4.4 Review

Allergic Reactions Associated with Intravenous Versus Intramuscular Pegaspargase: A Retrospective Chart Review

Journal

PEDIATRIC DRUGS
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 315-321

Publisher

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-015-0129-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Pegaspargase (PEG-ASP) is essential chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Since changing to intravenous (IV) administration from intramuscular (IM), an increased number of allergic reactions have been anecdotally noted at our institution. This study compares the rate and severity of allergic reactions in children receiving IM or IV PEG-ASP. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of patients treated with IV or IM PEG-ASP at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, from March 1, 2010 to January 1, 2012. The incidence and severity of allergic reactions attributed to PEG-ASP were documented. Patient age, sex, route of PEG-ASP administration, disease (risk group and lineage) and mean time interval between PEG-ASP doses were evaluated as possible risk factors for allergic reaction. Results A total of 109 patients were included. There were 14 (35 %) allergic reactions among 40 patients who received IV, compared with eight (12 %) of the 69 who received IM [odds ratio (OR) 4.11, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.54-10.97, p = 0.005]. In multivariable logistic regression adjusting for disease risk group, route (IV vs. IM) remained independently significant (p = 0.011). Patients with standard-risk ALL had a lower risk of experiencing an allergic reaction associated with PEG-ASP compared with patients in high-risk disease risk groups (collectively referred to as other; 11 vs. 31 %, OR 3.36, 95 % CI 1.16-9.72, p = 0.025). Conclusions IV PEG-ASP is associated with a significantly higher rate of allergic reactions than IM. The clinical preference for IV PEG-ASP may warrant re-evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available