What other medications outside of meperidine have been shown to be effective in the treatment of rigors?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Several studies have evaluated alternative medications for treating rigors in the settings of post-anesthesia, post-epidural, and post-spinal anesthesia, with agents such as nalbuphine, tramadol, butorphanol, and dexmedetomidine showing varying efficacy and safety based on dosages utilized; comparative efficacy to meperidine remains limited. Tramadol and morphine have been studied as alternatives to meperidine for rigors (see Tables 1 and 3), although heterogeneous patient populations limit the generalizability of the findings. The applicability of these alternative management options to treating rituximab-induced rigors is uncertain.

Background

Treatment for rituximab-induced rigors is not well studied, with meperidine being the primary treatment extrapolated from data on postanesthetic shivering. The use of opioids for rigors has limited evidence despite widespread use. Meperidine is usually preferred due to the unique binding of both kappa- and mu-opioid receptors. For postanesthetic shivering, responses have been seen after 5 minutes with meperidine and clonidine. Morphine has been successfully studied as an alternative to meperidine for rituximab-induced rigors in an effort to reduce meperidine usage in recently published papers (Tables 1-2). [1], [2]

Even though not strictly related to rituximab-induced rigors, several studies have evaluated alternative medications for rigors in the settings of post-anesthesia, post-epidural, and post-spinal anesthesia. Alternative medications that have shown promise in the treatment of rigors include tramadol and butorphanol. No universal dosage for those medications was given but rather dependent on the practice site. Opioids still hold a higher reputation as reliable anti-shivering agents, including tramadol and butorphanol as alternatives to meperidine. [3], [4], [5]

A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of intravenous (IV) nalbuphine for managing post-anesthesia shivering. The analysis included 10 randomized trials, encompassing a total of 700 patients, of whom 350 received nalbuphine, and 350 were assigned to a control or placebo group. The studies investigated using nalbuphine in varying doses, primarily under spinal anesthesia conditions, with comparators such as tramadol, dexmedetomidine, ondansetron, and meperidine. Nalbuphine had a significantly higher success rate in controlling postoperative shivering compared to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.91 to 2.94; p= 0.04), with minimal recurrence of shivering (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; p= 0.01). However, nalbuphine’s efficacy was comparable to other active controls, such as opioids and dexmedetomidine. Additionally, nalbuphine demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) than control groups (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; p= 0.02). The trial sequential analysis confirmed nalbuphine’s superiority over placebo, thus providing strong evidence for its use in clinical practice for managing post-anesthesia shivering, with a favorable safety profile. [6]

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological agents administered intra-operatively to manage shivering in patients undergoing elective surgery under regional anesthesia. A total of 10 randomized trials were included, which utilized tramadol, dexmedetomidine, clonidine, meperidine, nalbuphine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, and butorphanol; tramadol and dexmedetomidine were the most commonly utilized medications. Control of shivering was reported in seven trials, though the reporting method was heterogeneous (e.g., success rate, response rate). The most effective drug appears to be IV dexemedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg when given immediately after the appearance of shivering. Clonidine has been used similarly, with some adverse events. Tramadol, pethidine, and butorphanol were considered effective opioid interventions in the management of shivering. Comparisons of the agents to meperidine were not provided, however, and data in general are limited. [7]

A 2004 systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of pharmacological interventions in preventing postoperative shivering. The review included randomized comparisons of prophylactic, parenteral, single-dose antishivering interventions against inactive controls (placebo or no treatment). A total of 27 trials (N= 1248) were analyzed, and the average incidence of shivering in the control group was 52%. Clonidine (65-300 mcg), meperidine (12.5-35 mg), tramadol (35-220 mg), and nefopam (6.5-11 mg) were tested in at least three trials each. All were found to be more effective than control. Clonidine, meperidine, and nefopam showed weak evidence of dose responsiveness. For small-dose clonidine (65-110 mcg), the relative risk (RR) was 1.32 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.51), while medium-dose clonidine (140-150 mcg) had an RR of 1.83 (95% CI 1.47 to 2.27), and large-dose clonidine (220-300 mcg) had an RR of 1.52 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.78). The overall RR for clonidine was 1.58 (95% CI 1.43 to 1.74), with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 3.7. For all meperidine regimens combined, the RR was 1.67 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.03), with an NNT of 3. Tramadol had an RR of 1.93 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.39), with an NNT of 2.2, while nefopam had an RR of 2.62 (95% CI 2.02 to 3.40), with an NNT of 1.7. Other interventions, such as methylphenidate, midazolam, dolasetron, ondansetron, physostigmine, urapidil, and flumazenil, were tested in fewer trials with limited patient numbers. Overall, the authors found that using simple pharmacological treatments to prevent postoperative shivering is effective, especially in patients with a high risk of developing this complication. [8]

A 2002 systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis investigated the pharmacological treatment of postoperative shivering. The review analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1984 and 2000, involving a total of 944 adult patients receiving active drug treatment and 413 controls. Various drugs are used off-label to treat postoperative shivering; however, their relative efficacy is unclear. The meta-analysis found that meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 mcg, ketanserin 10 mg, and doxapram 100 mg effectively reduced shivering in at least three randomized trials each after five minutes. Meperidine 25 mg had the lowest NNT of 1.3 after five minutes, suggesting it had a shorter onset than the other drugs tested. However, clonidine 150 mcg and doxapram 100 mg also had NNT <2 at five minutes, indicating they could reduce shivering in two out of three patients within five minutes compared to placebo. Ketanserin efficacy declined over time and was not significantly better than placebo after 30 minutes. Long-term efficacy data and information on adverse effects were generally lacking for most drugs. In conclusion, the limited data suggests clonidine and doxapram were found to be effective short-term treatments for postoperative shivering along with meperidine. [9]

A recent meta-analysis assessed the prophylactic use of IV acetaminophen for preventing postoperative shivering. A total of nine trials involving 856 patients were included in the analysis. The findings indicated that acetaminophen significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative shivering compared to placebo (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.52). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that both a single-dose bolus of IV acetaminophen 1000 mg (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45) and IV acetaminophen 15 mg/kg (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.62) were effective in reducing the incidence of postoperative shivering. Based on these findings, it was suggested that prophylactic infusion of IV acetaminophen may potentially offer advantages in reducing perioperative shivering. [10]

A 2023 meta-analysis evaluated the perioperative administration of dexamethasone to prevent postoperative shivering. The review included 12 randomized controlled trials (N= 1276 patients), all of which assessed the overall incidence of postoperative shivering. The trials included a variety of surgeries, such as orthopedic, urological, and general procedures, performed under both general and spinal anesthesia. The results indicated that patients in the dexamethasone group experienced a significantly lower incidence of postoperative shivering (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63; p<0.00001) compared to the control group. Additionally, dexamethasone reduced the grade of shivering, which was classified into five grades (0-4) based on clinical manifestations. Specifically, the reduction was significant for grade 2 (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.0001), grade 3 (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.37; p<0.0001), and grade 4 (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.38; p= 0.0002); however, it was not significant for grade 1 (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.48). Overall, the authors concluded that the administration of dexamethasone is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative shivering; however, further studies are warranted. [11]

Finally, a 2020 meta-analysis of 13 RCTs involving 864 patients compared the efficacy and safety of IV dexmedetomidine versus tramadol for the treatment of shivering following spinal anesthesia. The researchers systematically reviewed data to evaluate the shivering control effectiveness, time to cease shivering, recurrence rate, and incidences of side effects such as nausea, vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, and sedation. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significantly higher effective rate of shivering control (RR 1.03; 95% CI [1.01, 1.06]; p=  0.01; I2= 14%) and had a notably faster onset of action, with a mean difference of -2.14 minutes to cease shivering compared to tramadol (p<0.00001). The recurrence rate of shivering was also lower in the dexmedetomidine group (RR 0.45), suggesting it offers more durable relief from postoperative shivering. Additionally, the analysis revealed that dexmedetomidine was associated with fewer side effects related to nausea and vomiting, highlighting its potential for increased patient comfort in post-anesthetic care. However, dexmedetomidine also exhibited a higher incidence of sedation, as well as adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension and bradycardia, compared to tramadol. Despite these risks, the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine may be beneficial in specific surgical settings where patient comfort and immobility during spinal anesthesia are desirable. This comprehensive analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine offers advantages over tramadol in terms of rapid shivering control and reduced recurrence, though care should be taken due to its hemodynamic effects. The comparative efficacy of dexmedetomidine or tramadol to meperidine remains uncertain. [12]

References:

[1] Lucas AJ, Edenfield L, Kennedy LD, Anders B. Treatment With Morphine to Stop Rigors Associated With Rituximab and Antithymocyte Globulin. JHOP. 2024;14(4):E-pub online.
[2] Yakubi H, Steele AP, Tsao M. Meperidine compared to morphine for rigors associated with monoclonal antibody-related infusion reactions. J Oncol Pharm Pract. Published online June 17, 2024. doi:10.1177/10781552241259986
[3] Bansal P, Jain G. Control of shivering with clonidine, butorphanol, and tramadol under spinal anesthesia: a comparative study. Local Reg Anesth. 2011;4:29-34. doi: 10.2147/LRA.S15366
[4] Mohta M, Kumari N, Tyagi A, et al. Tramadol for prevention of postanaesthetic shivering: a randomised double-blind comparison with pethidine. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(2):141-146. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05711.x
[5] Tsai YC, Chu KS. A comparison of tramadol, amitriptyline, and meperidine for postepidural anesthetic shivering in parturients. Anesth Analg. 2001;93(5):1288-1292. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200111000-00052
[6] Nair A, Dudhedia U, Rangaiah M, Panchawagh S. Efficacy of intravenous nalbuphine for managing post-anaesthesia shivering: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. Indian J Anaesth. 2023;67(10):853-865. doi:10.4103/ija.ija_482_23
[7] Hameed M, Akber Ali N, Ahsan K, Nazir M. Pharmacological Interventions for the Treatment and Control of Shivering in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery Under Regional Anaesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2022;50(4):246-254. doi:10.5152/TJAR.2021.20008
[8] Kranke P, Eberhart L, Roewer N, Tramèr MR. Single-Dose Parenteral Pharmacological Interventions for the Prevention of Postoperative Shivering: A Quantitative Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesth Analg. 2004;99(3):718-727. doi:10.1213/01.ANE.0000130589.00098.CD
[9] Kranke P, Eberhart LH, Roewer N, Tramèr MR. Pharmacological treatment of postoperative shivering: a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(2):. doi:10.1097/00000539-200202000-00043
[10] Liu J, Cao Q, Zeng J, Liang X. Efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen on postoperative shivering: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(28):e38710. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000038710
[11] Tu Q, Zhou R, Wan Z, Chen S, Yang Q, Que B. Perioperative administration of dexamethasone to prevent postoperative shivering: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Int Med Res. 2023;51(8):3000605231187805. doi:10.1177/03000605231187805
[12] Wang J, Wang Z, Liu J, Wang N. Intravenous dexmedetomidine versus tramadol for treatment of shivering after spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):104. Published 2020 May 4. doi:10.1186/s12871-020-01020-y

Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 4 studies investigating the researchable question:

What other medications outside of meperidine have been shown to be effective in the treatment of rigors?

Level of evidence

B - One high-quality study or multiple studies with limitations  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-4 for your response.


 

Meperidine compared to morphine for rigors associated with monoclonal antibody-related infusion reactions

Design

Single-center, retrospective nonrandomized cohort study

N= 153

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of meperidine to morphine for the treatment of monoclonal antibody (MAB) related rigors

Study Groups

Meperidine (n= 127)

Morphine (n= 26)

Inclusion Criteria

Adult patients receiving ≥1 dose of intravenous (IV) morphine or IV meperidine for rigors secondary to MAB infusion reactions in inpatient and outpatient settings

Exclusion Criteria

Morphine or meperidine used for indications other than rigors, or for rigors due to non-MAB medications

Methods

Order sets for MAB-related rigors allowed for 2 doses of as-needed morphine 2 mg IV or meperidine 25 mg IV, given every 20 minutes, and required authorization for additional doses. Patients were evaluated by a nurse or physician for sedation rates within 24 hours of IV opioid administration and documented in electronic medical system. Adverse events were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. Meperidine was withdrawn from the institution formulary in December 2022 and replaced with morphine in MAB-related rigor treatment protocols.

Medication administration events were analyzed and reported, with the total patient population (N= 125) made up of 100 patients in the meperidine group and 25 patients in the morphine group. 

Duration

Enrollment: Meperidine - January 2015 to December 2022; Morphine - January 2023 to January 2024

Outcome Measures

Primary: Number of morphine or meperidine doses required for rigors ablation

Secondary: Rate of naloxone administration, documentation of sedation within 24 hours of IV opioid administration

Baseline Characteristics

 

Meperidine (n= 127)

Morphine (n= 26)

 

Age, years

62 ± 17 64 ± 13   

Female

32 (35%) 9 (35%)  

History of opioid allergy

12 (9%) 3 (12%)  

Diagnosis

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Other oncology†

Other non-oncology‡

 

71 (56%)

26 (20%)

18 (14%)

7 (6%)

5 (4%)

 

13 (50%)

6 (23%)

5 (19%)

0

2 (8%)

 

CrCl <50 mL/minute

23 (18%) 9 (35%)  

Monoclonal antibody

Rituximab

Obinutuzumab

Daratumumab

Ocrelizumab

Trastuzumab

 

106 (83%)

15 (12%)

4 (3%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

 

19 (73%)

7 (27%)

0

0

0

 

Reaction within first 2 doses of MAB

90 (71%)

22 (85%)

 

CTCAE infusion reaction grade

2

3

4

 

119 (94%)

5 (4%)

3 (2%)

 

25 (96%)

1 (4%)

0

 

Diphenhydramine was administered in 100% of patients in both treatment arms either as premedication or infusion reaction treatment.

†In the meperidine cohort, four patients presented with multiple myeloma, two with hairy cell leukemia, and one with breast cancer. 

‡In the meperidine cohort, one patient each presented with the following: autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, rheumatoid arthritis, hemolytic uremic syndrome, and multiple sclerosis. In the morphine cohort, one patient each presented with multiple sclerosis and immune thrombocytopenia.

CrCl, creatinine clearance

Results

Endpoint

Meperidine (n= 127)

Morphine (n= 26)

p-value

Number of doses required for rigor ablation

1

≥2

 

103 (81%)

24 (19%)

 

23 (88%)

3 (12%) 

 

-

0.539

Sedation events

CrCl ≥50 mL/minute

CrCl <50 mL/minute

10%

9/104 (9%)

4/23 (17%)

9%

3/26 (12%)*

0/9

0.972

-

No patients required naloxone administration during the study period.

*Due to inconsistent reporting within the study, this value may be erroneous, ranging from 2 or 3 (8% of 12%). 

Adverse Events

See Results

Study Author Conclusions

Both meperidine and morphine effectively manage MAB-related rigors within minimal safety concerns. These findings suggest that morphine is a suitable alternative to meperidine for this indication, which may influence future formulary decision, provide alternatives for drug shortage, and optimize supportive care for patients undergoing MAB therapy.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

The change in institutional protocol from meperidine to morphine as MAB-related rigors treatment contributed to a small sample size analysis for morphine. In addition, a lack of monitoring parameters such as time to resolution of rigors, late on-set sedation in outpatient participants, and use of other sedating medications were not included in the study assessment. Morphine was shown to have similar efficacy to meperidine in the resolution of MAB-related rigors and may be an appropriate alternative due to its response and safety profiles. 

References:

Yakubi H, Steele AP, Tsao M. Meperidine compared to morphine for rigors associated with monoclonal antibody-related infusion reactions. J Oncol Pharm Pract. Published online June 17, 2024. doi:10.1177/10781552241259986

Treatment With Morphine to Stop Rigors Associated With Rituximab and Antithymocyte Globulin

Design

Observational, single-center, retrospective chart review

N= 57

Objective

To assess if the use of intravenous (IV) morphine stopped rigors associated with treatment with rituximab and antithymocyte globulin (ATG)

Study Groups

Rituximab (n= 34)

ATG (n= 23)

Inclusion Criteria

Patients aged ≥ 18 years, treated with rituximab or ATG for a hematology or oncology indication, received ≥ 1 doses of IV morphine for rigors

Exclusion Criteria

Treated with medications other than morphine for the initial rigor event, rigors after medications other than rituximab or ATG, previous similar episodes, or morphine use for other indications within the past 12 hours

Methods

Data were collected from electronic medical records, medication records, and nursing and provider notes. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. At the institution, 2 mg morphine is administered IV upon rigor onset, followed by another 2 mg if no response was obtained within 15 minutes. Subsequent morphine doses or escalation of treatment to 12.5-25 mg IV meperidine are at the discretion of the treating physician.

Duration

July 2016 to July 2019

Outcome Measures

Efficacy of IV morphine in stopping rigors within 60 minutes of administration

Baseline Characteristics

 

Rituximab (n= 34)

ATG (n= 23)

Male

58.8%

39.1%

Age, years

18-39

40-59

60-79

≥ 80

 

5.9%

23.5%

55.9%

14.7%

 

8.7%

30.4%

60.9%

0

Indication

Graft-vs-host disease prophylaxis

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Follicular lymphoma

Other*

 

0

44.1%

11.8%

8.8%

35.3%

 

100%

0

0

0

0

Rituximab treatment cycle

First

Second

Third

 

70.6%

5.9%

23.5%

 

--

--

--

* Indications include other B-cell lymphomas, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acquired hemophilia A, acquired factor VIII inhibitor, and IgM monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance

Results

Endpoint

Rituximab (n= 34)

ATG (n= 23)

Stopped rigors

Within 1 dose

Within 2 doses

33 (97%)

27 (82%)

6 (18%)

22 (96%)

12 (55%)

10 (45%

Adverse Events

Fatigue was the only reported adverse event, observed in 2 patients.

Study Author Conclusions

This retrospective chart review provides supporting evidence to continue the use of IV morphine as an alternative to treatment with meperidine for rituximab- or ATG-related rigors at our institution. The doses of morphine that were used were well tolerated and are easily accessible to nursing staff if stocked via automated drug cabinets. Further studies could be performed to assess the benefit of using morphine for the treatment of rigors related to other chemotherapies or immunotherapies in oncology.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

Limitations include the low number of evaluated patients, inability to assess the time to rigor resolution, and potential influence of unstandardized documentation in electronic medical records.

 
References:

Lucas AJ, Edenfield L, Kennedy LD, Anders B. Treatment With Morphine to Stop Rigors Associated With Rituximab and Antithymocyte Globulin. JHOP. 2024;14(4):E-pub online.

Rigor prophylaxis in stage IV melanoma and renal cell carcinoma patients treated with high dose IL-2

Design

Retrospective cohort study

N= 91

Objective To evaluate alternatives to meperidine for rigor prophylaxis in patients undergoing high-dose IL-2 therapy for metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma
Study Groups

Meperidine (n= 42)

Tramadol (n= 49)

Inclusion Criteria

Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma or melanoma receiving high dose IL-2 treatment

Exclusion Criteria

Patients who did not receive sufficient opioid prophylaxis or had insufficient clinical documentation

Methods

Patients received high dose IL-2 therapy with premedication of either meperidine or tramadol. Rigors were assessed using PRN medication (e.g., meperidine, morphine, hydromorphone, diphenhydramine, and lorazepam) doses as a proxy. Other outcomes included fever, hypotension, and renal insufficiency. Patients received up to 4 cycles of IL-2 therapy.

Duration

May 2009 to October 2016

Outcome Measures

Primary: Rigors (via PRN medication use)

Secondary: Fever, hypotension, renal insufficiency

Baseline Characteristics   Meperidine (n= 42) Tramadol (n= 49)
Age at IL2 initiation, years

51.52 ± 9.25

53.90 ± 9.04
White 88% 86%
Female 29% 40%
Previous treatment 35% 17%
Renal Cell Carcinoma 80% 63%
Results Endpoint Incidence rate ratio 95% confidence interval p-value
Fever 0.41 0.28-0.62 <0.001
Hypotension 1.70 1.11-2.61 0.015
Renal insufficiency 0.58 0.35-0.98 0.041
Rigors via all PRN meds 1.01 0.79-1.28 0.964
Rigors via opioid PRN med 0.85 0.67-1.07 0.168

Multivariate analysis controlling for confounders found differences between the two groups to be no longer significant, and prevention of rigors was equivocal between meperidine (IRR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.26; p= 0.604) and tramadol (IRR 0.90; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; p= 0.554).

Adverse Events

See Results

Study Author Conclusions

Tramadol appears to be a reasonable alternative to meperidine for rigor prophylaxis. Differences in adverse events were not significant when controlled for demographics and other treatment differences.

Critique

Although this was the first study to evaluate alternatives to meperidine for rigor prophylaxis in HD IL-2 therapy, limitations include its retrospective design, which lends to potential inaccuracies in recordkeeping, as well as variability in treatment regimens utilized. More patients in the meperidine group received previous treatment compared to patients in the tramadol group.

References:

Khong B, Lawson BO, Ma J, et al. Rigor prophylaxis in stage IV melanoma and renal cell carcinoma patients treated with high dose IL-2. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1007. doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4810-y

Combating rituximab-induced side effects

Design

 Case report

Case presentation

A 77-year-old female patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma started bendamustine/rituximab combination therapy. However, after increasing the intravenous rituximab rate, as per protocol, the patient developed chills. The infusion was held, and 25 mg of IV meperidine was administered, with no relief. Hypertension followed, and hydrocortisone (Solu-Cortef) 100 mg IV was given, where chills were resolved, and blood pressure improved. The infusion was restarted 40 minutes later without issue.

During the initiation of cycle 2, hydrocortisone 100 mg IV was added as another premedication drug to the usual IV regimen (diphenhydramine 50 mg, famotidine 20 mg, dexamethasone 12 mg) to prevent recurrent reactions.

However, the patient first developed restlessness in her legs, which may have been related to the higher diphenhydramine dose. Then, the patient reported facial itching and sneezing. Due to the ongoing diphenhydramine adverse event, famotidine 20 mg IV was administered instead. After 15 minutes, the patient reported improvement. However, she eventually reverted back to more itching and facial flushing, leading to 25 mg of intramuscular hydroxyzine being given. The patient returned to baseline about 30 minutes later.

Due to the variety of medication already administered, and the possibility of continued reactions, it was determined that the patient would continue bendamustine alone, without rituximab, on cycle days 1 and 2.

Study Author Conclusions

It was determined that the safety risks exceeded the benefits of rituximab in this patient, leading to the choice to discontinue combination therapy and reinitiate bendamustine monotherapy.
 
References:

Mitchell K. Combating rituximab-induced side effects.Published December 13, 2016. Accessed August 7, 2024.