Standardized Titration Protocol Reduces the Incidence of Paclitaxel Infusion-Related Hypersensitivity Reactions.

PURPOSE: Infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions with paclitaxel are common despite the use of dexamethasone and diphenhydramine premedications. Paclitaxel titration protocols that may reduce reactions are empirically derived from clinical observations, and there are no phase III trials that confirm superiority of any management recommendations. The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency and severity of hypersensitivity reactions associated with a recently initiated standardized paclitaxel titration protocol verses standard-of-care (SOC) infusion protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving paclitaxel infusions at five ambulatory infusion centers using a standardized titration protocol (February 2021 to April 2021) versus SOC paclitaxel (November 2018 to December 2019). Patients were age 18 years or older and presented for their first or second infusions. The primary study measure was the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Secondary evaluations included the timing of the reaction after the start of the infusion, use of premedications, and severity of reactions. RESULTS: A total of 451 patients were included in this study. Eighty-four (18.6%) patients were identified in the titration protocol group and 367 (81.4%) patients in the SOC group. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 4.8% of the titration group and 18.3% of the SOC group (odds ratio [OR], 0.224; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.74; P = .002). Grade 3 or greater infusion reactions were 0% in the titration group versus 18% in the SOC group (OR, 0.28; P < .008). Reactions occurred later with the titration protocol, compared with the SOC paclitaxel infusion. Finally, no differences were observed in the use of appropriate premedications. CONCLUSION: A standardized paclitaxel titration protocol was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving their first and second infusions. A prospective randomized trial is needed to validate these observations.

A Single Center Retrospective Study of the Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Immune-related Adverse Events in Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which may affect the outcome of irAEs. Data are limited regarding the impact of COVID-19 on irAEs in ICI-treated cancer patients. Hence, in this study, we retrospectively analyzed ICI-treated adult patients with malignant solid tumors at a single institution between August 2020 and August 2021. Patients who had the most recent ICI treatment over 1-month before or after the positive COVID-19 test were excluded from the study. For the COVID-19 positive group, only the irAEs that developed after COVID-19 infection were considered as events. A total of 579 patients were included in our study, with 46 (7.9%) in the COVID-19 positive group and 533 (92.1%) in the COVID-19 negative group. The baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 groups were similar. With a median follow-up of 331 days (range: 21-2226), we noticed a nonsignificant higher incidence of all-grade irAEs in the COVID-19 positive group (30.4% vs. 19.9%, P =0.18). The incidence of grade 3 and 4 irAEs was significantly higher in the COVID-19 positive group (10.9% vs. 3.2%, P =0.02). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association between COVID-19 infection and increased risk of severe irAE development (odds ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.14, P =0.01). Our study suggested that COVID-19 may pose a risk of severe irAEs in cancer patients receiving ICIs. Close monitoring and possibly delaying ICI administration could be considered when cancer patients are infected with COVID-19.

Successful use of a second course of caplacizumab in relapsed thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

There is limited data on the use of caplacizumab beyond the initial treatment course. We describe a patient case demonstrating the efficacy of a second course of caplacizumab in a patient with relapsed acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). A 25-year-old female was treated for an initial event of TTP with steroids, plasma exchange, rituximab, and caplacizumab. Caplacizumab was continued 30 days post plasma exchange, which was on day 46 of treatment, at which time platelets had improved to 292 x 109/L. Two weeks after completion of the first caplacizumab course, on day 60, she was readmitted with platelets of 5 x 109/L. Daily plasma exchange and steroids were started on admission, with rituximab added on day 65. On day 67, the decision was made to re-initiate caplacizumab due to a platelet count of 21 x 109/L. By day 72, platelets improved to 273 x 109/L and the patient was able to be discharged and completed her second 30-day post plasma exchange course of caplacizumab without complications or further relapses.