of the medical treatment of colorectal cancer and other malignancies. Increased use of the drug during the last decade, has led to increased occurrence of oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), posing a significant challenge for clinicians. This article aims to review the existing literature regarding the incidence, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, risk factors and current management of oxaliplatin-induced HSRs.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review of the English literature published in PubMed and Medline was undertaken. The clinical manifestations of HSRs were found to be variable and unpredictable. These reactions should be an important concern, as their potential life-threatening risks can force doctors to stop treatment and seek alternatives, which may be less effective, not as well tolerated and/or more expensive. There are a few strategies to prevent these reactions so that patients can still benefit from oxaliplatin. Such strategies include the use of premedication (steroid and antagonists of type I and II histamine receptors), prolonged infusion time and desensitization.

EXPERT OPINION

The presented management strategies as well as novel diagnostic tools including skin/intradermal tests and specific IgE have shown promising results. However, future research and validation are warranted in bigger clinical trials.

Oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reaction: underlying mechanisms and management

Hypersensitivity reactions are rare but feared drugs adverse effect. These reactions are not uncommon with anticancer drugs, such as taxanes, monoclonal antibodies, and platinum compounds. Oxaliplatinum, a third-generation platinum compound, one of the mainstay drugs in the treatment of many gastrointestinal cancers, can give rise to hypersensitivity reactions, sometimes with fatal outcomes. In this paper, we reviewed the incidence and mechanisms underlying the occurrence of this event, highlighting the most recent advances concerning the pathogenesis of the reaction and also reporting possible risk factors identified and the most effective treatment in preventing the onset of this event.

Management of hypersensitivity to platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy: cepo review and clinical recommendations

BACKGROUND

Although antineoplastic agents are critical in the treatment of cancer, they can potentially cause hypersensitivity reactions that can have serious consequences. When such a reaction occurs, clinicians can either continue the treatment, at the risk of causing a severe or a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction, or stop the treatment, although it might be the only one available. The objective of the present work was to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used to prevent and treat hypersensitivity reactions to platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy and to develop evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

The scientific literature published to December 2013, inclusive, was reviewed.

RESULTS

Premedication with antihistamines, H2 blockers, and corticosteroids is not effective in preventing hypersensitivity reactions to platinum salts. However, premedication significantly reduces the incidence of hypersensitivity to taxanes. A skin test can generally be performed to screen for patients at risk of developing a severe reaction to platinum salts in the presence of grade 1 or 2 reactions, but skin testing does not appear to be useful for taxanes. A desensitization protocol allows for re-administration of either platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy to some patients without causing severe hypersensitivity reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Several strategies such as premedication, skin testing, and desensitization protocols are available to potentially allow for administration of platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy to patients who have had a hypersensitivity reaction and for whom no other treatment options are available. Considering the available evidence, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie made recommendations for clinical practice in Quebec.

Taxanes as a risk factor for acute adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The impact of cytotoxic agents on the risk of acute allergy-like adverse reactions (ARs) to intravenous iodinated contrast media (ICM) injections is unknown.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 13,565 computed tomography (CT) scans performed in a consecutive cohort of cancer patients from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. Episodes of acute ICM-related ARs were reported to the pharmacovigilance officer. The following matched comparisons were made: tax code, gender, primary tumor, antineoplastic therapy, and date of last cycle. Concomitant antineoplastic treatment was classified into five groups: platinum, taxane, platinum plus taxane, other, and no treatment group (no therapy had been administered in the previous 24 months). Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the risk of acute ICM-related ARs.

RESULTS

Of 10,472 contrast-enhanced CT scans, 97 (0.93%; 95% CI: 0.74-1.11) ICM-related ARs were reported, 11 of which (0.1%) were severe, including one fatality. The overall incidence was significantly higher in patients aged <65 years (p = .0062) and in the platinum plus taxane and taxane groups (p = .007), whereas no correlation was found with gender, number of previous CT scans, site of disease, or treatment setting. Multivariate analysis confirmed an increased risk for patients aged <65 years (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.14-2.63) and for the taxane group (in comparison with the no treatment group; OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.02-4.16).

CONCLUSION

Among cancer patients, concomitant treatment with taxanes and younger age would seem to be risk factors for ICM-related ARs.

Management of hypersensitivity reactions to Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in an outpatient oncology infusion center: a 5-year review

BACKGROUND

A high incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to carboplatin and Taxol is limiting the use of carboplatin and Taxol.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a 5-year study of all patients with HSR to carboplatin or Taxol to better understand the nature of infusion HSR and success or failure of management plans after the initial HSR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all safety reports from the Massachusetts General Hospital outpatient chemotherapy infusion center between January 2006 and February 2011. All the patients with HSRs to carboplatin or Taxol were identified and included in the final analysis. We reviewed patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, timing, and treatment of the initial HSR, and determined if the patient was rechallenged despite an initial HSR.

RESULTS

We identified 152 patients with HSR to carboplatin (n = 45) or Taxol (n = 107). Carboplatin HSR was less severe than Taxol HSR. When comparing the 2 groups, the patients with carboplatin HSRs more commonly described itchy palms and feet, generalized itch, and general urticaria and/or erythema, whereas patients with Taxol HSR more commonly described facial flushing, back pain, and chest or throat tightness (all P < .05). Among 40 patients with mild-to-moderate carboplatin HSRs, only 7 were rechallenged, and 100% tolerated rechallenge without desensitization. None of the patients with severe carboplatin HSRs (n = 5) were rechallenged. Most patients (75%) with Taxol HSRs were rechallenged, and 91% tolerated rechallenge without desensitization; the patients with a severe HSR to Taxol were less likely to be rechallenged.

CONCLUSION

The clinical symptoms and timing of carboplatin HSR are distinct from Taxol HSR. Most patients with carboplatin HSR were not rechallenged, whereas most patients with Taxol HSR were successfully rechallenged.

Docetaxel and Cisplatin regimen for non-small-cell lung cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr., President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc., 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@aol.com; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net.

The kinin B1 receptor mediates alloknesis in a murine model of inflammation

Noxious stimuli and non-noxious mechanical stimuli elicit itch (alloknesis) instead of pain on skin lesions of patients with atopic dermatitis. We previously found that bradykinin evokes an itch-related scratching response through activation of kinin B1 receptor in skin inflamed using complete Freund's adjuvant. In this study we investigated whether alloknesis is evoked in CFA-inflamed skin and the involvement of kinin receptors. In our results, alloknesis was elicited four days after CFA-inflammation. Furthermore, pretreatment with a B1 receptor antagonist or μ-opioid receptor antagonist significantly reduced alloknesis. In contrast, treatment with a B2 receptor antagonist significantly increased alloknesis. These results suggest that the alloknesis response is mediated by the activation of kinin B1 receptor but antagonized by the B2 receptor in CFA-inflamed mice.

Carboplatin-, oxaliplatin-, and cisplatin-specific IgE: cross-reactivity and value in the diagnosis of carboplatin and oxaliplatin allergy

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to platins is based on the characterization of the reaction and the results of skin testing. Platins can be irritants when used in skin testing; therefore, in vitro testing may offer an alternative diagnostic tool.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of platin specific IgE (sIgE) in patients with HSRs and in controls.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with immediate HSR to platins were included (carboplatin, 12; oxaliplatin, 12): 19 women and 5 men (mean age, 61 years). The control group included 17 patients exposed to platin and with no HSR. Skin testing was performed on 22 patients. Carboplatin sIgE and oxaliplatin sIgE were measured in 24 patients and 17 controls; carboplatin sIgE was measured in 21 patients.

RESULTS

Skin test results were positive in 22 patients (carboplatin, 12/12; oxaliplatin, 10/12). Seven of 12 patients sensitive to carboplatin (59%) had positive carboplatin sIgE, 2 also had positive cisplatin sIgE, and all had negative oxaliplatin sIgE; 9 of 12 patients sensitive to oxaliplatin (75%) had positive sIgE to oxaliplatin, 8 of 12 (67%) also had positive carboplatin and cisplatin sIgE, to which they had not been exposed. All 5 carboplatin controls had negative sIgE; 3 oxaliplatin controls (25%) had positive carboplatin sIgE, and 2 had positive oxaliplatin sIgE.

CONCLUSION

Carboplatin sIgE is very specific but less sensitive. In contrast, oxaliplatin sIgE had higher sensitivity but lower specificity. Analysis of our data suggests that oxaliplatin exposure was more immunogenic. This could be clinically relevant because patients sensitized to carboplatin may be able to tolerate oxaliplatin, but patients sensitized to oxaliplatin may be at risk when exposed to carboplatin and cisplatin.

The essentials of chemotherapy-induced infusion reactions

Almost all systemic agents used in cancer therapy can cause infusion-related reactions. Hypersensitivity or infusion reactions to platinum compounds are acquired, whereas reactions to taxanes and monoclonal antibodies usually occur during the first few minutes of the first infusion. By understanding the symptoms and treatment of infusion reactions, healthcare team members can provide timely and appropriate treatment and positively impact patient care.