Anaphylactoid reaction to iopamiro (after pretreatment)

Current understanding of contrast media reactions and implications for clinical management

Iodinated contrast media (CM) are an integral part of modern diagnostic medicine. Although these agents are considered to be relatively safe, adverse effects in the form of allergy-like reactions occur in a significant number of exposed patients. These reactions may be divided into immediate and delayed responses. Immediate (within 1 hour of administration) anaphylactic reactions range from urticaria and angioedema to laryngeal oedema, hypotension and even death. Delayed reactions to CM occur from 1 hour to 1 week after administration and usually have mostly cutaneous manifestations. History of prior CM reactions and atopy predispose patients to CM reactions. Despite intense research into the pathogenesis of the immediate anaphylactoid responses, new evidence shows that true IgE type I hypersensitivity mediation occurs only in rare, severe cases. The aetiology appears to be multifactorial in most individuals. There is strong evidence to conclude that type IV hypersensitivity is responsible for the delayed reactions to CM. Although switching to non-ionic agents significantly reduces the incidence of immediate reactions to CM, there is little consensus regarding corticosteroid prophylaxis in high-risk individuals. Skin testing and provocative challenges also provide little security. Therefore, physicians must be better prepared to treat immediate anaphylactoid responses. Preventing delayed CM reactions is best performed with patch and delayed intradermal testing in those with a history of prior reactions, although false-negative results have been reported. Corticosteroids and antihistamines may be required for treatment. Until newer agents are developed that negate these issues, healthcare providers must strive to better understand the risk factors associated with CM reactions, as well as the available prophylactic and treatment options.

The prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media: a systematic review

Background

Anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated contrast media are relatively common and potentially life threatening. Opinion is divided as to the utility of medications for preventing these reactions. We performed a systematic review to assess regimes for the prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated contrast media.

Methods

Searches for studies were conducted in the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases. Bibliographies of included studies and review articles were examined and experts were contacted. Randomised clinical trials that examined agents given prior to iodinated contrast material for the prevention of anaphylactoid reactions were included in the review. The validity of the included studies was examined using a component approach.

Results

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, but only one of these fulfilled all of the validity criteria. There were four studies that examined the use of H1 antihistamines, each was used to prevent anaphylactoid reactions to ionic contrast. The random effects pooled relative risk demonstrated a significant reduction in the overall rate of anaphylactoid reactions (RR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.18-0.9, p = 0.027). There were insufficient studies to produce a pooled statistic for the use of corticosteroids, however regimes of steroids (methylprednisolone 32 mg) given at least six hours and again two hours prior to the administration of contrast suggested a reduction in the incidence of anaphylactoid reactions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are few high quality randomised clinical trials that have addressed the question of the optimal methods to prevent allergic type reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media. Allowing for these limitations, the results suggest that H1 antihistamines given immediately prior to the administration of ionic contrast may be useful in preventing reactions to ionic contrast and are suggestive of a protective effect of corticosteroids when given in two doses at least six hours prior and again two hours prior to the administration of contrast, both ionic and non-ionic. These agents should be considered for use in patients who are at high risk of an anaphylactoid reaction to contrast media and for who prophylactic therapy is considered necessary. Further research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made.

« Allergie à l’iode » : le point sur la question

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this literature review is to suggest a diagnostic and a preventive attitude in patients having presented an immediate hypersensitivity reaction due to an iodinated drug.

DATA SOURCES

Literature review. Data were searched in the Medline database from 1967 to 2004 in English and French language. Complementary references were selected from the bibliography of selected references or from authors' personal databases. The following key-words were used separately or combined: Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Allergy; Contrast Media; Povidone-Iodine; Iodine; Iodine Compounds; Iodides; Amiodarone; Seafood, Parvalbumins; Tropomyosin.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized studies, epidemiological studies, original articles, clinical cases, and letters to the editor were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The implication of iodine has never been demonstrated during allergic hypersensitivity reactions due to iodinated drugs. However, IgE-mediated allergic hypersensitivity reactions have been published with contrast media or iodinated antiseptics and will be described in this development. In a wider sense, allergic hypersensitivity reactions due to seafood are evoked because often improperly considered as a risk factor of allergic reaction to iodinated drugs. The allergenic determinant responsible of patient sensitization is not known for iodinated contrast media, but is probably due to povidone in case of iodine povidone. In fish, the allergen is described as the protein M. There has also been strong immunological evidence that tropomyosin is a cross-reactive allergen among crustaceans and molluscs (shellfishs). In case of hypersensitivity reaction occurring with iodinated drug, an allergological assessment is required to confirm the immune mechanism, to identify the culprit drug or substance and to identify cross-reactivity especially with iodinated contrast media.

CONCLUSION

Asking a patient if he/she is "allergic to iodine" is a question that should be avoided because its significance is null. A diagnosis of drug allergy, essentially relying on clinical symptoms, biological tests and cutaneous tests, is required to take adequate preventive measures.