Based on the low number of patients receiving this therapy, evinacumab’s specific indication, the lack of literature on its use outside of manufacturer labeling, and the lack of clinical data, this case aids in the awareness of potential safety considerations with the administration of evinacumab.
Patient Case
The patient was a 61-year-old White woman referred by her cardiologist to a pharmacist-run lipid clinic. She had elevated LDL despite having received PCSK9 inhibitor therapy; she also was to be assessed for HoFH.
- Lipid panel at time of referral: direct LDL, 294 mg/dL; calculated LDL, 241 mg/dL; total cholesterol, 340 mg/dL; triglycerides, 135 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein, 71 mg/dL
- Pertinent imaging: CT calcium score, 417.8, 99th percentile
- Physical examination: negative for arcus or tendon xanthoma
- Family history: premature coronary artery disease
- Mother: maternal baseline LDL, 388 mg/dL; positive history of heart disease,
- Father (deceased): positive for hypertension, heart failure, diabetes
- Medication regimen at time of referral: evolocumab (Repatha; Amgen) 140 mg/mL subcutaneously once every 14 days (05/2019-10/2019 and restarted 12/2022)
- Previous medication trials: atorvastatin (Lipitor; Pfizer) (patient unable to recall dose/duration/frequency, unable to obtain from medical record) and rosuvastatin (Crestor; AstraZeneca) (patient unable to recall dose/duration/frequency, unable to obtain from medical record). Patient stopped both due to myalgias, severe muscle pain, and/or joint pain. She stopped ezetimibe (Zetia; Merck) 10 mg daily (04/2017-07/2017) because of myalgias, severe muscle pain, and/or joint pain.
- Past medical history: anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, breast cancer, carcinoid tumor of rectum, chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic lower back pain with sciatica, colitis, coronary artery disease, depression, familial hypercholesteremia, fibromyalgia, hypertension, insomnia, post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), osteopenia, vitamin D deficiency.
At her initial lipid visit, genetic testing for FH was requested because of the patient’s partial response to PCSK9 inhibitor therapy (22% reduction in LDL rather than the expected approximately 60% reduction based on package insert) and untreated LDL greater than 400 mg/dL (LDL 430; 01/2019). Genetic testing could not be obtained because it was denied by the insurance company (estimated out-of-pocket expense for the patient was $1200). Therefore, clinical diagnosis of HoFH was designated in the setting of untreated LDL greater than 400 mg/dL and the patient’s partial response to evolocumab. The patient was deemed a candidate for evinacumab therapy by meeting the criteria for a clinical diagnosis of HoFH.
Approved for infusion at an independent location outside of the health system or home infusion, the patient elected for home infusion. At the time of first infusion, the patient weighed 58 kg, resulting in an evinacumab dose of approximately 866 mg. The medication was supplied by Orsini Specialty Pharmacy. Premedications were not selected for administration because the patient did not have a history of infusion reactions and premedications are not recommended by package labeling.
Forty-five minutes into the first infusion of evinacumab, the patient experienced decreases in her heart rate (from 84 to 64 bpm) and blood pressure, which were noted by the home infusion nurse. The patient reported feeling dizzy and short of breath. Infusion subsequently was stopped due to the concern for hypersensitivity and infusion reaction. Normal saline and 1 injection of intramuscular epinephrine were administered.
Patient was brought to the emergency department (ED) via ambulance. Emergency medical services (EMS) gave the patient 25 mg of diphenhydramine.
- EMS report: skin warm and clammy, chest clear with equal lung sounds, abdomen soft and nontender
- ED review of systems: respiratory normal breath sounds, no respiratory distress, no wheezing/rales/bronchi, no chest tenderness; cardiovascular normal heart rate, regular rhythm; skin warm, dry, no erythema, no rash
The patient received IV famotidine 20 mg once and methylprednisolone 125 mg once while in the ED. After observation and being deemed stable, she was discharged home.
The patient elected to discontinue treatment with evinacumab but continued taking evolocumab every 14 days.
Literature Review
According to current evinacumab clinical trial data, anaphylaxis was reported in 1 patient in the intravenous treatment group (n = 73). According to the trial investigators, during the second infusion of 15 mg/kg, the patient experienced “dizziness, chest pressure, tingling in the arms and legs, shortness of breath, pruritus, decreased blood pressure, and increased heart rate.” The infusion was discontinued and treated with oral diphenhydramine. No patients with adverse events in the intravenous treatment group died.7 Based on the pooled safety data (n = 81), infusion reactions occurred in 6 (7%) of the treatment group vs 2 (4%) in the placebo group. Infusion reactions included infusion site pruritus, pyrexia, muscular weakness, nausea, and nasal congestion.5-7 Manufacturer labeling recommends slowing infusion, at a rate designated by prescriber, if infusion reactions occur.5 Use of premedications to mitigate potential infusion reactions is up to the provider. Gaudet et al sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of evinacumab in adults and adolescents with HoFH.8 This was an open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trial that included 116 patients 12 years or older who were evinacumab naive or had received evinacumab in prior clinical trials. Trial investigators reported that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild or moderate in severity and the safety profile was consistent with the phase 3 ELIPSE trial (NCT03399786). The most common TEAEs were nasophyngitis (n = 23), influenza-like illness (n = 16), and headache (n = 19).8
Utilization of the Naranjo Scale leads to the conclusion that a drug-related AE was possible in this case report. With this conjecture, there are multiple limitations to consider. Because the patient received the infusion and rescue medications through a home infusion company, the authors were unable to gain access to the administering nurse’s encounter notes and recorded blood pressures, but they did have access to the patient’s heart rate data. The supplying drug company was also unable to provide any written infusion reaction protocols regarding the use of this medication.
The use of evinacumab in clinical practice is limited. Due to its low utilization, the existing data to reference regarding infusion reactions and/or the use of premedications are limited beyond the manufacturer labeling data and initial clinical trials. Other limiting factors include that this case was heavily based on patient-reported synopsis of events and subjective symptoms depicted in limited medical record documentation from various providers. Although this reaction may have been drug induced, we cannot eliminate the possibility that the patient’s symptoms could have been a vasovagal response to the infusion or IV access itself. Additional factors to note include that the patient had a past medical history of being positive for PCC and anxiety, both of which may have contributed to the patient’s constellation of symptoms during infusion.
Although the patient had been approved for infusion at an independent location outside of the health system or home infusion, the patient could not receive infusion at an independent infusion center because of institutional policies that prevent medications from an outside pharmacy to be received or administered, thus forcing the patient to receive this medication via home infusion. Evinacumab can be dispensed only through the Orsini Specialty Pharmacy for home infusions. In addition to patient preference, patient coverage plans and benefits help determine the treatment setting (home vs clinical setting) and acquisition channel (specialty distributor vs contracted specialty pharmacy). The authors would like to point out that home infusions can come with additional risks, especially when administering first doses of IV medications. The risk to patients is thought to revolve around the home environment having less intensive monitoring, less access to a collaborative health care team, and a lack of immediate access to urgent medical treatment in the event of an acute reaction, which may result in delayed care or increased need for escalation of care. Baker et al also found that infusion reactions administered at home were more likely to occur after the first infusion and result in increased escalation of care due to AEs and increased ED visits or hospital admissions.9
Conclusion
About the Authors
Jordan Krumanocker, PharmD, CPP, BCACP, is a PGY-2 ambulatory care pharmacy resident at Novant Health New Hanover Regional Medical Center in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Geena Eglin, PharmD, BCACP, CSP, CPP, is a specialty clinical pharmacist practitioner at Novant Health New Hanover Regional Medical Center in Wilmington, North Carolina.
This case depicts a likely infusion reaction to evinacumab. Based on the available literature, a retrial could be considered with the use of premedications and a slowed infusion time to mitigate the potential of another infusion reaction occurring. Minor infusion reactions that are nonfatal, such as infusion site pruritus and vasovagal responses, can be avoided by using premedications or administering the infusions in health care settings. Based on our speculation of infusion reaction and the patient’s preference, a retrial was not pursued. This report reveals potential safety concerns with the administration of a novel cholesterol-lowering agent. It also emphasizes the need for more clinical practice examples, given the limited information regarding infusion reactions and use of premedications with this agent, as well as bringing awareness to potential safety considerations with the administration of evinacumab.
REFERENCES
1. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(24):3168-3209. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.002
2. Vallejo-Vaz AJ, Ray KK. Epidemiology of familial hypercholesterolaemia: community and clinical. Atherosclerosis. 2018;277:289-297. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.06.855
3. Hindi NN, Alenbawi J, Nemer G. Pharmacogenomics variability of lipid-lowering therapies in familial hypercholesterolemia. J Pers Med. 2021;31;11(9):877. doi:10.3390/jpm11090877
4. Writing Committee; Lloyd-Jones DM, Morris PB, et al. 2022 ACC expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies for LDL-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(14):1366-1418. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.07.006
5. Evinacumab. Prescribing information. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; 2023. https://www.regeneron.com/downloads/evkeeza_pi.pdf
6. Raal FJ, Rosenson RS, Reeskamp LF, et al; ELIPSE HoFH Investigators. Evinacumab for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(8):711-720. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2004215
7. Rosenson RS, Burgess LJ, Ebenbichler CF, et al. Evinacumab in patients with refractory hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(24):2307-2319. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031049
8. Gaudet D, Greber-Platzer S, Reeskamp L, et al. Evinacumab in homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: long-term safety and efficacy. Eur Heart J. 2024;45(27):2422-2434. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae325
9. Baker MC, Weng Y, Fairchild R, Ahuja N, Rohatgi N. Comparison of adverse events among home- vs facility-administered biologic infusions, 2007-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2110268. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10268
The authors have nothing to disclose.