Kakiuchi Toshihiko, Kimura Sakiko, Esaki Motohiro, Matsuo Muneaki
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Department of Pharmacy, Saga University Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Front Pediatr. 2021 Dec 24;9:670703. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.670703. eCollection 2021.
Although the biological agent ustekinumab (UST) is reported to be effective for Crohn's disease (CD) in pediatric as well as adult patients, data on the efficacy and safety of UST in pediatric patients with CD are limited. Here, we describe the case of a pediatric patient who showed an allergic reaction to UST after subcutaneous (SC) maintenance injections but not immediately after initial intravenous (IV) injection. A 9-year-old boy presented to our hospital with diarrhea lasting 2 years and weight loss, leading to the diagnosis of CD. After prednisolone (PSL) was tapered and discontinued, he promptly relapsed. According to our institution's protocol, we introduced the biological agent infliximab (IFX) with premedication. Coughing and vomiting was observed after the second dose of IFX and it was changed to adalimumab (ADA). However, the effect of ADA gradually disappeared after 18 months; therefore, it was discontinued and he was treated using UST. The first IV UST dose was given after administering hydrocortisone (HDC), an antiallergic and antipyretic analgesic, as premedication, and no obvious adverse reaction was observed. After 8 weeks, UST was subcutaneously injected without premedication. The patient then complained of nausea, dizziness, and headache within 15 min of UST administration. Therefore, for the third dose of UST, HDC was administered again as premedication. However, nausea, dizziness, and headache presented 10 min after UST administration, resulting in discontinuation of further UST treatment. Careful distinction between "true" infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and anaphylaxis or allergic reactions is necessary to determine whether biological agents can be continued after the development of "so-called" IRRs. For true IRRs, it may be possible to continue using the biological agent with appropriate premedication; however, in cases of anaphylaxis, the biological agent itself should be changed.
尽管生物制剂优特克单抗(UST)据报道对儿童和成人克罗恩病(CD)均有效,但关于UST在儿童CD患者中的疗效和安全性数据有限。在此,我们描述了一名儿科患者的病例,该患者在皮下(SC)维持注射UST后出现过敏反应,但在初次静脉注射(IV)后未立即出现。一名9岁男孩因持续2年的腹泻和体重减轻前来我院就诊,最终被诊断为CD。泼尼松龙(PSL)逐渐减量并停用后,他很快复发。根据我院的方案,我们引入了生物制剂英夫利昔单抗(IFX)并进行预处理。第二次注射IFX后出现咳嗽和呕吐,遂改为阿达木单抗(ADA)。然而,18个月后ADA的效果逐渐消失;因此,停用ADA并使用UST对他进行治疗。首次静脉注射UST前给予了氢化可的松(HDC)作为抗过敏和解热镇痛的预处理,未观察到明显不良反应。8周后,未进行预处理直接皮下注射UST。患者在注射UST后15分钟内出现恶心、头晕和头痛。因此,第三次注射UST时,再次给予HDC作为预处理。然而,注射UST后10分钟出现恶心、头晕和头痛,导致UST治疗中断。在出现“所谓的”输液相关反应(IRR)后,必须仔细区分“真正的”IRR与过敏反应或过敏,以确定生物制剂是否可以继续使用。对于真正的IRR,在进行适当预处理的情况下可能可以继续使用生物制剂;然而,在过敏反应的情况下,应更换生物制剂本身。