Safety and Immunogenicity of LY3415244, a Bispecific Antibody Against TIM-3 and PD-L1, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Investigate the safety and efficacy of LY3415244, a TIM-3/PD-L1 bispecific antibody that blocks TIM-3 and PD-L1 in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase I, multicenter, open-label study was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients were dosed every 2 weeks intravenously with flat doses of LY3415244 escalating from 3 to 70 mg. The primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and identification of the recommended phase II dose. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and October 2019, 12 patients were enrolled into four cohorts and received at least one dose of LY3415244. Two patients (16.7%) developed clinically significant anaphylactic infusion-related reactions and all patients developed treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies (TE-ADA). ADA titers were sometimes very high and negatively impacted soluble TIM-3 target engagement in most patients. ADA epitope specificity was against both TIM-3 and PD-L1 arms of the bispecific antibody; most TE-ADAs initially targeted the TIM-3 arm after the first dose. Preexisting ADAs against LY3415244 were also detected in normal (unexposed) human serum samples. One patient with PD-1 refractory non-small cell lung cancer had a near partial response (-29.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This TIM-3 and PD-L1 bispecific format was associated with unexpected immunogenicity targeting both arms of the bispecific antibody, resulting in early study termination. Epitope specificity analysis revealed an initial response toward the TIM-3 arm and presence of preexisting ADAs to the bispecific molecule in the general population. This experience emphasizes the importance of thorough analyses for preexisting ADAs as part of immunogenicity risk assessment of novel antibodies.See related commentary by de Spéville and Moreno, p. 2669.

Blocking TIM-3 in Treatment-refractory Advanced Solid Tumors: A Phase Ia/b Study of LY3321367 with or without an Anti-PD-L1 Antibody.

PURPOSE: T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain-containing molecule-3 (TIM-3) blunts anticancer immunity and mediates resistance to programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. We assessed a novel, first-in-class, TIM-3 mAb, LY3321367, alone or in combination with the anti-PD-L1 antibody, LY300054 in patients with advanced solid tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, multicenter, phase Ia/b study aimed to define the safety/tolerability and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of LY3321367 with or without LY300054. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and efficacy. Biomarkers were assessed in exploratory analysis. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the monotherapy (N = 30) or combination (N = 28) dose escalation. LY3321367 treatment-related adverse events (≥2 patients) included pruritus, rash, fatigue, anorexia, and infusion-related reactions. Dose-proportional increase in LY3321367 concentrations was not affected by either LY300054 or antidrug antibodies (observed in 50%-70% of patients). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling indicated 100% target engagement at doses ≥600 mg. LY3321367 RP2D was 1,200 mg biweekly for four doses followed by 600 mg every 2 weeks thereafter. In the non-small cell lung cancer monotherapy expansion cohort, outcomes varied by prior anti-PD-1 therapy response status: anti-PD-1/L1 refractory patients [N = 23, objective response rate (ORR) 0%, disease control rate (DCR) 35%, progression-free survival (PFS) 1.9 months] versus anti-PD-1/L1 responders (N = 14, ORR 7%, DCR 50%, PFS 7.3 months). In combination expansion cohorts (N = 91), ORR and DCR were 4% and 42%; CD8 infiltration in paired biopsies increased in approximately half these patients. CONCLUSIONS: LY3321367 exhibited acceptable safety profile with favorable pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics but only modest antitumor activity. The therapeutic relevance of TIM-3 blockade requires further investigation.

BAT in the Diagnosis of Drug Allergy: a Novel Tool in Clinical Daily Practice?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study is to critically review the relevant literature published on basophil activation test, presenting the current knowledge and future perspectives. RECENT FINDINGS: Basophil activation test (BAT) results varied accordingly to the class of the drug studied, and have promising results in immediate hypersensitivity reactions to pyrazolone (selective reactors), neuromuscular blockers, beta-lactams, and platinum compounds, all examples of classical IgE-mediated hypersensitivity drug reactions. Currently, BAT is applied in research settings, but based in the results of our review, the test can be considered as a diagnostic tool for daily practice for selected patients and selected drugs, when the test is available, particularly for patients who experienced severe reactions and when diagnosis cannot be stablished by serum-specific IgE and skin testing, in order to avoid unnecessary drug provocations tests.

Incidência aumentada de haplótipo de HLA de classe II na anafilaxia grave secundária à carboplatina / Increased incidence of a class II HLA haplotype in severe anaphylaxis secondary to carboplatin

Objetivo: O papel de biomarcadores nas reações de hipersensibilidade a platinas tem sido estudado, e é conhecido que a presença da mutação do gene BRCA1/2 é fator de risco para reações de hipersensibilidade à carboplatina. A genotipagem de HLA de classes I e II auxilia na identificação de pacientes de risco para reações IgE-mediadas e mediadas por linfócitos T associadas a beta-lactâmicos e abacavir, respectivamente. Não são conhecidos alelos ou haplótipos de HLA mais prevalentes em pacientes alérgicos à carboplatina. O objetivo principal do estudo foi avaliar se alelos específicos de HLA de classe II são mais prevalentes em pacientes alérgicos à carboplatina submetidos à dessensibilização (DS). Método: Genotipagem de HLA de classe II realizada em 11 pacientes portadoras de neoplasias malignas tubo-ovarianas, alérgicas à carboplatina, e submetidas à DS, e em 12 pacientes tolerantes à carboplatina, por no mínimo oito ciclos. Analisou-se também a prevalência da mutação BRCA1/2 nos dois grupos estudados. Resultados: O alelo HLA-DRB1*15:01 foi mais prevalente entre as pacientes alérgicas (5/11; 45%) do que nos controles (1/12; 8,3%) (p = 0,06). O haplótipo de classe II DQA1*01:02-DQB1*06:02-DRB1*15:01 foi mais expresso no grupo de pacientes alérgicas. A mutação do BRCA1/2 mostrou-se mais prevalente no grupo alérgico. Conclusões: A identificação de pacientes de risco para reações alérgicas à carboplatina é de extrema importância com o uso crescente da medicação. A genotipagem de HLA e a pesquisa da mutação BRCA1/2 mostramse ferramentas promissoras que podem aumentar a segurança durante infusão regular de carboplatina e DS.

Objective: The role of biomarkers in hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to platinum compounds has been studied, and the presence of BRCA1/2 gene mutation is known to be a risk factor for carboplatin HSR. Class I and II HLA genotyping helps identify patients at risk for IgE-mediated and T lymphocyte-mediated reactions associated with beta-lactams and abacavir, respectively. Associations between HLA alleles or haplotypes and carboplatin HSR are not known. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate whether specific class II HLA alleles are more prevalent in patients allergic to carboplatin who underwent rapid drug desensitization (RDD). Methods: Class II HLA genotyping was performed in 11 carboplatin-allergic patients with tubo-ovarian malignancies who were submitted to RDD, and in 12 patients who tolerated carboplatin, for at least eight cycles. The prevalence of the BRCA1/2 mutation was also analyzed in both groups. Results: The HLA-DRB1*15:01 allele was more prevalent among allergic patients (5/11; 45%) than in controls (1/12; 8.3%) (p = 0.06). Class II haplotype DQA1*01:02-DQB1*06:02-DRB1*15:01 and the BRCA1/2 mutation were also more prevalent in the allergic group. Conclusions: The identification of patients at risk for carboplatin HSR is of utmost importance, as the use of this medication is increasing. HLA genotyping and screening for the BRCA1/2 mutation are promising tools that may increase safety during regular carboplatin infusion and RDD.

Monoclonal Antibodies Hypersensitivity: Prevalence and Management.

The use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has become broader because of their recognized effectiveness in the treatment of autoimmune, neoplastic, and inflammatory diseases. Consequently, hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) secondary to mAbs are being reported more often, and each mAb-related HSR presents specific features. This article discusses the main biological agents and associated HSR, the clinical presentation of such reactions, and the role of tryptase and skin testing in the diagnosis. Rapid drug desensitization procedures to mAbs enable selected allergic patients to receive full therapeutic doses in a safe manner and are also discussed.

Current Knowledge and Management of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Monoclonal Antibodies.

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are increasingly frequent as this class of therapeutic agents is rapidly expanding. Immediate and nonimmediate HSRs have been reported with mAbs. Immediate HSRs can be explained by 3 main mechanisms: cytokine release syndrome, IgE-mediated, and IgG-mediated reactions. Importantly, IgE-mediated reactions can occur on first exposure due to preformed specific IgEs, as shown for cetuximab. Almost all patients with an immediate HSR can be safely re-exposed either through desensitization or challenge depending on the severity and mechanism of the initial reaction. An algorithm detailing the general approach to these HSRs and the preferred method of re-exposure is presented in this review. Also, the mAbs that are most frequently implicated in HSRs are discussed individually.

Basophil Activation Test is a Relevant Biomarker of the Outcome of Rapid Desensitization in Platinum Compounds-Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) has become a cornerstone in the management of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic agents. Because of the inherent risk of anaphylaxis during RDD, biomarkers to predict patients at risk of developing such severe reactions are needed. The basophil activation test (BAT) has been used in DHRs as a diagnostic tool. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated basophil CD63 and CD203c expression (BAT) as a biomarker to assess the safety and effectiveness of RDD in platinum compounds-allergic patients. METHODS: Patients allergic to platinum compounds (n = 15) undergoing RDD were assessed through clinical history, skin testing, serum tryptase levels, and BAT. BAT was performed immediately before RDD, assessing CD203c and CD63 expression on basophils. BAT was also performed in 6 patients tolerant to platinum compounds and in 6 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: BAT was positive to CD203c or CD63 in 11 out of 15 patients allergic to platinum compounds (73%), with increased expression of CD203c and CD63 in 11 (73%) and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. Increased CD63 expression tended to be associated with more severe initial reactions. All controls had negative test results. Reactions during RDD were associated with BAT positivity and increased tryptase levels. Only 1 of 4 patients with negative BAT had a mild reaction during RDD. BAT remained positive in multiple sequential RDD. CONCLUSIONS: BAT identified patients allergic to platinum compounds with an increased risk of reactions during desensitization and higher CD63 expression was observed in severe reactions. Multiple RDDs to platinum compounds did not induce persistent hyporesponsiveness on basophils. BAT is a potential biomarker for RDD.

Risk stratification and skin testing to guide re-exposure in taxane-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to patients with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to taxanes has not been established. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of risk stratification based on the severity of the initial HSR and skin testing for guiding taxane reintroduction in patients with an HSR to these agents. METHODS: Data on 164 patients treated for a taxane-related HSR from April 2011 to August 2014 at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital were collected retrospectively. Patients were re-exposed to taxanes either through desensitization, challenge, or regular infusion based on the severity of the initial HSR and skin test response. Depending on the initial risk stratification and tolerance to re-exposure, patients were then treated with shorter desensitization protocols, challenge, or both with the aim of resuming regular infusions, except in patients with a severe immediate initial HSR. RESULTS: Of 138 patients desensitized, 29 (21%) had an immediate and 20 (14%) had a delayed HSR with the procedure. Of 49 patients challenged, 2 (4%) had a mild immediate and 1 (2%) had a delayed HSR with the procedure. No patients had a severe immediate HSR with desensitization or challenge. Thirty-six (22%) patients eventually resumed regular infusions. These patients were more likely to have negative skin test responses and to have experienced a delayed or mild immediate initial HSR. CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification based on the severity of the initial HSR and skin testing to guide taxane reintroduction is safe and allows a significant number of patients to resume regular infusions.

Hypersensitivity to biological agents-updated diagnosis, management, and treatment.

Biological agents are used in the treatment of neoplastic, autoimmune, and inflammatory diseases and their clinical applications are becoming broader. Following their increased utilization, hypersensitivity reactions linked to these drugs have become more frequent, sometimes preventing the use of first-line therapies. The clinical presentation of hypersensitivity reactions to biological agents ranges from mild cutaneous manifestations to life-threatening reactions. In this scenario, rapid desensitization is a groundbreaking procedure that enables selected patients to receive the full treatment dose in a safe way, in spite of their immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the drug, and protects them against anaphylaxis. The aim of this review is to update and discuss some of the main biological agents used in clinical practice (rituximab, trastuzumab, cetuximab, ofatumumab, tocilizumab, brentuximab, omalizumab, and tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor agents) and their associated hypersensitivity reactions, including clinical presentations, diagnosis, and treatment in the acute setting. In addition, novel management options with rapid desensitization are presented.

Perioperative anaphylaxis.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition with an estimated prevalence of 1:3,500 to 1:20,000 procedures and a mortality rate of up to 9 %. Clinical presentation involves signs such as skin rash, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, tachycardia, bradycardia, and hypotension. Prompt recognition and treatment is of utmost importance to the patient's prognosis, since clinical deterioration can develop rapidly. Epinephrine is the main treatment drug, and its use should not be postponed, since delayed administration is associated with increased mortality. Elevated levels of serum tryptase help to confirm the diagnosis. The main agents involved in IgE-mediated perioperative anaphylaxis are neuromuscular blocking agents, latex, antibiotics, hypnotics, opioids, and colloids. Specific investigation should be conducted 4 to 6 weeks after the reaction and relies on skin tests, serum-specific IgE, and challenge procedures. This review aims to discuss the main aspects of perioperative anaphylaxis: risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, culprit agents, specific investigation, and preventive measures.