TY - JOUR
T1 - Sugammadex hypersensitivity and underlying mechanisms
T2 - a randomised study of healthy non-anaesthetised volunteers
AU - de Kam, P. J.
AU - Nolte, H.
AU - Good, S.
AU - Yunan, M.
AU - Williams-Herman, D. E.
AU - Burggraaf, J.
AU - Kluft, C.
AU - Adkinson, N. F.
AU - Cullen, C.
AU - Skov, P. S.
AU - Levy, J. H.
AU - van den Dobbelsteen, D. J.
AU - van Heumen, E. L.G.M.
AU - van Meel, F. C.M.
AU - Glassner, D.
AU - Woo, T.
AU - Min, K. C.
AU - Peeters, P. A.M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Medical writing support, including assisting authors with development of the draft, was provided by Melanie More, BSc and incorporation of comments by Camille Bonomelli, PhD; editorial support, including figure preparation, formatting, and submission was provided by Sinead Stewart (all of Scion, London, UK). This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. , a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc . The Sponsor was involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and data checking of information provided in the manuscript. However, ultimate responsibility for opinions, conclusions, and data interpretation lies with the authors.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - Background: We investigated potential for hypersensitivity reactions after repeated sugammadex administration and explored the mechanism of hypersensitivity. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00988065), 448 healthy volunteers were randomised to one of three arms to receive three repeat i.v. administrations of either sugammadex 4 mg kg−1, 16 mg kg−1, or placebo. Primary endpoint was percentage of subjects with hypersensitivity (assessed by an independent adjudication committee). Secondary endpoint of anaphylaxis was classified per Sampson and Brighton criteria. Exploratory endpoints included skin testing, serum tryptase, anti-sugammadex antibodies [immunoglobulin (Ig) E/IgG], and other immunologic parameters. Results: Hypersensitivity was adjudicated for 1/148 (0.7%), 7/150 (4.7%), and 0/150 (0.0%) subjects after sugammadex 4 mg kg−1, 16 mg kg−1, and placebo, respectively. After sugammadex 16 mg kg−1, one subject met Sampson criterion 1 and Brighton level 1 (highest certainty) anaphylaxis criteria; two met Brighton level 2 criteria. After database lock it was determined that certain protocol deviations could have introduced bias in the reporting of hypersensitivity signs/symptoms in a subject subset. Objective laboratory investigations indicated that potential underlying hypersensitivity mechanisms were unlikely to have been activated; the results suggest that most of the observed hypersensitivity reactions were unlikely IgE/IgG-mediated. Conclusion: Dose-dependent hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis reactions to sugammadex were observed when administered without prior neuromuscular blocking agent. Laboratory investigations do not suggest prevalent allergen-specific IgE/IgG-mediated immunologic hypersensitivity. Because it could not be fully excluded that estimates of hypersensitivity/anaphylaxis incidence were unbiased, an additional study was conducted to characterise the potential for hypersensitivity reactions and is described in a companion report. Clinical trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00988065; Protocol number P06042.
AB - Background: We investigated potential for hypersensitivity reactions after repeated sugammadex administration and explored the mechanism of hypersensitivity. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00988065), 448 healthy volunteers were randomised to one of three arms to receive three repeat i.v. administrations of either sugammadex 4 mg kg−1, 16 mg kg−1, or placebo. Primary endpoint was percentage of subjects with hypersensitivity (assessed by an independent adjudication committee). Secondary endpoint of anaphylaxis was classified per Sampson and Brighton criteria. Exploratory endpoints included skin testing, serum tryptase, anti-sugammadex antibodies [immunoglobulin (Ig) E/IgG], and other immunologic parameters. Results: Hypersensitivity was adjudicated for 1/148 (0.7%), 7/150 (4.7%), and 0/150 (0.0%) subjects after sugammadex 4 mg kg−1, 16 mg kg−1, and placebo, respectively. After sugammadex 16 mg kg−1, one subject met Sampson criterion 1 and Brighton level 1 (highest certainty) anaphylaxis criteria; two met Brighton level 2 criteria. After database lock it was determined that certain protocol deviations could have introduced bias in the reporting of hypersensitivity signs/symptoms in a subject subset. Objective laboratory investigations indicated that potential underlying hypersensitivity mechanisms were unlikely to have been activated; the results suggest that most of the observed hypersensitivity reactions were unlikely IgE/IgG-mediated. Conclusion: Dose-dependent hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis reactions to sugammadex were observed when administered without prior neuromuscular blocking agent. Laboratory investigations do not suggest prevalent allergen-specific IgE/IgG-mediated immunologic hypersensitivity. Because it could not be fully excluded that estimates of hypersensitivity/anaphylaxis incidence were unbiased, an additional study was conducted to characterise the potential for hypersensitivity reactions and is described in a companion report. Clinical trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00988065; Protocol number P06042.
KW - anaphylaxis
KW - hypersensitivity
KW - sugammadex
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049798367&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049798367&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.057
DO - 10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.057
M3 - Article
C2 - 30236238
AN - SCOPUS:85049798367
SN - 0007-0912
VL - 121
SP - 758
EP - 767
JO - British journal of anaesthesia
JF - British journal of anaesthesia
IS - 4
ER -