Management of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media

Mast cell conditions and drug allergy: when to suspect and how to manage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with mast cell disorders frequently experience symptoms from excessive mediator release like histamine and tryptase, ranging from mild flushing to severe anaphylactic responses. Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to drugs are a major cause of anaphylaxis in these patients, who often worry about triggering mast cell degranulation when taking medications. The aim of this review is to explore the complex interactions between mast cell disorders and drug HRs, focusing on the clinical challenges of managing these conditions effectively to enhance understanding and guide safer clinical practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among the drugs most commonly associated with hypersensitivity reactions in patients with mast cell disorders are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, and perioperative agents. Recent studies have highlighted the role of Mas-related G-protein coupled receptor member X2 (MRGPRX2) - a receptor involved in non-immunoglobulin E mediated mast cell degranulation - in exacerbating HRs. Investigations reveal varied drug tolerance among patients, underscoring the need for individual risk assessments.

SUMMARY

Tailored diagnostic approaches are crucial for confirming drug allergies and assessing tolerance in patients with mastocytosis, preventing unnecessary medication avoidance and ensuring safety before acute situations arise.

Analysis of Allergy and Hypersensitivity Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines According to the EudraVigilance Database

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented a new challenge in modern medicine: the development of vaccines was followed by massive population vaccinations. A few reports on post-vaccination allergic reactions have made patients and medical personnel uneasy as to COVID-19 vaccines' allergic potential. Most of the studies in this area to date have been small, and some that were based on global databases skipped most of the allergic diseases and concentrated only on anaphylaxis. We aimed to analyze the incidence of serious allergic reactions based on the EudraVigilance (EV) database, regardless of the reported symptoms and allergy mechanism.

METHODS

The total number of administrated vaccine doses was extracted on 5 October 2023 from Vaccine Tracker and included all administrations since vaccinations began in the European Economic Area (EEA). Data on serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were extracted from the EudraVigilance database with the same time point. The code names of 147 allergic symptoms or diseases were used.

RESULTS

The frequency of serious allergic reactions per 100,000 administered vaccine doses was 1.53 for Comirnaty, 2.16 for Spikevax, 88.6 for Vaxzevria, 2.11 for Janssen, 7.9 for Novavax, 13.3 for VidPrevtyn Beta, and 3.1 for Valneva. The most prevalent reported reactions were edema (0.46) and anaphylaxis (0.40). Only 6% of these reactions were delayed hypersensitivity-oriented.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall frequency of potential serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 is very rare. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines seem to be safe for human use. The lowest frequency of allergic reaction was observed for Comirnaty and the highest for Vaxzevria.

Serum MRGPRX2 as a Long-term Biomarker for Iodinated Contrast Media-Induced Anaphylaxis

The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is based on the clinical history. The utility of tryptase measurements in clinical setting is limited. Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor-X2 (MRGPRX2) is expressed in mast cells and is involved in the degranulation of these cells. We evaluated the potential of MRGPRX2 as a diagnostic biomarker in patients with iodinated contrast media (ICM)-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs). A total of 173 patients with documented ICM-induced IHR within 4 months from registration were enrolled and skin tests for the culprit ICM were performed. The time interval was evaluated as the duration between the onset of ICM-induced IHR and the measurement of serum MRGPRX2 levels. Serum MRGPRX2 concentration was determined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. Of the 173 patients, 33 and 140 were included in the anaphylaxis and non-anaphylaxis groups, respectively. Serum MRGPRX2 levels were significantly higher in the anaphylaxis than in the non-anaphylaxis group (29.9 ± 24.1 vs. 20.7±17.5, P = 0.044). Serum MRGPRX2 showed a moderate predictive ability for anaphylaxis, with an area under the curve of 0.61 (P = 0.058). When groups were classified based on the time interval, T1(0-2months) and T2 (2-4months), patients with anaphylaxis had higher MRGPRX2 levels compared to the non-anaphylaxis group in the T2 group (36.5±19.2 vs. 20.5±19.0, P = 0.035). This pilot study shows that serum MRGPRX2 is a potential long-term biomarker for predicting anaphylaxis, particularly ICM-induced anaphylaxis. Further studies are needed to determine the role of MRGPRX2 in anaphylaxis in a larger population of patients with various drug-induced IHRs.

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.

Successful Desensitization to the Radiocontrast Material Iohexol (Omnipaque™)

Adverse reactions to radiocontrast media (RCM) are rare and occur predominantly in association with intravenous administration but may also occur with intra-arterial and nonvascular injections (e.g., retrograde pyelography, intra-articular injections) of RCM. This article reports the case of a 52-year-old lady who was known to have amyloidosis secondary to rheumatoid arthritis and was on regular renal replacement therapy. She was under follow-up for regular angioplasties to manage the central vein stenosis that was affecting her right brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and was referred to our Immunology service when she developed an allergic reaction after her AVF angioplasty (central venoplasty). Despite being dialysed immediately post-angioplasty, she complained of skin rash and itching with hoarseness of voice that developed almost six to eight hours post-angioplasty. We decided to arrange the iodinated non-ionic iso-osmolar contrast agent iodixanol (Visipaque™) for her instead, as it is known to be better tolerated in patients with reactions to Omnipaque™ due to its lower osmolarity as compared to Omnipaque™. However, since it was the first time to request this contrast in our hospital, it was not possible due to logistical reasons. It was necessary that our patient continued to undergo angioplasty every three months, however, she was developing more severe and earlier symptoms with each subsequent exposure to the radiocontrast medium. After her latest reaction of generalized itching and angioedema with shortness of breath during the procedure despite premedication, it was decided for her to undergo desensitization to Omnipaque™. In the absence of a published protocol for this, we used a protocol used for desensitization to Visipaque™. She showed an excellent response and completed her remaining angioplasties until Visipaque™ became available. Hence, desensitization to Omnipaque™ using the published protocol to Visipaque™ is likely to help patients allergic to Omnipaque™ or where Visipaque™ is not available or non-affordable in low/middle-income countries.

Pharmacological Prevention of Hypersensitivity Reactions Caused by Iodinated Contrast Media: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are uncommon but serious adverse events following the administration of iodinated contrast media (ICM) prior to CT imaging. While premedication is almost universally given in high-risk patients, there is a lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of such premedication. This study aims to determine the efficacy of premedication with corticosteroids prior to ICM administration in the prevention of HSRs through meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: An extensive review of the literature yielded 404 potentially relevant studies. Of these, five studies met the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis. Pooled HSR event rates were obtained from each of the studies for both patients who had and who had not received premedication with corticosteroids. Heterogeneity between studies was also determined. Results: A total of 736 patients across all five studies were included in the analysis. Patients who did not receive premedication had initial pooled HSR rates of 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07−0.35) across all studies. Following premedication, pooled HSR rates dropped to 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01−0.06). Patients who had prior HSRs were significantly less likely to experience HSRs (OR = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03−0.25; p < 0.00001) after treatment with premedication. Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers evidence for the reduction in the recurrence of moderate and severe HSRs in patients who have a history of such reactions. Premedication with corticosteroids prior to ICM administration is thus highly recommended in high-risk patients.

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.

High relaxivity Gd3+-based organic nanoparticles for efficient magnetic resonance angiography

Contrast-enhanced MR angiography (MRA) is a critical technique for vascular imaging. Nevertheless, the efficacy of MRA is often limited by the low rate of relaxation, short blood-circulation time, and metal ion-released potential long-term toxicity of clinical available Gd-based contrast agents. In this work, we report a facile and efficient strategy to achieve Gd-chelated organic nanoparticles with high relaxivity for T₁-weighted MRA imaging. The Gd-chelated PEG-TCPP nanoparticles (GPT NPs) have been engineered composite structured consisting of Gd-chelated TCPP and PEG. The spherical structure of TCPP offers more chemical sites for Gd³⁺ coordination to improve the relaxivity and avoid leakage of the Gd³⁺ ions. The synthesized GPT NPs exhibit a high relaxation rate of 35.76 mM^− 1 s^− 1 at 3.0 T, which is higher than the rates for most reported MR contrast agents. Therefore, GPT NPs can be used for MRA with much stronger vascular signals, longer circulation time, and high-resolution arterial vascular visualization than those using clinical MR contrast agents at the same dose. This work may make the T₁ MRI contrast agents for high-resolution angiography possible and offer a new candidate for preclinical and clinical applications of MR vascular imaging and vascular disease diagnosis.

Hypersensitivity to Gadolinium-Based Contrast Media

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are frequently used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations to increase sensitivity in diagnoses. Recently, an increase in the description of hypersensitivity reactions to GBCAs has been detected. We performed research in PubMed, PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE until September 2021, searching for studies regarding immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents in which an allergy study was performed. The initial research identified 149 articles written in English. After excluding articles duplicated and articles that had irrelevant designs, 26 articles were included. Finally, 17 studies concerning immediate reactions, six studies concerning non-immediate reactions, and three concerning both that performed allergy evaluations were selected. In the review, we analyzed the characteristics of immediate and delayed reactions and the results of the allergy study and cross-reactivity. Skin tests seem to have acceptable accuracy, but drug provocation tests are still needed when skin tests are negative o to find alternative agents. Although cross-reactivity patterns are not well established, cross-reactivity seems to exist among macrocyclic agents. Notwithstanding, the number of patients analyzed is low and further studies are required. A management algorithm is suggested.

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.

Incidence and risk factors of late adverse reactions to low-osmolar contrast media: A prospective observational study of 10,540 exposures

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of late adverse reactions (ARs) to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM).

METHODS

The occurrence of late AR was monitored on day 1 and from day 7 to day 28 in all patients who received enhanced computed tomography using LOCM during a 5-week study period in a single tertiary hospital. Patients who experienced late AR were followed up for three years.

RESULTS

Among the total 10,540 LOCM exposures, 315 ARs (3.0%) were reported; acute ARs occurred in 108 LOCM exposures (1.0%) and late ARs occurred in 207 LOCM exposures (2.0%) (90.9% within one week, 9.1% developed afterwards by day 20). Previous history of drug allergy (odds ratio [OR] = 4.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-9.71) and allergic diseases (OR = 2.54; 95% CI 1.32-4.91) were risk factors of late ARs to LOCM. Although the recurrence rate was lowered with premedication from 8.5% to 1.7% (8/94 vs. 3/178; p = 0.016), LOCM change did not make difference compared to reuse of the culprit LOCM (2/38 vs. 9/234; p = 0.655). In patients with a history of late AR to LOCM, the risk of recurrent reactions decreased with longer time intervals between exposures (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97; p = 0.025) and with the use of antihistamine premedication (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.06-0.99; p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Late ARs to LOCM occurred mostly within one week. The use of premedication may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of late ARs.

Allergic Reactions Captured by Voluntary Reporting

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of hospital adverse reactions (ARs), particularly allergic reactions, or hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), is poorly defined. To determine priorities for allergy safety in healthcare, we identified and described safety reports of allergic reactions.

METHODS

We searched the safety report database of a large academic medical center from April 2006 to March 2016 using 101 complete, truncated, and/or misspelled key words related to allergic symptoms, treatments, and culprits (e.g., medications, foods). Patient and event data were summarized for ARs and two types of ARs, HSRs and side effects/toxicities.

RESULTS

Among 9111 key word search-identified events, 876 (10%) were ARs, of which 436 (5%) were HSRs and the remaining 440 (5%) were side effect reactions or toxicities. Whereas the most common HSRs were simple cutaneous reactions (83%), the following severe immediate HSRs were also identified: shortness of breath (16%), anaphylaxis (14%), and angioedema (12%). Most HSRs were caused by drugs (81%), with antibiotics (26%), particularly β-lactams (11%), and vancomycin (8%), commonly implicated. Other causes of drug HSRs included contrast agents (24%), chemotherapeutics (7%), and opioids (6%). Nondrug HSRs were from blood products (8%), latex (3%), and devices (3%). Food reactions were rarely identified (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified ARs, HSRs, and side effects/toxicities, contained in a decade of safety reports at an academic medical center. Allergy safety in the healthcare setting should target approaches to common and severe reactions, with a focus on the safe administration of β-lactams, vancomycin, contrast agents, chemotherapeutics, and opioids. Priority nondrug HSR culprits include blood products, latex, and devices.

Low risk of contrast media-induced hypersensitivity reactions in all subtypes of systemic mastocytosis

BACKGROUND

Patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM) are at increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs). Although Hymenoptera venoms are the predominant triggers, cases of contrast media-induced HR (CMIHR) have also been reported and prophylactic premedication is often performed. However, data from larger series are limited and differences between indolent and advanced SM have not yet been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and severity of CMIHR in all subtypes of SM.

METHODS

We analyzed 162 adult patients with SM (indolent systemic mastocytosis [ISM], n = 65; advanced systemic mastocytosis [advSM], n = 97). First, the cumulative incidence of CMIHR was retrospectively assessed in the patient's history. Second, at our institution, patients underwent 332 contrast media (CM)-enhanced imaging including 80 computed tomography (CT) scans with iodine-based contrast agent and 252 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a gadolinium-based contrast agent, and tolerance was assessed.

RESULTS

Previous CMIHRs to CT (vomiting, n = 1, erythema, n = 1, cardiovascular shock, n = 1), and MRI (dyspnea, n = 1, cardiovascular shock, n = 1) had been reported by 4 out of 162 (2.5%) patients (ISM, n = 3; advSM, n = 1). In contrast, during or after 332 CM-enhanced CT or MRI examinations at our institution, no CMIHRs were reported. Premedication was solely given to 3 patients before CT scans, including 1 with previous CMIHR, who tolerated the imaging well.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that: (1) there is a substantial discrepancy between the perception and prevalence of HRs to CM in SM; (2) reactions are scarce in ISM and even rarer in advSM; and (3) in SM patients without previous history of CM hypersensitivity, prophylactic premedication before CM-enhanced CT or MRI is dispensable.

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.

Pharmacological prevention of delayed hypersensitivity reactions caused by iodinated contrast media

Background

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to radiocontrast media (RCM) occur in approximately 0.5–23.0% of patients and are thought to be caused by T cell-mediated mechanisms. However, an optimal pharmacological preventive strategy is not yet established in patients with histories of delayed reactions to RCM.

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological prevention in patients with histories of delayed reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar RCM when re-exposed to RCM.

Methods

A retrospective review of electronic medical records of 117 patients with previous histories of DHRs to RCM who visited an allergy clinic for the prevention of reactions after the re-exposure to RCM was conducted. The effects of pharmacological prevention were compared according to the symptom scores of previous reactions based on their intensities and durations with electronic medical records (EMRs).

Results

Of the 117 patients who experienced DHRs after RCM injection, we confirmed the outcomes of RCM re-exposure in 101 patients. For pharmacological prevention, 92 patients (91.1%) received steroids before RCM injection and among them, 50 patients (49.5%) received additional steroids after RCM injection. With this pharmacological prevention, patients of symptoms improved or no recurrence, recurrence of similar previous symptoms, and recurrence of worse symptoms were 98 (97.0%), 2 (2.0%), and 1 (1.0%), respectively. The proportions of no recurrence after pharmacological prevention were lower in patients with severe reactions and higher symptom scores.

Conclusion

Pharmacological prevention showed a beneficial effect in most patients with delayed hypersensitivity to RCM. Further investigations are needed to establish an effective protocol for the prevention of delayed reactions to RCM.

Associations between HLA-A, -B, and -C alleles and iodinated contrast media-induced hypersensitivity in Koreans

A common cause of drug hypersensitivity reactions is iodinated contrast media (ICM). ICM-induced hypersensitivity had been considered to be a non-immunological reaction, but evidence for an immunological mechanism has increased recently. Thus, we evaluated whether HLA-A, -B, and -C alleles were associated with ICM-induced hypersensitivity. In total, 126 patients who underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies through outpatient clinics at a tertiary referral hospital between 2008 and 2012 were assessed. Sixty-one patients experienced ICM-induced hypersensitivity and the remainder, 65, were ICM-tolerant patients (control). ICM-induced hypersensitivity patients showed 51 with immediate, 7 with non-immediate, 3 with both or mixed type. HLA-A, -B, and -C genotyping was performed using a PCR sequence-based typing method. Four kinds of ICM were used: iopromide, iohexol, iobitridol, and iodixanol. The most used ICM among the hypersensitivity patients was iopromide. Significant difference in the frequency of HLA-B*58:01 (odds ratios [OR], 3.90; p = 0.0200, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-13.07) was observed between ICM-induced immediate hypersensitivity and control. There were statistically significant differences in the frequencies of the HLA-B*38:02 (OR, 10.24; p = 0.0145; 95% CI, 1.09-96.14) and HLA-B*58:01 (OR, 3.98; p = 0.0348; 95% CI, 1.03-15.39) between iopromide-induced immediate hypersensitivity and control. The mechanism of ICM-induced hypersensitivity remains unknown, but this study showed associations, although weak, with HLA-B*58:01 alleles for ICM-induced immediate hypersensitivity and HLA-B*38:02 and HLA-B*58:01 for iopromide-induced immediate hypersensitivity as risk predictors. Further studies are needed to validate the associations in larger samples and to identify the functional mechanism behind these results.

Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review

INTRODUCTION

Allergic and nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media are classified as immediate or non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHR and NIHR), respectively. Skin tests and provocation tests are recommended for the evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agents; however provocations are not common in clinical practice.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted to investigate studies comprising both skin tests and provocation tests that evaluated hypersensitivity reactions to ICM.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified that reported on skin tests, followed by provocations. In the case of IHR to ICM, 65/69 (94%) patients with a positive skin test for the culprit media tolerated a challenge with a skin-test-negative alternative ICM. In IHR to ICM with a negative skin test for the culprit media, provocations were positive in 3.2%-9.1% patients. In the case of a NIHR to ICM with a positive skin test, provocation with a skin-test-negative agent was tolerated in 75/105 (71%) of cases. In NIHR with a negative skin test for the culprit agent, re-exposure to the culprit or an alternative was positive in 0%-34.6% patients. Provocations with the same ICM in skin test positive patients with IHR or NIHR were positive for a majority of the patients, although such provocation tests were rarely performed. Data on hypersensitivity reactions, skin tests and provocations with gadolinium-based contrast media were limited; however, they exhibited a pattern similar to that observed in ICM.

CONCLUSION

In both ICM and gadolinium-based contrast media, the risk of an immediate repeat reaction is low when skin tests are negative. In contrast, a provocation with a skin-test-positive contrast medium showed a high risk of an immediate repeat hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, a thorough medical history is necessary, followed by skin tests. A provocation is recommended, for diagnostic work-up, when the diagnosis is uncertain.

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.

Prognostic implications of prior contrast reaction in patients with emergency premedication before undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Patients with iodinated contrast material (ICM) adverse reactions are at increased risk for breakthrough reactions. Previous studies suggest that the severity of a prior ICM adverse reaction corresponds to the severity of a repeat reaction.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether the severity of prior ICM adverse reactions in patients receiving emergency premedication therapy prior to PCI predicts outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) encounters between January 1, 2005, and May 30, 2018, was conducted at Geisinger Medical Center. Patients with ICM adverse reactions premedicated with an emergency premedication regimen prior to PCI were included in the study. PCIs were stratified based on the severity of the index ICM adverse reactions; PCIs with a prior severe reaction were compared to PCIs with a prior mild-moderate reaction.

RESULTS

We evaluated 604 PCI, of these, 144 (23.8%) had prior severe reactions and 460 (76.2%) had mild-to-moderate reactions. Nine patients had breakthrough reactions, of which seven were of the same or decreased severity in comparison to the index reactions. The overall breakthrough reactions occurred in 1 of 144 patients (0.7%) with an initial severe reaction and in 8 of 460 (1.7%) with an initial mild/moderate reaction (p = 0.69). Outcomes including length of hospital stay and 30-day mortality were similar for PCI with or without severe index ICM reactions.

CONCLUSION

Frequency and severity of breakthrough reaction and clinical outcomes in patients treated with emergency premedication regimen prior to PCI were independent of the severity of index ICM reactions.

Probable parenteral and oral contrast-induced Steven Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis

We report a case of contrast-inducted Steven Johnson Syndrome (SJS)/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN). The patient had received parenteral iopamidol and oral iohexol five days prior. The patient's chief complaint at the Emergency Department (ED) presentation was shortness of breath and blisters throughout body. Upon arrival, the patient was awake, alert, and oriented with a blood pressure (BP) of 166/68, heart rate (HR) of 117 beats per minute, respiratory rate (RR) of 22 breaths per minute and oxygen saturation of 94% on room air. A review of systems was unremarkable with the exception of chills, fatigue and rash. Physical exam was significant for right eye edema/crusting, hemorrhagic bullae, and maculopapular rash. The patient's initial laboratory results were significant for platelets (PLT) of 549 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 8.48 × 10(3)/mcL, neutrophils 84.2%, and lymphocytes 10%. Complete metabolic panel was normal with serum creatinine 0.77 mg/dL. The patient was initially treated with diphenhydramine, methylprednisolone, ondansetron, sodium chloride, lorazepam and oxycodone-acetaminophen. Hemotology/Oncology and Trauma/Burn consult identified possible SJS/TEN and the patient was transferred to another facility for dermatologic/burn follow up.

Comorbidities and Cofactors of Anaphylaxis in Patients with Moderate to Severe Anaphylaxis. Analysis of Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry for West Pomerania Province, Poland

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is still rarely diagnosed. For safety reasons, patients should visit an allergologist to identify potential causes and cofactors of this reaction. This paper presents the analysis of data from the Anaphylaxis Registry gathered over ten years at the Allergy Clinic, Pomeranian Medical University (PMU). A questionnaire-based survey was used for patients visiting the Allergy Clinic to identify potential augmentation factors/comorbidities and/or cofactors of anaphylaxis in patients with a history of moderate to severe anaphylaxis. The registry comprised patients with grade II or higher anaphylaxis. The gathered data concerned chronic comorbidities (cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and others), recurrence of anaphylaxis, and potential cofactors in anaphylaxis. In the analyzed group, the incidence rate of anaphylaxis was the highest for women aged 19–60 years. Most common comorbidities in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis included: cardiovascular diseases, respiratory tract diseases, features of atopy, and thyroid diseases. More than 30% of drug-induced reactions were anaphylactic reactions due to the re-exposure to the same drug, which points to the need for educational initiatives in this area. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis induced by Hymenoptera stings was comparable in patients who had a previous generalized reaction and those who had good tolerance to the previous sting. It is important to take these cofactors into consideration when evaluating patients with anaphylaxis as they may play a role in future anaphylactic reactions.

Diagnostic procedures & practices in drug allergy/hypersensitivity: a survey of 13 Asian countries

BACKGROUND

The issues and challenges in the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity among children and adults in Asia are likely to be different from non-Asian countries.

OBJECTIVE

To study the diagnostic modalities used in the evaluation and management of drug allergy/drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI).

METHODS

A questionnaire comprising 41 questions was circulated electronically to member societies and individual members of APAAACI between January 23, 2020 and March 6, 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-six respondents from 15 member societies and 1 individual member responded. European DHR guidelines were most commonly used. Skin prick and intradermal testing was used by 100%, with only 60% having access to commercial penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 75%, and basophil activation test by 56.3% for immediate DHR. Patch tests were used by 75% in contrast to lymphocyte transformation tests by 25% for nonimmediate DHR. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.8%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (93.3%). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype testing was mandatory among 25% respondents before new carbamazepine prescriptions, and 8.3% for allopurinol prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

There was increased use of skin testing for iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity and patch testing for nonimmediate DHR. HLA genotype testing prior to new carbamazepine, allopurinol and abacavir prescriptions remain variable despite strong associations for severe cutaneous adverse reactions with Asian ethnicity. Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across APAAACI member societies.

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.

Nonrenal Complications of Contrast Media

Injection of contrast media is the foundation of invasive and interventional cardiovascular practice. Iodine-based contrast was first used in the 1920s for urologic procedures and examinations. The initially used agents had high ionic and osmolar concentrations, which led to significant side effects, namely nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. Newer contrast agents had lower ionic concentrations and lower osmolarity. Modifications to the ionic structure and iodine content led to the development of ionic low-osmolar, nonionic low-osmolar, and nonionic iso-osmolar contrast media. Contemporary contrast agents are better tolerated and produce fewer major side effects.

A Bi2S3@mSiO2@Ag nanocomposite for enhanced CT visualization and antibacterial response in the gastrointestinal tract

The non-invasive imaging of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is highly desired for clinical research due to the various GI tract bacterial infection-induced diseases. To treat GI tract infections, various antibiotics have been used in the clinic. The growing problem of multidrug-resistant bacteria calls for effective antibiotic alternatives. Here, we construct a dual-functional Bi₂S₃@mSiO₂@Ag nanocomposite for simultaneous enhanced X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging and efficient antibacterial activity in the GI tract. The nanocomposite also has good stability, low cytotoxicity, and negligible hemolysis. Moreover, the investigation of the long-term toxicity and biodistribution of the Bi₂S₃@mSiO₂@Ag nanocomposite after oral administration confirms its safety at the tested dosage. In particular, Ag nanoparticles (NPs) well dispersed on a silica substrate can reduce the antibacterial dosage and enhance the antibacterial activity of the Bi₂S₃@mSiO₂@Ag nanocomposite. Furthermore, we have established bacterially infected enteritis animal models to confirm the antibacterial ability of the nanocomposite. This work opens up a new avenue for the design of a nanotheranostic agent that acts as both a contrast agent for the enhanced visualization of the GI tract and an antibacterial agent as an alternative to antibiotics.

A novel whole blood based method for lymphocyte transformation test in drug allergies

Drug allergies pose a great deal of danger for the patients. It hinders effective treatment procedures in hospitalized patients. Moreover, it complicates the symptoms due to the allergic reactions of the immune system. Allergic reactions may arise against any medication including antibiotics and chemotherapeutics. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the sensitization pattern of the patients to culprit drug(s) before retreatment with the same or similar drug, or in order to confirm/exclude a suspected drug hypersensitivity reaction. In vivo and in vitro tests are performed in the evaluation of patients. Current methods of in vitro drug allergy evaluations rely on time consuming and expensive methods. Ficoll separation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, their activation with stimulants in the presence of the drug of interest, CD69 or CD25 or BrdU or radioactive thymidine analysis of the cells after a couple of days of incubation is an excessively elaborate work and also uneconomical. Moreover, it requires a great deal of expertise to interpret the results. Here, we are reporting a new whole blood based lymphocyte transformation test method that does not require ficoll separation, CD69, CD25, BrdU and radioactive thymidine analysis. Thanks to the color change in the whole blood itself one can easily determine the allergic reaction to a certain drug. This new method is less time consuming, more economical and easy to apply.

Updated guidelines for intravenous contrast use for CT and MRI

Intravenous (IV) contrast material is used extensively for CT and MRI scans done in emergency departments (ED). Its use is essential to make many critical diagnoses in ED patients. While adverse reactions can occur, newer research has added to our knowledge of IV contrast media tolerance and safety leading to improved and more liberal guidelines for intravenous contrast use. The updated information described in this review article indicates how intravenous contrast can be used safely in more patients, more expeditiously and with fewer precautions than with prior guidelines. This review article explains the basis for the new recommendations for intravenous contrast material use and describes indicated precautions and preparations to avoid adverse reactions for iodinated agents used for CT and gadolinium agents for MRI.

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.

Safety of Noncontrast Imaging-Guided Deep Brain Stimulation Electrode Placement in Parkinson Disease

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is considered standard of care for the treatment of medically refractory Parkinson disease (PD). The placement of brain electrodes is performed using contrast imaging to enhance blood vessel identification during stereotactic planning. We present our experience with a series of patients implanted using noncontrast imaging.

METHODS

All cases of DBS surgery for PD performed between 2012 and 2018 with noncontrast imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical features, postoperative imaging, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 287 deep-seated electrodes were implanted in 152 patients. Leads were placed at the subthalamic nucleus and globus pallidus internus in 258 and 29 hemispheres, respectively. We identified 2 cases of intracranial hemorrhage (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

DBS lead placement can be performed without the use of intravenous contrast with a postoperative intracranial hemorrhage rate comparable with other reported series.

Two cases of anaphylaxis due to contrast media during administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

A combination therapy of nivolumab and ipilimumab is effective for advanced renal cell carcinoma, but there are concerns about immune-related adverse events. A 46-year-old man was hospitalized for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On day 9, he received nivolumab and ipilimumab. On days 16 and 49, he presented with fever, skin rash, and hypotension after contrast-enhanced computed tomography. A 70-year-old man was hospitalized for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On day 9, he received nivolumab and ipilimumab. On day 44, he presented with fever, skin rash, and hypotension after contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Both patients were diagnosed with anaphylaxis due to the contrast agent.

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.

A mast-cell-specific receptor mediates Iopamidol induced immediate IgE-independent anaphylactoid reactions

Iopamidol is a radiographic contrast media which caused a very high incidence of anaphylactic reactions. Mast cells are sentinel cells in host defense reactions during immediate hypersensitivity responses and anaphylactic responses. Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) is a kind of mast cell specific receptor, which triggers mast cell degranulation in anaphylactic reactions. Mice MrgprB2 is a homologous gene of MRGPRX2. We sought to better understand the anaphylactic reactions induced by Iopamidol and the mechanisms involving MRGPRX2. The MRGPRX2-related anaphylactic reactions induced by Iopamidol were investigated using the hindpaw swelling and extravasation assay in vivo and a calcium imaging assay was used for mast cell intracellular calcium responses detection and mast cell release of anaphylactic mediators, such as β-hexosaminidase, histamine and TNF-α, was also detected in vitro. The mast cell deficient Kit^W-sh/W-sh mice and MrgprB2 knockout mice exhibited a reduced Iopamidol-induced inflammation effect compared with wild type mice. Furthermore, human mast cells that express MRGPRX2 were activated by Iopamidol in a dose-dependent manner, meanwhile MRGPRX2 knockdown mast cells showed reduced intracellular calcium responses and anaphylactic mediators release effect. It could be concluded that Iopamidol-induced anaphylactoid reactions were MRGPRX2 mediated to provoke mast cells Ca²⁺ mobilization and degranulation.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity after intra-arterial injection of iodinated contrast media: a prospective study in patients with coronary angiography

OBJECTIVES

While hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to intravenously administered iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been well studied, not much is known about HSR to intra-arterially administered ICM.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate coronary angiography (CAG)-induced ICM hypersensitivity in patients who underwent CAG using ICM including ioversol, a low-osmolar non-ionic monomer, and iodixanol, an iso-osmolar non-ionic dimer. The HSR were investigated through in-patient monitoring after CAG and telephone interview after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 714 patients were enrolled during the observation period, of whom 26 (3.6%) showed immediate HSR and 108 (15.1%) showed delayed HSR. With regard to severity, proportion of immediate HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 57.7%, 38.5%, and 3.8%, respectively, whereas that of delayed HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 85.2%, 13.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that previous intra-arterial exposure to ICM was an independent risk factor for immediate HSR (odds ratio (OR) 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-6.96; p = 0.015). Iodixanol was a significant risk factor for delayed HSR (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07-2.43; p = 0.024) and correlated with a higher incidence of delayed HSR within 24-h post-ICM administration compared to ioversol.

CONCLUSION

The incidence rate of immediate and delayed HSR in intra-arterially administered ICM was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. Previous exposure to intra-arterially administered contrast media was a significant risk factor for immediate HSR. Compared to ioversol, iodixanol was associated with relatively earlier and more frequent delayed HSR.

KEY POINTS

• In this prospective study, the incidence of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity in intra-arterial injection of contrast media during coronary angiography was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. • Delayed hypersensitivity reactions were more common but less severe than immediate hypersensitivity reactions during coronary angiography. • Previous exposure to ICM via intra-arterial route was a significant risk factor for immediate hypersensitivity to intra-arterial contrast medium.

Practical administration of intravenous contrast media in children: screening, prophylaxis, administration and treatment of adverse reactions

Administration of intravenous contrast media to children is a routine practice at many clinical imaging centers, that can involve special considerations. In this paper, we provide practical information to facilitate optimal performance and oversight of this task. We provide targeted screening questions that can help to identify high-risk pediatric patients for both iodine-based and gadolinium-based intravenous contrast media administration. These include children at risk for allergic-like reactions, thyroid dysfunction, contrast-induced nephropathy, and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. We make recommendations for addressing "yes" responses to screening questions using risk stratification schema that are specific to children. We also present criteria for selecting children for premedication prior to intravenous contrast administration, and suggest pediatric regimens. Additionally, we discuss practical nuances of intravenous contrast media administration to children and provide a quick-reference table of appropriate treatments with pediatric dosages for adverse contrast reactions.

Adverse reactions to drugs and biologics in patients with clonal mast cell disorders: A Work Group Report of the Mast Cells Disorder Committee, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Providers caring for patients with mastocytosis are tasked with the decision to consider therapeutic options. This can come with some trepidation because information available in the public domain lists numerous mast cell (MC) activators based on data that do not discriminate between primates, rodents, and MC lines; do not consider dosage; and do not take into account previous exposure and resultant clinical findings. This being said, there is support in the literature for an enhanced MC response in some patients with mastocytosis and in cases in which there is a greater incidence of adverse reactions associated with certain antigens, such as venoms and drugs. Thus this report provides a comprehensive guide for those providers who must decide on therapeutic options in the management of patients with clonal MC disease.

The involvement of osmolarity in the safety of contrast media

Background

New non-ionic contrast agents, classified into low osmolar agents and iso-osmolar agents, present different biochemical characteristics that may influence the allergic reactions they cause. The aim of our study was to evaluate how osmolarity may affect safety in the use of contrast agents.

Case presentation

Six patients with a positive history for reaction to contrast agent were included in this study. Only one patient prick and intradermal skin test was positive. However, in 5 cases, patients presented an immediate reaction after administration of contrast agent that was not IgE mediated.

Conclusions

In this study, we focused on iodixanol, an iso-osmolar contrast agent, finding good safety of this product in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agent.