Preventing and managing drug-induced anaphylaxis

Home-Based Infusion of Alglucosidase Alfa Can Safely be Implemented in Adults with Late-Onset Pompe Disease: Lessons Learned from 18,380 Infusions

BACKGROUND

Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with alglucosidase alfa is the treatment for patients with Pompe disease, a hereditary metabolic myopathy. Home-based ERT is unavailable in many countries because of the boxed warning alglucosidase alfa received due to the risk of infusion-associated reactions (IARs). Since 2008, home infusions have been provided in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide an overview of our experience with home-based infusions with alglucosidase alfa in adult Pompe patients, focusing on safety, including management of IARs.

METHOD

We analysed infusion data and IARs from adult patients starting ERT between 1999 and 2018. ERT was initially given in the hospital during the first year. Patients were eligible for home treatment if they were without IARs for multiple consecutive infusions and if a trained home nurse, with on-call back-up by a doctor, was available. The healthcare providers graded IARs.

RESULTS

We analysed data on 18,380 infusions with alglucosidase alfa in 121 adult patients; 4961 infusions (27.0%) were given in hospital and 13,419 (73.0%) were given at home. IARs occurred in 144 (2.9%) hospital infusions and 113 (0.8%) home infusions; 115 (79.9% of 144) IARs in hospital and 104 (92.0% of 113) IARs at home were mild, 25 IARs (17.4%) in hospital and 8 IARs (7.1%) at home were moderate, and very few severe IARs occurred (4 IARs in hospital [2.8%] and 1 IAR at home [0.9%]). Only one IAR in the home situation required immediate clinical evaluation in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Given the small numbers of IARs that occurred with the home infusions, of which only one was severe, we conclude that alglucosidase alfa can be administered safely in the home situation, provided the appropriate infrastructure is present.

A new strategy of desensitization in mucopolysaccharidosis type II disease treated with idursulfase therapy: A case report and review of the literature

Mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS II) is a multisystemic lysosomal storage disorder caused by deficiency of the iduronate 2-sulfatase enzyme. Currently, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with recombinant idursulfase is the main treatment available to decrease morbidity and improve quality of life. However, infusion-associated reactions (IARs) are reported and may limit access to treatment. When premedication or infusion rate reductions are ineffective for preventing IARs, desensitization can be applied. To date, only two MPS II patients are reported to have undergone desensitization. We report a pediatric patient with recurrent IARs during infusion successfully managed with gradual desensitization. Our protocol started at 50% of the standard dosage infused at concentrations from 0.0006 to 0.06 mg/ml on weeks 1 and 2, followed by 75% of the standard dosage infused at concentrations from 0.0009 to 0.09 mg/ml on weeks 3 and 4, and full standard dosage thereafter, infused at progressively increasing concentrations until the standard infusion conditions were reached at 3 months. Our experience can be used in the management of MPS II patients presenting IARs to idursulfase infusion, even when general preventive measures are already administered.

Epidemiology, Mechanisms, and Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, life-threatening, multisystem syndrome resulting from the sudden release of mediators by mast cells and basophils. Although anaphylaxis is often under-communicated and thus underestimated, its incidence appears to have risen over recent decades. Drugs are among the most common triggers in adults, being analgesics and antibiotics the most common causal agents. Anaphylaxis can be caused by immunologic or non-immunologic mechanisms. Immunologic anaphylaxis can be mediated by IgE-dependent or -independent pathways. The former involves activation of Th2 cells and the cross-linking of two or more specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies on the surface of mast cells or basophils. The IgE-independent mechanism can be mediated by IgG, involving the release of platelet-activating factor, and/or complement activation. Non-immunological anaphylaxis can occur through the direct stimulation of mast cell degranulation by some drugs, inducing histamine release and leading to anaphylactic symptoms. Work-up of a suspected drug-induced anaphylaxis should include clinical history; however, this can be unreliable, and skin tests should also be used if available and validated. Drug provocation testing is not recommended due to the risk of inducing a harmful reaction. In vitro testing can help to confirm anaphylaxis by analyzing the release of mediators such as tryptase or histamine by mast cells. When immunologic mechanisms are suspected, serum-sIgE quantification or the use of the basophil activation test can help confirm the culprit drug. In this review, we will discuss multiple aspects of drug-induced anaphylaxis, including epidemiology, mechanisms, and diagnosis.

Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement

One of the major concerns in the practice of allergy is related to the safety of procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease. Management (diagnosis and treatment) of hypersensitivity disorders involves often intentional exposure to potentially allergenic substances (during skin testing), deliberate induction in the office of allergic symptoms to offending compounds (provocation tests) or intentional application of potentially dangerous substances (allergy vaccine) to sensitized patients. These situations may be associated with a significant risk of unwanted, excessive or even dangerous reactions, which in many instances cannot be completely avoided. However, adverse reactions can be minimized or even avoided if a physician is fully aware of potential risk and is prepared to appropriately handle the situation. Information on the risk of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergic diseases has been accumulated in the medical literature for decades; however, except for allergen specific immunotherapy, it has never been presented in a systematic fashion. Up to now no single document addressed the risk of the most commonly used medical procedures in the allergy office nor attempted to present general requirements necessary to assure the safety of these procedures. Following review of available literature a group of allergy experts within the World Allergy Organization (WAO), representing various continents and areas of allergy expertise, presents this report on risk associated with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology and proposes a consensus on safety requirements for performing procedures in allergy offices. Optimal safety measures including appropriate location, type and required time of supervision, availability of safety equipment, access to specialized emergency services, etc. for various procedures have been recommended. This document should be useful for allergists with already established practices and experience as well as to other specialists taking care of patients with allergies.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions targeting the skin in dogs and cats

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be dose dependent or idiosyncratic. Most idiosyncratic reactions are believed to be immune-mediated; such drug hypersensitivities and allergies are unpredictable. Cutaneous reactions are the most common presentation of drug allergies. In veterinary medicine it can be difficult to assess the true prevalence of adverse drug reactions, although reports available suggest that they occur quite commonly. There are multiple theories that attempt to explain how drug allergies occur, because the pathogenesis is not yet well understood. These include the (pro)-hapten hypothesis, the Danger Theory, the pi concept, and the viral reactivation theory. Cutaneous drug allergies in veterinary medicine can have a variety of clinical manifestations, ranging from pruritus to often fatal toxic epidermal necrolysis. Diagnosis can be challenging, as the reactions are highly pleomorphic and may be mistaken for other dermatologic diseases. One must rely heavily on history and physical examination to rule out other possibilities. Dechallenge of the drug, histopathology, and other diagnostic tests can help to confirm the diagnosis. New diagnostic tools are beginning to be used, such as antibody or cellular testing, and may be used more in the future. There is much yet to learn about drug allergies, which makes future research vitally important. Treatment of drug allergies involves supportive care, and additional treatments, such as immunosuppressive medications, depend on the manifestation of the disease. Of utmost importance is to avoid the use of the incriminating drug in future treatment of the patient, as subsequent reactions can be worse, and ultimately can prove fatal.

General considerations on rapid desensitization for drug hypersensitivity - a consensus statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions can occur with most drugs, are unpredictable, may affect any organ or system, and range widely in clinical severity from mild pruritus to anaphylaxis. In most cases, the suspected drug is avoided in the future. However, for certain patients, the particular drug may be essential for optimal therapy. Under these circumstances, desensitization may be performed. Drug desensitization is defined as the induction of a temporary state of tolerance of a compound responsible for a hypersensitivity reaction. It is performed by administering increasing doses of the medication concerned over a short period of time (from several hours to a few days) until the total cumulative therapeutic dose is achieved and tolerated. It is a high-risk procedure used only in patients in whom alternatives are less effective or not available after a positive risk/benefit analysis. Desensitization protocols have been developed and are used in patients with allergic reactions to antibiotics (mainly penicillin), insulins, sulfonamides, chemotherapeutic and biologic agents, and many other drugs. Desensitization is mainly performed in IgE-mediated reactions, but also in reactions where drug-specific IgE have not been demonstrated. Desensitization induces a temporary tolerant state, which can only be maintained by continuous administration of the medication. Thus, for treatments like chemotherapy, which have an average interval of 4 weeks between cycles, the procedure must be repeated for every new course. In this paper, some background information on rapid desensitization procedures is provided. We define the drugs and drug reactions indicated for such procedures, describe the possible mechanism of action, and discuss the indications and contraindications. The data should serve as background information for a database (accessible via the EAACI-homepage) with standardized protocols for rapid desensitization for antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, monoclonal antibodies/fusion proteins, and other drugs.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biological drugs

OBJECTIVES

To review the current evidence regarding hypersensitivity reactions related to the administration of biological drugs in the management of cancer, and to provide the nurse with appropriate interventions related to the management of hypersensitivity reactions.

DATA SOURCES

Review articles and research studies from the medical and nursing literature.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence is available regarding the types of reactions that are associated with the administration of biological drugs in the management of cancer. Medical and nursing studies that review the most effective management of hypersensitivity reactions related to the administration of biological drugs. A review of "best practice" is offered in this article regarding the management of hypersensitivity reactions related to the administration of biological drugs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses play a key role in the early identification of hypersensitivity reactions. Management of hypersensitivity reactions must be rapid for optimal patient outcomes.

Chemotherapy-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To assist clinical nurses in understanding the complex nature of chemotherapy-induced hypersensitivity reactions as well as effectively preventing or managing these reactions.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles and abstracts, pertinent book chapters, computerized databases.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Most available chemotherapy drugs can cause hypersensitivity reactions, but certain drug groups frequently are associated with these reactions (e.g., asparaginases, taxanes, platinum compounds, epipodophyllotoxins). Preventing hypersensitivity reactions is the primary goal; however, understanding the principles of managing these reactions is critical because hypersensitivity reactions can occur despite using appropriate prevention strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-induced hypersensitivity reactions are potentially life-threatening. Nurses working with chemotherapy drugs must understand which drugs are associated with a high risk of causing hypersensitivity reactions and must be prepared to attempt to prevent or manage reactions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The potentially life-threatening nature of hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy requires that nurses have a plan to manage them. This may include a written policy on staff education and training, appropriate equipment, and medications.

Intermolecular relations between the glucocorticoid receptor, ZAP-70 kinase, and Hsp-90

The glucocorticoid receptor (GR) participates in both genomic and non-genomic glucocorticoid hormone (GC) actions by interacting with other cytoplasmic signalling proteins. Previously, we have shown that high dose Dexamethasone (DX) treatment of Jurkat cells causes tyrosine phosphorylation of ZAP-70 within 5 min in a GR-dependent manner. By using co-immunoprecipitation and confocal microscopy, here we demonstrate that the liganded GR physically associates with ZAP-70, in addition to its phosphorylation changes. The association of the ligand-bound GR and ZAP-70 was also observed in HeLa cells transfected with ZAP-70, suggesting that this co-clustering is independent of lymphocyte specific factors. Furthermore, the ZAP-70 was found to also co-precipitate with Hsp-90 chaperone both in Jurkat and transgenic HeLa cells, independent of the presence of DX. These findings raise the possibility that ZAP-70 may serve as an important link between GC and TcR-induced signaling, thereby transmitting non-genomic GC action in T-cells.

Drug-induced anaphylaxis : case/non-case study based on an italian pharmacovigilance database

OBJECTIVE

To identify the number of cases of anaphylaxis reported in association with different classes of drugs and compare it with other reports contained in the same database.

METHODS

The data were obtained from a database containing all of the spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) coming from the Italian regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and the Veneto, which are the main contributors to the Italian spontaneous surveillance system. The ADRs reported between January 1990 and December 2003 with a causality assessment of certainly, probably or possibly drug related (according to the WHO criteria) were analysed using a case/non-case design. The cases were defined as the reactions already coded by the WHO preferred terms of 'anaphylactic shock' or 'anaphylactoid reaction' (this last term also included anaphylactic reaction) and those with a time of event onset that suggested an allergic reaction and involved at least two of the skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, CNS or cardiovascular systems; the non-cases were all of the other ADR reports. The frequency of the association between anaphylaxis and the suspected drug in comparison with the frequency of anaphylaxis associated to all of the other drugs was calculated using the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality.

RESULTS

Our database contained 744 cases (including 307 cases of anaphylactic shock with 10 deaths) and 27 512 non-cases. The percentage of anaphylaxis cases reported in inpatients was higher than that among outpatients (59.1% vs 40.9%). This distribution is significantly different from that of the other ADR reports that mainly refer to outpatients. After intravenous drug administrations, anaphylactic shock cases were more frequent than anaphylactoid reactions or other ADRs, but more than one-third of these reactions were caused by an oral drug. Blood substitutes and radiology contrast agents had the highest RORs. Among the systemic antibacterial agents, anaphylaxis was disproportionally reported more often for penicillins, quinolones, cephalosporins and glycopeptides, but diclofenac was the only NSAID with a significant ROR. As a category, vaccines had a significantly lower ROR, thus indicating that anaphylaxis is reported proportionally less than other ADRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaphylaxis is a severe ADR that may also occur with commonly used drugs. It represents 2.7% of all of the ADRs reported in an Italian spontaneous reporting database.