Anaphylaxis in the Radiology Suite

Analysis of drug-induced anaphylaxis cases using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database - secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of drug-induced anaphylaxis using the Japanese nationwide database has been not reported, even though drugs are a common trigger of anaphylaxis. The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiological profile of cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis, including fatal cases, using the data from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER).

METHODS

We extracted data regarding drug-related adverse events, between April 2004 and February 2018, published in JADER by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. We analyzed cases of anaphylaxis occurring between January 2005 and December 2017. The drug classification was based on the Japanese Standard Commodity Classification.

RESULTS

There were 16,916 cases of anaphylaxis reported during the study period. Among them, 418 fatalities were registered. The incidence of drug-induced anaphylaxis and fatal cases was 1.03 cases/year per 100,000 population and 0.03 cases/year, respectively. The most frequent causes of anaphylaxis were diagnostic agents, including X-ray contrast media (20.3%), and biological preparations, such as human blood preparations (20.1%). In fatal cases, diagnostic agents (28.7%) and antibiotic preparations (23.9%) were the most commonly associated types of drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of drug-induced anaphylaxis and fatalities in Japan remained unchanged over the 13-year period analyzed in this study. Diagnostic agents and biological preparations were the most frequent causes of anaphylaxis; however, fatalities were most frequently caused by either diagnostic agents or antibiotic preparations.

Risk factors of anaphylaxis in Korea: Identifying drug-induced anaphylaxis culprits using big data

Drug-induced anaphylaxis is a fatal medical condition whose incidence has been increasing continuously. Due to differences between genetic backgrounds and health care systems, different populations may be prone to various causative drugs. Using the Health Insurance Service and Assessment Service database, we investigated culprit drugs for drug-induced anaphylaxis and common medication risk factors in the Korean general population. We collected medical prescription histories within 3 days prior to anaphylaxis between January 2011 and December 2019 from the HIRA database. Designed as a case-crossover study, the attributable visits (case visits) were matched to medical visits (control visits) with the drug sets for each visit. We collected a list of medication risk factors for anaphylaxis and calculated the risk ratio of each agent using the chi-square test and conditional logistic regression analysis. A total of 159,473 individuals were listed in the database with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis in the HIRA from 2011 to 2019. After evaluating the suitability of control visits for matching with a case visit, 8168 subjects and 767 drugs were analyzed. The chi-square analysis identified 31 drugs as potential risk factors for drug-induced anaphylaxis in Korea. After applying a conditional logistic regression analysis for each agent, 5 drugs were found to be the common medication risk factors for drug-induced anaphylaxis: cefaclor, iopromide, iohexol, iomeprol, and tolperisone. We found 5 medication risk factors that showed the highest risk of drug-induced anaphylaxis and their degree of risk using an objective methodology in the Korean general population.

Acute Urticaria in Inpatients Undergoing Non-emergent Coronary Angiography With Corticosteroid Prophylaxis: A Retrospective Study

Background and Aims: Acute urticaria (AU) is the most frequently reported immediate hypersensitivity reaction in skin by administration of iodinated contrast media (ICM). We aimed to establish the pattern and identify the risk factors of AU among inpatients undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography (CAG) with prophylactic corticosteroids in China.

Methods: Medical records of 19,326 adult inpatients undergoing non-emergent CAG with prophylactic methylprednisolone in 2013–2019 were retrospectively investigated. AU was identified within 1 h post-ICM administration, and diffuse involvement was defined when wheals occur in two or more body parts, including the back, abdomen, chest, and extremities. Age- and sex-matched inpatients (1:4) without AU were randomly selected for assessment of risk factors.

Results: Approximately 0.8% of CAG inpatients had AU, including 101 diffuse and 64 limited form. The diffuse AU was more common in settings of non-diagnostic CAG, iohexol used, average ICM injection≥3 ml/min, recurrent CAG, and past history of immediate hypersensitivity to ICM. Inpatients with preexisting allergies, decreased evaluated glomerular filtration rate, and increased high sensitivity C reactive protein or neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio prior to CAG had a higher probability of AU (odds ratio >1, P < 0.05 for all variables). All AU inpatients complained of pruritus, and mild itching predominated. AU dissipated in several days under treatment of ebastine or levocetirizine 10 mg/daily, but ebastine showed superiority.

Conclusions: ICM-induced AU is not uncommon in non-emergent CAG inpatients with prophylactic methylprednisolone. Preexisting allergies, renal dysfunction, and mild inflammation are high-risk factors, and antihistamine monotherapy is a favorable candidate for ICM-related AU.

Critical Care Management of the Patient With Anaphylaxis: A Concise Definitive Review

OBJECTIVES

Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening syndrome manifesting as pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm and shock. The goal of this synthetic review is to provide a practical, updated approach to the evaluation and management of this disorder and associated complications.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted with the MeSH of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic shock, refractory anaphylaxis and subheadings of diagnosis, classification, epidemiology, complications and pharmacology. The level of evidence supporting an intervention was evaluated based on the availability of randomized studies, expert opinion, case studies, reviews, practice parameters and other databases (including Cochrane).

STUDY SELECTION

Selected publications describing anaphylaxis, clinical trials, diagnosis, mechanisms, risk factors and management were retrieved (reviews, guidelines, clinical trials, case series) and their bibliographies were also reviewed to identify relevant publications.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data from the relevant publications were reviewed, summarized and the information synthesized.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This is a synthetic review and the data obtained from a literature review was utilized to describe current trends in the diagnosis and management of the patient with anaphylaxis with a special emphasis on newer evolving concepts of anaphylaxis endotypes and phenotypes, management of refractory anaphylaxis in the ICU setting and review of therapeutic options for the elderly patient, or the complicated patient with severe cardiorespiratory complications. Most of the recommendations come from practice parameters, case studies or expert opinions, with a dearth of randomized trials to support specific interventions.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening disorder. The critical care physician needs to be familiar with the diagnosis, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and management of anaphylaxis. Skilled intervention in ICUs may be required for the patient with complicated, severe, or refractory anaphylaxis.

SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) can be distinguished in immune-mediated (including allergic reactions) and non-immune-mediated reactions, even if clinical manifestations could be similar. Such manifestations range from mild skin eruptions to severe anaphylaxis, making it important for radiologists to know how to identify and manage them. A panel of experts from the Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM) and the Società Italiana di Allergologia, Asma e Immunologia Clinica (SIAAIC) provided a consensus document on the management of patients who must undergo radiological investigations with CM. Consensus topics included: the risk stratification of patients, the identification of the culprit CM and of a safe alternative by an allergy workup, as well as the use of premedication and the correct procedure to safely perform an elective (i.e., scheduled) or urgent examination. The most important recommendations are: (1) in all patients, a thorough medical history must be taken by the prescribing physician and/or the radiologist to identify at-risk patients; (2) in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to CM, the radiologist must consider an alternative, non-contrast imaging study with a comparable diagnostic value, or prescribe a different investigation with another class of CM; (3) if such options are not feasible, the radiologist must address at-risk patients to a reference centre for an allergy evaluation; (4) if timely referral to an allergist is not viable, it is recommended to use a CM other than the responsible one, taking into account cross-reactivity patterns; in the case of patients with histories of severe reactions, the presence of an anesthesiologist is also recommended and a premedication is suggested.