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

Iodine and Gadolinium Contrast Reactions: What Is the Risk and Role of Premedication, Abbreviated Protocols, Prior History of Reactions, and Cross-Reactivity?

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast media can be life-threatening. While corticosteroid premedication or agent-switching may mitigate risk, evidence is largely indirect and based on historical studies; recent literature refutes the efficacy. Guidance on premedication varies between organizations worldwide. No strategy eliminates reactions, and indirect consequences of premedication are substantial. Accelerated regimens are often used for emergencies, but are of questionable efficacy. Identifying "high-risk" patients is complex, but a history of reactions (to the same contrast class) is the biggest risk factor.

Hypersensitivity reactions after diagnostic nonvascular administration of iodine-based contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast agents and the role of the drug allergy specialist

The risk of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) following nonvascular administration of contrast media (CM) for diagnostic studies is very low, likely due to minimal absorption into the systemic circulation. Most published individual cases of HSR after nonvascular CM administration are immediate reactions caused by ionic high-osmolar CM, few by nonionic low-osmolar CM, and none by gadolinium-based contrast agents. Measures to prevent recurrent HSR following nonvascular administration are similar to those recommended to prevent HSR after intravascular CM administration. Premedication as preventive measure has been abandoned, while switching to an alternative CM, preferably based on the results of an allergological analysis, is increasingly advocated. In selected scenarios, preventive measures may be minimized.

How to Define and Manage Low-Risk Drug Allergy Labels

Risk stratification in drug allergy implies that specific risk categories (eg, low, moderate, and high) classify historical drug hypersensitivity reactions. These risk categories can be based on reaction phenotypic characteristics, the timing of the reaction and evaluation, the required reaction management, and individual characteristics. Although a multitude of frameworks have been described in the literature, particularly for penicillin allergy labels, there has yet to be a global consensus, and approaches continue to vary between allergy centers. Immune-mediated drug allergies can sometimes be confirmed using skin testing, but a negative drug challenge is required to demonstrate tolerance and remove the allergy from the electronic health record ("delabel" the allergy). Even for quintessential IgE-mediated drug allergy, penicillin allergy, recent data reveal that a direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, is an appropriate diagnostic strategy in those who are considered low-risk. Drug allergy pathogenesis and clinical manifestations may vary depending on the culprit drug, and as such, the optimal approach should be based on risk stratification that considers individual patient and reaction characteristics, the likely hypersensitivity reaction phenotype, the drug class, and the patient's clinical needs. This article will describe low-risk drug allergy labels, focusing on β-lactam and sulfonamide antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast media, and common chemotherapeutics. This review will also address practical management approaches using currently available risk stratification and clinical decision tools.

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Skin Test Reactivity Patterns in Patients Allergic to Iodinated Contrast Media: A Refined View

BACKGROUND

Two-dimensional (2D) classifications of iodinated contrast media (ICM) are insufficient to explain the observed skin test (ST) reactivity patterns in patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to ICM.

OBJECTIVE

To refine the current view on allergic DHRs to ICM by analyzing ST reactivity patterns in patients with previous reactions to ICM.

METHODS

Patients with a history of DHR to ICM and positive STs, who presented at the University Hospital of Montpellier between 2004 and 2022, were included in the study. The relative difference between every two ICM products was measured by Manhattan distance and odds ratios were computed for all pairs of products in the immediate reaction (IR) and non-immediate reaction (NIR) ST groups.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients were included in the study. Odds ratio analysis identified significant associations between classical cross-reactive ICM, such as iohexol-ioversol, iohexol-iomeprol, iomeprol-ioversol, and iohexol-iodixanol in the IR ST group and iohexol-ioversol, iopromide-iohexol, and iomeprol-ioversol in the NIR ST group. We also identified uncommon associations, such as ioxitalamate-amidotrizoate in the IR ST group and amidotrizoate-iopamidol and amidotrizoate-ioxitalamate in the NIR ST group. The results were reflected by the Manhattan distance, which suggested the existence of clusters containing the same classically associated ICM as well as uncommon associations, which we hypothesize to be related to similarities in the 3D structure of the respective ICM.

CONCLUSIONS

Current chemical (2D) classifications cannot explain all observed ST reactivity patterns. Whether the 3D structure can be integrated into the current classifications to interpret the observed ST reactivity patterns and predict tolerance to alternative ICM requires further research.

Preventing post-contrast acute kidney injury and hypersensitivity reactions: UK national audit

AIM

To audit UK radiology departmental protocols related to the prevention of Iodine-based contrast media (ICM) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and to assess their compliance with the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) endorsed Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists' 2018 Iodinated Contrast Guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to all UK acute National Health Service (NHS) providers treating adult patients with an audit lead registered with the RCR (162 providers encompassing 211 hospital radiology departments). The questionnaire included three main sections: renal function screening, renal protection regimens, and hypersensitivity reactions prevention and follow-up. Data collection was conducted between April and July 2022.

RESULTS

Sixty-one per cent (129/211) of departments responded, representing 67% of eligible providers. An independent imaging services provider supplied one additional set of data (n=130 overall). Of the responding departments, for post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI), 41% and 56% had the recommended risk assessment for inpatients and outpatients, respectively. Renal function testing was often over-utilised, and their results were applied improperly. Sixty-eight per cent of departments used the advised threshold for considering renal protection. For hypersensitivity reactions, 9% of departments had the correct risk assessment. Thirty-six per cent of departments had the correct risk mitigation protocol for identified high-risk patients. The documentation and follow-up for hypersensitivity reactions were similarly inadequate.

CONCLUSION

Local protocols on preventing ICM ADRs were largely non-compliant with RCR guidelines. Departments need to update their protocols in line with current evidence to avoid iatrogenic morbidity or unnecessary tests and over-precaution.

Skin Test-Guided Strategy to Select Alternative Iodinated Contrast Media in Patients With Immediate Hypersensitivity Reaction: A Prospective Confirmative Study

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are a common cause of drug-induced immediate hypersensitivity reaction (IHR). Repeated use of ICM is often necessary; therefore, a standardized protocol to prevent recurrence of IHR is required.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to propose an intradermal skin test (IDT)-guided strategy for previous reactors to prevent recurrence of IHR.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter study from May 2018 to December 2020 and recruited patients who had experienced IHR to ICM. Once enrolled, the participants underwent IDT with a causative ICM. The alternatives for reexposure were selected using the following protocol: (1) if the IDT with the culprit ICM was positive, further skin tests with other available ICM were conducted to choose IDT-negative agents as alternatives, and (2) if the IDT with the culprit ICM was negative, a randomly changed ICM was used without additional skin tests. The recurrence and severity of hypersensitivity were assessed in subsequent computed tomography examinations. Premedication was administered according to the severity of the index event in all cases.

RESULTS

A total of 496 participants were enrolled, and 299 were reexposed to ICM. Among 269 participants who followed the protocol, 228 (84.8%) completed computed tomography examinations without adverse reactions, and IHR recurred in 16 of 30 participants (53.3%) who did not follow the protocol (P < .001). In addition, application of the protocol reduced the severity of IHR in recurred cases (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our IDT-guided strategy not only reduced recurrence of IHR to ICM but also mitigated the severity in recurred cases. This provides evidence for recommending an IDT to diagnose ICM allergy and find safe alternatives.

Substitution with Low-Osmolar Iodinated Contrast Agent to Minimize Recurrent Immediate Hypersensitivity Reaction

Background The recurrence of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to low-osmolar iodinated contrast media (LOCM) remains challenging despite premedication and substitution of the LOCM. Purpose To determine the optimal practical preventive strategy for LOCM substitution in patients with a history of prior immediate HSR to LOCM. Materials and Methods In a retrospective study, patients with an immediate HSR to LOCM before February 2020 and who underwent subsequent exposure to LOCM until March 2021 were enrolled in five tertiary referral hospitals in South Korea. The association of recurrence of an HSR after subsequent LOCM exposures was assessed using multivariate general estimating equation analysis according to age, sex, the severity of the index HSR, premedication, and substituting LOCM based on common carbamoyl side chains, including the N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)-carbamoyl and N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)-N-methyl-carbamoyl moieties. Results The evaluation included 3800 subsequent LOCM exposures in 1066 patients (mean age, 56.2 years ± 13.5 [SD]; 567 [53%] female and 499 [47%] male patients). The general estimating equation analysis, using 1:1 propensity score matched data for age, sex, HSR severity, and LOCM selection, showed that premedication with corticosteroids significantly reduced recurrent HSR (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI: 0.52, 1.00; P = .049). The change to another LOCM with a common side chain had a similar recurrence rate as using the same LOCM (OR, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.50; P = .93), whereas the use of a different LOCM without a common side chain significantly lowered HSR recurrence (OR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.69; P < .001) in multivariate general estimating equation analysis. Substitution of an LOCM without a common side chain was effective regardless of the index HSR severity but was more pronounced in moderate-to-severe reactions (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.55; P < .001). Conclusion For patients with a previous immediate HSR of any severity to LOCM, alternative LOCM without a common carbamoyl side chain reduced recurrent HSR during subsequent exposures. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by McDonald in this issue.

Clinical features and risk factors of iodinated contrast media (ICM)-induced anaphylaxis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical features and risk factors of iodinated contrast media (ICM)-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) with intravenous ICM administration (iopamidol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopromide, ioversol) at our hospital between April 2016 and September 2021. Medical records of patients who experienced anaphylaxis were reviewed, and the multivariable regression model using generalized estimating equations was employed to eliminate the effect of intrapatient correlation.

RESULTS

Of the 76,194 ICM administrations (44,099 men [58 %] and 32,095 women; age, median, 68 years) to 27, 696 patients, anaphylaxis occurred in 45 cases in 45 different patients (0.06 % of administration and 0.16 % of patients), all with onset within 30 min after administration. Thirty-one (69 %) had no risk factors for ADRs, including 14 (31 %) who had previously used the same ICM that caused anaphylaxis. Thirty-one patients (69 %) had a history of ICM use without any ADRs. Four patients (8.9 %) received oral steroid premedication. The only factor associated with anaphylaxis was the type of ICM, with an odds ratio (OR) of 6.8 (p < 0.001) for iomeprol with iopamidol as a reference. No significant differences in OR of anaphylaxis were found for patients' age, sex, or premedication.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of anaphylaxis due to ICM was very low. More than half of the cases had no risk factors for ADRs and had no ADRs on past ICM administration, although the ICM type was associated with a higher OR.

Clinical outcomes and management of contrast hypersensitivity in patients requiring repeated computed tomography imaging

Introduction

In collaboration with the Department of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, our study aims to review the outcomes of and propose an improved workflow for the management of patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM).

Method

Outpatients coming for contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) were stratified into 3 categories (definite, unconfirmed and inaccurate) based on likelihood of their contrast hypersensitivity label. Patients could be offered a different ICM, receive the same ICM, or be referred to an allergist for further evaluation. There were 4 outcomes: (1) alternative ICM tolerated; (2) same ICM tolerated again; (3) patient developed a hypersensitivity reaction to either alternative or original ICM; and (4) CECT was deferred until assessment by an allergist. Comparison was made pre- and post-intervention to see if patient outcomes were improved.

Results

There were 132 patients who made a total of 154 visits (90.3% had documented contrast hypersensitivity). Post-intervention, the number of visits postponed for premedication decreased (81.0% to 34.7%). There was a reduction in hypersensitivity reactions (from 42.9% to 14.3%). Of the 12 patients assessed by the allergist, 6 could continue using the same or alternative ICM, 4 were advised to abstain from further contrast administration and 2 were pending testing with a third agent.

Conclusion

Active intervention by the radiologist can decrease the number of postponed, converted or cancelled CECT studies as well as reduce the number of adverse allergic-like events. Direct collaboration between radiologist and allergist for specific cases may be helpful in patients who will likely need future/repeated CECTs.

Contrast Agent Selection to Prevent Recurrent Severe Hypersensitivity Reaction to Iodinated Contrast Media Based on Nationwide Database

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of severe iodinated contrast media (ICM)-related hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) and to find the optimal alternative ICM to reduce the risk of severe HSR recurrence.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 23,383,183 cases of ICM administration between January 2015 and December 2019 from the nationwide health insurance database. We classified ICMs based on generic profiles and the presence of N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl) carbamoyl side chains. The incidence of severe and recurrent severe HSRs was calculated, and χ2 tests were performed to compare the prevalence of severe HSR according to ICM groups. In addition, logistic regression analyses were used to assess differences between ICM groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of severe HSRs was 1.92% (450,067 of 23,282,183). Among 1,875,245 individuals who received ICM twice on different days, severe HSR occurred in 40,850 individuals, and severe HSR recurred in 3319 individuals (8.12%). The risk of recurrence significantly decreased when the ICM changed (9.24% vs 7.08%, P < 0.001), especially when the ICM changed to one with a different side chain (6.74%, P < 0.001). In addition, compared with the reuse of the culprit agent, using combinations of iobitridol/iohexol (odds ratio [OR], 0.696; P = 0.04), iohexol/iopamidol (OR, 0.757; P = 0.007), iopamidol/iohexol (OR, 0.447; P < 0.001), and ioversol/iohexol (OR, 0.683; P = 0.04) reduced the risk of recurrence of severe HSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing the culprit ICM to that with a different side chain can reduce severe HSR recurrence. The optimal choice of an alternative ICM depends on the causative agent.

Non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iomeprol: Diagnostic value of skin tests and cross-reactivity with other iodinated contrast media

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media produce non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR). The goal of this prospective study was to determine the utility of skin tests and the subsequent tolerance to negative skin-tested iodinated contrasts in patients with NIHR caused by iomeprol.

METHODS

Prick and intradermal tests with iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, and iobitridol were performed in all patients. IV challenge with the causative contrast (iomeprol in 90%) was made if skin tests were negative. In case of a positive skin test with the causal contrast, or a positive challenge test with it, IV challenge test with an alternative, negative skin-tested contrast was performed in all patients.

RESULTS

Skin tests were positive in 47.6% (20/42) of patients with NIHR induced by iomeprol. Of the 66 challenge tests performed with negative skin-tested iodinated contrasts, tolerance was confirmed in 35 (53%): 32 iomeron, 2 iobitridol, 1 iopamidol. Cross-reactivity between iomeprol and iopamidol was 22% (4/20 in patients with positive skin tests and 5/21 in patients with negative skin tests).

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitivity of the skin tests was less than 50% NIHRs due to iomeprol, while the negative predictive value of skin tests in patients who tolerated challenges with alternative contrasts (mainly iopamidol) was 53% (35 tolerated out of 66 performed). The cross-reactivity between iomeprol and iopamidol is high.

Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated radiocontrast media: Cluster analysis reveals distinct clinical phenotypes

Background

Drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to iodinated radiocontrast media (iRCM) is reported in 1%–3% of injections. Risk assessment of patients with suspicion of DHR to iRCM relies solely on clinical phenotyping and drug allergy workup. Using a novel unsupervised TwoStep cluster analysis, we aimed to identify prototypic patterns within a large cohort of patients evaluated for a potential iRCM DHR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using data from the Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database of the Allergy Unit, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. All referred patients during February 2001 to December 2019 with suspicion of iRCM DHR with either confirmed positive or confirmed negative skin tests were included in the analysis.

Results

A total of 1439 patients were evaluated. The chronology of the index reaction was immediate and nonimmediate in 77.1% and 22.4%, respectively. Cluster analysis categorized the total study population in 5 clusters. Cluster 1 compiled all nonimmediate and cluster 2–5 almost all immediate reactors. Cluster 1 and 2 had recent reactions (<1 y) with mostly known iRCMs and the highest iRCM allergy prevalence (16–17%). In the other clusters, more remote reactions, unknown iRCMs and a lower allergy prevalence (3–8%) was observed. Chronology and semiology of the index reaction were the factors most strongly differentiated among clusters. History of anaphylactic shock and chronology of immediate hypersensitivity reactions were shown to be independent predictors of allergy with adjusted OR (aOR) of 4.68 (95%CI: 3.01–7.27, p < 0.001) and 2.51 (95%CI: 1.67–3.78, p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

Unsupervised cluster analysis identified 5 prototypic patterns within patients with a suspected DHR to iRCMs. Well-phenotyped patients cluster together in 2 groups in which the prevalence of allergy is approximately 1 in 6. However, this value decreases for patients with reactions dating back to more than a decade.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media

At present, iodinated contrast media (ICM) are mostly non-ionic, have low osmolality, and are safe. Even if adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur, most are chemo-toxic symptoms and require only observation or H1 antihistamines. However, rare, unpredictable, and even life-threatening hypersensitivity can still occur. The aim of this review is to summarize the issues that all relevant staff need to know about and be able to respond to. The most significant risk factor for ICM hypersensitivity is a history of ICM hypersensitivity. For high-risk populations, we must cautiously weigh the advantages and disadvantages of premedication and be aware that breakthrough reactions may still occur. The best policy for patients with a history of severe ICM hypersensitivity is to avoid the same ICM. If ICM are inevitable, skin tests, in vitro tests, and drug provocation tests may help to find a feasible alternative that is safer. The severity of the hypersensitivity is correlated with the positivity rate of these tests, so there is no need for further investigations for patients with only mild reactions. We should also keep in mind that even excipients in ICM may induce hypersensitivity. Detailed, standardized documentation is essential for correct diagnosis and the prevention of future occurrence.

Radiocontrast Media Hypersensitivity Reactions in Children

Hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media seem to be rare in children. Furthermore, the use of radiocontrast media in children remains quite safe in terms of the severity of reactions. Since pediatric guidelines are lacking, the diagnostic workup employed in adults could be adapted to children, taking into account that results have not yet been validated in this age group. Specific protocols for risk stratification and management of severe reactions have been proposed so far.

Contrast Medium Hypersensitivity: A Large Italian Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) are a major problem. We compared differences of HRs to iodinated contrast media (ICM) versus gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM), collecting data on prevalence, type, latency and severity. Secondly, the predisposition to perform new contrast tests, use of premedication and possible appearance of new reactions were explored in a long-term follow-up of 5 years. Clinical data, comorbidities, skin test (ST) results, re-exposure to CM procedures with any new reactions, premedication and CM used were collected. In a retrospective single-center study, 350 patients with mild to moderate HRs were enrolled. Asthma, food allergy, non-allergic drug hypersensitivity and neurologic disease were significantly more frequent in patients with HRs to GBCM compared to the high evidence of cardiovascular disease and history of cancer in patients with HRs to ICM. A marked delay in performing STs was reported by patients with negative results (66 months, p < 0.01). Iomeprol, iopamidol and gadobenic acid were the culprit CM most involved in HRs in patients with positive STs. During follow-up, 7.1% of responders reported new HRs to CM despite negative STs, premedication and infusion of alternative CM in most cases.

Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines for Adverse Reactions to Intravenous Iodinate and MRI-Gadolinium Contrast Agents: Revised Clinical Consensus and Recommendations (3rd Edition, 2022)

대한영상의학회 진료지침위원회는 기존의 2016년 진료지침을 개정하여 ‘주사용 요오드화 조영제 및 MRI용 가돌리늄 조영제 유해 반응에 대한 한국 임상진료지침: 개정된 임상적 합의 및 권고안(2022년 제3판)’을 제작하였다. 대한영상의학회와 대한천식알레르기학회, 대한신장학회에세 추천 및 승인된 전문가 위원들이 함께 참여하였고, 전문가 합의 또는 체계적 문헌 고찰을 기반으로, 조영제를 사용 시 감염관리를 위한 자동주입기 및 연결선에 대한 기술과 요요드화 조영제에 대한 급성 유해반응 및 신장 유해반응에 대한 내용들을 수정 및 추가하였다. 이에 개정된 내용을 소개하고자 한다.

Diagnosis and Prevention of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) have become one of the major causes of drug hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) related to increasing numbers of ICM-based radiological imaging procedures. Strategies for diagnosing and preventing ICM-induced HSRs have not been uniformly standardized yet. However, advances have been made based on the results of recent research. A previous history of hypersensitivity to ICM is the most significant risk factor for developing HSR by ICM. Avoidance of culprit agents and premedication is the main strategy to prevent recurrences of HSRs in high-risk patients. In addition, we strongly recommend identifying sensitized ICM using skin tests to determine immunoglobulin E-mediated or delayed-type allergy and to guide the choice of an alternative contrast agent. ICM provocation test procedures have been established and are helpful in selected cases. In this paper, we review how to evaluate patients who have experienced immediate or delayed HSRs caused by ICM to minimize the risk of recurrence and discuss unmet needs that require further research.

Diagnosing and Managing Patients with Reactions to Radiocontrast Media

Purpose of the review

Iodinated radio contrast media (RCM) belong to the most common elicitors of drug hypersensitivity reactions (HR). Urticaria or anaphylaxis may occur ≤ 1(−6) hour(s) (immediate HR) and exanthems (non-immediate HR) develop > 6 h after application of RCM. Evidence for an immunologic mechanism of RCM HR against the different RCM benzene ring molecules and the benefit of allergological testing in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions is progressively increasing.

Recent findings

Positive skin tests can confirm allergy in patients with previous reactions to RCM and help to select alternative better tolerated RCMs. Severe hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by an allergic mechanism, whereas the majority of non-severe reactions appear to be non-allergic. Skin testing is highly recommended to help identify allergic hypersensitivity reactions and to select alternatives. Using structurally different RCM is more effective than premedication for the prevention of future reactions. Drug provocation tests to RCM have been increasingly used, but are not yet standardized among different centers.

Summary

In patients with previous severe hypersensitivity reactions to RCM, skin testing is recommended. For future RCM-enhanced examinations in patients with previous reactions, structurally different, skin test-negative preparations should be applied. Drug provocation tests do confirm or exclude RCM hypersensitivity or may demonstrate tolerability of alternative RCMs.

Finding the Optimal Alternative for Immediate Hypersensitivity to Low-Osmolar Iodinated Contrast

OBJECTIVES

Avoiding culprit agents is recommended for subjects who have had previous hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM). However, the guidelines for choosing optimal alternatives have not been determined. We investigated the outcomes of reexposure in patients with previous immediate HSRs to provide a safe option.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The outcomes of reexposure were assessed in a cohort with previous LOCM-associated HSR based on skin testing results and the presence of a common N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl) carbamoyl side chain.

RESULTS

Among 482 skin tests, 38.7% (31/80), 45.8% (99/216), and 64.0% (119/186) of mild, moderate, and severe index HSRs showed positivity to at least 1 LOCM, of which 62.8% showed positivity to at least 2 different LOCM. The overall recurrent HSRs were reduced from 43.8% upon reexposure to the culprit LOCM to 12.3% upon using nonculprit skin test negative LOCM (P = 0.004); those with severe index HSRs exhibited a significant reduction (11.3% vs 100%), but those with non-severe HSRs to LOCM did not. In subjects with severe index HSRs, the skin test cross-reactivity between LOCM was associated with sharing the common side chain (20.7% vs 11.5%, P = 0.003), and the recurrence rate of HSRs was effectively reduced by avoiding the common side chain (24.0% vs 7.8%, P = 0.039). However, these differences were not observed in those with non-severe index HSRs.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who experienced a severe index HSR to LOCM, skin test negative LOCM without a common side chain could be suggested as an option for safe reexposure.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%-3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re-exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test-negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re-exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial.

HLA-DRB1*15: 02 Is Associated With Iodinated Contrast Media-Related Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of severe reaction induced by iodinated contrast media (ICM) has increased over the years with an increasing use of imaging modalities. Although ICM anaphylaxis is rare, it can be life-threatening, but currently, there is no biomarker that can identify individuals at risk of ICM anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the genetic susceptibility of ICM anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Patients who had ICM anaphylaxis were enrolled in the study, and their blood samples were collected for genotyping of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A, -B, -C, and -DR. The results were compared with those of healthy Korean general population. MRGPRX2 gene in ICM anaphylaxis group was also sequenced and compared with the Korean standard database of genetic polymorphism.

RESULTS

The frequencies of 3 HLA alleles (B*52:01, C*12:02, and DRB1*15:02) were significantly higher in 47 patients with ICM anaphylaxis. In particular, HLA-DRB1*15:02 was 5 times more frequent in the ICM anaphylaxis group than the Korean general population (34.0% vs 6.6%; odds ratio, 7.306; 95% confidence interval, 3.622-14.740), and this difference was most pronounced in subjects with iohexol-induced anaphylaxis (odds ratio, 16.516; 95% CI, 5.241-52.047; P < 0.0001). Eight single nucleotide polymorphisms were identified in MRGPRX2 gene, but their frequencies were not different in those with ICM anaphylaxis compared with the general Korean population.

CONCLUSIONS

HLA-DRB1*15:02 is associated with ICM anaphylaxis in the Korean population.

Oral premedication in patients with a history suggesting hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media

Introduction

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are pharmaceuticals widely used in diagnostic procedures. Adverse effects associated with their administration are quite frequent and mostly mild. However, they raise concerns in patients and doctors in the context of their future use.

Aim

To determine efficacy of premedication before medical procedures with the use of iodinated contrast media in patients with a history suggesting a hypersensitivity reaction after their past use.

Material and methods

Out of 152 patients consulted due to adverse reactions after ICM (85 women and 67 men, aged 43–90), 101 were selected with the history suggesting a mild hypersensitivity reaction (urticaria, itching, skin redness, malaise etc.). All the patients had health problems requiring a procedure with ICMadministration in the near future. The premedication was given with cetirizine (10 mg) and prednisone (20 mg or 50 mg, randomly assigned) 13, 7 and 1 h before the ICM administration. Presence of adverse events was compared between the subgroups with χ² test and efficacy of premedication – with Wilcoxon test.

Results

Seventy-six patients underwent the radiologic procedure with premedication with antihistamine and a lower (40 patients) or higher dose (36 patients) of prednisone. Four of them reported a cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction (urticaria, itching, redness) and one – dyspnoea. There was no statistically significant difference in relation to the premedication protocol (p = 0.1306).

Conclusions

Premedication with cetirizine and prednisone before radiologic procedures proved to be efficient in patients with a history suggesting hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media. There was no significant difference in efficacy related to the dose of prednisone (20 mg vs. 50 mg).

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Multiple Iodinated Contrast Media

The incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) has risen over last years, representing an important health problem. HSRs to ICMs are classified into immediate reactions (IRs) and non-immediate reactions (NIRs) according to if they occur within 1 h or longer after ICM administration. The diagnosis of HSRs to ICM is complex as skin test (ST) sensitivity ranges widely, and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols are heterogeneous. In this manuscript, we describe the clinical characteristics of a series of patients confirmed as HSR to ICM and the diagnosis procedure carried out, looking into those cases confirmed as HSRs to multiple ICMs. For this purpose, we prospectively evaluated patients suggestive of HSRs to ICMs and classified them as IRs or NIRs. STs were carried out using a wide panel of ICMs, and in those with a negative ST, a single-blind placebo controlled DPT was performed with the culprit. If ST or DPT were positive, then tolerance was assessed with an alternative negative ST ICM. We included 101 cases (12 IRs and 89 NIRs) confirmed as allergic. Among them, 36 (35.64%) cases were allergic to more than one ICM (8 IRs and 28 NIRs). The most common ICM involved were iomeprol and iodixanol. Although not statistically significant, the percentage of patients reporting anaphylaxis was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with patients allergic to a single ICM (50 vs. 25%). Likewise, the percentage of positive results in STs was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with those allergic to a single ICM (for IR 62.5 vs. 25%, p > 0.05; and for NIR, 85.71 vs. 24.59%, p < 0.000). In cases allergic to more than one ICM, DPT with negative-ST ICM was positive in more than 60% (24/36) of cases. Therefore, allergy to multiple ICMs is common, associated to severe reactions in IRs, and confirmed frequently by positive STs. The allergological work-up should include DPT not only to establish the diagnosis but also to identify safe alternative ICM, even if ICM is structurally unrelated and ST is negative. More studies are needed to clarify mechanisms underlying cross-reactivity among ICMs.

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.

Acute Adverse Reactions to Nonionic Iodinated Contrast Media: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to meta-analytically compare the incidence of acute adverse reactions (AARs) to nonionic iodinated contrast media (ICM) according to the type of ICM in patients who underwent radiologic examinations with administration of ICM via intravascular route.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies evaluating the incidence of AARs to 7 nonionic ICM (iobitridol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, ioversol, and iodixanol) with extractable outcomes. These outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model, and the effect of ICM type on the incidence of overall and severe AARs was evaluated using meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty studies with 1,360,488 exposures to ICM were included. The pooled incidences of overall and severe AARs to nonionic ICM were 1.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81%-1.30%; I = 0.99) and 0.0141% (95% CI, 0.0108%-0.0183%; I = 0.56), respectively. Iomeprol had the highest overall AAR incidence (1.74%; 95% CI, 0.79%-3.76%; I = 0.99), followed by iohexol (1.21%; 95% CI, 0.67%-2.17%; I = 0.99), iopamidol (1.10%; 95% CI, 0.60%-2.03%; I = 0.99), ioversol (0.88%; 95% CI, 0.43%-1.83%; I = 0.96), iodixanol (0.85%; 95% CI, 0.36%-1.95%; I = 0.99), iopromide (0.82%; 95% CI, 0.43%-1.55%; I = 0.99), and iobitridol (0.77%; 95% CI, 0.36%-1.62%; I = 0.99). Multivariable meta-regression analysis revealed that study design (P = 0.0014) and premedication (P = 0.0230) were statistically significant determinants affecting the incidence of overall AARs. Iodinated contrast media type did not affect the incidence of overall and severe AARs (P = 0.1453 and 0.4265, each).

CONCLUSIONS

The varying pooled incidences of overall and severe AARs to specific types of nonionic ICM do not remain as significant after adjusting confounders. Our results may support nonrestriction of certain types of nonionic ICM in the context of AAR avoidance.

Adverse reactions during procedures: Hypersensitivity to contrast agents and dyes

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an overview of the literature on hypersensitivity reactions during procedures to commonly used contrast agents and dyes. A synthesis of current knowledge on clinical symptoms, epidemiology and risk factors, pathomechanism, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to these substances is presented.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through Medline. Included were peer-reviewed articles written in English between 2000 and 2019.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant clinical studies, experimental studies, and review articles have been selected. Additionally, case reports have been included if they carried significant information about rare clinical forms of hypersensitivity reactions, disease mechanisms, or therapy.

RESULTS

An allergological workup is only indicated for patients with a history of immediate (IHR) and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR) but not for toxic or unrelated adverse events. Skin tests with or without experimental cellular laboratory tests in patients with previous reactions can provide evidence for an allergic mechanism. Positive skin tests indicating allergy are more common in severe reactions. If the adverse event was allergic, skin testing of alternatives is helpful for the selection of other contrast agents for future procedures. Premedication alone may be insufficient in these cases, and breakthrough reactions occur. For nonallergic reactions, change of contrast agent and premedication is often but not always sufficient to suppress reactions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with previous NIHR or IHR, especially moderate and severe IHR, needing potential re-administration of contrast agents should be skin tested to identify an allergic mechanism as well as alternative agents to be used for future procedures.

Premedication for Iodinated Contrast Media Induced Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions

Purpose of the review

Premedication using antihistamines and/or corticosteroids has been widely used to prevent reoccurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (iHR) after iodinated contrast media (ICM). However, efficacy has been debated, especially in high-risk patients. Novel findings on the role and risks of premedication and preventive strategies are summarized.

Recent findings

The rate and severity of iHR occurring despite premedication indicate that premedication is not a panacea and the intensity usually reflects that of the initial reaction. Next, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one serious ICM-mediated event using corticosteroid-based premedication is high and associated with a diagnostic delay. Randomly changing the ICM has been suggested as an additional preventive measure, whilst others used a skin test–based approach to identify a subgroup of ICM allergic patients and negative skin test–based alternatives with a high negative predictive value.

Summary

Growing evidence indicates the need to discriminate between non-allergic iHR that are most likely non-obligatory and susceptible to premedication, and rare type I allergic iHR that can be identified using skin testing, especially in those with a severe iHR. Although premedication reduces reoccurrence of mild iHR, it is not always efficacious and should be balanced against side effects, a high NNT and an uncertain efficacy physicians should not blindly rely on. Future work should evaluate combined approaches of an allergy-driven ICM selection and endotype-driven premedication regimens in patients with non-allergic iHR.

Intradermal Testing With Radiocontrast Media to Prevent Recurrent Adverse Reactions

OBJECTIVE. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to radiocontrast media are a significant social and economic burden and are difficult to predict. Because some ADRs to radiocontrast media may be immunologically induced, a skin test with diluted 1:10 radiocontrast media has been used to predict ADRs. However, using this test in clinical practice is difficult because of its low sensitivity. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. This study enrolled 36 patients with a history of immediate ADR to radiocontrast media who visited the Allergy and Asthma Clinic of Severance Hospital from 2017 to 2018. Patients underwent intradermal testing (IDT) with five types of diluted (1:10) and undiluted radiocontrast media (iohexol, iobitridol, iopamidol, iopromide, and iodixanol). The IDT result was regarded as positive if at least one radiocontrast medium elicited a positive reaction. Positivity of IDT and sensitivity to the culprit radiocontrast medium were calculated and compared. For subsequent CT examinations with a radiocontrast medium, the contrast agent eliciting a negative skin reaction in IDT was selected, excluding the previous culprit radiocontrast medium. RESULTS. IDT positivity and sensitivity for the culprit radiocontrast medium at 1:10 dilution were 47.2% and 47.2%, respectively, whereas the positivity and sensitivity for the undiluted radiocontrast medium were 86.1% and 75.0%, respectively. The positivity and sensitivity were higher with frequent radiocontrast medium use or with severe reaction. Of 22 patients who underwent another CT examination with the contrast medium selected on the basis of IDT results, 21 (95.5%) did not experience an ADR. CONCLUSION. IDT to prevent ADR should be performed with undiluted radiocontrast medium. Selecting an alternative radiocontrast agent on the basis of IDT results can be clinically useful to prevent recurrent ADRs to radiocontrast media.

Validation of the Prescreening Intradermal Skin Test for Predicting Hypersensitivity to Iodinated Contrast Media: A Prospective Study with ICM Challenge

BACKGROUND

The number of hypersensitivity reactions associated with iodinated contrast media (ICM) is increasing with widespread use of radiographic contrast agents. These hypersensitivity reactions are unpredictable and sometimes lead to severe reactions such as anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of intradermal skin test (IDT) as a clinical screening tool for prediction of a hypersensitivity reaction to ICM.

METHODS

We performed IDT in the patients scheduled to receive an iodinated contrast agent between September 2015 and April 2017. After IDT, the contrast agent tested was administered intravenously, regardless of the results of skin testing, and the patients were carefully monitored.

RESULTS

We recruited 2,918 patients in 2 hospitals, and 2,843 were included in the final analysis. Fifteen (0.5%) of the 2843 patients had a positive IDT result before scheduled computed tomography scan; however, none of these patients experienced a hypersensitivity reaction after the administration of a full dose of ICM. Meanwhile, 19 patients who experienced hypersensitivity reactions after ICM challenge had showed a negative IDT result. The sensitivity and the positive predictive value of IDT for ICM were both 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine IDT before the administration of an iodinated contrast agent does not predict hypersensitivity considering its extremely low sensitivity and a low positive predictive value.

Management of Adverse Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media for Computed Tomography in Korean Referral Hospitals: A Survey Investigation

Objective

To evaluate the current status of managing adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) for computed tomography in referral hospitals in South Korea compared with hospitals in other countries.

Materials and Methods

This survey investigation involved 59 Korean and 15 overseas hospitals using guideline-based questionnaires consisting of 24 items in 7 main categories related to managing adverse reactions to ICM.

Results

Informed written consent with risk factor evaluation was appropriately performed in most of the Korean hospitals. There was considerable variability in assessing renal function across the hospitals; serum creatinine level was used as a reference in 76.4% of Korean hospitals. The Korean hospitals preferred a more stringent approach to determining normal renal function (p = 0.01), withholding metformin (p = 0.01), and fasting before ICM exposure (p < 0.001) compared with overseas hospitals. All the Korean hospitals had an emergency protocol and in-hospital system for adverse reactions to ICM. The Korean (87.7%) and overseas hospitals (100%) were similarly equipped with epinephrine (p = 0.332), but only 38.6% of Korean hospitals were equipped with a bronchodilator (p = 0.004). For patients with a previous hypersensitivity reaction to ICM, 62.3% of Korean hospitals pre-medicated with anti-histamine and corticosteroid according to the severity of the previous reaction, and changed the culprit ICM in 52.8%, while skin test was performed in 17%.

Conclusion

In general, Korean referral hospitals were well-prepared regarding informed consent, protocol, and an in-hospital system for managing adverse reactions to ICM. Nevertheless, there was considerable variability in details and management, thus requiring standardization by reflecting current guidelines.

Controversies in Drug Allergy: Radiographic Contrast Media

The risk for developing immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media (RCM) interferes with the diagnosis and treatment of a number of patients requiring imaging diagnostic methods for many common diseases. A group of experts met in Orlando, Florida, in March 2018 to analyze the similarities and differences in the management of RCM reactions in different areas of the world. This paper presents a summary of the recommendations provided by this consensus group, highlighting controversial issues and unmet needs that require further research.

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Contrast Agents: The French 5-year CIRTACI Study

BACKGROUND

Iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media (ICM; GBCM) induce immediate hypersensitivity (IH) reactions. Differentiating allergic from non-allergic IH is crucial; allergy contraindicates the culprit agent for life. We studied frequency of allergic IH among ICM or GBCM reactors.

METHODS

Patients were recruited in 31 hospitals between 2005 and 2009. Clinical symptoms, plasma histamine and tryptase concentrations and skin tests were recorded. Allergic IH was diagnosed by intradermal tests (IDT) with the culprit CM diluted 1:10, "potentially allergic" IH by positive IDT with pure CM, and non-allergic IH by negative IDT.

FINDINGS

Among 245 skin-tested patients (ICM = 209; GBCM = 36), allergic IH to ICM was identified in 41 (19.6%) and to GBCM in 10 (27.8%). Skin cross-reactivity was observed in 11 patients with ICM (26.8%) and 5 with GBCM (50%). Allergy frequency increased with clinical severity and histamine and tryptase concentrations (p < 0.0001). Cardiovascular signs were strongly associated with allergy. Non-allergic IH was observed in 152 patients (62%) (ICM:134; GBCM:18). Severity grade was lower (p < 0.0001) and reaction delay longer (11.6 vs 5.6 min; p < 0.001). Potentially allergic IH was diagnosed in 42 patients (17.1%) (ICM:34; GBCM:8). The delay, severity grade, and mediator release were intermediate between the two other groups.

INTERPRETATION

Allergic IH accounted for < 10% of cutaneous reactions, and > 50% of life-threatening ones. GBCM and ICM triggered comparable IH reactions in frequency and severity. Cross-reactivity was frequent, especially for GBCM. We propose considering skin testing with pure contrast agent, as it is more sensitive than the usual 1:10 dilution criteria.

Managing Adverse Reactions to Contrast Agents

Adverse reactions to iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents occur at an incidence of less than 1%. Although the exact pathophysiologic mechanisms are not completely understood, the treatment regimens are well accepted. Skin testing may be helpful in patients with a history of severe allergiclike reaction to aid in the selection of alternative contrast agents. Premedication should only be used for a history of allergiclike reaction. Imaging team members should be familiar with signs and symptoms of contrast reactions to allow for prompt assessment and treatment. A plan of action should be in place for contrast reactions and rehearsed regularly.