Anaphylaxis to iodinated contrast media: clinical characteristics related with development of anaphylactic shock

Immediate hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media: diagnostic accuracy of skin tests and intravenous provocation test with low dose

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of HSR to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is challenging based on clinical history and skin tests.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the negative predictive value (NPV) of skin tests and intravenous provocation test (IPT) with low-dose ICM in patients with suspected immediate hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to ICM.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with suspected immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ICM were included retrospectively. Skin tests and a single-blind placebo-controlled intravenous provocation test (IPT) with low-dose iodinated contrast media (ICM) were performed.

RESULTS

Skin tests with ICM were positive in five cases (one skin prick test and five intradermal test). Thirty-six patients were challenged successfully by IPT, and only one patient had a positive challenge result, with a grade I reaction by the Ring and Messmer classification. Ten of 23 patients followed up by telephone were re-exposed to a negative tested ICM during radiologic examination; two experienced a grade I immediate reaction.

CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ICM, the NPV for skin tests and IPT with low dose was 80% (95% CI 44-97%).

Should adrenaline be used in patients with hemodynamically stable anaphylaxis? Incident case control study nested within a retrospective cohort study

Although adrenaline (epinephrine) is a cornerstone of initial anaphylaxis treatment, it is not often used. We sought to assess whether use of adrenaline in hemodynamically stable patients with anaphylaxis could prevent the development of hypotension. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 761 adult patients with anaphylaxis presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care hospital over a 10-year period. We divided the patients into two groups according to the occurrence of hypotension and compared demographic characteristics, clinical features, treatments and outcomes. Of the 340 patients with anaphylaxis who were normotensive at first presentation, 40 patients experienced hypotension during their ED stay. The ED stay of the hypotension group was significantly longer than that of patients who did not experience hypotension (496 min vs 253 min, P = 0.000). Adrenaline use in hemodynamically stable anaphylaxis patient was independently associated with a lower risk of developing in-hospital occurrence of hypotension: OR, 0.254 [95% CI, 0.091–0.706]. Adrenaline use in hemodynamically stable anaphylaxis patients was associated with a reduced risk of developing in-hospital occurrence of hypotension. Adverse events induced by adrenaline were rare when the intramuscular route was used.

2015 update of the evidence base: World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidelines

The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis provide a unique global perspective on this increasingly common, potentially life-threatening disease. Recommendations made in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines remain clinically valid and relevant, and are a widely accessed and frequently cited resource. In this 2015 update of the evidence supporting recommendations in the Guidelines, new information based on anaphylaxis publications from January 2014 through mid- 2015 is summarized. Advances in epidemiology, diagnosis, and management in healthcare and community settings are highlighted. Additionally, new information about patient factors that increase the risk of severe and/or fatal anaphylaxis and patient co-factors that amplify anaphylactic episodes is presented and new information about anaphylaxis triggers and confirmation of triggers to facilitate specific trigger avoidance and immunomodulation is reviewed. The update includes tables summarizing important advances in anaphylaxis research.

[Effect of Water Intake on Allergy-like Events Associated with Non-ionic Iodine Contrast Agents]

The use of iodine contrast agents occasionally causes serious allergic symptoms including anaphylaxis. At Kyoto University Hospital to prevent nephropathy we began recommending water intake before and after administration of iodine contrast agents in September 2012. In the present study we investigated the effect of water intake on the incidence of allergy-like events after the use of non-ionic iodine contrast agents. We extracted the occurrence of allergy-like events from the incident report system in our hospital from January 2011 to September 2014, and classified these events into the following 3 grades: 1+ (follow-up); 2+ (medication treatment); and 3+ (hospitalization). The allergy-like incidence rate was calculated for subsequent evaluation according to season and water intake. Allergy-like events significantly decreased from 0.49% before the recommendation of water intake to 0.26% at 1 year and 0.20% at 2 years after implementing the recommendation. The incidence of allergy-like events was significantly higher in summer than in winter before water intake was recommended. After implementing the recommendation, the value for summer significantly decreased to an incidence similar to that of winter. Respiratory and gastrointestinal allergy-like symptoms were dramatically decreased after implementing the recommendation. Water intake may be useful for preventing allergy-like events associated with non-ionic iodine contrast agents, especially during the summer.

Skin tests in patients with hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast media: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with a previous history of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are at high risk of the development of HSR to ICM. Many studies have tried to evaluate the diagnostic potential of skin tests in this population but have not yet reached a common conclusion. We investigated the role of skin tests in patients with HSR to ICM in terms of positive rate, cross-reactivity rate, and tolerability to skin test-negative ICM according to the type of HSR.

METHODS

We performed literature searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and included studies where skin tests were performed in patients with HSR to ICM, with extractable outcomes. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. Pooled per-patient positive rates of skin tests were 17% (95% CI, 10-26%) in patients with immediate HSR, and up to 52% (95% CI, 31-72%) when confined to severe immediate HSR. Among patients with nonimmediate HSR, the positive rate was 26% (95% CI, 15-41%). The pooled per-patient cross-reactivity rate was higher in nonimmediate HSR (68%; 95% CI, 48-83%) than that in immediate HSR (39%; 95% CI, 29-50%). Median per-test cross-reactivity rates between pairs of ICM were 7% (IQR, 6-9%) in immediate HSR and 38% (IQR, 22-51%) in nonimmediate HSR. Pooled per-patient recurrence rates of HSR to skin test-negative ICM were 7% (95% CI, 4-14%) in immediate HSR and 35% (95% CI, 19-55%) in nonimmediate HSR.

CONCLUSION

Skin tests may be helpful in diagnosing and managing patients with HSR to ICM, especially in patients with severe immediate HSR.

Anaphylaxis to drugs

Drug-induced anaphylaxis is a common cause of anaphylaxis and a leading cause of fatal anaphylaxis. Antibiotics, radiocontrast, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly implicated drugs. Vocal cord dysfunction can mimic anaphylaxis and is often overlooked. β-Lactams are a common cause of anaphylaxis; however, skin testing and drug challenge can usually determine tolerability of other classes of β-lactams. Nonionic contrast agents cause anaphylaxis less frequently than ionic contrast, and immunoglobulin E-mediated mechanisms may have a role in some of these reactions. Skin testing with radiocontrast may have a role in evaluating patients with anaphylaxis to nonionic contrast.

The potential utility of iodinated contrast media (ICM) skin testing in patients with ICM hypersensitivity

Both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are relatively common. However, there are few data to determine the clinical utility of immunologic evaluation of ICM. To evaluate the utility of ICM skin testing in patients with ICM hypersensitivity, 23 patients (17 immediate and 6 delayed reactions) were enrolled from 3 university hospitals in Korea. With 6 commonly used ICM including iopromide, iohexol, ioversol, iomeprol, iopamidol and iodixanol, skin prick (SPT), intradermal (IDT) and patch tests were performed. Of 10 patients with anaphylaxis, 3 (30.0%) and 6 (60.0%) were positive respectively on SPTs and IDTs with the culprit ICM. Three of 6 patients with urticaria showed positive IDTs. In total, 11 (64.7%) had positive on either SPT or IDT. Three of 6 patients with delayed rashes had positive response to patch test and/or delayed IDT. Among 5 patients (3 anaphylaxis, 1 urticaria and 1 delayed rash) taken subsequent radiological examinations, 3 patients administered safe alternatives according to the results of skin testing had no adverse reaction. However, anaphylaxis developed in the other 2 patients administered the culprit ICM again. With 64.7% (11/17) and 50% (3/6) of the sensitivities of corresponding allergic skin tests with culprit ICM for immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, the present study suggests that skin tests is useful for the diagnosis of ICM hypersensitivity and for selecting safe ICM and preventing a recurrence of anaphylaxis caused by the same ICM.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: diagnosis, evaluation, and management

Perioperative anaphylaxis can occur during or after surgery and can have life-threatening consequences. As anesthesia protocols become more complex and incorporate multiple agents to regulate physiologic processes intraoperatively, perioperative anaphylaxis is becoming increasingly recognized. The allergist should obtain detailed records from the anesthesiologist in order to perform appropriate testing to identify the likely causative agents. Testing should ideally be performed 4 to 6 weeks after the reaction to account for a refractory period after mast cell activation. This article includes 2 cases of perioperative anaphylaxis and reviews the historical elements that must be considered after a reaction has occurred.