[Second-Generation Antihistamines for Preventing Hypersensitivity Reactions during Anticancer Therapy-A Retrospective Study].

Hypersensitivity reactions are an adverse effect of anticancer drug therapy. Prophylactic administration of antiallergic drugs and steroids is recommended when administering drugs associated with a high hypersensitivity reaction incidence. First-generation antihistamines are generally used in this setting. These medications, however, induce drowsiness and sedation due to their inhibitory effects on the central nervous system. They are contraindicated in patients with angle-closure glaucoma and prostatic hyperplasia. Second-generation antihistamines are used as alternative drugs for such cases in our hospital. This study investigated the use of second-generation antihistamines at our hospital and examined their efficacy and safety. A total of 7 second-generation antihistamines were used at our hospital. Approximately 90% of the target patients were shifted from first-generation antihistamines to bilastine or desloratadine. The most frequent reasons for changing to second- generation antihistamines were drowsiness(32.3%)and car driving(24.2%). No central inhibitory side effects were observed upon consumption of second-generation antihistamines. Only 2 patients(3.2%)developed hypersensitivity reactions after changing to second-generation antihistamines. Our findings suggest that second-generation antihistamines are effective in preventing hypersensitivity reactions. These medications may be used in patients who have concerns regarding the central inhibitory side effects of first-generation antihistamines or their potential to exacerbate comorbidities. Their use can help improve the safety of anticancer drug therapy.

Assessing the ability of the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to predict chemotherapy toxicity in older Japanese patients: A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) prediction tool was designed in the United States to predict grade ≥ 3 chemotherapy-related adverse events (CRAE) in older patients. However, its usefulness among Japanese people, who have different sensitivities to anticancer drugs and life expectancy, remains unknown. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the utility of the CARG tool for predicting severe CRAE in older Japanese patients with cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with solid tumors aged 65 years and older who commenced anticancer drug regimens from April 2018 to October 2020 were divided into three groups (low, medium, and high-risk) based on their CARG risk scores. Toxicity was prospectively observed by a pharmacist. The primary objective was to evaluate the correlation between the incidence of grade ≥ 3 CRAE and the CARG risk score. The secondary objective was to evaluate hematological and non-hematological toxicities. CRAE incidence was compared among the three groups using a closed testing procedure: (1) Cochran-Armitage test for trend and (2) chi-square test for paired comparison. RESULTS: The patients (N = 165) had a median age of 71 years (range: 65-89 years). CRAE in patients divided into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, based on CARG risk scores, were 39%, 55%, and 82%, respectively (low vs high; p < 0.001, medium vs high; p < 0.01). The incidence of severe hematologic toxicity was 37%, 35%, and 50% in the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, respectively; the incidence of severe non-hematologic toxicity was 15%, 36%, and 65%, respectively (low vs medium; p < 0.01, low vs high; p < 0.001, and medium vs high; p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective observational study to validate the CARG prediction tool in older Japanese patients with cancer. The CARG risk score may be effective in predicting the development of non-hematologic toxicities. These results should be considered when administering chemotherapy to older Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors.