Are acute infusion reactions after rituximab underreported?

Prafull Mohan, Shah Nazar, Pooja Gupta


Background: Rigorous premarketing trials may fail to capture safety issues associated with new drugs. This is more likely to happen in case of biopharmaceuticals. We take the case of rituximab, and anti CD20 monoclonal antibody, which was the first monoclonal antibody to get approval. This open label observational study was done with the objective of estimating the incidence of acute infusion reaction associated with rituximab infusion.

Methods: The study population consisted of patients hospitalized for receiving rituximab, in day care centre(s) of a tertiary care hospital. Number and type of acute infusion reactions (AIR) were recorded on a case record form along with patient characteristics and medical history.

Results: A total of 50 infusions were observed and all infusions were followed by at least one AIR. Total 71 AIRs were recorded among these 50 infusions (1.4 AIR per infusion). Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was the commonest indication for which patients were receiving rituximab. In a subset analysis, incidence of AIR was statistically lower in patients having received corticosteroids as premedication. However, brand of rituximab, gender of the patient and first or second cycle had no bearing on incidence of AIRs.

Conclusions: AIRs are more common in real time clinical settings than what is reported. There is a need to formulate appropriate risk management plan depending on post marketing clinical data. Use of corticosteroids as premedication may be one such strategy. New drugs, esp biopharmaceuticals, may have unidentified/under reported safety issues and there is a need to undertake focussed pharmacovigilance endeavours to unravel them.


Acute infusion reactions, Biopharmaceuticals, Premedication, Pharmacovigilance, Rituximab, Similar biologics

Full Text:



Krumholz HM, Ross JS, Presler AH, Egilman DS. What have we learnt from Vioxx? BMJ. 2007;334(7585):120-3.

Brophy JM. Selling safety-lessons from muraglitazar. JAMA. 2005;294(20):2633-5.

Joy TR, Hegele RA. The failure of torcetrapib: what have we learned?. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;154(7):1379-81.

Ledford H. Biosimilar drugs poised to penetrate market. Nature. 2010;468:18-9.

Schellekens H. Biosimilar therapeutics-what do we need to consider?. NDT plus. 2009;2(suppl_1):i27-36.

Roger SD. Biosimilars: How similar or dissimilar are they?. Nephrol. 2006;11(4):341-6.

Schellekens H. Factors influencing the immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(Suppl_6):vi3-9.

Joshi SR, Sapatnekar SM. Pharmacovigilance in India: how safe are the new drugs? how sure are we? J Assoc Physicians India. 2008;56:933-4.

Joshi SR. Biosimilar Insulins: Are they really ‘similar’? J Assoc Physicians India. 2009;57(Suppl):38-41.

Joshi SR. Biosimilar peptides: need for pharmacovigilance. J Assoc Physicians India. 2011;59(Suppl.):44-7.

Grillo-López AJ. Rituximab: an insider's historical perspective. Semin Oncol. 2000;27(6 Suppl 12):9-16.

Pineda C, Hernández GC, Jacobs IA, Alvarez DF, Carini C. Assessing the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. Bio Drugs. 2016;30(3):195-206.

Alamchandani RR, Sattigeri BM, Karelia PS. Biologics and biosimilars: role in modern pharmacotherapy and importance of pharmacovigilance. Int J Res Med Sci. 2014;2:382-6.

Sanz I. Indications of rituximab in autoimmune diseases. Drug Discovery Today: Ther Strateg. 2009;6(1):13-9.

Levin AS, Otani IM, Lax T, Hochberg E, Banerji A. Reactions to rituximab in an outpatient infusion center: a 5-year review. J Aller Clin Immunol In Practice. 2017;5(1):107-13.

LaCasce AS, Castells MC, Burstein HJ, Meyerhardt JA. Infusion-related reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used for cancer therapy. Available at: Accessed 06 Jun 2019.

Kasi PM, Tawbi HA, Oddis CV, Kulkarni HS. Clinical review: Serious adverse events associated with the use of rituximab - a critical care perspective. Crit Care. 2012;16(4):231.