Tolerability of iobitridol in patients with non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) of contrast media: Useful or not useful? - A narrative review

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are also used in some patients with a history of a contrast medium (CM)-hypersensitivity reaction. Since the use of contrast agents requires special knowledge that is present in radiology but not necessarily in allergology, this overview should close the knowledge gaps. The literature, and the package inserts of the industry dealing with DPTs in contrast hypersensitivity reactions was analyzed and the results presented. Historical analyses revealed that provocation tests were already done in the past, and called pre-testing. Due to disadvantages, this diagnostic tool was abandoned. A few years later, DPT was introduced as an innovative diagnostic procedure. The DPT has the 3 main disadvantages: a missing standardization, patients at risk (such as compromised renal function) are rarely taken into account, and a negative DPT does not exclude a subsequent CM reaction. DPTs (formerly called pre-testing) are a well-known method for diagnosing CM-related hypersensitivity reactions. Since the disadvantages of this diagnosis outweigh the advantages, we propose replacing DPT with routine contrast-enhanced imaging examination in radiology.

Management of acute coronary syndromes requiring coronary angiography in patients with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome induced by iodinated contrast media: two case reports and narrative review

Background

Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. Severe manifestations, despite being infrequent, can be life-threatening and represent an issue when re-administration of ICM is required. Clear recommendations on prevention and management of relapses are still lacking.

Case summary

We present the cases of two patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome requiring urgent coronary angiography, with an anamnesis of ICM-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome. Both patients safely underwent a coronary angiography with the use of a different ICM (iobitridol) to the one linked to hypersensitivity manifestations, after premedication with corticosteroids and H1 antagonists.

Discussion

Our experience highlights that in clinical situations in which the use of ICM is urgently needed, premedication with corticosteroids and H1 antagonists together with the choice of an alternative contrast agent (when the culprit is known) represents an effective strategy to perform a potentially life-saving procedure while avoiding serious systemic allergic reactions.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: A diagnostic approach by skin tests

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have risen due to their increasing use in x-ray-based imaging modalities. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by nonionic monomeric compounds and represent an issue impacting the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of cancer, cardiology and surgery patients.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of skin tests in delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM and to evaluate the tolerability of iobitridol, a monomeric nonionic low osmolality compound, as a possible safe alternative.

METHODS

Patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM referred to us from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent patch test and, if negative, intradermal test with the culprit ICM and iobitridol as alternative.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients (females 24, 64.9%) were enrolled in the study. Iodixanol and iomeprol were the most frequently involved ICM (48.5% and 35.2%, respectively); 62.2% of patients presented maculopapular eruption, while 37.8% reported delayed urticaria-like rash. Skin tests resulted positive to the culprit ICM in 19 patients (51.4%), 16 to patch test and 3 to intradermal test. Skin tests with iobitridol, tested as alternative, resulted positive in 3/19 patients (15.8%). All 16 patients with negative results to iobitridol were administered this ICM and tolerated it.

CONCLUSIONS

In at least half of patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity was demonstrated by skin tests, particularly by patch test. This diagnostic approach resulted simple, cost-effective and safe, not only to confirm the culprit ICM but also to identify iobitridol as feasible alternative.

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.

Cross-reactivity among iodinated contrast agents: should we be concerned?

Background

Although several papers deal with "cross-reactivity" in patients with iodinated contrast medium (ICM) hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), there is no in-depth knowledge of this phenomenon. To define ICM-groups as potential reaction partners and to identify any potential clinical relevance in patients with ICM-HSRs.

Methods

The literature database PubMed was searched for eligible papers dealing with ICM-allergy and "cross-reactivity". The data presented by the papers was analyzed and individual patient data was extracted for re-evaluation based on a definition for both 'polyvalent reactivity' and 'cross-reactivity' as well as for chemical structure-dependent ICM-groups.

Results

Twenty-five original papers (with n=340 extracted patients) formed the study population. Incidences of polyvalent reactivity were non-significantly higher than incidences of cross-reactivity (both range from 0% to 100%). Crossover evaluation in reaction pairings (culprit ICM A with ICM B versus culprit ICM B with ICM A) showed concordance of only 30%. Data support rather non-cross-reactivity (individual reaction pattern) than cross-reactivity constellations.

Conclusions

The obtained results favour an individual reaction pattern, rather than a reactivity driven by chemical structures and so-called cross-reactivity.

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.

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.

Advances and novel developments in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis

A correct diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) is very important for both the patient and health system. However, DHRs diagnosis is complex, time consuming, requires trained personnel, is not standardized for many drugs, involves procedures not exempt of risk, and in most cases lacks standardized in vivo and in vitro tests. Thus, there is an urgent need for improving the different approaches to diagnose patients with suspected DHRs. In this review, we have analyzed the advances performed in immediate and nonimmediate DHRs diagnosis during the last two years and obtained several conclusions: the significant heterogeneity in current practice among centers illustrates the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize in vivo tests and protocols for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected drug allergy. Regarding in vitro tests, the latest studies have focused on increasing their sensitivity or on establishing the sensitivity and specificity for the tests performed with new drugs. There seems to be a consensus about combining in vivo and in vitro tests as the best way to increase the diagnostic accuracy.

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.