Impact Of Drug Formulation And Free Platinum/cisplatin Ratio On Hypersensitivity Reactions To Cisplatin: Formulation Matters.

Use of cisplatin can induce type I hypersensitivity reactions that may also be linked to the quality of the drug utilized. We observed cases of hypersensitivity that appeared to be associated with the brand of cisplatin used. The aim of this study was to compare two different brands of cisplatin in relation to type I hypersensitivity reactions. Brand A was used in a tertiary care teaching hospital until 2012, and use of brand B started from January 2013, when the first hypersensitivity cases were observed. Patients were categorized based on symptom. Cisplatin of both brands was analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and high-resolution electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-(+)-MS) and characterized according to US Pharmacopeia. There were no cases of hypersensitivity associated with the use of cisplatin brand A, whereas four of 127 outpatients that used cisplatin brand B were affected. The two brands were in accordance with the US Pharmacopeia parameters, and there was no significant difference in the total platinum levels between the two brands when analysed by HPLC. However, high-resolution ESI-(+)-MS analyses show that brand B contains approximately 2.7 times more hydrolysed cisplatin than brand A. The increase in the hydrolysed form of cisplatin found in brand B may be the cause of the hypersensitivity reaction observed in a subset of patients. We present the first study of the quality of drugs by high-resolution ESI-(+)-MS. Drug regulatory agencies and manufacturers should consider including measurement of hydrolysed cisplatin as a quality criterion for cisplatin formulations.

Comparative analysis of adverse events between infliximab and adalimumab in Crohn's disease management: a Brazilian single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION: Data is scarce regarding adverse events (AE) of biological therapy used in the management of Crohn's Disease (CD) among Brazilian patients. OBJECTIVES: To analyse AE prevalence and profile in patients with CD treated with Infliximab (IFX) or Adalimumab (ADA) and to verify whether there are differences between the two drugs. METHOD: Retrospective observational single-centre study of CD patients on biological therapy. Variables analysed: Demographic data, Montreal classification, biological agent administered, treatment duration, presence and type of AE and the need for treatment interruption. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were analysed, 25 treated with ADA and 24 with IFX. The groups were homogeneous in relation to the variables studied. The average follow-up period for the group treated with ADA was 19.3 months and 21.8 months for the IFX group (p = 0.585). Overall, 40% (n = 10) of patients taking ADA had AE compared with 50% (n = 12) of IFX users (p = 0.571). There was a tendency towards higher incidence of cutaneous and infusion reactions in the IFX group and higher incidence of infections in the ADA treated group, although without significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the AE prevalence and profile between ADA and IFX CD patients in the population studied.