Successful rapid liposomal amphotericin B desensitization in pediatric case series.

Background: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) is a crucial agent in the treatment of invasive fungal diseases caused by a wide variety of yeasts and molds. In the presence of an infection caused by a fungal agent resistant to alternative antifungal drugs, desensitization may be the only option to continue treatment. However, there is insufficient information and consensus with regard to amphotericin B desensitization protocols in the pediatric age group. Objective: We present our experience with five cases of patients in whom successful desensitization protocols were applied with LAMB, along with a review of the literature on pediatric cases. We also provide a sample desensitization protocol that we successfully applied. Methods: Pediatric patients who continued their treatment with the successful rapid desensitization protocol conducted at the Paediatric Allergy and Immunology Clinic of the Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital between September 2019 and September 2023 were examined. Desensitization protocols were applied based on Castells' desensitization protocol. Results: Five patients ages between 5 and 12 years were referred to us due to the development of anaphylaxis during their treatment with LAMB. Anaphylaxis is diagnosed clinically, according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). A 16-step desensitization protocol was prepared by using LAMB solutions at four different dilutions (0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/mL). Each solution consisted of four steps, with a 15-minute infusion for each step. The patients were premedicated with 1 mg/kg/dose methylprednisolone and an antihistamine. Conclusion: The data we present on the successful application of a sample protocol to five cases, particularly in a pediatric setting, are noteworthy valuable contributions to the field, which demonstrates the feasibility and success of rapid desensitization with LAMB in pediatric patients. This can provide important insights and potentially serve as a reference for medical professionals working with similar cases in the future.

Asparaginase-specific basophil recognition and activation predict Asparaginase hypersensitivity in mice.

Background: Asparaginase (ASNase) is a crucial part of acute leukemia treatment, but immune responses to the agent can reduce its effectiveness and increase the risk of relapse. Currently, no reliable and validated biomarker predicts ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions during therapy. We aimed to identify predictive biomarkers and determine immune cells responsible for anaphylaxis using a murine model of ASNase hypersensitivity. Methods: Our preclinical study uses a murine model to investigate predictive biomarkers of ASNase anaphylaxis, including anti-ASNase antibody responses, immune complex (IC) levels, ASNase-specific binding to leukocytes or basophils, and basophil activation. Results: Our results indicate that mice immunized to ASNase exhibited dynamic IgM, IgG, and IgE antibody responses. The severity of ASNase-induced anaphylaxis was found to be correlated with levels of IgG and IgE, but not IgM. Basophils from immunized mice were able to recognize and activate in response to ASNase ex vivo, and the extent of recognition and activation also correlated with the severity of anaphylaxis observed. Using a multivariable model that included all biomarkers significantly associated with anaphylaxis, independent predictors of ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions were found to be ASNase IC levels and ASNase-specific binding to leukocytes or basophils. Consistent with our multivariable analysis, we found that basophil depletion significantly protected mice from ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions, supporting that basophils are essential and can be used as a predictive marker of ASNase-induced anaphylaxis. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the need for using tools that can detect both IC- and IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to mitigate the risk of ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions during treatment.

Carboplatin desensitization - simplified 4-step 2-bag method.

INTRODUCTION: Our cancer program adopted a method for carboplatin desensitization (4-step 2-bag method) that administers the same intensity of drug exposure with a simplified approach to product management in comparison to a published protocol (4-step 4-bag method). METHODS: The intensity of carboplatin administration for 1:1,000, 1:100, 1:10, and 1:1 dilutions and concomitant fluid administration were compared for the 4-step 2-bag (bags A, B) and 4-step 4-bag (bags 1, 2, 3, 4) methods. Pharmacy preparation of bags A and B is described. A succinct overview of the desensitization procedure is provided. Important considerations germane to pharmacy practice are presented. Chart review of patients who underwent carboplatin desensitization with the 4-step 2-bag method between 7/13/2021 and 11/22/2023 was performed to demonstrate institutional use. RESULTS: The 4-step 2-bag method delivers similar rates of drug intensity from start of desensitization to completion of the planned dose as the previously published 4-step 4-bag method. Accuracy of regimen-based dose administration is assured by infusion of bag B contents irrespective of infusion interruptions or rate changes necessitated by patient tolerance. Bag A provides the 1:1000 dilution in a pharmaceutically elegant manner using administration rates and volumes compatible with clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The 4-step 2-bag method for carboplatin desensitization administers controlled drug titration corresponding to 1:1000, 1:100, 1:10, and 1:1 dilutions for dose administration using two compounded admixture bags. Inaugural clinical use of the 4-step 2-bag method for carboplatin desensitization at our healthcare facility has proceeded with expected patient tolerance.

Infliximab desensitization in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a safe therapeutic alternative.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to the administration of infliximab (IFX) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) patients are not rare and usually lead to drug discontinuation. We report data on safety and effectiveness of desensitization to IFX in patients with previous HSR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study. Patients for whom a desensitization protocol to IFX was realized after a previous HSR were included. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and IFX trough levels at both inclusion and six months after desensitization were collected. Clinical outcomes, including recurrence of HSR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2020, 27 patients (Crohn's Disease: 26 (96%) were included). Desensitization after HSR was performed after a median time of 10.4 months (2.9-33.1). Nineteen (70%) patients received immunosuppressants at time of desensitization. Eight (30%) patients presented HSR at first (n = 2), second (n = 4) or third (n = 2) IFX perfusion after desensitization. None led to intensive care unit transfer or death. Thirteen (48%) had clinical response at 6 months and 8 (29%) were still under IFX treatment two years after desensitization. IFX trough levels and ADA were available for 14 patients at time of desensitization. Most patients (12 out of 14) had ADA at a high level. At 6 months, among the 7 patients with long term response to IFX, 4 presented a decrease of ADA titers and 2 had a significant trough level of IFX. CONCLUSION: IFX desensitization in patients with IBD is a safe therapeutic alternative and represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics.What is already known? Hypersensitivity reactions to the administration of infliximab is frequent. Occurrence of hypersensitivity reaction, either immediate or delayed, usually leads to permanent drug discontinuation.What is new here? Infliximab desensitization is well tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction recurrence in 70% of patients. Clinical success at 6 months was of 48% and around a third of patients remained under infliximab therapy two years after desensitization. Antidrug antibodies decreased and infliximab trough levels increased in these patients showing the impact of desensitization on immunogenicity.How can this study help patient care? Infliximab desensitization represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics who presented hypersensitivity reaction to the drug.

Non-IgE-Mediated Immediate Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Immediate drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions (IDHSRs) have conventionally been attributed to an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism. Nevertheless, it has now been acknowledged that IDHSRs can also occur independently of IgE involvement. Non-IgE-mediated IDHSRs encompass the activation of effector cells, both mast cell-dependent and -independent and the initiation of inflammatory pathways through immunogenic and nonimmunogenic mechanisms. The IDHSRs involve inflammatory mediators beyond histamine, including the platelet-activating factor, which activates multiple cell types, including smooth muscle, endothelium, and MC, and evidence supports its importance in IgE-mediated reactions in humans. Clinically, distinguishing IgE from non-IgE mechanisms is crucial for future treatment strategies, including drug(s) restriction, readministration approaches, and pretreatment considerations. However, this presents significant challenges because certain drugs can trigger both mechanisms, and their presentations can appear similarly, ranging from mild to life-threatening symptoms. Thus, history alone is often inadequate for differentiation, and skin tests lack a standardized approach. Moreover, drug-specific IgE immunoassays have favorable specificity but low sensitivity, and the usefulness of the basophil activation test remains debatable. Lastly, no biomarker reliably differentiates between both mechanisms. Whereas non-IgE-mediated mechanisms likely predominate in IDHSRs, reclassifying most drug-related IDHSRs as non-IgE-mediated, with suggested prevention through dose administration adjustments, is premature and risky. Therefore, continued research and validated diagnostic tests are crucial to improving our capacity to distinguish between these mechanisms, ultimately enhancing patient care.

One-Bag 8-Step Ferric Carboxymaltose Desensitization Protocol for Patients with a History of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iron Preparations.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols.

Human leukocyte antigen association with azathioprine-induced drug hypersensitivity reactions in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody associated vasculitis.

Azathioprine (AZA) drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) is an uncommon yet potentially lethal condition that often goes unrecognised in patients with anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV). We conducted a retrospective review of AAV patients on AZA maintenance therapy (N = 35). Participants were categorised into those who had experienced AZA-DHR (N = 15) and those who were AZA-tolerant (N = 20). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing was performed in both groups. The primary endpoint was identification of a HLA gene association with AZA-DHR in the context of AAV. HLA-C*06:02, was solely expressed in AZA-DHR patients (33.3 %), whilst no patient who tolerated AZA carried this allele (0.0 %). This yielded a positive predictive value of 100 % for HLA-C*06:02 in predicting AZA-DHR in AAV patients, negative predictive value of 66.7 %, sensitivity of 33.3 % and specificity of 100 %. HLA-C*06:02 may predict the development of AZA-DHR in patients with AAV and inform safer therapeutic choice.

Hypersensitivity reactions to asparaginase therapy in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: immunology and clinical consequences.

Asparaginase is commonly used in combination therapy of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, as an immunogenic protein, hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) during asparaginase therapy are frequent, indicating the development of anti-asparaginase antibodies. These can be associated with diminished clinical effectiveness, including poorer survival. Therapeutic drug monitoring of serum asparaginase activity to confirm complete asparagine depletion is therefore crucial during asparaginase therapy. Switching to alternative types of asparaginase is recommended for patients experiencing HSRs or silent inactivation; those with HSRs or silent inactivation on Escherichia coli-derived asparaginases should switch to another preparation. However, prior global shortages of Erwinia asparaginase highlight the importance of alternative non-E. coli-derived asparaginase, including recombinant Erwinia asparaginase.

Asparaginase is commonly used as a part of a multidrug regimen for acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment. As foreign proteins, asparaginases have the potential to induce immune responses known as hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), which can range from a mild rash to a severe allergic reaction. Here, we provide an overview of HSRs and their prevalence in asparaginase-based therapies, and clinical approaches to reduce HSRs. We also review the current understanding of cellular and molecular mechanisms of HSRs, consequences of HSRs and current recommendations for the management of immune reactions to asparaginase. Prior global shortages of Erwinia asparaginase due to manufacturing and supply issues have limited access of asparaginase treatment to patients. In this context, newer therapies have recently been developed.

Optimizing investigation of suspected allergy to polyethylene glycols.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) are polymers of varying molecular weight (MW) used widely as excipients in drugs and other products, including the mRNA vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019. Allergy to PEGs is rare. Skin testing and graded challenge carries a high risk of inducing systemic reactions. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated skin prick test (SPT) results and in vitro reactivity over time to different MW PEGs and assessed cross-sensitization patterns in PEG allergy. METHODS: Ten patients with previously diagnosed PEG allergy underwent SPT twice with PEGs 26 months apart. Lower MW (PEG 300, 3000, 6000) were tested, followed by PEG 20,000, in stepwise, increasing concentrations. Cross-sensitization to polysorbate 80 and poloxamer 407 was assessed. SPT was performed in 16 healthy controls. In vitro basophil histamine release (HR) test and passive sensitization HR test were performed in patients and controls. RESULTS: Patients previously testing positive on SPT to PEG 3000 and/or 6000 also tested positive to PEG 20,000. Patients with a longer interval since diagnosis tested negative to lower MW PEGs and positive mainly to higher concentrations of PEG 20,000. Three patients developed systemic urticaria during SPT. Eight patients showed cross-sensitization to poloxamer 407 and 3 to polysorbate 80. All controls tested negative. In vitro tests showed limited usefulness. CONCLUSIONS: Skin test reactivity to PEG can decrease over time, but titrated SPT with increasing concentrations of PEG 20,000 can be diagnostic when lower MW PEGs test negative. To avoid systemic reactions, stepwise SPT is mandatory.

The Polysorbate containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is tolerated by polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the excipient found in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We previously demonstrated PEG allergy was a cause of severe anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. PEG is widely used in many household products, cosmetics and medicines. However PEG allergy is rare, there have been few confirmed cases of PEG allergy. The excipient of potential concern in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is polysorbate 80 (PS80). Cross-reactivity between PEG and polysorbate has been suggested, based on their composition and skin-test data. The aim of this study was to determine whether PEG-allergic patients could be vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. METHOD: Eight patients with PEG allergy were identified by the allergy clinic at Cambridge University Hospital. Patients underwent skin prick testing to PS80 (20%) and to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine prior to vaccination. RESULTS: All eight patients allergic to PEG tolerated the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, even in 2 patients where the PS80 skin prick test was positive and 1 with a positive skin prick test to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Patients allergic to PEG, previously denied COVID vaccination, may now be safely vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca vaccine and need only avoid the PEG-containing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. This opens up the possibility that these patients will also tolerate other vaccines containing PS80 such as the Janssen/Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical cross-reactivity between PEG and PS80 did not occur in this vaccine setting.

Antibody or Anybody? Considering the Role of MRGPRX2 in Acute Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis and as a Therapeutic Target.

Acute anaphylaxis to small molecule drugs is largely considered to be antibody-mediated with immunogloblin E (IgE) and mast cell activation being key. More recently, a role for drug-reactive immunoglobulin G (IgG) with neutrophil activation has also been suggested, at least in reactions to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs). However, the mast cell receptor MRGPRX2 has also been highlighted as a possible triggering mechanism in acute anaphylaxis to many clinically used drugs. Significantly, MRGPRX2 activation is not dependent upon the presence of drug-recognising antibody. Given the reasonable assumption that MRGPRX2 is expressed in all individuals, the corollary of this is that in theory, anybody could respond detrimentally to triggering drugs (recently suggested to be around 20% of a drug-like compound library). But this clearly is not the case, as the incidence of acute drug-induced anaphylaxis is very low. In this mini-review we consider antibody-dependent and -independent mechanisms of mast cell activation by small molecule drugs with a focus on the MRGPRX2 pathway. Moreover, as a juxtaposition to these adverse drug actions, we consider how increased understanding of the role of MRGPRX2 in anaphylaxis is important for future drug development and can complement exploration of this receptor as a drug target in broader clinical settings.

How to Prevent and Mitigate Hypersensitivity Reactions to Biologicals Induced by Anti-Drug Antibodies?

Biologicals are widely used therapeutic agents for rheumatologic diseases, cancers, and other chronic inflammatory diseases. They are characterized by complex structures and content of variable amounts of foreign regions, which may lead to anti-drug antibodies (ADA) development. ADA onset may limit the clinical usage of biologicals because they may decrease their safety. In fact they are mainly associated with immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Development of ADAs is reduced by concomitant immunosuppressive treatment, while it is increased by longer intervals between drug administrations; thus, regular infusion regimens should be preferred to reduce HSRs. Once ADAs have formed, some procedures can be implemented to reduce the risk of HSRs. ADAs may belong to different isotype; the detection of IgE ADA is advisable to be assessed when high and early ADAs are detected, in order to reduce the risk of severe HRs. In patients who need to reintroduce the biological culprit, as alternative therapies are not available, drug desensitization (DD) may be applied. Desensitization should be conceptually dedicated to patients with an IgE-mediated HSR; however, it can be performed also in patients who had developed non-IgE-mediated HSRs. Although the underlying mechanisms behind successful DD has not been fully clarified, the DD procedure is associated with the inhibition of mast cell degranulation and cytokine production. Additionally, some data are emerging about the inhibition of drug-specific immune responses during DD.

Serum CD203c+ Extracellular Vesicle Serves as a Novel Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Succinylated Gelatin Induced Perioperative Hypersensitive Reaction.

Background: Perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (HR) is an IgE-FcϵRI-mediated hypersensitivity reaction with degranulation and activation of mast cells and basophils. Several studies have focused on assessing the degranulation and activation of mast cells and basophils to diagnose and predict the prognosis of drug induced HR. However, it is challenging to isolate sufficiently pure mast cells and basophils from human sources to investigate. Effective biomarkers to assess mast cells and basophils activation in vivo could potentially have high diagnostic and prognostic values. In the present study, we investigated EVs pelleted from serum in patients with succinylated gelatin induced HR. Methods: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) were isolated using a total exosome isolation kit and ultracentrifugation, characterized by Western blot, transmission electron microscopy, and nanoparticle tracking analysis. Basophils were isolated from fresh peripheral blood by negative selection using Basophil Isolation Kit II. Human mast cell line was stimulated with IL4. The expression levels of proteins related to the hypersensitive response were evaluated by Western blotting and flow Cytometer. Histamine and tryptase levels were tested using a commercial ELISA kit, and gene expression of inflammatory mediators was evaluated by qRT-PCR. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of biomarker in predicting HR. Results: The concentration of EVs and protein expression level of CD63, FcϵRI, CD203c and tryptase were significantly (p< 0.05) increased in HR samples. The expression level of mast cell/basophil specific CD203c were significantly increased in EVs derived from serum and basophils of HR patients, and the CD203c+-EVs production in mast cells is dramatically increased in the presence of IL4, which positively correlated with histamine, tryptase and inflammatory mediators. Moreover, the ROC curve of EVs concentration and CD203c expression indicated that CD203c+-EVs had a strong diagnostic ability for HR. Conclusion: Serum CD203c+-EVs serves as a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for HR.

The PD1 inhibitory pathway and mature dendritic cells contribute to abacavir hypersensitivity in human leukocyte antigen transgenic PD1 knockout mice.

Based on recent genome-wide association studies, abacavir-induced hypersensitivity is highly associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B*57:01 allele. However, the underlying mechanism of this occurrence is unclear. To investigate the underlying mechanism, we developed HLA-B*57:01 transgenic mice and found that application of abacavir could cause CD8 T cell activation with elevation in PD1 expression; however, severe skin hypersensitivity was not observed. To eliminate the immunosuppressive effect of PD1, HLA-B*57:01 transgenic/PD1 knockout (01Tg/PD1) mice were generated by mating HLA-B*57:01 transgenic mice and PD1 knockout mice. Thereafter, 01Tg/PD1 mice were treated with abacavir. Similar to the above results, severe skin hypersensitivity was not observed. Therefore, we treated 01Tg/PD1 mice with an anti-CD4 antibody to deplete CD4 T cells, followed by abacavir topically and orally. Severe abacavir-induced skin hypersensitivity was observed in 01Tg/PD1 mice after depletion of CD4 T cells, in addition to significant CD8 T cell activation and dendritic cell maturation. Taken together, we succeeded in reproducing severe skin hypersensitivity in a mouse model. And we found that through the combined depletion of PD1 and CD4 T cells, CD8 T cells could be activated and could proceed to clonal proliferation, which is promoted by mature dendritic cells, thereby eventually inducing severe skin hypersensitivity.