Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Pharmacy Department, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Apr;9(4):1660-1666. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.028. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
Where an ongoing requirement for intravenous iron replacement exists after an index infusion reaction, current recommendations are limited to expert opinion and isolated case reports.
To evaluate the safety of recommencing an infusion or subsequent rechallenge following an infusion reaction to intravenous iron.
Infusion reactions to intravenous iron occurring between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, at a metropolitan health network were identified. Patient characteristics, reaction type (mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity, delayed, or Fishbane: transient flushing and truncal myalgias), and outcomes of recommencing the index infusion or subsequent rechallenge were examined.
Among 13,509 iron infusions, 195 infusion reactions occurred in 195 patients (1.4% of infusions). Recommencement of the index infusion (generally with a reduced infusion rate and premedication) was tolerated in 33 of 33 patients with Fishbane (20 of 20) or mild (9 of 9) and moderate (4 of 4) hypersensitivity reactions. Subsequent rechallenge (generally at standard infusion rates to an alternative formulation, ferric carboxymaltose) was successful in 68 of 69 patients with Fishbane (23 of 23), mild (26 of 26), moderate (16 of 17), and severe (3 of 3) hypersensitivity, or delayed (2 of 2) reactions. All 9 patients rechallenged to the original formulation (iron polymaltose) completed the infusion.
Following an infusion reaction to intravenous iron infusion, recommencement of the index infusion is safe for Fishbane or mild and moderate hypersensitivity reactions. Subsequent rechallenge to an alternative formulation is tolerated, including in severe hypersensitivity reactions (albeit based on limited numbers). Where alternative formulations are not available, rechallenge to the same formulation could be considered, depending on the risk-benefit profile.
在出现索引输注反应后,如果持续需要静脉铁替代治疗,目前的建议仅限于专家意见和孤立的病例报告。
评估在静脉铁输注反应后重新开始输注或随后再次挑战的安全性。
在一个大都市医疗网络中,确定了 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间发生的静脉铁输注反应。检查了重新开始索引输注或随后再次挑战的患者特征、反应类型(轻度、中度或重度过敏反应、延迟反应或 Fishbane:短暂潮红和躯干肌痛)和结局。
在 13509 次铁输注中,195 名患者发生了 195 次输注反应(输注反应的 1.4%)。在 Fishbane(20 例中的 20 例)或轻度(9 例中的 9 例)和中度(4 例中的 4 例)过敏反应的 33 例患者中,重新开始索引输注(通常以较低的输注速度和预处理)是可以耐受的。在 Fishbane(23 例中的 23 例)、轻度(26 例中的 26 例)、中度(17 例中的 17 例)和重度(3 例中的 3 例)过敏反应或延迟(2 例中的 2 例)反应的 69 例患者中,随后再次挑战(通常以标准输注速度至另一种制剂,羧基麦芽糖铁)是成功的。所有 9 例重新挑战原制剂(铁多聚糖)的患者均完成了输注。
在静脉铁输注反应后,重新开始索引输注对于 Fishbane 或轻度和中度过敏反应是安全的。随后再次挑战替代制剂是可以耐受的,包括严重过敏反应(尽管基于有限的数量)。在没有替代制剂的情况下,可以考虑重新挑战相同的制剂,这取决于风险效益状况。