Retrospective cohort study monitoring PEG-asparaginase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication

Michael Losasso; Bruce Bostrom; Yoav Messinger

doi:10.12688/f1000research.19298.1

Home Browse Retrospective cohort study monitoring PEG-asparaginase activity in...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Retrospective cohort study monitoring PEG-asparaginase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]

Michael Losasso¹, Bruce Bostrom ², Yoav Messinger²

PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2019

Author details Author details

¹ University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55105, USA
² Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55404, USA

Michael Losasso
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Bruce Bostrom
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Yoav Messinger
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Oncology gateway.

Abstract

Background: PEG-L-asparaginase (pegaspargase) is a critical component of therapy for children and adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Allergic reactions, which may occur in up to one third of patients, are the major cause for discontinuation. One study reported lower rates of allergic reactions with premedication. Besides allergy, an unknown number of patients develop silent neutralizing antibodies not associated with allergic reactions. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the incidence of silent inactivation of pegasparaginase and compare incidence of allergic reactions with and without premedication.
Methods: Using a commercial assay, asparaginase activity was monitored following pegaspargase (2500 units/m²) in newly diagnosed children and young adults with B- and T-cell ALL from February 2013 to May 2017. The incidence of allergic reactions before and after initiation of premedication in May 2015 was compared.
Results: One patient out of 59 (1.7%) had silent inactivation after the second dose. No patient had silent inactivation after the first pegaspargase dose and no standard risk B-cell ALL patients, who received only two pegaspargase doses in combination with oral dexamethasone, had silent inactivation. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions was 3.7% per dose with premedication (methylprednisolone, acetaminophen and diphenhydramine) versus 5.2% without. The incidence per patient with premedication given for most of the doses was 8.3% versus 17% without. These values are not statistically significant. Premedication did not affect pegaspargase activity.
Conclusions: Due to the low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase and the unlikely event patients receiving only two doses of pegasparaginase would receive erwinase for this possible transient silent inactivation, we recommend routine monitoring of pegaspargase activity only in patients scheduled to receive more than two doses.

Keywords

Pegasparginase Activity, Premedication, Silent Inactivation, Allergy, Anaphylaxis

Corresponding author: Bruce Bostrom

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2019 Losasso M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Losasso M, Bostrom B and Messinger Y. Retrospective cohort study monitoring PEG-asparaginase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication [version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:1007 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19298.1) First published: 04 Jul 2019, 8:1007 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19298.1) Latest published: 17 Jan 2020, 8:1007 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19298.2)

Introduction

PEG-L-asparaginase (pegaspargase) is a critical component of therapy for children and adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Its use is hampered by many issues including allergic reactions, silent inactivation, thrombosis, hyperbilirubinemia and pancreatitis¹. Other common toxicities, such as hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia, may be mitigated with the use of metformin and omega-3, respectively^2,3. There is also ongoing interest in the use of carnitine to treat, and possibly prevent, hepatic toxicity, manifested by a severe increase in direct bilirubin, among other findings⁴.

The optimal dose, dose interval and target asparaginase level for pegaspargase is not completely established⁵. In pediatrics, a dose of 2500 units/m² is the norm, whereas for adult patients, doses are often reduced due to increased toxicity at the pediatric dose. Some investigators have suggested using a pharmacokinetic driven model to individualize pegaspargase dosing⁶.

The use of premedication (acetaminophen, diphenhydramine and a corticosteroid) has been suggested as a possible means of reducing allergic reactions. In a multi-center study testing the use of pediatric-based regimens in young adults, the rate of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions was reduced from 10% to 4% after premedication was mandated⁷. A study in adults with ALL reported allergic reactions in 7.2% of patients when pegaspargase was given concurrently with, or followed by, one week of prednisone⁸. Using a novel mouse model of asparaginase hypersensitivity, pretreatment with seven days of oral dexamethasone was the only agent capable of mitigating the severity of hypersensitivity and partially restoring asparaginase activity⁹. Dexamethasone given at the time of, or for one week following, asparaginase was not as effective.

The presence of antibodies against asparaginase may be found, from as early as the end of induction therapy^10,11. The presence of asparaginase antibodies is a highly specific finding that is predictive of future allergic reactions but does not have the sensitivity to suggest modifications to therapy should be made¹⁰. The presence of asparaginase antibodies at end of induction did not appear to alter prognosis in a large multi-center study¹¹. This suggests that measuring asparaginase activity is more useful than looking for the presence of antibodies.

Silent inactivation of pegaspargase activity by anti-asparaginase antibodies or other immune-mediated mechanisms are potentially of greater concern than allergic reactions, as patients with allergic reactions to pegaspargase will be switched to erwinase, which theoretically will improve outcome. The true incidence of silent inactivation is unknown, as there are no reports of a comprehensive screening program for silent inactivation in a large multi-institutional trial. The largest published study found silent inactivation in 7/89 (8%) of patients¹². However, these patients received induction with native Escherichia coli asparaginase before switching to pegaspargase, which is not current practice. The authors also report in the same group of patients that silent antibodies may spontaneously resolve with continued pegaspargase¹³. Prudence suggests that patients who receive premedications should have pegaspargase activity monitored after every dose, due to the possible but unproven concern that premedication will mask allergic reactions and silent inactivation. In fact, a consensus panel of experts recommends screening for silent inactivation in all patients undergoing therapy for ALL with asparaginase¹⁴.

Methods

Ethical statement

As the use of premedications and measurement of pegaspargase activity was considered by the leukemia provider group at Children’s Minnesota to be necessary for optimal care, no informed consent was obtained. Parents/adult patients were not informed of results unless intervention was indicated, which did not occur. This retrospective review study was approved by the institutional review board of Children’s Minnesota (IRB# 1606-062).

Patients

This retrospective study occurred in a large pediatric oncology center that diagnoses and treats approximately 40 new cases of ALL yearly in children and young adults up to age 30. If there are open studies, the patients are enrolled on Children’s Oncology Group protocols. Otherwise, patients are treated according to the most recent risk adapted protocols for standard risk B, high risk B and T-ALL. In order to reduce acquisition bias, charts of every patient who received pegasparaginase from December 2013 to September 2016 were abstracted (N=99). As this was a pilot study and the expected reduction of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions with premedications was unknown at the time, sample sizes calculations could not be calculated. Data from all 99 patients were used to estimate the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions by patient and by dose. For the detailed pharmacokinetic analysis, we used a subgroup of all patients from May 2014 to September 2016 (N=46) who had pegaspargase levels drawn. This number was sufficient to define the confidence intervals of the pegasparaginase activity.

Pegaspargase administration

A total of 112 blood samples from these 46 patients were collected from a central venous portacath in conjunction with scheduled clinical visits from 3 to 12 days following pegaspargase administration at the standard dose of 2500 mg/m². Pegaspargase was given by intramuscular injection or intravenously per Children’s Oncology Group protocols on an intermittent schedule starting with induction and completed prior to starting maintenance therapy. Because the distribution of the collection days clustered in ranges from day 3–5, 6–8 and 10–12, for analyses, pegaspargase activity was grouped in these categories. To better estimate the incidence of silent inactivation, pegaspargase levels lower than 0.01 units/ml were looked for in the data from an additional 13 patients, making a total of 59 evaluated. No evidence of silent inactivation was found in these 13 patients.

These patients were all treated according to Children’s Oncology Group protocols, using either intramuscular or intravenous pegaspargase as the only form of asparaginase. Intramuscular asparaginase was the standard of care until 2010 when intravenous administration became the new standard of care based on the Children’s Oncology Group AALL0932 protocol¹⁵. A comprehensive review of published studies concluded that the risk of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions is independent of the pegaspargase route of administration¹⁵.

Premedication administration

We became aware of an abstract showing a decrease in grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions in a multi-institutional study employing pegaspargase in young adults with ALL¹⁶. This prompted us to institute in May 2015 premedication with acetaminophen (10–15 mg/kg orally), diphenhydramine (1 mg/kg orally or intravenously), and methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg intravenously), within the hour prior to administering pegasparaginase. Every subsequent patient was to receive with all three of the premedication drugs without exception. The numbers with and without premedication are listed in Table 2 (per pegaspargase dose) and Table 3 (per patient).

Assessment of allergic reactions

Allergic reactions to were graded per CTC 4.0 toxicity scales. We compared the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reaction in patients with and without premedication, both per pegaspargase dose and per patient.

Pharmacokinetic analysis

Routine monitoring of pegaspargase activity in patients with ALL was initiated in 2013 after the ‘asparaginase activity analysis’ test approved by Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments was introduced by AIBioTech, Richmond, VA 23225 US. Subsequent to the introduction in 2015 of a quantitatively identical test by Next Molecular Analytics, Chester, VA, samples were exclusively sent there.

Statistical analyses

SPSS version 23 was used for graphing and analyses. Grouped data were displayed with box graphs depicting the 1^st, 25^th, 50^th (median), 75^th and 99^th percentiles. The comparison of pegaspargase activity with and without premedication was done by independent sample t-test. The comparison of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions by patient and pegaspargase dose with and without the use of premedication was done by Chi-squared analysis. As some premedication doses were missed due to omission by the treating physician, an additional analysis of the incidences of those who received premedication after every dose or most doses were compared to those who received no premedication before any dose. Missed pegaspargase activity samples were omitted from analysis (Table I).

Table 1. Percent of pegaspargase activity specimens collected following doses one to nine.

	One	Two	Three	Four	Five	Six	Seven	Eight	Nine	Total
Collected	8	33	18	19	18	6	7	2	1	112
Missed	38	12	16	10	7	6	3	3	1	96
Total	46	45	34	29	25	12	10	5	2	208
% Collected	17%	73%	53%	66%	72%	50%	70%	40%	50%	54%

Table 2. Grade 3-4 allergic reactions by use of premedication per dose of pegaspargase.

	Grade 3-4 allergic reactions	None	Total
No premedication	7 (17%)	35 (83%)	42
Some premedication	4 (6%)	58 (94%)	62
Every dose premedication	4 (12%)	30 (88%)	34

Table 3. Grade 3-4 allergic reactions by use of premedication per patient.

	Grade 3-4 allergic reactions	None	Total
No premedication	7 (17%)	35 (83%)	42
Some premedication	4 (6%)	58 (94%)	62
Every dose premedication	4 (12%)	30 (88%)	34

Results

Pharmacokinetic analyses were done on 112 specimens from 46 patients¹⁷. The 46 patients included 12 standard risk B-cell patients, 21 high risk B-cell ALL patients, and 13 T-cell ALL patients. There were 25 males and 21 females. The ages ranged from one to 29 years with a median of 8.3 years. The number of specimens and missed specimens per pegaspargase dose number are shown in Table 1. First dose specimens were frequently missed, whereas specimens on doses two to seven were collected at least half the time.

Figure 1 is a box and whisker graph of pegaspargase activity on days 3–5, 6–8 and 10–12. The mean, standard error of the mean and standard deviation are: 1.37, 0.21 and 0.76 units/mL, respectively, for day 3–5; 0.89, 0.05 and 0.42 units/mL for day 6–8; and 0.89, 0.06 and 0.28 units/mL for day 10–12. These values are similar to those previously reported in pediatric patients with ALL^18,19.

Figure 1. Box plot of pegaspargase (PEG) activity following 2500 units/m² on day 3-5, 6-8 and 10-12.

Data points outside of the whiskers of the 1st and 99th percentiles are represented by a circle (outlier more than 1.5 times the interquartile range) or star (extreme outlier more than three times the interquartile range). The attached number is a data point and not a value.

Figure 2 is box and whisker graph of the pegaspargase activity on day 6–8, following doses with or without premedication. This time ranged was used for the comparison as it is the most common time for checking asparaginase activity. The mean and standard deviation for the no premedication group is 0.79 and 0.34 units/mL (N=14 samples), respectively, and for the premedication group is 0.92 and 0.41 units/mL (N=52 samples). These were not found to be significantly different by the independent sample t-test.

Figure 2. Box plot of pegaspargase activity day 6-8 after 2500 units/m²with and without premedication.

There was no significant difference in the activity with or without of premedication. Data points outside of the whiskers of the 1^st and 99^th percentiles are represented by a circle (outlier more than 1.5 times the interquartile range) or star (extreme outlier more than 3 times the interquartile range). The attached number is a data point and not a value.

Only one patient had silent inactivation with the following activity levels by dose number and day following pegaspargase activity was checked: dose 1, day 24 - 0.11 units/mL; dose 2, day 8 - 0.05 units/mL; dose 3 day 6 - 0.01 units/mL; dose 4 day 8 - 0.33 units/mL; dose 5, day 8 - 0.82 units/mL; and dose 6, day 10 - 0.62 units/mL. The low values after doses 2 and 3 were not reviewed due to a clerical error until after dose 4, which showed adequate activity, so pegaspargase was continued until the end of treatment.

For the analysis of the role of premedication in preventing grade 3-4 allergic reactions, the data was analyzed per pegaspargase dose and per patient. In the analysis per pegaspargase dose, premedication did not significantly reduce grade 3-4 allergic reactions. With premedication, 7/185 (3.7%) had grade 3-4 allergic reactions compared to 8/155 (5.2%) without premedication, p=0.5 (Table 2).

Table 3 shows the incidence of grade 3-4 allergic reactions per patient. Without premedication, 7/42 (17%) had grade 3-4 allergic reactions. When premedication was given most of the time (usually the first dose was missed), 4/62 (6%) had grade 3-4 allergic reactions. When premedication was given for every dose, 4/32 (12%) had allergic reactions. There was no significant effect of premedication on grade 3-4 allergic reactions by dose when the premedication group (8/96; 8.3%) was compared to the no premedication group (7/42; 17%) (chi square = 2.09; p = 0.15) (Table 3). There was no difference in the distribution of patients who did or did not receive premedication by risk group.

Discussion

Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did not significantly reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. However, there was a downward trend in the incidence per patient when any use of premedication was compared to no premedication. As premedication does not negatively affect pegaspargase activity levels, and other studies using historical comparisons have suggested premedication may reduce allergic reactions, we are continuing the practice^7,8.

The interesting observation by Tong et al. that asparaginase antibodies generated after native E. coli asparaginase may resolve while on pegaspargase continuation therapy needs to be confirmed in patients who receive only pegaspargase during induction and beyond¹⁵. We noted a transient decrease in pegaspargase activity, likely due to silent inactivating antibodies in 1/59 patients (1.7%). This decrease of pegaspargase activity occurred after the second dose in a high-risk B-cell ALL patient and resolved with continuation of pegaspargase dosing. No decrease in pegaspargase activity was seen in standard risk patients who received only two doses of pegaspargase in combination with oral dexamethasone.

Limitations of the study include multiple missed activity levels that may have found addition patients with silent inactivation. The sample size also makes it difficult to estimate the true incidence of silent inactivation and if premedication reduces the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions. Additional studies are needed to clarify this.

Contrary to the findings of a large multi-institutional trial, where the introduction of premedication significantly reduced the incidence of high-grade allergic reactions, our study did not show a statistically significant reduction with the use of premedication⁷. Despite this, we continue to use premedication in all patients receiving pegasparaginase. Due to the low incidence of silent inactivation we are only monitor asparaginase activity in patients who are planned to receive more than two doses of pegaspargase during their entire course of treatment (T-cell ALL and high-risk B-cell ALL).

Addendum

A recent publication by the pediatric oncology group at Johns Hopkins also reported significant reduction of infusion reactions and need for erwinase using premedication of H1 and H2 histamine antagonists. They also found a low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase in one of 68 patients (1.5%), similar to our finding of one in 59 patients (1.7%)²⁰.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Data Set for Retrospective cohort study monitoring Pegaspargase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication Lossaso M, Messinger Y, Bostrom B. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8281826.v1¹⁷

This project contains the following underlying data:

- PEG Data De-identifyed.xlsx (demographic, medical and treatment information for each patient)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Children’s Minnesota leukemia nurse case managers who did and continue to do an outstanding job to ensure PEG activity is collected on as many patients as possible.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Stock W, Douer D, DeAngelo DJ, et al.: Prevention and management of asparaginase/pegasparaginase-associated toxicities in adults and older adolescents: recommendations of an expert panel. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011; 52(12): 2237–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Bostrom B, Uppal P, Chu J, et al.: Safety and efficacy of metformin for therapy-induced hyperglycemia in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2013; 35(7): 504–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Bostrom B: Successful management of extreme hypertriglyceridemia from pegaspargase with omega-3. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012; 59(2): 350. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Alshiekh-Nasany R, Douer D: L-Carnitine for Treatment of Pegasparaginase-Induced Hepatotoxicity. Acta Haematol. 2016; 135(4): 208–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Salzer W, Bostrom B, Messinger Y, et al.: Asparaginase activity levels and monitoring in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017; 18: 1–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Douer D, Aldoss I, Lunning MA, et al.: Pharmacokinetics-based integration of multiple doses of intravenous pegaspargase in a pediatric regimen for adults with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(9): 905–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Stock W, Luger SM, Advani AS, et al.: A pediatric regimen for older adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of CALGB 10403. Blood. 2019; 133(14): 1548–1559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Aldoss I, Douer D, Behrendt CE, et al.: Toxicity profile of repeated doses of PEG-asparaginase incorporated into a pediatric-type regimen for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Eur J Haematol. 2016; 96(4): 375–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Fernandez CA, Smith C, Karol SE, et al.: Effect of premedications in a murine model of asparaginase hypersensitivity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2015; 352(3): 541–551. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Liu C, Kawedia JD, Cheng C, et al.: Clinical utility and implications of asparaginase antibodies in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia. 2012; 26(11): 2303–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Ko RH, Jones TL, Radvinsky D, et al.: Allergic reactions and antiasparaginase antibodies in children with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A children's oncology group report. Cancer. 2015; 121(23): 4205–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Tong WH, Pieters R, Kaspers GJ, et al.: A prospective study on drug monitoring of PEGasparaginase and Erwinia asparaginase and asparaginase antibodies in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2014; 123(13): 2026–2033. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Tong WH, Pieters R, Tissing WJ: Desensitization protocol should not be used in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with silent inactivation of PEGasparaginase. Haematologica. 2014; 99(7): e102–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. van der Sluis IM, Vrooman LM, Pieters R, et al.: Consensus expert recommendations for identification and management of asparaginase hypersensitivity and silent inactivation. Haematologica. 2016; 101(3): 279–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Beaupin LK, Bostrom B, Barth MJ, et al.: Pegaspargase hypersensitivity reactions: intravenous infusion versus intramuscular injection - a review. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017; 58(4): 766–772. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Advani AS, Sanford B, Luger S, et al.: Frontline-Treatment Of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) In Older Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) Using a Pediatric Regimen Is Feasible: Toxicity Results of the Prospective US Intergroup Trial C10403 (Alliance). Blood. 2013; 122(21): 3903. Reference Source
17. Bostrom B: Data Set for Retrospective cohort study monitoring Pegaspargase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication Lossaso M, Messinge Y, Bostrom B. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8281826.v1
18. Angiolillo AL, Schore RJ, Devidas M, et al.: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of calaspargase pegol Escherichia coli L-asparaginase in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results from Children's Oncology Group Study AALL07P4. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(34): 3874–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Silverman LB, Supko JG, Stevenson KE, et al.: Intravenous PEG-asparaginase during remission induction in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2010; 115(7): 1351–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, et al.: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66(8): e27797. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2019

Author details Author details

¹ University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55105, USA
² Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55404, USA

Michael Losasso
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Bruce Bostrom
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Yoav Messinger
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 17 Jan 2020, 8:1007

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19298.2

version 1

Published: 04 Jul 2019, 8:1007

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19298.1

© 2019 Losasso M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Losasso M, Bostrom B and Messinger Y. Retrospective cohort study monitoring PEG-asparaginase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication [version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:1007 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19298.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2019

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Oct 2019

David J. Young, Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.21156.r53445

This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this retrospective study, the authors have reviewed the single center experience of therapeutic drug monitoring, examining patient drug levels to determine the incidence of drug inactivation and looked at the relationship between pre-treatment and serious adverse events.

In their review, the authors found a 1.7% rate of drug inactivation. Of note, this rate is comparable to several different prior studies which the authors have referred here. Although the authors did not measure directly for inactivating antibodies, the use of drug activity levels to impute the presence of antibodies is now considered an acceptable approach as it is generally the primary determinant of drug activity for most patients, and as such is not a limitation in this work.

Their observation of transient inactivation and then recovery of drug efficacy is an important finding, and bears future examination as this strongly argues, as others have, for rechallenging patients with prior history, especially in high-risk patients where receiving multiple doses of asparaginase has been conclusively linked to better outcomes.

Contrary to other studies, the authors remark that they did not observe a significant decrease in clinically significant (grade 3-4) reactions with predication. Although statistically correct, it is difficult to support this statement for several reasons. First, although the authors do not see a statistically significant effect, there is without a doubt a clinically important trend of 50% reduction in events. Indeed, this would represent an absolute risk reduction of 8.7% with a number needed to treat of about 11, and is almost identical to other studies. Post hoc power analysis, although an admitted abuse of statistics, suggests that this data may have reached significance with 30-40 additional patients.

Furthermore, the authors themselves continue to use and argue for premedication, which would argue that they agree that there is benefit to pre-medication despite the lack of statistical findings. Yet, the only reason for pre-medication, given the historic concerns regarding silent inactivation, is to reduce severe adverse reactions. These contradictions need to be resolved.

Finally, the authors suggest that monitoring of drug levels is not necessary in low-risk patients, given that they did not identify inactivation during the first two doses. This statement is too strong. The authors themselves admit that there was a large number (83%) of missed levels during the first administration, likely a consequence of the admittedly chaotic logistics of early induction therapy experienced at many institutes. Although their data do suggest that silent inactivation following one dose would likely still be detectable at the second dose, this has not been rigorously tested, and is based primarily upon the experience of a single patient. Therefore, to include the recommendation of not testing low-risk patients, especially its inclusion within the abstract that (regrettably) may be all that some read, and without mentioning the rate of missed levels in the same abstract, is difficult to support.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Pediatrics, pediatric hematology/oncology, drug development, clinical trials, leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

17 Jan 2020

Author Response
David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this ... Continue reading
David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this retrospective study, the authors have reviewed the single center experience of therapeutic drug monitoring, examining patient drug levels to determine the incidence of drug inactivation and looked at the relationship between pre-treatment and serious adverse events.

In their review, the authors found a 1.7% rate of drug inactivation. Of note, this rate is comparable to several different prior studies which the authors have referred here. Although the authors did not measure directly for inactivating antibodies, the use of drug activity levels to impute the presence of antibodies is now considered an acceptable approach as it is generally the primary determinant of drug activity for most patients, and as such is not a limitation in this work.

Their observation of transient inactivation and then recovery of drug efficacy is an important finding, and bears future examination as this strongly argues, as others have, for re-challenging patients with prior history, especially in high-risk patients where receiving multiple doses of asparaginase has been conclusively linked to better outcomes.

Contrary to other studies, the authors remark that they did not observe a significant decrease in clinically significant (grade 3-4) reactions with predication. Although statistically correct, it is difficult to support this statement for several reasons. First, although the authors do not see a statistically significant effect, there is without a doubt a clinically important trend of 50% reduction in events. Indeed, this would represent an absolute risk reduction of 8.7% with a number needed to treat of about 11 and is almost identical to other studies. Post hoc power analysis, although an admitted abuse of statistics, suggests that this data may have reached significance with 30-40 additional patients.

Furthermore, the authors themselves continue to use and argue for premedication, which would argue that they agree that there is benefit to pre-medication despite the lack of statistical findings. Yet, the only reason for pre-medication, given the historic concerns regarding silent inactivation, is to reduce severe adverse reactions. These contradictions need to be resolved.

Response: we agree with the reviewer points and his astute observations. We would have included his Post hoc analysis if we could but were concerned like him about those who would view these statistics unkindly. Several things were altered: In Discussion 1^st paragraph this sentence is now changed: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.” The 4^th paragraph this whole section was removed: “Contrary to the findings of a large multi-institutional trial, where the introduction of premedication significantly reduced the incidence of high-grade allergic reactions, our study did not show a statistically significant reduction with the use of premedication. [7] Despite this, we continue to use premedication in all patients receiving pegasparaginase.”

Finally, the authors suggest that monitoring of drug levels is not necessary in low-risk patients, given that they did not identify inactivation during the first two doses. This statement is too strong. The authors themselves admit that there was a large number (83%) of missed levels during the first administration, likely a consequence of the admittedly chaotic logistics of early induction therapy experienced at many institutes. Although their data do suggest that silent inactivation following one dose would likely still be detectable at the second dose, this has not been rigorously tested, and is based primarily upon the experience of a single patient. Therefore, to include the recommendation of not testing low-risk patients, especially its inclusion within the abstract that (regrettably) may be all that some read, and without mentioning the rate of missed levels in the same abstract, is difficult to support.

Response: we do agree with the reviewer completely that the number of missed levels after the 1^st dose is very high. We also agree that our numbers are too small for this strong conclusion. We have altered the abstract to include this sentence in the results: “Asparaginase dose levels were mostly missed after the first asparaginase dose.” We eliminated this sentence: “No patient had silent inactivation after the first pegaspargase dose.” And the conclusions: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Future studies may confirm if patients treated with regimens with only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation.”

In discussion 2^nd paragraph this was altered: “No decrease in pegaspargase activity was seen in standard risk patients who received only two doses of pegaspargase in combination with oral dexamethasone. This observation is limited by small numbers of patients and multiple missed levels after the first pegaspargase dose.” The 4^th paragraph was altered also: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Our study suggests that patients treated with regimens that include only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation, but this would need confirmation by larger studies.”

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing InterestsNo competing interests were disclosed.
David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this retrospective study, the authors have reviewed the single center experience of therapeutic drug monitoring, examining patient drug levels to determine the incidence of drug inactivation and looked at the relationship between pre-treatment and serious adverse events.

In their review, the authors found a 1.7% rate of drug inactivation. Of note, this rate is comparable to several different prior studies which the authors have referred here. Although the authors did not measure directly for inactivating antibodies, the use of drug activity levels to impute the presence of antibodies is now considered an acceptable approach as it is generally the primary determinant of drug activity for most patients, and as such is not a limitation in this work.

Their observation of transient inactivation and then recovery of drug efficacy is an important finding, and bears future examination as this strongly argues, as others have, for re-challenging patients with prior history, especially in high-risk patients where receiving multiple doses of asparaginase has been conclusively linked to better outcomes.

Contrary to other studies, the authors remark that they did not observe a significant decrease in clinically significant (grade 3-4) reactions with predication. Although statistically correct, it is difficult to support this statement for several reasons. First, although the authors do not see a statistically significant effect, there is without a doubt a clinically important trend of 50% reduction in events. Indeed, this would represent an absolute risk reduction of 8.7% with a number needed to treat of about 11 and is almost identical to other studies. Post hoc power analysis, although an admitted abuse of statistics, suggests that this data may have reached significance with 30-40 additional patients.

Furthermore, the authors themselves continue to use and argue for premedication, which would argue that they agree that there is benefit to pre-medication despite the lack of statistical findings. Yet, the only reason for pre-medication, given the historic concerns regarding silent inactivation, is to reduce severe adverse reactions. These contradictions need to be resolved.

Response: we agree with the reviewer points and his astute observations. We would have included his Post hoc analysis if we could but were concerned like him about those who would view these statistics unkindly. Several things were altered: In Discussion 1^st paragraph this sentence is now changed: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.” The 4^th paragraph this whole section was removed: “Contrary to the findings of a large multi-institutional trial, where the introduction of premedication significantly reduced the incidence of high-grade allergic reactions, our study did not show a statistically significant reduction with the use of premedication. [7] Despite this, we continue to use premedication in all patients receiving pegasparaginase.”

Finally, the authors suggest that monitoring of drug levels is not necessary in low-risk patients, given that they did not identify inactivation during the first two doses. This statement is too strong. The authors themselves admit that there was a large number (83%) of missed levels during the first administration, likely a consequence of the admittedly chaotic logistics of early induction therapy experienced at many institutes. Although their data do suggest that silent inactivation following one dose would likely still be detectable at the second dose, this has not been rigorously tested, and is based primarily upon the experience of a single patient. Therefore, to include the recommendation of not testing low-risk patients, especially its inclusion within the abstract that (regrettably) may be all that some read, and without mentioning the rate of missed levels in the same abstract, is difficult to support.

Response: we do agree with the reviewer completely that the number of missed levels after the 1^st dose is very high. We also agree that our numbers are too small for this strong conclusion. We have altered the abstract to include this sentence in the results: “Asparaginase dose levels were mostly missed after the first asparaginase dose.” We eliminated this sentence: “No patient had silent inactivation after the first pegaspargase dose.” And the conclusions: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Future studies may confirm if patients treated with regimens with only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation.”

In discussion 2^nd paragraph this was altered: “No decrease in pegaspargase activity was seen in standard risk patients who received only two doses of pegaspargase in combination with oral dexamethasone. This observation is limited by small numbers of patients and multiple missed levels after the first pegaspargase dose.” The 4^th paragraph was altered also: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Our study suggests that patients treated with regimens that include only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation, but this would need confirmation by larger studies.”

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing InterestsNo competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

17 Jan 2020

Author Response
David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this ... Continue reading
David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this retrospective study, the authors have reviewed the single center experience of therapeutic drug monitoring, examining patient drug levels to determine the incidence of drug inactivation and looked at the relationship between pre-treatment and serious adverse events.

In their review, the authors found a 1.7% rate of drug inactivation. Of note, this rate is comparable to several different prior studies which the authors have referred here. Although the authors did not measure directly for inactivating antibodies, the use of drug activity levels to impute the presence of antibodies is now considered an acceptable approach as it is generally the primary determinant of drug activity for most patients, and as such is not a limitation in this work.

Their observation of transient inactivation and then recovery of drug efficacy is an important finding, and bears future examination as this strongly argues, as others have, for re-challenging patients with prior history, especially in high-risk patients where receiving multiple doses of asparaginase has been conclusively linked to better outcomes.

Contrary to other studies, the authors remark that they did not observe a significant decrease in clinically significant (grade 3-4) reactions with predication. Although statistically correct, it is difficult to support this statement for several reasons. First, although the authors do not see a statistically significant effect, there is without a doubt a clinically important trend of 50% reduction in events. Indeed, this would represent an absolute risk reduction of 8.7% with a number needed to treat of about 11 and is almost identical to other studies. Post hoc power analysis, although an admitted abuse of statistics, suggests that this data may have reached significance with 30-40 additional patients.

Furthermore, the authors themselves continue to use and argue for premedication, which would argue that they agree that there is benefit to pre-medication despite the lack of statistical findings. Yet, the only reason for pre-medication, given the historic concerns regarding silent inactivation, is to reduce severe adverse reactions. These contradictions need to be resolved.

Response: we agree with the reviewer points and his astute observations. We would have included his Post hoc analysis if we could but were concerned like him about those who would view these statistics unkindly. Several things were altered: In Discussion 1^st paragraph this sentence is now changed: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.” The 4^th paragraph this whole section was removed: “Contrary to the findings of a large multi-institutional trial, where the introduction of premedication significantly reduced the incidence of high-grade allergic reactions, our study did not show a statistically significant reduction with the use of premedication. [7] Despite this, we continue to use premedication in all patients receiving pegasparaginase.”

Finally, the authors suggest that monitoring of drug levels is not necessary in low-risk patients, given that they did not identify inactivation during the first two doses. This statement is too strong. The authors themselves admit that there was a large number (83%) of missed levels during the first administration, likely a consequence of the admittedly chaotic logistics of early induction therapy experienced at many institutes. Although their data do suggest that silent inactivation following one dose would likely still be detectable at the second dose, this has not been rigorously tested, and is based primarily upon the experience of a single patient. Therefore, to include the recommendation of not testing low-risk patients, especially its inclusion within the abstract that (regrettably) may be all that some read, and without mentioning the rate of missed levels in the same abstract, is difficult to support.

Response: we do agree with the reviewer completely that the number of missed levels after the 1^st dose is very high. We also agree that our numbers are too small for this strong conclusion. We have altered the abstract to include this sentence in the results: “Asparaginase dose levels were mostly missed after the first asparaginase dose.” We eliminated this sentence: “No patient had silent inactivation after the first pegaspargase dose.” And the conclusions: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Future studies may confirm if patients treated with regimens with only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation.”

In discussion 2^nd paragraph this was altered: “No decrease in pegaspargase activity was seen in standard risk patients who received only two doses of pegaspargase in combination with oral dexamethasone. This observation is limited by small numbers of patients and multiple missed levels after the first pegaspargase dose.” The 4^th paragraph was altered also: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Our study suggests that patients treated with regimens that include only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation, but this would need confirmation by larger studies.”

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing InterestsNo competing interests were disclosed.
David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this retrospective study, the authors have reviewed the single center experience of therapeutic drug monitoring, examining patient drug levels to determine the incidence of drug inactivation and looked at the relationship between pre-treatment and serious adverse events.

In their review, the authors found a 1.7% rate of drug inactivation. Of note, this rate is comparable to several different prior studies which the authors have referred here. Although the authors did not measure directly for inactivating antibodies, the use of drug activity levels to impute the presence of antibodies is now considered an acceptable approach as it is generally the primary determinant of drug activity for most patients, and as such is not a limitation in this work.

Their observation of transient inactivation and then recovery of drug efficacy is an important finding, and bears future examination as this strongly argues, as others have, for re-challenging patients with prior history, especially in high-risk patients where receiving multiple doses of asparaginase has been conclusively linked to better outcomes.

Contrary to other studies, the authors remark that they did not observe a significant decrease in clinically significant (grade 3-4) reactions with predication. Although statistically correct, it is difficult to support this statement for several reasons. First, although the authors do not see a statistically significant effect, there is without a doubt a clinically important trend of 50% reduction in events. Indeed, this would represent an absolute risk reduction of 8.7% with a number needed to treat of about 11 and is almost identical to other studies. Post hoc power analysis, although an admitted abuse of statistics, suggests that this data may have reached significance with 30-40 additional patients.

Furthermore, the authors themselves continue to use and argue for premedication, which would argue that they agree that there is benefit to pre-medication despite the lack of statistical findings. Yet, the only reason for pre-medication, given the historic concerns regarding silent inactivation, is to reduce severe adverse reactions. These contradictions need to be resolved.

Response: we agree with the reviewer points and his astute observations. We would have included his Post hoc analysis if we could but were concerned like him about those who would view these statistics unkindly. Several things were altered: In Discussion 1^st paragraph this sentence is now changed: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.” The 4^th paragraph this whole section was removed: “Contrary to the findings of a large multi-institutional trial, where the introduction of premedication significantly reduced the incidence of high-grade allergic reactions, our study did not show a statistically significant reduction with the use of premedication. [7] Despite this, we continue to use premedication in all patients receiving pegasparaginase.”

Finally, the authors suggest that monitoring of drug levels is not necessary in low-risk patients, given that they did not identify inactivation during the first two doses. This statement is too strong. The authors themselves admit that there was a large number (83%) of missed levels during the first administration, likely a consequence of the admittedly chaotic logistics of early induction therapy experienced at many institutes. Although their data do suggest that silent inactivation following one dose would likely still be detectable at the second dose, this has not been rigorously tested, and is based primarily upon the experience of a single patient. Therefore, to include the recommendation of not testing low-risk patients, especially its inclusion within the abstract that (regrettably) may be all that some read, and without mentioning the rate of missed levels in the same abstract, is difficult to support.

Response: we do agree with the reviewer completely that the number of missed levels after the 1^st dose is very high. We also agree that our numbers are too small for this strong conclusion. We have altered the abstract to include this sentence in the results: “Asparaginase dose levels were mostly missed after the first asparaginase dose.” We eliminated this sentence: “No patient had silent inactivation after the first pegaspargase dose.” And the conclusions: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Future studies may confirm if patients treated with regimens with only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation.”

In discussion 2^nd paragraph this was altered: “No decrease in pegaspargase activity was seen in standard risk patients who received only two doses of pegaspargase in combination with oral dexamethasone. This observation is limited by small numbers of patients and multiple missed levels after the first pegaspargase dose.” The 4^th paragraph was altered also: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Our study suggests that patients treated with regimens that include only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation, but this would need confirmation by larger studies.”

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing InterestsNo competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 30 Sep 2019

Vinod Pullarkat, Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.21156.r53513

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined the incidence of allergic reactions in a cohort of patients with ALL receiving multiple doses of PEGylated aspraginase. They show that premedication did not have an impact on allergic reactions. The study has drawbacks inherent in a retrospective analysis of a heterogeneously treated population with non standardized blood sampling as acknowledged by the authors. My comments are as follows:

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.
In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise: Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

17 Jan 2020

Author Response
Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined ... Continue reading
Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined the incidence of allergic reactions in a cohort of patients with ALL receiving multiple doses of PEGylated asparaginase. They show that premedication did not have an impact on allergic reactions. The study has drawbacks inherent in a retrospective analysis of a heterogeneously treated population with non-standardized blood sampling as acknowledged by the authors. My comments are as follows:

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.

Response: It would have been wonderful to be able to do this, but we cannot. Unfortunately, when patients had a reaction (be it allergic reaction or infusion reaction) no further pegaspargase was given. Therefore, these patients had no subsequent asparaginase activity measured. Additionally, this is an inherent difficulty with these patients – whose infusion is stopped right away and they never receive full dose of pegaspargase rendering subsequent asparaginase activity meaningless.

In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Response: We agree completely. The abstract and the paper has changes that completely address this. To the Abstract conclusion we added this sentence: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to insufficient power.” In discussion the 1^st paragraph completely addresses this: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose, thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance due to insufficient numbers.”
The comment suggesting not monitoring levels in patients receiving only two doses of pegasparaginase is to potentially minimize unnecessary testing in this group of patients. In COG protocols only two doses of pegasparaginase are given to lower risk children who make up the majority of patients under the age of 18. However we have removed this recommendation due to large number of first dose pegaspargase levels missed in these patients.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing Interests: Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise:Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined the incidence of allergic reactions in a cohort of patients with ALL receiving multiple doses of PEGylated asparaginase. They show that premedication did not have an impact on allergic reactions. The study has drawbacks inherent in a retrospective analysis of a heterogeneously treated population with non-standardized blood sampling as acknowledged by the authors. My comments are as follows:

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.

Response: It would have been wonderful to be able to do this, but we cannot. Unfortunately, when patients had a reaction (be it allergic reaction or infusion reaction) no further pegaspargase was given. Therefore, these patients had no subsequent asparaginase activity measured. Additionally, this is an inherent difficulty with these patients – whose infusion is stopped right away and they never receive full dose of pegaspargase rendering subsequent asparaginase activity meaningless.

In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Response: We agree completely. The abstract and the paper has changes that completely address this. To the Abstract conclusion we added this sentence: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to insufficient power.” In discussion the 1^st paragraph completely addresses this: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose, thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance due to insufficient numbers.”
The comment suggesting not monitoring levels in patients receiving only two doses of pegasparaginase is to potentially minimize unnecessary testing in this group of patients. In COG protocols only two doses of pegasparaginase are given to lower risk children who make up the majority of patients under the age of 18. However we have removed this recommendation due to large number of first dose pegaspargase levels missed in these patients.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing Interests: Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise:Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

17 Jan 2020

Author Response
Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined ... Continue reading
Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined the incidence of allergic reactions in a cohort of patients with ALL receiving multiple doses of PEGylated asparaginase. They show that premedication did not have an impact on allergic reactions. The study has drawbacks inherent in a retrospective analysis of a heterogeneously treated population with non-standardized blood sampling as acknowledged by the authors. My comments are as follows:

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.

Response: It would have been wonderful to be able to do this, but we cannot. Unfortunately, when patients had a reaction (be it allergic reaction or infusion reaction) no further pegaspargase was given. Therefore, these patients had no subsequent asparaginase activity measured. Additionally, this is an inherent difficulty with these patients – whose infusion is stopped right away and they never receive full dose of pegaspargase rendering subsequent asparaginase activity meaningless.

In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Response: We agree completely. The abstract and the paper has changes that completely address this. To the Abstract conclusion we added this sentence: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to insufficient power.” In discussion the 1^st paragraph completely addresses this: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose, thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance due to insufficient numbers.”
The comment suggesting not monitoring levels in patients receiving only two doses of pegasparaginase is to potentially minimize unnecessary testing in this group of patients. In COG protocols only two doses of pegasparaginase are given to lower risk children who make up the majority of patients under the age of 18. However we have removed this recommendation due to large number of first dose pegaspargase levels missed in these patients.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing Interests: Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise:Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined the incidence of allergic reactions in a cohort of patients with ALL receiving multiple doses of PEGylated asparaginase. They show that premedication did not have an impact on allergic reactions. The study has drawbacks inherent in a retrospective analysis of a heterogeneously treated population with non-standardized blood sampling as acknowledged by the authors. My comments are as follows:

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.

Response: It would have been wonderful to be able to do this, but we cannot. Unfortunately, when patients had a reaction (be it allergic reaction or infusion reaction) no further pegaspargase was given. Therefore, these patients had no subsequent asparaginase activity measured. Additionally, this is an inherent difficulty with these patients – whose infusion is stopped right away and they never receive full dose of pegaspargase rendering subsequent asparaginase activity meaningless.

In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Response: We agree completely. The abstract and the paper has changes that completely address this. To the Abstract conclusion we added this sentence: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to insufficient power.” In discussion the 1^st paragraph completely addresses this: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose, thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance due to insufficient numbers.”
The comment suggesting not monitoring levels in patients receiving only two doses of pegasparaginase is to potentially minimize unnecessary testing in this group of patients. In COG protocols only two doses of pegasparaginase are given to lower risk children who make up the majority of patients under the age of 18. However we have removed this recommendation due to large number of first dose pegaspargase levels missed in these patients.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing Interests: Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise:Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 26 Sep 2019

Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.21156.r53512

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their work in characterizing asparaginase activity levels in ALL patients. The results and research are clearly presented and accurately reported. The conclusions of the study are appropriate, and the limitations of this ... Continue reading

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.
The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well.

Intro:

Not essential, but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.
Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15².
I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.
In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation.
Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.

Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?
Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity?
It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose.
Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?
Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).
Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted.

Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?
The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).
It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.
Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.

Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.
Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2).
Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels.

Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, et al.: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66 (8): e27797 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, et al.: A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. 1-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Schore RJ, Devidas M, Bleyer A, Reaman GH, et al.: Plasma asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with pegaspargase on Children's Oncology Group AALL07P4.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019; 60 (7): 1740-1748 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Park JH, Ritchie EK, Rao AV, Devlin S, et al.: A Pediatric-Inspired Regimen Containing Multiple Doses of Intravenous Pegylated Asparaginase Appears Safe and Effective in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Ph-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults up to Age 60: Results of a Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial. Blood. 2016; 128 (1629).

Competing Interests: Servier (consultant)

Reviewer Expertise: Asparaginase, leukemia treatment, therapeutic drug monitoring

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

17 Jan 2020

Author Response
Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their ... Continue reading
Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their work in characterizing asparaginase activity levels in ALL patients. The results and research are clearly presented and accurately reported. The conclusions of the study are appropriate, and the limitations of this retrospective cohort study are well-described.

Some specific suggestions/comments/recommendations:

Abstract:

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.Response: done. Number of patients was added. Dr Marini is correct that the study was underpowered and we have added statements to that effect in the abstract and first paragraph of the discussion.

The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well. Response: done. Sentence added: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to small numbers.”Intro:

Not essential but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.Response: done and referenced.

Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15². Response: Reference 1 is already there in the addendum and added the reference 2 to the addendum.

I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.Response we now quote exactly the sensitivity and specificity reported by the St. Jude group [Liu et al. Leukemia. 2012 Nov;26(11):2303-9] which addresses your concern.

In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation. Response: we altered the paragraph somewhat and specified: “…potentially of greater concern than bone-fide allergic reactions, as patients with grade 3-4 allergic reactions to pegaspargase will be switched to erwinase, which theoretically will improve outcome.”As you suggested at the end of the paragraph we also added this sentence: “Additionally, the low grade 1-2 allergic reactions that are more common than silent inactivation do require pegaspargase activity monitoring to ensure a switch to erwinase if confirmed as true inactivation.”

Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.Response: Done. Also quoted Place et al. “Notably, lower silent inactivation with pegaspargase than native Escherichia coli asparaginase have been reported. [15-17]” Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?Response: A sentence in first paragraph of the discussion was changed as follows: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.”

Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity? Response: No none. All PEG doses were given at a dose of 2500 units/m2, as documented in methods.

It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose. Response: we would suggest that prior studies defined silent inactivation similarly to our study. Here none of the measurements in the current study have included peak levels. Thus, like others we would suggest that accelerated clearance without noted clinical symptoms is the same as silent inactivation.

Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?Response: As noted – we did not collect low-grade (level 1-2) reactions therefore we cannot answer this question unfortunately.

Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).Response: The data was normally distributed by visual inspection of the normal curve and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the day 6-8 pegasparaginase activity level. As Dr Marini pointed out this contained an extreme outlier which we could not explain. Thus we elected to remove this outlier and the distribution was normal. The removal of this was discussed in the methods.Data was reanalyzed and graphs redone after this change. Analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the day 6-8 pegaspargase level with and without premeds (lower without premed. Of note a significant difference was also seen with the dataset containing the outlier. Also analysis of the day 3-5 and 10-12 pegaspargase levels did not show a significant difference with premeds perhaps due to the small sample sizes.The finding of difference in the pegasparaginase level with premeds has not been previously described to our knowledge. This may be of clinical significance and should, if possible confirmed in other retrospective studies. Given the increased acceptance of premeds for PEG it is unlikely and perhaps unethical to confirm in a prospective randomized trial, in our opinion. Text relating to this new finding has been added to the manuscript in various places.

Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted. Response: our protocol did instruct that all pegaspargase doses will be followed by levels, as outlined in the methods. Compliance with this instruction was not complete at all as we outlined in the results. We think that there was no collection bias but rather non-compliance. It is true also that there is a misconception that risk of inactivation after the first dose is zero. Please note the recent report from Mary Relling group suggesting that many allergic reactions are actually to the PEG and may occur after the 1^st dose of pegaspargase. We in fact have seen patients develop anaphylaxis right after the 1^st dose. (Liu Y, Smith CA, Panetta JC, Yang W, Thompson LE, Counts JP, Molinelli AR, Pei D, Kornegay NM, Crews KR, Swanson H, Cheng C, Karol SE, Evans WE, Inaba H, Pui CH, Jeha S, Relling MV. Antibodies Predict Pegaspargase Allergic Reactions and Failure of Rechallenge. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2051-2061. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.02439. Epub 2019 Jun 12. PubMed PMID: 31188727.)Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?Response: this patient (UPN 11) after dose 3 of PEG had level of 2.8 on day 7. The scanned faxed report from AI Biotech was checked and confirmed the result of 2.8 as reported. We have no other levels after dose 3 to validate this result. After the preceding dose (#2) the result on day 7 was 0.78 and after the subsequent dose (#)4 the result on day 11 was 0.97. Based on the extreme deviance from a normal distribution we elected to remove this from the graphs and data analysis as discussed above.

The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).Response: It is our suggestion that accelerated clearance occurs through immune mechanism – and as we suggested above is similar to silent inactivation. Though it is possible that the patient had transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3 as an explanation, it remains possible that that patient had transient silent inactivation after dose 3 and had become tolerant PEG when continued dose administered as we explain in the discussion paragraph 2 noting to Tong papers.

It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.Response: the patient UPN 28 with the silent activation did have level 0.05 day 8 then 0.00 day 16. It verified the very low levels. No others had confirmatory low levels.

Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.As we suggested above these were mandated premedications given at a specified time. It was not at the choice of the treating provider; therefore bias seems unlikely.Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.We respectfully disagree as we consider accelerated clearance equal to silent inactivation, since they actually are the same mechanism.

Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2). Response: Thank you. This was added to the last paragraph of the discussion.

Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels. Response: Thank you, added to the limitation paragraph.Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Yes

References
1. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66 (8): e27797 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ: A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. 1-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Schore RJ, Devidas M, Bleyer A, Reaman GH, Winick N, Loh ML, Raetz EA, Carroll WL, Hunger SP, Angiolillo AL: Plasma asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with pegaspargase on Children's Oncology Group AALL07P4.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019; 60 (7): 1740-1748 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Park JH, Ritchie EK, Rao AV, Devlin S, Hsu M, Khawaja TT, O’Donnell B, Cazacu MI, Stopka DM, Tallman MS, Douer D: A Pediatric-Inspired Regimen Containing Multiple Doses of Intravenous Pegylated Asparaginase Appears Safe and Effective in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Ph-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults up to Age 60: Results of a Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial. Blood. 2016; 128 (1629).
Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their work in characterizing asparaginase activity levels in ALL patients. The results and research are clearly presented and accurately reported. The conclusions of the study are appropriate, and the limitations of this retrospective cohort study are well-described.

Some specific suggestions/comments/recommendations:

Abstract:

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.Response: done. Number of patients was added. Dr Marini is correct that the study was underpowered and we have added statements to that effect in the abstract and first paragraph of the discussion.

The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well. Response: done. Sentence added: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to small numbers.”Intro:

Not essential but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.Response: done and referenced.

Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15². Response: Reference 1 is already there in the addendum and added the reference 2 to the addendum.

I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.Response we now quote exactly the sensitivity and specificity reported by the St. Jude group [Liu et al. Leukemia. 2012 Nov;26(11):2303-9] which addresses your concern.

In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation. Response: we altered the paragraph somewhat and specified: “…potentially of greater concern than bone-fide allergic reactions, as patients with grade 3-4 allergic reactions to pegaspargase will be switched to erwinase, which theoretically will improve outcome.”As you suggested at the end of the paragraph we also added this sentence: “Additionally, the low grade 1-2 allergic reactions that are more common than silent inactivation do require pegaspargase activity monitoring to ensure a switch to erwinase if confirmed as true inactivation.”

Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.Response: Done. Also quoted Place et al. “Notably, lower silent inactivation with pegaspargase than native Escherichia coli asparaginase have been reported. [15-17]” Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?Response: A sentence in first paragraph of the discussion was changed as follows: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.”

Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity? Response: No none. All PEG doses were given at a dose of 2500 units/m2, as documented in methods.

It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose. Response: we would suggest that prior studies defined silent inactivation similarly to our study. Here none of the measurements in the current study have included peak levels. Thus, like others we would suggest that accelerated clearance without noted clinical symptoms is the same as silent inactivation.

Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?Response: As noted – we did not collect low-grade (level 1-2) reactions therefore we cannot answer this question unfortunately.

Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).Response: The data was normally distributed by visual inspection of the normal curve and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the day 6-8 pegasparaginase activity level. As Dr Marini pointed out this contained an extreme outlier which we could not explain. Thus we elected to remove this outlier and the distribution was normal. The removal of this was discussed in the methods.Data was reanalyzed and graphs redone after this change. Analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the day 6-8 pegaspargase level with and without premeds (lower without premed. Of note a significant difference was also seen with the dataset containing the outlier. Also analysis of the day 3-5 and 10-12 pegaspargase levels did not show a significant difference with premeds perhaps due to the small sample sizes.The finding of difference in the pegasparaginase level with premeds has not been previously described to our knowledge. This may be of clinical significance and should, if possible confirmed in other retrospective studies. Given the increased acceptance of premeds for PEG it is unlikely and perhaps unethical to confirm in a prospective randomized trial, in our opinion. Text relating to this new finding has been added to the manuscript in various places.

Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted. Response: our protocol did instruct that all pegaspargase doses will be followed by levels, as outlined in the methods. Compliance with this instruction was not complete at all as we outlined in the results. We think that there was no collection bias but rather non-compliance. It is true also that there is a misconception that risk of inactivation after the first dose is zero. Please note the recent report from Mary Relling group suggesting that many allergic reactions are actually to the PEG and may occur after the 1^st dose of pegaspargase. We in fact have seen patients develop anaphylaxis right after the 1^st dose. (Liu Y, Smith CA, Panetta JC, Yang W, Thompson LE, Counts JP, Molinelli AR, Pei D, Kornegay NM, Crews KR, Swanson H, Cheng C, Karol SE, Evans WE, Inaba H, Pui CH, Jeha S, Relling MV. Antibodies Predict Pegaspargase Allergic Reactions and Failure of Rechallenge. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2051-2061. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.02439. Epub 2019 Jun 12. PubMed PMID: 31188727.)Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?Response: this patient (UPN 11) after dose 3 of PEG had level of 2.8 on day 7. The scanned faxed report from AI Biotech was checked and confirmed the result of 2.8 as reported. We have no other levels after dose 3 to validate this result. After the preceding dose (#2) the result on day 7 was 0.78 and after the subsequent dose (#)4 the result on day 11 was 0.97. Based on the extreme deviance from a normal distribution we elected to remove this from the graphs and data analysis as discussed above.

The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).Response: It is our suggestion that accelerated clearance occurs through immune mechanism – and as we suggested above is similar to silent inactivation. Though it is possible that the patient had transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3 as an explanation, it remains possible that that patient had transient silent inactivation after dose 3 and had become tolerant PEG when continued dose administered as we explain in the discussion paragraph 2 noting to Tong papers.

It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.Response: the patient UPN 28 with the silent activation did have level 0.05 day 8 then 0.00 day 16. It verified the very low levels. No others had confirmatory low levels.

Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.As we suggested above these were mandated premedications given at a specified time. It was not at the choice of the treating provider; therefore bias seems unlikely.Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.We respectfully disagree as we consider accelerated clearance equal to silent inactivation, since they actually are the same mechanism.

Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2). Response: Thank you. This was added to the last paragraph of the discussion.

Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels. Response: Thank you, added to the limitation paragraph.Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Yes

References
1. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66 (8): e27797 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ: A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. 1-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Schore RJ, Devidas M, Bleyer A, Reaman GH, Winick N, Loh ML, Raetz EA, Carroll WL, Hunger SP, Angiolillo AL: Plasma asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with pegaspargase on Children's Oncology Group AALL07P4.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019; 60 (7): 1740-1748 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Park JH, Ritchie EK, Rao AV, Devlin S, Hsu M, Khawaja TT, O’Donnell B, Cazacu MI, Stopka DM, Tallman MS, Douer D: A Pediatric-Inspired Regimen Containing Multiple Doses of Intravenous Pegylated Asparaginase Appears Safe and Effective in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Ph-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults up to Age 60: Results of a Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial. Blood. 2016; 128 (1629).
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

17 Jan 2020

Author Response
Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their ... Continue reading
Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their work in characterizing asparaginase activity levels in ALL patients. The results and research are clearly presented and accurately reported. The conclusions of the study are appropriate, and the limitations of this retrospective cohort study are well-described.

Some specific suggestions/comments/recommendations:

Abstract:

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.Response: done. Number of patients was added. Dr Marini is correct that the study was underpowered and we have added statements to that effect in the abstract and first paragraph of the discussion.

The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well. Response: done. Sentence added: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to small numbers.”Intro:

Not essential but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.Response: done and referenced.

Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15². Response: Reference 1 is already there in the addendum and added the reference 2 to the addendum.

I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.Response we now quote exactly the sensitivity and specificity reported by the St. Jude group [Liu et al. Leukemia. 2012 Nov;26(11):2303-9] which addresses your concern.

In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation. Response: we altered the paragraph somewhat and specified: “…potentially of greater concern than bone-fide allergic reactions, as patients with grade 3-4 allergic reactions to pegaspargase will be switched to erwinase, which theoretically will improve outcome.”As you suggested at the end of the paragraph we also added this sentence: “Additionally, the low grade 1-2 allergic reactions that are more common than silent inactivation do require pegaspargase activity monitoring to ensure a switch to erwinase if confirmed as true inactivation.”

Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.Response: Done. Also quoted Place et al. “Notably, lower silent inactivation with pegaspargase than native Escherichia coli asparaginase have been reported. [15-17]” Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?Response: A sentence in first paragraph of the discussion was changed as follows: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.”

Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity? Response: No none. All PEG doses were given at a dose of 2500 units/m2, as documented in methods.

It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose. Response: we would suggest that prior studies defined silent inactivation similarly to our study. Here none of the measurements in the current study have included peak levels. Thus, like others we would suggest that accelerated clearance without noted clinical symptoms is the same as silent inactivation.

Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?Response: As noted – we did not collect low-grade (level 1-2) reactions therefore we cannot answer this question unfortunately.

Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).Response: The data was normally distributed by visual inspection of the normal curve and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the day 6-8 pegasparaginase activity level. As Dr Marini pointed out this contained an extreme outlier which we could not explain. Thus we elected to remove this outlier and the distribution was normal. The removal of this was discussed in the methods.Data was reanalyzed and graphs redone after this change. Analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the day 6-8 pegaspargase level with and without premeds (lower without premed. Of note a significant difference was also seen with the dataset containing the outlier. Also analysis of the day 3-5 and 10-12 pegaspargase levels did not show a significant difference with premeds perhaps due to the small sample sizes.The finding of difference in the pegasparaginase level with premeds has not been previously described to our knowledge. This may be of clinical significance and should, if possible confirmed in other retrospective studies. Given the increased acceptance of premeds for PEG it is unlikely and perhaps unethical to confirm in a prospective randomized trial, in our opinion. Text relating to this new finding has been added to the manuscript in various places.

Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted. Response: our protocol did instruct that all pegaspargase doses will be followed by levels, as outlined in the methods. Compliance with this instruction was not complete at all as we outlined in the results. We think that there was no collection bias but rather non-compliance. It is true also that there is a misconception that risk of inactivation after the first dose is zero. Please note the recent report from Mary Relling group suggesting that many allergic reactions are actually to the PEG and may occur after the 1^st dose of pegaspargase. We in fact have seen patients develop anaphylaxis right after the 1^st dose. (Liu Y, Smith CA, Panetta JC, Yang W, Thompson LE, Counts JP, Molinelli AR, Pei D, Kornegay NM, Crews KR, Swanson H, Cheng C, Karol SE, Evans WE, Inaba H, Pui CH, Jeha S, Relling MV. Antibodies Predict Pegaspargase Allergic Reactions and Failure of Rechallenge. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2051-2061. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.02439. Epub 2019 Jun 12. PubMed PMID: 31188727.)Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?Response: this patient (UPN 11) after dose 3 of PEG had level of 2.8 on day 7. The scanned faxed report from AI Biotech was checked and confirmed the result of 2.8 as reported. We have no other levels after dose 3 to validate this result. After the preceding dose (#2) the result on day 7 was 0.78 and after the subsequent dose (#)4 the result on day 11 was 0.97. Based on the extreme deviance from a normal distribution we elected to remove this from the graphs and data analysis as discussed above.

The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).Response: It is our suggestion that accelerated clearance occurs through immune mechanism – and as we suggested above is similar to silent inactivation. Though it is possible that the patient had transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3 as an explanation, it remains possible that that patient had transient silent inactivation after dose 3 and had become tolerant PEG when continued dose administered as we explain in the discussion paragraph 2 noting to Tong papers.

It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.Response: the patient UPN 28 with the silent activation did have level 0.05 day 8 then 0.00 day 16. It verified the very low levels. No others had confirmatory low levels.

Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.As we suggested above these were mandated premedications given at a specified time. It was not at the choice of the treating provider; therefore bias seems unlikely.Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.We respectfully disagree as we consider accelerated clearance equal to silent inactivation, since they actually are the same mechanism.

Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2). Response: Thank you. This was added to the last paragraph of the discussion.

Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels. Response: Thank you, added to the limitation paragraph.Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Yes

References
1. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66 (8): e27797 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ: A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. 1-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Schore RJ, Devidas M, Bleyer A, Reaman GH, Winick N, Loh ML, Raetz EA, Carroll WL, Hunger SP, Angiolillo AL: Plasma asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with pegaspargase on Children's Oncology Group AALL07P4.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019; 60 (7): 1740-1748 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Park JH, Ritchie EK, Rao AV, Devlin S, Hsu M, Khawaja TT, O’Donnell B, Cazacu MI, Stopka DM, Tallman MS, Douer D: A Pediatric-Inspired Regimen Containing Multiple Doses of Intravenous Pegylated Asparaginase Appears Safe and Effective in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Ph-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults up to Age 60: Results of a Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial. Blood. 2016; 128 (1629).
Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their work in characterizing asparaginase activity levels in ALL patients. The results and research are clearly presented and accurately reported. The conclusions of the study are appropriate, and the limitations of this retrospective cohort study are well-described.

Some specific suggestions/comments/recommendations:

Abstract:

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.Response: done. Number of patients was added. Dr Marini is correct that the study was underpowered and we have added statements to that effect in the abstract and first paragraph of the discussion.

The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well. Response: done. Sentence added: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to small numbers.”Intro:

Not essential but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.Response: done and referenced.

Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15². Response: Reference 1 is already there in the addendum and added the reference 2 to the addendum.

I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.Response we now quote exactly the sensitivity and specificity reported by the St. Jude group [Liu et al. Leukemia. 2012 Nov;26(11):2303-9] which addresses your concern.

In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation. Response: we altered the paragraph somewhat and specified: “…potentially of greater concern than bone-fide allergic reactions, as patients with grade 3-4 allergic reactions to pegaspargase will be switched to erwinase, which theoretically will improve outcome.”As you suggested at the end of the paragraph we also added this sentence: “Additionally, the low grade 1-2 allergic reactions that are more common than silent inactivation do require pegaspargase activity monitoring to ensure a switch to erwinase if confirmed as true inactivation.”

Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.Response: Done. Also quoted Place et al. “Notably, lower silent inactivation with pegaspargase than native Escherichia coli asparaginase have been reported. [15-17]” Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?Response: A sentence in first paragraph of the discussion was changed as follows: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.”

Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity? Response: No none. All PEG doses were given at a dose of 2500 units/m2, as documented in methods.

It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose. Response: we would suggest that prior studies defined silent inactivation similarly to our study. Here none of the measurements in the current study have included peak levels. Thus, like others we would suggest that accelerated clearance without noted clinical symptoms is the same as silent inactivation.

Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?Response: As noted – we did not collect low-grade (level 1-2) reactions therefore we cannot answer this question unfortunately.

Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).Response: The data was normally distributed by visual inspection of the normal curve and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the day 6-8 pegasparaginase activity level. As Dr Marini pointed out this contained an extreme outlier which we could not explain. Thus we elected to remove this outlier and the distribution was normal. The removal of this was discussed in the methods.Data was reanalyzed and graphs redone after this change. Analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the day 6-8 pegaspargase level with and without premeds (lower without premed. Of note a significant difference was also seen with the dataset containing the outlier. Also analysis of the day 3-5 and 10-12 pegaspargase levels did not show a significant difference with premeds perhaps due to the small sample sizes.The finding of difference in the pegasparaginase level with premeds has not been previously described to our knowledge. This may be of clinical significance and should, if possible confirmed in other retrospective studies. Given the increased acceptance of premeds for PEG it is unlikely and perhaps unethical to confirm in a prospective randomized trial, in our opinion. Text relating to this new finding has been added to the manuscript in various places.

Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted. Response: our protocol did instruct that all pegaspargase doses will be followed by levels, as outlined in the methods. Compliance with this instruction was not complete at all as we outlined in the results. We think that there was no collection bias but rather non-compliance. It is true also that there is a misconception that risk of inactivation after the first dose is zero. Please note the recent report from Mary Relling group suggesting that many allergic reactions are actually to the PEG and may occur after the 1^st dose of pegaspargase. We in fact have seen patients develop anaphylaxis right after the 1^st dose. (Liu Y, Smith CA, Panetta JC, Yang W, Thompson LE, Counts JP, Molinelli AR, Pei D, Kornegay NM, Crews KR, Swanson H, Cheng C, Karol SE, Evans WE, Inaba H, Pui CH, Jeha S, Relling MV. Antibodies Predict Pegaspargase Allergic Reactions and Failure of Rechallenge. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2051-2061. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.02439. Epub 2019 Jun 12. PubMed PMID: 31188727.)Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?Response: this patient (UPN 11) after dose 3 of PEG had level of 2.8 on day 7. The scanned faxed report from AI Biotech was checked and confirmed the result of 2.8 as reported. We have no other levels after dose 3 to validate this result. After the preceding dose (#2) the result on day 7 was 0.78 and after the subsequent dose (#)4 the result on day 11 was 0.97. Based on the extreme deviance from a normal distribution we elected to remove this from the graphs and data analysis as discussed above.

The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).Response: It is our suggestion that accelerated clearance occurs through immune mechanism – and as we suggested above is similar to silent inactivation. Though it is possible that the patient had transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3 as an explanation, it remains possible that that patient had transient silent inactivation after dose 3 and had become tolerant PEG when continued dose administered as we explain in the discussion paragraph 2 noting to Tong papers.

It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.Response: the patient UPN 28 with the silent activation did have level 0.05 day 8 then 0.00 day 16. It verified the very low levels. No others had confirmatory low levels.

Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.As we suggested above these were mandated premedications given at a specified time. It was not at the choice of the treating provider; therefore bias seems unlikely.Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.We respectfully disagree as we consider accelerated clearance equal to silent inactivation, since they actually are the same mechanism.

Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2). Response: Thank you. This was added to the last paragraph of the discussion.

Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels. Response: Thank you, added to the limitation paragraph.Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Yes

References
1. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66 (8): e27797 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ: A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. 1-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Schore RJ, Devidas M, Bleyer A, Reaman GH, Winick N, Loh ML, Raetz EA, Carroll WL, Hunger SP, Angiolillo AL: Plasma asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with pegaspargase on Children's Oncology Group AALL07P4.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019; 60 (7): 1740-1748 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Park JH, Ritchie EK, Rao AV, Devlin S, Hsu M, Khawaja TT, O’Donnell B, Cazacu MI, Stopka DM, Tallman MS, Douer D: A Pediatric-Inspired Regimen Containing Multiple Doses of Intravenous Pegylated Asparaginase Appears Safe and Effective in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Ph-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults up to Age 60: Results of a Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial. Blood. 2016; 128 (1629).
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2019

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 17 Jan 20			read
Version 1 04 Jul 19	read	read	read

Bernard L. Marini, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, USA
Vinod Pullarkat, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, USA
David J. Young, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

04 Feb 2020 | for Version 2

David J. Young, Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have responded to each of the comments by all three reviewers, making the suggested corrections, providing acceptable alternative approaches, or explaining why the changes would not be possible. These revisions have not raised any new concerns.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Pediatrics, pediatric hematology/oncology, drug development, clinical trials, leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

01 Oct 2019 | for Version 1

David J. Young, Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA

12 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Pediatrics, pediatric hematology/oncology, drug development, clinical trials, leukemia

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

David Young Reviewer 3
This report by Losasso, Bostrom and Messinger expand upon our growing understanding of the appropriate treatment with and management of asparaginase-based therapies in lymphoblastic leukemia. In this retrospective study, the authors have reviewed the single center experience of therapeutic drug monitoring, examining patient drug levels to determine the incidence of drug inactivation and looked at the relationship between pre-treatment and serious adverse events.

In their review, the authors found a 1.7% rate of drug inactivation. Of note, this rate is comparable to several different prior studies which the authors have referred here. Although the authors did not measure directly for inactivating antibodies, the use of drug activity levels to impute the presence of antibodies is now considered an acceptable approach as it is generally the primary determinant of drug activity for most patients, and as such is not a limitation in this work.

Their observation of transient inactivation and then recovery of drug efficacy is an important finding, and bears future examination as this strongly argues, as others have, for re-challenging patients with prior history, especially in high-risk patients where receiving multiple doses of asparaginase has been conclusively linked to better outcomes.

Contrary to other studies, the authors remark that they did not observe a significant decrease in clinically significant (grade 3-4) reactions with predication. Although statistically correct, it is difficult to support this statement for several reasons. First, although the authors do not see a statistically significant effect, there is without a doubt a clinically important trend of 50% reduction in events. Indeed, this would represent an absolute risk reduction of 8.7% with a number needed to treat of about 11 and is almost identical to other studies. Post hoc power analysis, although an admitted abuse of statistics, suggests that this data may have reached significance with 30-40 additional patients.

Furthermore, the authors themselves continue to use and argue for premedication, which would argue that they agree that there is benefit to pre-medication despite the lack of statistical findings. Yet, the only reason for pre-medication, given the historic concerns regarding silent inactivation, is to reduce severe adverse reactions. These contradictions need to be resolved.

Response: we agree with the reviewer points and his astute observations. We would have included his Post hoc analysis if we could but were concerned like him about those who would view these statistics unkindly. Several things were altered: In Discussion 1^st paragraph this sentence is now changed: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.” The 4^th paragraph this whole section was removed: “Contrary to the findings of a large multi-institutional trial, where the introduction of premedication significantly reduced the incidence of high-grade allergic reactions, our study did not show a statistically significant reduction with the use of premedication. [7] Despite this, we continue to use premedication in all patients receiving pegasparaginase.”

Finally, the authors suggest that monitoring of drug levels is not necessary in low-risk patients, given that they did not identify inactivation during the first two doses. This statement is too strong. The authors themselves admit that there was a large number (83%) of missed levels during the first administration, likely a consequence of the admittedly chaotic logistics of early induction therapy experienced at many institutes. Although their data do suggest that silent inactivation following one dose would likely still be detectable at the second dose, this has not been rigorously tested, and is based primarily upon the experience of a single patient. Therefore, to include the recommendation of not testing low-risk patients, especially its inclusion within the abstract that (regrettably) may be all that some read, and without mentioning the rate of missed levels in the same abstract, is difficult to support.

Response: we do agree with the reviewer completely that the number of missed levels after the 1^st dose is very high. We also agree that our numbers are too small for this strong conclusion. We have altered the abstract to include this sentence in the results: “Asparaginase dose levels were mostly missed after the first asparaginase dose.” We eliminated this sentence: “No patient had silent inactivation after the first pegaspargase dose.” And the conclusions: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Future studies may confirm if patients treated with regimens with only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation.”

In discussion 2^nd paragraph this was altered: “No decrease in pegaspargase activity was seen in standard risk patients who received only two doses of pegaspargase in combination with oral dexamethasone. This observation is limited by small numbers of patients and multiple missed levels after the first pegaspargase dose.” The 4^th paragraph was altered also: “We found low incidence of silent inactivation with intravenous pegaspargase. Our study suggests that patients treated with regimens that include only two doses of pegasparaginase, given with dexamethasone, may not need asparaginase levels due to even lower silent inactivation, but this would need confirmation by larger studies.”

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing InterestsNo competing interests were disclosed.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

30 Sep 2019 | for Version 1

Vinod Pullarkat, Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

13 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.
In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise

Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

Vinod Pullarkat: Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

In this manuscript the authors have retrospectively examined the incidence of allergic reactions in a cohort of patients with ALL receiving multiple doses of PEGylated asparaginase. They show that premedication did not have an impact on allergic reactions. The study has drawbacks inherent in a retrospective analysis of a heterogeneously treated population with non-standardized blood sampling as acknowledged by the authors. My comments are as follows:

A concern with premedication is whether it will mask a true antibody mediated allergy. A major question therefore is whether the allergic reactions observed were actually antibody mediated allergic reactions or infusion reactions that do not affect asparaginase activity. Therefore authors should show the asparaginase levels of patients who had a reaction and compare to those who did not, in order to show whether the reactions observed are due to drug neutralizing antibodies.

Response: It would have been wonderful to be able to do this, but we cannot. Unfortunately, when patients had a reaction (be it allergic reaction or infusion reaction) no further pegaspargase was given. Therefore, these patients had no subsequent asparaginase activity measured. Additionally, this is an inherent difficulty with these patients – whose infusion is stopped right away and they never receive full dose of pegaspargase rendering subsequent asparaginase activity meaningless.

In their conclusion (in the abstract) the authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses of PEG asparaginase. In most regimens patients will receive more doses of PEG asparaginase and hence it is unclear why authors focus on patients who receive only 2 doses. The correct conclusion in my opinion is that premedication did not impact the incidence of allergic reaction and premedication did not mask silent inactivation.

Response: We agree completely. The abstract and the paper has changes that completely address this. To the Abstract conclusion we added this sentence: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to insufficient power.” In discussion the 1^st paragraph completely addresses this: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose, thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance due to insufficient numbers.”
The comment suggesting not monitoring levels in patients receiving only two doses of pegasparaginase is to potentially minimize unnecessary testing in this group of patients. In COG protocols only two doses of pegasparaginase are given to lower risk children who make up the majority of patients under the age of 18. However we have removed this recommendation due to large number of first dose pegaspargase levels missed in these patients.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Partly

Competing Interests: Speakers Bureau and Advisory board for Servier and Jazz pharmaceuticals

Reviewer Expertise:Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

26 Sep 2019 | for Version 1

Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.
The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well.

Intro:

Not essential, but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.
Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15².
I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.
In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation.
Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.

Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?
Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity?
It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose.
Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?
Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).
Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted.

Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?
The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).
It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.
Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.

Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.
Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2).
Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels.

Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

Servier (consultant)

Reviewer Expertise

Asparaginase, leukemia treatment, therapeutic drug monitoring

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Jan 2020

Bruce Bostrom, Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children's Minnesota, 2525 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, 55404, USA

Bernard L. Marini, Department of Pharmacy Services and Clinical Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Drs. Losasso, Bostrom, and Messinger should be applauded for their work in characterizing asparaginase activity levels in ALL patients. The results and research are clearly presented and accurately reported. The conclusions of the study are appropriate, and the limitations of this retrospective cohort study are well-described.

Some specific suggestions/comments/recommendations:

Abstract:

I would include the n in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, or acknowledge that the study may not have been powered to assess this outcome. Readers who only look at the abstract may wrongly conclude pre-medication is not effective, when the analysis may have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference in hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-medication vs. no pre-medication group.Response: done. Number of patients was added. Dr Marini is correct that the study was underpowered and we have added statements to that effect in the abstract and first paragraph of the discussion.
The paper, methods, and title are focused on the impact of pre-medication on activity levels; however, the conclusion primarily talks about the low incidence of silent inactivation with two doses; thus monitoring only being necessary in patients that receive >2 doses. I would consider a sentence re: pre-medication here as well. Response: done. Sentence added: “Though premedication resulted in lower allergic reactions the difference was not statistically different due to small numbers.”Intro:

Not essential but could consider mentioning fibrates in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia, which is another first line option.Response: done and referenced.
Would cite more recent data on the impact of pre-medication on preventing hypersensitivity reactions - Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA. Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Aug;66(8):e27797.¹ and Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ. A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 May 17:1-15². Response: Reference 1 is already there in the addendum and added the reference 2 to the addendum.
I would be careful with stating asparaginase antibodies are always predictive of future allergic reactions, as not all antibodies inactivate asparaginase or lead to clinical hypersensitivity reactions (ex: CCG01961). Consider rewording to soften this language.Response we now quote exactly the sensitivity and specificity reported by the St. Jude group [Liu et al. Leukemia. 2012 Nov;26(11):2303-9] which addresses your concern.
In paragraph 5, the statement is made that silent inactivation is of greater concern than allergic reactions. However, one could argue that allergic reactions are more common than silent inactivation with asparaginase (~1%), and monitoring activity levels in the setting of grade 1-2 allergic reactions is essential to determine which patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions are having true antibody mediated reactions vs. other, non-antibody mediated (possibly ammonia vs. other immune-mediated) allergic reactions that would not warrant a switch to another asparaginase preparation. Response: we altered the paragraph somewhat and specified: “…potentially of greater concern than bone-fide allergic reactions, as patients with grade 3-4 allergic reactions to pegaspargase will be switched to erwinase, which theoretically will improve outcome.”As you suggested at the end of the paragraph we also added this sentence: “Additionally, the low grade 1-2 allergic reactions that are more common than silent inactivation do require pegaspargase activity monitoring to ensure a switch to erwinase if confirmed as true inactivation.”
Other large scale studies assessing the rate of silent inactivation and finding the rate to be <8% could also be included in this discussion (or cited). These include, AALL07P4, Schore, et al. Leuk Lymph 2019 ³, CCG1962, and Park JH, et al. Blood. 2016;128:1629⁴.Response: Done. Also quoted Place et al. “Notably, lower silent inactivation with pegaspargase than native Escherichia coli asparaginase have been reported. [15-17]” Methods:

While a sample size was not calculated a priori, could the authors conduct a sensitivity analysis on the data determined the detectable effect size at 80% power in the primary outcome of interest (rate of grade 3/4 allergic reactions?)?Response: A sentence in first paragraph of the discussion was changed as follows: “Compared with historical controls that received similar therapy, premedication did reduce the incidence of grade 3 or 4 allergic reactions when measured per patient or per dose of pegaspargase. The power calculation was only 0.54 per patient and 0.24 per pegasparaginase dose thus our study was underpowered to show statistical significance.”
Were dose reductions in PEG ever conducted in this data set for toxicity/age/risk factors for hepatotoxicity? Response: No none. All PEG doses were given at a dose of 2500 units/m2, as documented in methods.
It is unclear how silent inactivation is defined in this data-set from the methods. It may also be clinically relevant to capture "accelerated clearance", which also may be clinically relevant. Not all anti-asparaginase antibodies lead to full inactivation of the drug, but some lead to accelerated clearance and lower than expected values at early time points. A patient with silent inactivation would have a peak level that is undetectable, whereas a patient with accelerated clearance may clear the PEG by day ~7 when an expected duration of asparagine depletion is 21-28 days with a full pediatric dose. Response: we would suggest that prior studies defined silent inactivation similarly to our study. Here none of the measurements in the current study have included peak levels. Thus, like others we would suggest that accelerated clearance without noted clinical symptoms is the same as silent inactivation.
Were any levels obtained in patients with low-grade hypersensitivity reactions? If so, did any of these patients have accelerated clearance/"loud" inactivation?Response: As noted – we did not collect low-grade (level 1-2) reactions therefore we cannot answer this question unfortunately.
Were the activity levels normally distributed? If not, perhaps medians in the box plot and a Mann Whitney U for comparison would be more accurate. Similarly, if the values in the 2x2 contingency table are small, consider a Fisher's exact test rather than chi-square for the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction comparison (although it likely won't make a significant difference).Response: The data was normally distributed by visual inspection of the normal curve and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the day 6-8 pegasparaginase activity level. As Dr Marini pointed out this contained an extreme outlier which we could not explain. Thus we elected to remove this outlier and the distribution was normal. The removal of this was discussed in the methods.Data was reanalyzed and graphs redone after this change. Analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the day 6-8 pegaspargase level with and without premeds (lower without premed. Of note a significant difference was also seen with the dataset containing the outlier. Also analysis of the day 3-5 and 10-12 pegaspargase levels did not show a significant difference with premeds perhaps due to the small sample sizes.The finding of difference in the pegasparaginase level with premeds has not been previously described to our knowledge. This may be of clinical significance and should, if possible confirmed in other retrospective studies. Given the increased acceptance of premeds for PEG it is unlikely and perhaps unethical to confirm in a prospective randomized trial, in our opinion. Text relating to this new finding has been added to the manuscript in various places.
Was there a protocol to say every patient should have a level with every dose, or were levels obtained at random/provider discretion? Could there then be a selection bias in the patients who have activity levels obtained since so many were missed? I'm assuming first dose levels were "missed" because the risk of inactivation with the first dose should theoretically be zero, so they were perhaps more accurately intentionally omitted. Response: our protocol did instruct that all pegaspargase doses will be followed by levels, as outlined in the methods. Compliance with this instruction was not complete at all as we outlined in the results. We think that there was no collection bias but rather non-compliance. It is true also that there is a misconception that risk of inactivation after the first dose is zero. Please note the recent report from Mary Relling group suggesting that many allergic reactions are actually to the PEG and may occur after the 1^st dose of pegaspargase. We in fact have seen patients develop anaphylaxis right after the 1^st dose. (Liu Y, Smith CA, Panetta JC, Yang W, Thompson LE, Counts JP, Molinelli AR, Pei D, Kornegay NM, Crews KR, Swanson H, Cheng C, Karol SE, Evans WE, Inaba H, Pui CH, Jeha S, Relling MV. Antibodies Predict Pegaspargase Allergic Reactions and Failure of Rechallenge. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2051-2061. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.02439. Epub 2019 Jun 12. PubMed PMID: 31188727.)Results:

Is there any possibility that the level on day 6-8 of 2.8 was spurious? Were there any concomitant levels in this patient with this dose to make sense of such a high level?Response: this patient (UPN 11) after dose 3 of PEG had level of 2.8 on day 7. The scanned faxed report from AI Biotech was checked and confirmed the result of 2.8 as reported. We have no other levels after dose 3 to validate this result. After the preceding dose (#2) the result on day 7 was 0.78 and after the subsequent dose (#)4 the result on day 11 was 0.97. Based on the extreme deviance from a normal distribution we elected to remove this from the graphs and data analysis as discussed above.
The one patient being described as having silent inactivation - I do not think I would characterize this as silent inactivation technically, since they had detectable activity levels at several time points, and no peak level is ever undetectable. I would consider this a transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3. If silent inactivation was truly present, a patient should not have activity present for a full week and then have full activity with later doses. Patients with activity levels even as low as ~0.02 may still have asparagine depletion (AALL07p4).Response: It is our suggestion that accelerated clearance occurs through immune mechanism – and as we suggested above is similar to silent inactivation. Though it is possible that the patient had transient accelerated clearance with dose 2 and 3 as an explanation, it remains possible that that patient had transient silent inactivation after dose 3 and had become tolerant PEG when continued dose administered as we explain in the discussion paragraph 2 noting to Tong papers.
It may be interesting to graph levels over time in some of these patients with very low levels. Was there ever more than one level obtained per dose? Were repeat levels obtained to verify the low activity levels or follow the activity level trend over time (as is suggested in some guidelines?). This would help characterize the PK better in these patients.Response: the patient UPN 28 with the silent activation did have level 0.05 day 8 then 0.00 day 16. It verified the very low levels. No others had confirmatory low levels.
Was the choice to pre-medicate done at a strict, uniform point in time (i.e., was this a quasi-experimental design where a protocol to pre-medicate all patients was mandated?), or was pre-medication at the choice of the treating provider? If this was selected by the provider and not systematic, could there have been some slight selection bias where patients perceived to be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions were given pre-medication? This could have diminished the impact of pre-medication on reducing the rate of hypersensitivity reactions. Consider this in the discussion section if deemed relevant.As we suggested above these were mandated premedications given at a specified time. It was not at the choice of the treating provider; therefore bias seems unlikely.Discussion:

I would more accurately call the silent inactivation here "accelerated clearance" as the patient had asparagine depletion for at least a week, even with the low level.We respectfully disagree as we consider accelerated clearance equal to silent inactivation, since they actually are the same mechanism.
Consider discussing the possible value of obtaining activity levels in patients with questionable allergic reactions (grade 1/2). Response: Thank you. This was added to the last paragraph of the discussion.
Could add as a limitation that it appears patients only had one activity level obtained per dose, which makes it challenging to interpret PK, especially in patients with higher or lower than expected activity levels. Response: Thank you, added to the limitation paragraph.Overall, a very well-done paper with logical conclusions. Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript and for your hard work in this research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?Yes

References
1. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, Arwood NM, Poggi SG, Brown PA: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66 (8): e27797 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Marini BL, Brown J, Benitez L, Walling E, Hutchinson RJ, Mody R, Jasty Rao R, Slagle L, Bishop L, Pettit K, Bixby DL, Burke PW, Perissinotti AJ: A single-center multidisciplinary approach to managing the global Erwinia asparaginase shortage.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. 1-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Schore RJ, Devidas M, Bleyer A, Reaman GH, Winick N, Loh ML, Raetz EA, Carroll WL, Hunger SP, Angiolillo AL: Plasma asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with pegaspargase on Children's Oncology Group AALL07P4.Leuk Lymphoma. 2019; 60 (7): 1740-1748 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Park JH, Ritchie EK, Rao AV, Devlin S, Hsu M, Khawaja TT, O’Donnell B, Cazacu MI, Stopka DM, Tallman MS, Douer D: A Pediatric-Inspired Regimen Containing Multiple Doses of Intravenous Pegylated Asparaginase Appears Safe and Effective in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Ph-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults up to Age 60: Results of a Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial. Blood. 2016; 128 (1629).

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Stock W, Douer D, DeAngelo DJ, et al.: Prevention and management of asparaginase/pegasparaginase-associated toxicities in adults and older adolescents: recommendations of an expert panel. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011; 52(12): 2237–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Bostrom B, Uppal P, Chu J, et al.: Safety and efficacy of metformin for therapy-induced hyperglycemia in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2013; 35(7): 504–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Bostrom B: Successful management of extreme hypertriglyceridemia from pegaspargase with omega-3. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012; 59(2): 350. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Alshiekh-Nasany R, Douer D: L-Carnitine for Treatment of Pegasparaginase-Induced Hepatotoxicity. Acta Haematol. 2016; 135(4): 208–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Salzer W, Bostrom B, Messinger Y, et al.: Asparaginase activity levels and monitoring in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017; 18: 1–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Douer D, Aldoss I, Lunning MA, et al.: Pharmacokinetics-based integration of multiple doses of intravenous pegaspargase in a pediatric regimen for adults with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(9): 905–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Stock W, Luger SM, Advani AS, et al.: A pediatric regimen for older adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of CALGB 10403. Blood. 2019; 133(14): 1548–1559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Aldoss I, Douer D, Behrendt CE, et al.: Toxicity profile of repeated doses of PEG-asparaginase incorporated into a pediatric-type regimen for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Eur J Haematol. 2016; 96(4): 375–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Fernandez CA, Smith C, Karol SE, et al.: Effect of premedications in a murine model of asparaginase hypersensitivity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2015; 352(3): 541–551. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Liu C, Kawedia JD, Cheng C, et al.: Clinical utility and implications of asparaginase antibodies in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia. 2012; 26(11): 2303–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Ko RH, Jones TL, Radvinsky D, et al.: Allergic reactions and antiasparaginase antibodies in children with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A children's oncology group report. Cancer. 2015; 121(23): 4205–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Tong WH, Pieters R, Kaspers GJ, et al.: A prospective study on drug monitoring of PEGasparaginase and Erwinia asparaginase and asparaginase antibodies in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2014; 123(13): 2026–2033. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Tong WH, Pieters R, Tissing WJ: Desensitization protocol should not be used in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with silent inactivation of PEGasparaginase. Haematologica. 2014; 99(7): e102–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. van der Sluis IM, Vrooman LM, Pieters R, et al.: Consensus expert recommendations for identification and management of asparaginase hypersensitivity and silent inactivation. Haematologica. 2016; 101(3): 279–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Beaupin LK, Bostrom B, Barth MJ, et al.: Pegaspargase hypersensitivity reactions: intravenous infusion versus intramuscular injection - a review. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017; 58(4): 766–772. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Advani AS, Sanford B, Luger S, et al.: Frontline-Treatment Of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) In Older Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) Using a Pediatric Regimen Is Feasible: Toxicity Results of the Prospective US Intergroup Trial C10403 (Alliance). Blood. 2013; 122(21): 3903. Reference Source

[17] 17. Bostrom B: Data Set for Retrospective cohort study monitoring Pegaspargase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication Lossaso M, Messinge Y, Bostrom B. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8281826.v1

[18] 18. Angiolillo AL, Schore RJ, Devidas M, et al.: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of calaspargase pegol Escherichia coli L-asparaginase in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results from Children's Oncology Group Study AALL07P4. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(34): 3874–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Silverman LB, Supko JG, Stevenson KE, et al.: Intravenous PEG-asparaginase during remission induction in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2010; 115(7): 1351–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Cooper SL, Young DJ, Bowen CJ, et al.: Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66(8): e27797. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Retrospective cohort study monitoring PEG-asparaginase activity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with and without premedication

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Ethical statement

Patients

Pegaspargase administration

Premedication administration

Assessment of allergic reactions

Pharmacokinetic analysis

Statistical analyses

Table 1. Percent of pegaspargase activity specimens collected following doses one to nine.

Table 2. Grade 3-4 allergic reactions by use of premedication per dose of pegaspargase.

Table 3. Grade 3-4 allergic reactions by use of premedication per patient.

Results

Figure 1. Box plot of pegaspargase (PEG) activity following 2500 units/m2 on day 3-5, 6-8 and 10-12.

Figure 2. Box plot of pegaspargase activity day 6-8 after 2500 units/m2 with and without premedication.

Discussion

Addendum

Data availability

Underlying data

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Figure 1. Box plot of pegaspargase (PEG) activity following 2500 units/m² on day 3-5, 6-8 and 10-12.

Figure 2. Box plot of pegaspargase activity day 6-8 after 2500 units/m²with and without premedication.