Is there any evidence supporting use of a carboplatin desensitization protocol?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

There exists a substantial and consistently reported body of evidence supporting the use of carboplatin desensitization protocols in patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions. The available literature is composed predominantly of retrospective cohort studies, single- and multi-institutional case series, and a limited number of observational experiences. These data are most robust in the settings of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, where continued exposure to carboplatin is often clinically advantageous. Although randomized controlled trials are lacking, findings across various studies demonstrate a high degree of concordance with respect to both efficacy and safety outcomes. Specifically, desensitization protocols have been shown to enable successful re-administration of carboplatin in the majority of patients, with acceptable rates of breakthrough reactions that are typically mild and manageable under controlled conditions.

Background

The 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) joint practice parameter update indicates that for patients with a history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents, the severity of the initial reaction and skin testing results can help guide risk stratification and management, though the overall certainty of evidence is low. Skin testing with platinum agents can help confirm allergy and identify patients who may not require desensitization, but false-negative results have been reported in up to 8-8.5% of cases, and reactions can still occur despite a negative test, particularly if the time since the initial HSR is short (less than six weeks) or long (greater than six months). Risk-stratification protocols using serial skin tests have been shown to safely differentiate allergic from nonallergic patients and reduce unnecessary desensitizations, although they increase operational complexity, cost, and patient burden. Empiric desensitization without prior skin testing remains a safe approach when skin testing is unavailable or impractical, allowing patients to continue first-line therapy. For patients with positive skin tests or confirmed allergy, multi-step desensitization protocols, including the widely reported 12-step method, have been highly successful, with 93-94% of procedures resulting in mild or no reactions and all patients completing therapy. Modified protocols, including a 13-step version and simplified one-bag approaches without drug dilutions, have also demonstrated high efficacy and safety while reducing preparation time and resource requirements, allowing safe continuation of therapy with platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents in patients with prior hypersensitivity. [1]

Published reviews and expert consensus indicate that carboplatin desensitization is recommended for patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions and for whom alternative therapies are less effective or unavailable. Skin testing may identify patients at high risk for anaphylaxis during re-exposure. Desensitization protocols induce temporary tolerance by gradually reintroducing small, escalating doses of carboplatin until the full therapeutic dose is administered, and must be repeated for each treatment cycle. Commonly used protocols include multi-step regimens, such as the 12-step rapid desensitization method, as well as shorter 4-8 hour protocols; these involve stepwise increases in drug concentration, controlled infusion rates, and premedication with H1/H2 blockers, corticosteroids, and sometimes leukotriene antagonists. Evidence from a systematic review of 53 studies encompassing 2853 patients, including 44 cases with carboplatin, shows that desensitization success rates for carboplatin range from 67% to 100%, with most breakthrough reactions being mild or moderate and no reported deaths. Desensitization allows patients to safely continue full-dose carboplatin therapy, improving access to first-line treatment while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. [2], [3], [4]

A 2024 retrospective study assessed the effectiveness and safety of a five-step platinum desensitization protocol in patients with high-grade serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary experiencing hypersensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy. The study analyzed data from 92 patients treated from 2016 to 2020, who had allergies to platinum agents such as cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, and nedaplatin. The platinum desensitization protocol outlined involves a strategic five-step approach to acclimate patients to platinum agents, minimizing potential allergic reactions. Initially, the protocol administers dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, at 10 mg orally every 12 hours for two doses to mitigate inflammatory responses. This pre-treatment is followed by diphenhydramine, an antihistamine, given as a 50 mg intramuscular injection to counteract histamine release. The subsequent steps involve administering the platinum agent in progressively increasing concentrations, each diluted in 250 mL of a 5% glucose solution to ensure gradual exposure. The third step introduces a platinum solution at 1/100 of the total dose, infused incrementally: 2 mL/h for 15 minutes, increasing to 20 mL/h. The fourth step involves a higher concentration, 1/10 of the total dose, infused at rates starting from 5 mL/h, doubling to 40 mL/h. The final step administers the remaining dose of platinum, escalating infusion rates from 10 mL/h to 75 mL/h until completion. This meticulous escalation allows for careful monitoring of patient tolerance. [5]

The protocol emphasizes immediate cessation of desensitization upon any signs of allergic reaction, prioritizing patient safety while aiming to maintain the therapeutic use of platinum agents for those with known hypersensitivity. In cases of severe allergic reactions during chemotherapy or desensitization treatment, an immediate emergency response is crucial, involving a multidisciplinary team including oncologists, internists, anesthesiologists, emergency doctors, and nurses. Immediate actions include discontinuing the medication, providing oxygen, keeping the patient warm, and close monitoring of vital signs. Prompt administration of 0.5 to 1 ml of 0.1% epinephrine hydrochloride subcutaneously is recommended, and if symptoms persist, repeated doses or intravenous administration with glucose solutions may be required. Additionally, dexamethasone is administered intravenously, potentially replacing it with hydrocortisone as needed. Antihistamines like promethazine hydrochloride or diphenhydramine are also used. If hypotension persists, supplementary blood volume and vasopressors such as dopamine, alamin, or norepinephrine may be considered. In cases of shock with tracheospasm, intravenous aminophylline and dexamethasone are administered. For cardiac arrest, intracardiac injection of epinephrine and cardiac massage are performed. This comprehensive protocol ensures timely and effective management of severe allergic reactions to potentially life-threatening medications. Overall, this real-world data underscores the feasibility of implementing a structured desensitization protocol for managing platinum hypersensitivity in ovarian cancer treatment, while also emphasizing the importance of patient monitoring and emergency preparedness during therapy. [5]

References: [1] Khan DA, Banerji A, Blumenthal KG, et al. Drug allergy: a 2022 practice parameter update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;S0091-6749(22)01186-1. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.028
[2] Boulanger J, Boursiquot JN, Cournoyer G, et al. Management of hypersensitivity to platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy: cepo review and clinical recommendations. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(4):e630-e641. doi:10.3747/co.21.1966
[3] Makrilia N, Syrigou E, Kaklamanos I, Manolopoulos L, Saif MW. Hypersensitivity reactions associated with platinum antineoplastic agents: a systematic review. Met Based Drugs. 2010;2010:207084. doi:10.1155/2010/207084
[4] Gonzalez RV, Guadarrama-Rendón E, Cruz CDLC de L, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to platinums: systematic review of efficacy and safety of desensitization. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 2024;133(6):S10. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2024.08.057
[5] Li K, Yin R. Platinum desensitization therapy and its impact on the prognosis of ovary high-grade serous adenocarcinoma: a real world-data. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1346464. Published 2024 Jan 19. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1346464
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 5 studies investigating the researchable question:

Is there any evidence supporting use of a carboplatin desensitization protocol?

Level of evidence

C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-5 for your response.


 

Usefulness of desensitization protocol for a carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction during docetaxel-carboplatin therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: Case report

Design

Case Report

Case presentation

A 65-year-old woman needed docetaxel-carboplatin therapy for recurrent stage IIIc ovarian cancer. Initially, the patient received six courses of paclitaxel and carboplatin, achieving no clinical evidence of disease. However, recurrence was detected 19 months post-treatment, prompting the initiation of docetaxel-carboplatin therapy. During the second course, the patient developed a Grade 3 hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin, characterized by facial flushing, sweating, chest discomfort, and generalized eczema, necessitating medical intervention with cortisone, famotidine, and chlorpheniramine. Despite these interventions, the patient’s respiratory function decreased (SpO2 to 87%), necessitating supplemental oxygen, and generalized eczema developed. Consequently, the remainder of the carboplatin dose was withheld, and a Grade 3 allergic reaction was diagnosed. Despite this, a partial response to the chemotherapy was recorded, as indicated by a CA125 value of 20.7 U/ml based on the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria.  Faced with the challenge of continuing effective chemotherapy, the medical team opted for a desensitization protocol starting from the third course. The protocol involved sequential administration of carboplatin in escalating concentrations, beginning with a 1/1,000 dilution and progressing to the full standard solution over a period of 4.5 hours, which was successfully completed with no hypersensitivity reactions during subsequent courses. This approach allowed the completion of six treatment cycles, resulting in a complete response and ongoing disease-free survival. 

Study Author Conclusions

Carboplatin desensitization is a useful method for managing hypersensitivity reactions, allowing for the continuation of effective platinum-based chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer, thereby prolonging patient survival. 
References:
[1] [1] Shoji T, Takatori E, Kaido Y, et al. Usefulness of desensitization protocol for a carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction during docetaxel-carboplatin therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: Case report. Oncol Lett. 2010;1(6):1021-1023. doi:10.3892/ol.2010.192

 

Platinum desensitization in patients with carboplatin hypersensitivity: A single-institution retrospective study
Design

Single-institution retrospective study

N= 129

Objective To describe a carboplatin desensitization protocol that allows patients with carboplatin hypersensitivity to safely continue therapy and to identify risk factors for adverse events during desensitization
Study Groups

Patients with a history of HSR during standard carboplatin infusion (n= 56)

Patients with a positive carboplatin skin test (n= 73)

Inclusion Criteria Patients with gynecologic cancer who received chemotherapy between 2005 and 2014 and had either a positive carboplatin skin test or a history of prior HSRs to carboplatin
Exclusion Criteria Not explicitly stated
Methods

Retrospective review of patients undergoing a four-step carboplatin desensitization protocol over 3.5 hours. For patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions, the grade and symptoms were recorded, as well as the reactions experienced during desensitization, graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v.4.03). The premedication regimen included using fexofenadine and dexamethasone at home, and dexamethasone, famotidine, and diphenhydramine intravenously prior to the protocol. The carboplatin desensitization involved a multi-step infusion process, beginning with highly diluted solutions and progressing to the full dose as tolerated. 

Duration 2005 to 2014
Outcome Measures

Primary: Completion of carboplatin desensitization cycles without hypersensitivity reactions (HSR)

Secondary: Identification of risk factors for adverse events during desensitization

Baseline Characteristics   Number of patients
Diagnosis - Cervical cancer 3 (2.3%)
Diagnosis - Ovarian cancer 109 (84.5%)
Diagnosis - Endometrial cancer 14 (10.9%)
Diagnosis - Fallopian tube cancer 3 (2.3%)
Mean age at desensitization in years 62.1 ± 9.1 (43–89)
Race - White 110 (85.3%)
Race - Asian 6 (4.7%)
Race - Hispanic 4 (3.1%)
Race - Black 9 (6.9%)
Cancer stage - I 7 (5.4%)
Cancer stage - II 18 (14.0%)
Cancer stage - III 49 (38.0%)
Cancer stage - IV 23 (17.8%)
Cancer stage - X 32 (24.8%)
Results   Before desensitization During desensitization
Shortness of breath/cough/bronchospasm 11 (19.6%) 5 (15.2%)
Itching 24 (42.8%) 17 (51.5%)
Rash 15 (26.8%) 16 (48.5%)
Facial flushing 13 (23.2%) 5 (15.2%)
Palmar erythema 12 (21.4%) 10 (30.3%)
Angioedema 1 (1.8%) 4 (12.1%)
Fever 1 (1.8%) 1 (3.0%)
Anaphylaxis 2 (3.5%) 1 (3.0%)
Death 0 1 (3.0%)
Adverse Events Moderate to life-threatening reactions (grade 2 through 4) were seen in 9% of patients during CD. One patient died during her 13th desensitization cycle due to anaphylaxis complicated by pre-existing pulmonary hypertension. 
Study Author Conclusions The carboplatin desensitization protocol is safe, effective, and rapid, allowing the majority of patients with carboplatin hypersensitivity to continue therapy. Age and pre-load dependent cardiac conditions are risk factors for adverse events during desensitization. 
Critique The study is strengthened by its large sample size and detailed protocol description, demonstrating the feasibility and safety of the desensitization protocol. However, the retrospective design and lack of a control group limit the ability to establish causality. Additionally, the study does not address the predictive value of the skin test, which could impact clinical decision-making. 
References:
[1] [1] Altwerger G, Gressel GM, English DP, et al. Platinum desensitization in patients with carboplatin hypersensitivity: A single-institution retrospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(1):77-82. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.09.027

 

Toxicity management and efficacy of carboplatin (CP) desensitization therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma
Design

Retrospective observational study

N= 47

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of carboplatin desensitization (CP-D) therapy in the treatment of recurrent patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma
Study Groups All patients (n= 47)
Inclusion Criteria Patients (≥18 years old) with platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC, who had experienced CP-induced HSR, were included in this study. All patients had previously received CP therapy in adjuvant and/or neo-adjuvant settings
Exclusion Criteria Not explicitly stated
Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 47 cases of ovarian cancer which were treated using a carboplatin (CP) desensitization protocol. In this study, hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to carboplatin were classified based on severity, with mild cases presenting as localized cutaneous reactions such as urticaria or pruritus, and moderate to severe cases manifesting as diffuse skin reactions, wheezing, dyspnea, bronchospasm, oxygen desaturation, hypotension, and cardiac collapse. The decision to undergo carboplatin desensitization was made based on clinical findings and/or skin test results, with discussions held in an institutional tumor board for gynecological cancer to decide whether to proceed with desensitization, switch to alternative regimens, or provide only optimal supportive care. The center is a well-equipped cancer institute in Turkey with a special ward in the chemotherapy unit staffed by trained nurses and clinical personnel, specifically set up for desensitization procedures, offering rapid intervention opportunities. An experienced physician oversees the desensitization process. The study employed a 12-step, 6-hour rapid drug desensitization protocol established by Lee et al. in 2004. Patients were informed of life-threatening risks, including potential death and the benefits of desensitization, and informed consent was obtained. Premedication therapy was administered 30 minutes before desensitization, using intravenous glucocorticoids (dexamethasone or methylprednisolone), H1 and H2 antagonists (famotidine and chlorpheniramine), and lorazepam if needed for anxiety. The protocol involved gradually increasing the infusion rate and concentration of carboplatin over 5.82 hours. If HSR developed during desensitization, the responsible physician evaluated the situation. For grade 3 or higher HSR, the carboplatin infusion was immediately halted, and adrenaline was recommended. In cases of mild HSR, treatment was paused, antihistamines and steroids were administered, symptoms were allowed to regress over an hour, and carboplatin infusion resumed accordingly. Rapid interventions, including fluid replacement, oxygen support, and administration of steroids and antihistamines, effectively managed these reactions without the need for adrenaline. Importantly, no intensive care admissions or deaths related to desensitization occurred.

Duration Data collection from 01.01.2017 to 01.01.2022
Outcome Measures

Primary: Success rate of CP-D administration

Secondary: Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR)

Baseline Characteristics   All patients (n= 47)
Age, median years (range) 53 ± 13
Body mass index, median (range) 29.6 ± 5.5
BRCA mutation 9 (19.1%)
Comorbidities 21 (43.7%)
History of drug allergy 6 (12.7%)
Histology - Serous (high-grade) 42 (89.4%)
Histology - Non-serous 5 (10.6%)
Stage at diagnosis 1-2 4 (8.6%)
Stage at diagnosis 3-4 43 (91.4%)
Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy - Yes 12 (25.5%)
Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy - No 35 (75%)
Results   All patients (n= 47)
Overall survival from diagnosis (OS1), months 121.3 (72.2 to 170.4)
Overall survival from first desensitization (OS2), months 42.2 (25.3 to 59.1)
1-year survival rate 92.6%
2-year survival rate 75.6%
5-year survival rate 47.2%
Objective response rate (ORR) 78.5%
Disease control rate (DCR) 93.7%
Adverse Events Moderate to severe hypersensitivity reactions were observed in 10.6% of patients during CP-D. No severe (grade 3-4) hypersensitivity reactions occurred during CP administration. No deaths due to CP-D were noted. 
Study Author Conclusions CP-D is a beneficial and safe method in treating platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC patients with CP-induced HSR. It allows continued use of carboplatin without severe hypersensitivity reactions. 
Critique The study provides valuable real-world data on the efficacy and safety of CP-D therapy. However, its retrospective design and the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study's reliance on a single institution's data may also introduce bias. Despite these limitations, the study supports the use of CP-D in managing CP-induced HSR in recurrent EOC patients. 
References:
[1] [1] Paksoy N, Khanmammadov N, Doan , et al. Toxicity management and efficacy of carboplatin desensitization therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: A real-world study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(45):e31726. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000031726

 

A new non-dilution rapid desensitization protocol successfully applied to all-grade platinum hypersensitivity
Design

Retrospective observational study

N= 36

Objective To assess the safety and effectiveness of a new non-dilution one-bag desensitization protocol for re-administration of platinum agents in patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs)
Study Groups All patients (n= 36)
Inclusion Criteria Patients who had experienced symptoms compatible with immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions during drug infusion and were requested by their referred oncologist to be treated with the culprit chemotherapeutic agents
Exclusion Criteria Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens–Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis
Methods

A novel desensitization protocol using a one-bag method with an undiluted solution was implemented, characterized by dosing determined based on either body surface area or area under the curve (AUC) for the patients. Specifically, oxaliplatin was dosed at 85 mg/m², cisplatin at 60–100 mg/m², and carboplatin targeted an AUC of 5. The drugs were administered in solution-specific volumes: 200 mL of dextrose water for oxaliplatin and carboplatin, and 150 mL of normal saline for cisplatin. The infusion lines were pre-primed with a solution of the platinum agent, and the administration rate was incrementally increased. This increase started from an initial rate of 0.1 mL/h, progressing to a maximum rate of 150 mL/h over 12 steps for oxaliplatin and carboplatin, and 450 mL/h over 13 steps for cisplatin, with each step lasting 15 minutes. A syringe pump was employed to facilitate precise delivery of small fluid volumes, while a three-way stopcock allowed for the infusion of 5% dextrose in water at 10 mL/h to dilute the undiluted drug solution. As a preemptive measure against potential allergic reactions, oral pre-medications included an H1-receptor antagonist (either fexofenadine 180 mg or ketotifen 1.38 mg), an H2-receptor antagonist (famotidine 10 mg), and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (montelukast 10 mg). These desensitization procedures were conducted in general inpatient wards, providing a controlled setting for close patient monitoring and reaction management. 

The post-hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) management guidelines were applied based on symptom severity during desensitization for breakthrough reactions (BTR). The initial response involved stopping the infusion. If symptoms persisted, 4 mg of chlorpheniramine was administered intravenously. The severity of the HSR dictated the dosage of hydrocortisone: 100 mg intravenously for grade 2 reactions and 200 mg for grade 3. For suspected bronchoconstriction causing respiratory distress, 2.5 mg of nebulized salbutamol was used. In cases of grade 3 reactions accompanied by hypotension, 0.5 mg of a 1:1000 epinephrine solution was given intramuscularly, with a repeat dose after 5 minutes if blood pressure did not stabilize. Resuming the desensitization procedure at the stage where it was interrupted is advised once symptoms of hypersensitivity have resolved. Such a procedure is typically employed to help patients gradually tolerate a medication that initially caused a hypersensitivity reaction. It is crucial for healthcare providers to closely monitor the patient during this process to ensure safety and to manage any potential recurrence of hypersensitivity reactions, adjusting protocols as necessary to cater to individual patient responses.

Duration November 2015 to March 2017
Outcome Measures

Primary: Completion of desensitization procedures without severe reactions

Secondary: Occurrence and severity of breakthrough reactions (BTRs)

Baseline Characteristics   All patients (n= 36)
Age, mean years 60.83 ± 8.98
Male 9 (25%)
Culprit agent - Carboplatin 9 (25%)
Colorectal cancer 18 (50%)
Initial HSR grade 1 5 (13.9%)
Initial HSR grade 2 22 (61.1%)
Initial HSR grade 3 9 (25%)
Results   All procedures (n= 175) p-value
Completion without breakthrough reactions (BTRs) 146 (83.4%)  --
BTRs occurred 29 (16.6%)  --
BTRs - Grade 1 15 (51.7%)  --
BTRs - Grade 2 13 (44.8%)  --
BTRs - Grade 3 1 (3.5%) 0.0167
Adverse Events Most breakthrough reactions (BTRs) were mild (grade 1, 51.7%) or moderate (grade 2, 44.8%). There was one case of asymptomatic mild hypotension (grade 3, 3.5%). 
Study Author Conclusions The new non-dilution desensitization protocol was safe and effective for re-administration of culprit platinum agents in patients with a history of HSRs. It can be used as an alternative to existing protocols using multiple serial dilutions. 
Critique The study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of a simplified desensitization protocol, reducing labor and potential errors associated with dilution. However, the retrospective design and small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the variability in skin test sensitivity and the potential for error in minute infusion with a syringe pump are limitations. 
References:
[1] [1] Chung SJ, Kang SY, Kang RY, et al. A new non-dilution rapid desensitization protocol successfully applied to all-grade platinum hypersensitivity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018;82(5):777-785. doi:10.1007/s00280-018-3662-0

 

Carboplatin Desensitization

Design

Prospective documentation of desensitization regimens

N= 8

Objective

To describe our experience with intravenous carboplatin desensitization regimens, which culminated in a standardized, successful protocol for safe administration

Study Groups

All patients (N= 8)

Inclusion Criteria

Patients with ovarian cancer who had experienced severe anaphylactic reactions to carboplatin

Exclusion Criteria

Not specified

Methods

Intradermal skin testing with undiluted carboplatin at 10 mg/mL was performed. Desensitization regimens included short protocols (90 minutes to 6 hours) and a longer protocol involving gradual dose escalation over a 4-log dose range over 4 days. Subsequent infusions were given more rapidly by omitting the most dilute log dose on each occasion. 

Duration

Not specified

Outcome Measures

Primary: Tolerance of carboplatin desensitization protocol

Secondary: Tumor marker response (CA125 levels)

Results/Patient Characteristics

 Patient Number

Initial reaction

Intradermal skin test result

Dose, mg  2-Hour protocol 6-Hour protocol 4-Day protocol CA125 response, U/mL
1  Hypotension, chest tightness, abdominal pain, urticaria 24 x 165 mm   400 Failed on first attempt Not attempted First over 4 days, second over 3 days, third over 3 days 120–16
2  Hypotension, nausea, and urticaria 5 x 5 mm  545  Not attempted First tolerated, second reaction First over 4 days, second over 3 days, third and fourth over 2 days  214–17.7
3  Blurred vision, generalized numbness, fever, bronchospasm, neck angioedema 5 x 4 mm   600 Not attempted First tolerated, second reaction First, second, and third over 4 days, treatment suspended, fourth, fifth and sixth over 4 days, seventh over 3 days, eighth over 2 days, ninth over 1 day  436–44, 300–70
4  Urticaria, cough, dyspnea  7 x 6 mm  770 Not attempted Not attempted First over 4 days, second over 3 days, third over 2 days, fourth over 1 day  68–10
5 Hypotension, syncope, nausea, diaphoresis 15 x 10 mm 550 Not attempted Not attempted First over 4 days, second over 3 days, third over 2 days, fourth and fifth over 1 day  388–10
6 Hypotension, syncope, erythroderma 13 x 11 mm 650 Not attempted Not attempted First over 4 days, second over 3 days, third over 2 days, fourth and fifth over 1 day 25–13 
7 Felt hot, abdominal pain with vomiting and diarrhea, paresthesia 9 x 8 mm 600 Not attempted Not attempted First over 4 days, second over 3 days, third over 2 days, fourth over 1 day 158–95 
8 Urticaria 5 x 5 mm 450 Not attempted Not attempted First over 4 days  230–no response

Adverse Events

Not specified

Study Author Conclusions

Short carboplatin desensitization protocols (less than 6 hours) have an unacceptable failure rate in patients with carboplatin allergy, but longer infusion times (days) are well tolerated without recurrence of the allergic reaction and with good tumor response. In cases where carboplatin is the optimal therapeutic agent, clinicians should not be deterred by an anaphylactic reaction to it or by failure of shorter desensitization regimens. 

InpharmD Researcher Critique

The study provides a detailed account of a successful desensitization protocol for carboplatin, highlighting the importance of longer infusion times for patients with severe allergies. However, the small sample size and lack of a control group limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study does not address potential long-term outcomes or adverse events associated with the desensitization process. 



References:
[1] [1] Choi J, Harnett P, Fulcher DA. Carboplatin desensitization. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004;93(2):137-141. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61465-2