Background and objectives: Published data on the clinical and economic impact of infusion reactions to monoclonal antibodies are limited. This study investigated oncologists’ and oncology nurses’ opinions about resource use associated with infusion reactions and the impact on patient management in Europe.
Methods: Eighty oncologists and nurses from Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK currently treating patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were interviewed by telephone using a 27-item questionnaire developed for this study.
Results: The mean estimated number of staff (physicians and nurses) involved in managing an infusion reaction was 1.97 for a grade 1, 2.35 for a grade 2, 3.6 for a grade 3 and 5.3 for a grade 4 reaction. In respondents’ experiences, most patients with grade 3 infusion reactions (73.4%) were admitted to hospital for treatment; 82.5% of those with grade 4 infusion reactions were treated in intensive care. The estimated duration of hospital treatment was 13.3 ± 29 h for a grade 3 infusion reaction, increasing to 48.1 ± 43.7 h for a grade 4 infusion reaction.
Conclusions: According to respondents, management of infusion reactions led to substantial resource use, which increased with the severity of the reaction. More severe reactions also led to anxiety in patients and distress to staff.
JonkerDJO’CallaghanCJKarapetisCS. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med2007; 357: 2040–2048.
2.
Van CutsemEPeetersMSienaS. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2007; 25: 1658–1664.
3.
SobreroAFMaurelJFehrenbacherL. EPIC: phase III trial of cetuximab plus irinotecan after fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2008; 26: 2311–2319.
4.
BokemeyerCBondarenkoIMakhsonA. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 663–671.
5.
LoupakisFPollinaLStasiI. PTEN expression and KRAS mutations on primary tumors and metastases in the prediction of benefit from cetuximab plus irinotecan for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 2622–2629.
6.
PeetersMSienaSVan CutsemE. Association of progression-free survival, overall survival, and patient-reported outcomes by skin toxicity and KRAS status in patients receiving panitumumab monotherapy. Cancer2009; 115: 1544–1554.
7.
Van CutsemEKohneCHHitreE. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 1408–1417.
8.
DouillardJYSienaSCassidyJ. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 4697–4705.
9.
TebbuttNCWilsonKGebskiVJ. Capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group Randomized Phase III MAX Study. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 3191–3198.
Song X, Long SR, Barber B, et al. Systematic review on infusion reactions associated with chemotherapies and monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Clin Pharmacol. Epub ahead of print 25 January 2012. DOI: BSP/CCP/E-Pub/00036.
14.
Burudpakdee C, Zhao Z, Munakata J, et al. Economic burden of toxicities associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment regimens containing monoclonal antibodies. J Med Econ. Epub ahead of print 19 December 2011. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2011.650774.
15.
LenzHJ. Management and preparedness for infusion and hypersensitivity reactions. Oncologist2007; 12: 601–609.
16.
ColwellHHMathiasSDNgoNH. The impact of infusion reactions on oncology patients and clinicians in the inpatient and outpatient practice settings: oncology nurses' perspectives. J Infus Nurs2007; 30: 153–160.
17.
SchwartzbergLSStepanskiEJFortnerBV. Retrospective chart review of severe infusion reactions with rituximab, cetuximab, and bevacizumab in community oncology practices: assessment of clinical consequences. Support Care Cancer2008; 16: 393–398.
18.
SchwartzbergLSStepanskiEJWalkerMS. Implications of IV monoclonal antibody infusion reaction for the patient, caregiver, and practice: results of a multicenter study. Support Care Cancer2009; 17: 91–98.
19.
FoleyKAWangPFBarberBL. Clinical and economic impact of infusion reactions in patients with colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol2010; 21: 1455–1461.
20.
BotsiosCOstuniPTodescoS. Incidence and management of infusion reactions to infliximab in 186 Italian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the Padua experience (in Italian). Reumatismo2005; 57: 44–51.
21.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. NIH Publication No. 09-5410, May 2009. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; National Cancer Institute, http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf (2009, accessed 28 May 2009).
