MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312190553 · doi:10.1186/s13223-022-00752-5

Hypersensitivity reactions to folinic acid: mechanisms involved based on two case reports and a literature review

2022· review· en· W4312190553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matveï Apraxine, Marc Van den Eynde, Astrid De Cuyper, F. Pirson

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChillsAngioedemaAntihistamineHypersensitivity reactionAnaphylaxisOxaliplatinChemotherapyDiscontinuationImmunoglobulin EDermatologyGastroenterologyImmunologyAnesthesiaAllergyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to antineoplastic agents are an increasing problem, especially when they lead to treatment discontinuation, sometimes without any equivalent therapeutic option. HSR to folinic acid (FA), used particularly for the treatment of digestive carcinoma along with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil, are rare. Only seven publications report HSR to FA, mainly confirmed by the disappearance of symptoms after the withdrawal of FA from chemotherapy. Only two papers describe allergy testing. Due to the difficult diagnosis, patients usually receive several further cycles of chemotherapy with progressively more intense symptoms before the withdrawal of FA. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we document two cases of HSR to FA, initially misattributed to oxaliplatin. The first patient described successive cycles with first back muscle pain, then chills and facial oedema and finally diffuse erythema with labial edema despite premedication. The allergy assessment highlighted high acute tryptase levels and intradermal tests positive for FA, pointing to an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism. The second patient also had lower back muscle pain and chills in addition to tachycardia and desaturation during the administration of FA. Skin tests were negative and tryptase levels normal. After withdrawing FA, the symptoms did not recur, thus allowing the patient to continue chemotherapy. The mechanism of FA hypersensitivity is still unclear. The chronology of symptoms suggests an IgE-mediated mechanism that was not documented in the allergy assessment. A non-IgE-mediated mast cell/basophil activation could be involved, through complement activation or through Mas-related G protein-coupled receptors X2 (MRGPRX2) particularly. CONCLUSIONS: These two cases of anaphylaxis to FA document the clinical manifestations associated with two different mechanisms of HSR. This paper provided the opportunity to review the limited literature on HSR to FA. Through these cases, we hope to draw the practitioner's attention to FA as a potential agent of severe hypersensitivity, especially if symptoms remain after withdrawing the most suspected chemotherapeutic agents. We want also to stress the importance of allergy testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207