Hypersensitivity Reactions to Cancer Chemotherapy: Practical Recommendations of ARADyAL for Diagnosis and Desensitization.

Rapid drug desensitization has enabled first-line therapies in patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs including monoclonal antibodies. Desensitization is a safe and highly effective procedure, not only for IgE-mediated reactions, but also for those mediated by non-IgE mechanisms. The likelihood of breakthrough reactions during desensitization is low, and most are mild; in fact, moderate-to-severe reactions are infrequent. In this document, 16 allergy departments belonging to the Spanish research network ARADyAL present a review of the available scientific evidence and provide general guidelines for the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Emphasis is placed on the desensitization procedure.

Does Rapid Drug Desensitization to Chemotherapy Affect Survival Outcomes?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hypersensitivity reactions to oxaliplatin may affect prognosis by jeopardizing the timely completion of scheduled treatment sessions or by forcing reactive patients into unexpected changes in therapy. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) enables these patients to receive their first-choice treatments safely. However, the possible effects of RDD on the efficacy of oxaliplatin have never been studied. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of RDD on survival rates in oxaliplatin-hypersensitive patients. METHODS: We performed a 7-year retrospective study to compare survival between oxaliplatin-hypersensitive cases (patients receiving oxaliplatin by RDD) and nonallergic controls (patients receiving standard oxaliplatin infusions). The primary endpoint of this study was overall survival (OS) in cases and controls (Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test comparisons). RESULTS: OS was 23.7 months (95%CI, 15.3-30.9) for the 67 cases who underwent 337 RDDs, while for controls (n=143), OS was 34.5 months (95%CI, 21.7-55.5). There were no significant differences between the groups (HR, 1.42; 95%CI, 0.93-2.17; P =.104). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes of oxaliplatin-hypersensitive patients who received oxaliplatin via RDD did not differ significantly from those of control patients who received oxaliplatin via standard administration. Receiving oxaliplatin by means of RDD might be an effective therapeutic alternative for oxaliplatin-hypersensitive patients.

Delving into cornerstones of hypersensitivity to antineoplastic and biological agents: value of diagnostic tools prior to desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding drug provocation test (DPT) with antineoplastic and biological agents is scarce. Our aim was to assess the usefulness of including DPT as a paramount gold standard diagnostic tool (prior to desensitization). METHODS: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with patients who, during a 3-year period, were referred to the Desensitization Program at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital. Patients underwent a structured diagnostic protocol by means of anamnesis, skin tests (ST), risk assessment, and DPT. Oxaliplatin-specific IgE was determined in oxaliplatin-reactive patients (who underwent DPT regardless of oxaliplatin-specific IgE results). Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used to identify predictors of the final diagnosis among several variables. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were assessed. A total of 104 (56%) patients underwent DPT. Sixty-four percent of all DPTs were negative (i.e., hypersensitivity was excluded). Sensitivity for oxaliplatin-specific IgE (0.35 UI/l cutoff point) was 34%, specificity 90.3%, negative predictive value 45.9%, positive predictive value 85%, negative likelihood ratio 0.7, and positive likelihood ratio 3.5. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first reported data based on more than 100 DPTs with antineoplastic and biological agents (paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, rituximab, infliximab, irinotecan, and other drugs). Implementation of DPT in diagnostic protocols helps exclude hypersensitivity (in 36% of all referred patients), and avoids unnecessary desensitizations in nonhypersensitive patients (30-56% of patients, depending on culprit-drug). Drug provocation test is vital to validate diagnostic tools; consequently, quality data are shown on oxaliplatin-specific IgE and oxaliplatin-ST in the largest series of oxaliplatin-reactive patients reported to date (74 oxaliplatin-reactive patients). Identifying phenotypes and predictors of a diagnosis of hypersensitivity may be helpful for tailored plans.

Practical guidelines for diagnosing hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the drugs most frequently involved in hypersensitivity reactions. These reactions include various clinical entities with different mechanisms leading to the release of inflammatory mediators. Characterization of patients based on clinical manifestations and suspected underlying mechanisms is critical for implementation of adequate diagnostic procedures and patient management. Our objectives were to prepare a systematic review of available scientific evidence and to provide general guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs. We also propose a practical algorithm for the diagnosis of specific types of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs and provide recommendations for the management of hypersensitive patients.

Hypersensitivity and desensitization to antineoplastic agents: outcomes of 189 procedures with a new short protocol and novel diagnostic tools assessment.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization to antineoplastic agents is becoming a standard of care. Efforts to establish and improve these techniques are being made at many institutions. Our aims are to evaluate a new rapid desensitization protocol designed to be shorter (approximately 4 h) and safer (reducing hazardous drugs exposure risks) and to assess the oxaliplatin-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a novel diagnostic tool. METHODS: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with patients who, for a 1-year period, suffered reactions to antineoplastic agents and were referred to the Desensitization Program at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital (RCUH). Patients were included or excluded as desensitization candidates after anamnesis, skin testing, risk assessment, and graded challenge. Specific IgE was determined in oxaliplatin-reactive patients. Candidate patients were desensitized using the new RCUH rapid desensitization protocol. RESULTS: Of 189 intravenous rapid desensitizations, 188 were successfully accomplished in the 23 patients who met inclusion criteria for desensitization (of 58 referred patients). No breakthrough reactions occurred in 94% of desensitizations, and most breakthrough reactions were mild. In 10 oxaliplatin-reactive patients, 38 desensitizations were successfully accomplished. Sensitivity for oxaliplatin-specific IgE was 38% (0.35UI/l cutoff point) and 54% (0.10UI/l cutoff point); specificity was 100% for both cutoff points. CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of a Desensitization Program, managed by drug desensitization experts, this new protocol has proven an effective therapeutic tool for hypersensitivity to several antineoplastic agents (oxaliplatin, carboplatin, paclitaxel, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab); moreover, it improves safety handling of hazardous drugs. We report the first large series of oxaliplatin desensitizations. Oxaliplatin-specific IgE determination could be helpful.

The effect of leukotriene-modifier drugs on aspirin-induced asthma and rhinitis reactions.

BACKGROUND: Leukotrienes (LTs) appear to be crucial mediators of aspirin (ASA)-induced lower respiratory tract reactions. Therefore, it is logical to assume that leukotriene-modifier drugs (LTMDs) might block these reactions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether concomitant treatment with LTMDs was associated with a reduction of ASA-provoked lower respiratory tract reactions in patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), when compared to AERD patients who were not treated with LTMDs. Secondly, if ASA-induced lower respiratory tract reactions were prevented in LTMD-treated patients, was there then a higher prevalence of upper respiratory reactors or, alternatively, a higher prevalence of blocked reactions ('non-reactors') in this group. METHODS: Of 271 patients suspected by history of having AERD, 96 were taking cys-LT receptor antagonists (cys-LTRAs) and 12 were taking zileuton at the time of oral ASA challenges. A matched control group of 163 patients was not receiving LTMDs. All subjects underwent standard oral ASA challenges. Reactions were classified as follows: classic [naso-ocular combined with a 20% or > decline in forced expiratory volume of 1 s (FEV1)]; pure lower (20% or > decline in FEV1 without naso-ocular); partial asthma (naso-ocular + 15-20% decline in FEV1); upper only (naso-ocular with < 15% decline in FEV1); negative (no reactions). RESULTS: In patients treated with cys-LTRAs, there were significant reductions in numbers of patients with ASA-induced bronchospastic reactions and a concomitant increase in upper respiratory reactors. There were no significant differences in mean provoking doses of ASA or the percent changes in FEV1 values in both groups. In the 12 patients receiving zileuton, no reactions to ASA (16%) were similar to the cys-LTRA-treated group (11%) and the control group (15%). CONCLUSION: During oral ASA challenges, LTMD treatment appeared to shift target organ responses from both upper and lower respiratory tracts to upper tract alone. LTMD blocking of the entire respiratory tract did not appear to occur.