RESUMEN
AIM: To present the characteristics of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among taxane recipients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and to describe the results of rapid drug desensitization (RDD). METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study included 45 patients who were treated with taxane for NSCLC and were found to be hypersensitive to taxane. All patients were administered the standard 3-bag, 12-step RDD protocol following the development of DHR. RDD success was evaluated separately for each cycle, and successful RDD was defined as the completion of the cycle with application of 12 steps of the desensitization protocol and the absence of early and/or late reactions afterwards. RESULTS: Among 45 patients hypersensitive to taxane 43 (95.6%) successfully received taxane cycles with desensitization. Failed RDD occurred in only 2 (4.4%) patients. The total number of desensitization cycles was 183, of which 181 (98.9%) were successful. The mean age of patients with successful desensitization was 59.42 ± 10.48 years and 37 (86.0%) of them were male. CONCLUSION: RDD is a reliable procedure that enables effective administration and completion of first-line taxane treatments in taxane-sensitive patients.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is an approved therapy for patients with a Thr790met (T790M) mutation diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progresses during epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy. However, in 7-13% of patients, drug-related side effects lead to discontinuation of osimertinib treatment. In such cases, osimertinib desensitization is a treatment option that can be considered. CASE REPORT: A 59-year-old female patient, who was followed up with the diagnosis of stage 4 NSCLC, was consulted to the allergy clinic because of urticaria. The patient developed urticaria plaques 20â h after the third dose of osimertinib tablet. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: With the diagnosis of osimertinib-induced urticaria, desensitization was planned for the patient. Treatment was started with a dose of 0.1â mg/day osimertinib. The procedure was completed in approximately 50 days, and a dose of 80â mg/day was reached with antihistamine suppression. DISCUSSION: Here, a successful osimertinib desensitization in a patient with a history of osimertinib-related type 1 allergic reaction is reported. Osimertinib desensitization is a treatment option that should be considered in cases where treatment has to be ceased due to drug-related side effects.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Urticaria , Acrilamidas , Compuestos de Anilina/efectos adversos , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Receptores ErbB/genética , Femenino , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos H1/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Indoles , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mutación , Inhibidores de Proteínas Quinasas/efectos adversos , Pirimidinas , Urticaria/inducido químicamenteRESUMEN
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, case reports have been published where patients with severe asthma using biological agents survived with a mild course of illness and encouraged the continuation of biological therapies in patients with severe asthma. However, contrary to previous information, a more severe course of COVID-19 has recently been reported in severe asthmatics using biological therapy compared to the general population. To evaluate the COVID-19 rate and disease severity in severe asthmatics using biological agents. A retrospective study was conducted in patients with severe asthma treated with biological agents. Data concerning whether the subjects had contracted COVID-19 and the severity of the disease were evaluated. Eihgty-four severe asthmatics using biological agents (omalizumab or mepolizumab) aged 48.3 ± 10.6 years (mean ± standard deviation) with female/male ratio: 53 (63.1%)/31 (36.9%) were included in the study. Among participants 13 (15.5%) had contracted COVID-19. The course of COVID-19 was mild in five (38.5%) and moderate in eight patients (61.5%), while none of the patients had a severe course of COVID-19. Mechanical ventilation or intensive care follow-up was not required in any of the six patients (46.2%) who were treated as inpatients. All participants survived COVID-19 in full recovery and no deaths occurred in the cases. A higher rate of COVID-19 was found in patients with severe asthma using biologics compared to those reported in previous reports. However, all patients with COVID-19 have a mild to moderate disease course.
Asunto(s)
Antiasmáticos , Asma , COVID-19 , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Asma/epidemiología , Factores Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) must be continued for 3 years, to achieve a long-term modifying effect. Adherence is a key to ensure effectiveness. The objective of this study was, first of all, to evaluate the adherence with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and to identify the main causes of SCIT withdrawal in real-life practice in our clinic. Secondly, we also aimed to investigate to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic altered our SCIT receiving patients' treatment adherence behaviors and the factors that affected their decisions. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients ages ≥18 years, who had started SCIT in January 2014 or later until September 2020 in our department for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma or venom allergy, were included in the study. Adherence was determined as the accomplishment of 3 years of SCIT. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients (72 female [58.1%]; median age, 35 [19-77] years) were included. The adherence rate to SCIT in our tertiary center's real-life setting was 56.25% with a follow-up duration of 3 years before COVID-19 pandemic. Dose modification, defined as reducing patient's planned SCIT dose due to a systemic allergic/large local reaction or missed injection, and its frequency, which is the number of dose adjustments done throughout the SCIT, was found to be the only factor related to nonadherence. But with the pandemic only in 6 months, among 63 patients receiving SCIT, 15 patients (23.81%) dropped out, and the most common reason was fear of being infected with COVID-19 virus during receiving SCIT in hospital (93.33%). The only independent predictor of drop-out during the COVID-19 pandemic was short duration of AIT (p = 0.012). When we compare the dropped-out cases before and after the start of pandemic, AIT duration was significantly shorter in pandemic period (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Adherence rate to SCIT in our real-world setting study was 56.25% before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results indicated that patients requiring dose modification were more prone to be non-adherent. Approximately one quarter of patients dropped-out with the start of pandemic, almost all due to fear of being infected during receiving SCIT in hospital. Since short SCIT follow-up time was found to be the only risk factor for drop-out during the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe that patients who are in the early phases of their treatment should be observed more closely and their concerns should be answered by their doctors.
RESUMEN
Background: There is a lack of information about the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics. Some reports indicated that treatment with benralizumab, dupilumab, and omalizumab in patients with severe asthma was not associated with significant adverse effects during COVID-19. Methods: Asthma itself or the biologic agents used to treat asthma can have a positive effect on the course of COVID-19. There seem not to be any cases that specifically reported the use of mepolizumab in a patient who was infected with COVID. Results: We reported of a 55-year-old woman with a diagnosis of severe asthma for; 3 years and who was being treated with mepolizumab, with no evidence of loss of asthma control, at the time of contracting COVID-19 and who had been followed up in the allergy clinic. In addition, there are no data on mepolizumab therapy in patients with elevated liver enzyme levels. Conclusion: With this case, we also reported that no adverse effects were observed during mepolizumab treatment in a patient with elevated liver enzyme levels.