Etoposide hypersensitivity reactions associated with in-line filter use: A retrospective cohort study at CHU de
Kelly Dodier1,2, Isabelle Laverdière1,2,3, Marie-Julie Roy2,3
1Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Introduction:
A case series of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) during intravenous administration of etoposide was observed following the introduction of in-line filters (ILFs) at a specialized university-affiliated center. This raised questions about the possible involvement of filters in these reactions. Despite there being very little published evidence to inform clinical decision making in this potentially clinically significant situation, the use of ILFs was discontinued at this center pending further investigation. The aims of this study were to evaluate the cumulative incidence of etoposide-related HSR with and without the use of ILF and to describe the reactions in adult and pediatric patients with cancer.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was performed among all pediatric and adult patients treated with intravenous etoposide at a maximal concentration of 0.4 mg/mL at our center between 30 September 2015 and 16 August 2018. This covered periods of time during which ILFs were used, as well as 6 months before their implementation and after their withdrawal. Data were extracted from medical records and cumulative incidence was calculated for each of the time periods (pre-ILF, ILF, and post-ILF) as the proportion of patients who recorded an HSR (one or more). Confidence intervals were calculated for each proportion using Fisher's Exact 95%. Comparisons of proportions between time periods were performed using Exact Pearson Chi-squared tests. Data were stratified by a number of perfusion cycles (single cycle or multiple cycles) and by patient population (adult and pediatric).
Results:
A total of 284 patients were included in the study. The overall cumulative incidence of etoposide HSR was 9.9%. The cumulative incidence of HSR tended to be higher during ILF use when compared with combined pre- and post-ILF periods (12.2% [95% CI: 7.9-17.8] vs. 5.2% [95% CI: 1.7-11.7], p = 0.09). In patients who received multiple cycles of etoposide, the cumulative incidence of HSRs was higher during ILF use when compared with combined pre- and post-ILF periods (15.0% [95% CI: 9.6-21.8] vs. 3.9% [95% CI: 0.8-11.0], p = 0.01). The majority of HSRs' maximal severity were grade 1 or 2 (85.7%) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0.
Conclusions:
This study suggests a link between the use of ILFs and increased incidence of HSR during etoposide perfusion.