Adverse Reactions to Biologics Used in Allergy and Immunology Practice

Adam Yalin^*
*Correspondence: Adam Yalin, Department of Immunology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel, Email:

Introduction

Since the FDA approved the first monoclonal antibody in 1986, the availability and use of biologic medicines has grown tremendously. These medicines are now widely employed in allergy and immunology to achieve exceptional disease control and limit exposure to systemic corticosteroids. As the usage of biologics has grown, so has awareness and understanding of adverse reactions to these drugs. This study will go over the different types and classifications of adverse biologic reactions, as well as diagnostic and therapeutic options. We will concentrate on monoclonal antibodies and fusion receptor proteins, which are extensively utilised in allergy and immunology, as well as monoclonal antibody reactions, which are commonly referred to allergy/ immunology specialists. When a patient arrives at the clinic for their next dose of biologic treatment, the dose may be withheld due to concern for the patient's condition, such as a comorbid respiratory illness, or fear of an increased risk of adverse events due to recent administration of a vaccine or antibiotics, or preparation for upcoming surgery. However, professional experts believe that the biologic treatment for severe asthma and allergy disorders should be withheld in just a few cases. Summarises conditions where administration may be a concern; checkmarks indicate that the biologic treatment can be administered. Specific instances in which biologic dose reduction may be considered are discussed further in this section.

Biologics are big complex compounds originating from mammalian cells or microbes, such as proteins or polypeptides. There are various distinctive characteristics of biologics that set them apart from most medications. The majority of medications are tiny compounds with molecular weights less than one kilodaltons that have been chemically produced and well described. Biologics, on the other hand, are often significantly larger and can contain more complex tertiary polypeptide structures. Biologics are digested similarly to other proteins after given to patients, as contrast to medications, which undergo a variety of metabolic processes. Furthermore, unlike most medicines, which do not function through an expected immune-mediated response, fusion receptor proteins and monoclonal antibodies have immune-mediated effects inherent to their function and intended action. These distinctions have significance for classifying adverse reactions to these drugs. Traditionally, adverse medication reactions were classified based on the drug's dose, time, and pharmacologic activity, as in the type A through E classification system. However, because most medicines and biologic agents differ, different classification methods have been developed to stress fundamental path mechanisms of immunological target-related reactions. Pichler offered one such categorization, which comprises five distinct types of reactions: and reactions. Type responses are overstimulation reactions generated by an excess of the biologic agent's expected pharmacologic activity, with manifestations ranging from mild flu-like symptoms with IFN- to severe cytokine release syndrome [1].

Drawing the contours of clinical phenotypes of adverse responses to biologic medicines is a valuable exercise for both framing future debate on specific biologic medications used in allergy and immunology practise and highlighting overlapping clinical features across diverse adverse reaction pathways. Adverse responses to biologic drugs are prevalent in general, including up to 77% of patients beginning rituximab. Acute infusion responses, which include fevers, rigours, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, back pain, stomach pain, dyspnea, flushing, pruritus, or changes in blood pressure or heart rate following drug administration, are common. While there is significant overlap in symptoms between acute infusion responses and IgEmediated reactions, infusion reactions are more prevalent, occur reliably, and are frequently associated with initial infusion reactions [2].

Description

The mechanism of these responses is not completely understood. Acute infusion reactions to infliximab have been linked to pre-existing anti-infliximab antibodies, and infliximab-anti-infliximab antibody complex formation, which may activate complement, has been observed. Complement activation has also been shown with rituximab, but obinutuzumab, another anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody with less complement activation than rituximab, had a higher frequency of infusion reactions, indicating that complement activation is not always the primary driver of these reactions. The majority of these reactions appear to be non-immunologic in character, as they ameliorate with additional treatment and decreasing the infusion rate. IgE-mediated reactions to biologics are well-documented, and while particular incidence rates differ amongst biologics, these occur less frequently overall than supposed non-IgE acute reactions. IgE-mediated reactions may involve more urticaria, wheezing, or anaphylactic symptoms than acute infusion reactions, though this is not always the case. These are more common with consecutive doses after initial tolerance; however they can occur with the first exposure as with cetuximab and omalizumab. Furthermore, non-IgE anti-drug antibodies may have a role in both immediate and delayed reactions [3].

Injection site responses are another typical adverse event for biologics, the prevalence of which varies depending on the biologic. These are characterised by erythema, edoema, and infiltrating plaques at the injection site, which normally appear 24-48 hours after injection but can occur quickly. The mechanisms of a, b reactions, as reviewed by Thomaidou and Ramot can be included. Local responses at the site of prior injections have also been documented, most typically in response to etanercept. These memory reactions can take the form of oedematous popular plaques that appear at the site of earlier drug administration, with lesional skin biopsies showing superficial perivascular T cell lymphocytic infiltrates. These usually ameliorate with topical steroids and do not reoccur with further dosing [4].

As previously stated, there is significant clinical feature overlap between adverse reaction phenotypes. Suggested a classification system based on phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers in light of this. They classify adverse reactions to biologics into five categories: cytokine release reactions, infusion-related reactions, type reactions characterised by mast cell or basophil degranulation via either IgE or non-IgE-mediated mechanisms, mixed reactions combining features of IgE-mediated and cytokine release reactions, and delayed reactions such as Gell-Coombs type III and type IV reactions. While there is still some imprecision in establishing the border markers between one subtype and another, this classification system has a specific focus on management decision making, aiding doctors in developing a treatment plan [5].

Conclusion

As a diagnostic tool, drug challenge testing (DC) for biologic adverse events has been utilised. In a prospective cohort of patients who had adverse responses to biologics, the most prevalent of which were rituximab, infliximab, and cetuximab, had negative specific IgE or skin tests. The beginning of generalised urticarial or angioedema > 15 minutes after the commencement of the infusion, pruritus, dyspnoea with intact oxygen saturations, throat tightness, irritative cough, nausea, abdominal pain, severe back pain, or fever were all considered low/medium risk. Patients with low/medium risk were given a diagnostic drug challenge, with the full dose provided at usual infusion rates. Of the sixty patients who finished the challenge, had no responses during the operation and were able to complete it.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Canonica, Giorgio Walter. "Sublingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2013 update." World Allergy Org J 7 (2014): 6.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Passalacqua, Giovanni. "Current insights in allergen immunotherapy." Annal Allergy Asthma Immunol 120 (2018): 152-154.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Cox, Linda. "Allergen immunotherapy: A practice parameter second update." J Allergy Clin Immunol 120 (2007): S25-S85.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Incorvaia, Cristoforo. "Personalized medicine for allergy treatment: Allergen immunotherapy still a unique and unmatched model." Allergy 76 (2021): 1041-1052.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Pajno, Giovanni B. "Sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitized children with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study." J Allergy Cli Immun120 (2007): 164-170.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at