The Effect of Iodinated Contrast Media Sensitivity on the Prognosis of Patients with STEMI

Background and Objectives: Iodinated Contrast Media (ICM) is used daily in many imaging departments worldwide. The main risk associated with ICM is hypersensitivity. When a severe hypersensitivity reaction is not properly managed and treated swiftly, it may be fatal. Currently, there is no data to demonstrate how ICM sensitivity affects the prognosis of cardiac patients, especially those diagnosed with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), in whom urgent coronary angiography is indicated. This study aimed to identify and characterize this relationship. Materials and Methods: We included patients hospitalized with STEMI between 2016 and 2019 from the National Inpatient Sample. The population was compared based on ICM sensitivity status, sensitive vs. non-sensitive. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, with additional endpoints: length of stay and in-hospital complications. Results: The study included 664,620 STEMI patients, of whom 4905 (0.7%) were diagnosed with ICM sensitivity. ICM-sensitive patients were older, more often white, females, and had more comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors. Both groups show similarities in management but are slightly less probable to undergo PCI or CABG. Multivariable logistic regression models found that the ICM-sensitive population had similar odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.89-1.16) and MACCE (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.95-1.16), and less major bleeding (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60-0.87). Conclusions: Our study found that ICM sensitivity status was not a significant factor for worse prognosis in patients hospitalized with STEMI.

Adverse reactions after intravascular iodinated contrast media administration and their management

Endovascular interventions and diagnostic examinations using iodinated contrast media (ICM) are standard of care in current vascular medicine. Although ICM use is generally considered safe, it may be associated with adverse reactions, vary from minor disturbances to rare, but severe life-threatening complications. This position paper of European Society of Vascular Medicine integrates current knowledge and summarizes the key information related to the use of intravascular ICM, serving as recommendation on prevention and management of acute, late, and very late adverse reactions. It should help the health professionals in all fields of vascular medicine to make decisions in daily practice for safe use of contrast media.

N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl) carbamoyl side chain: a potentially significant factor for recurrent iodinated contrast medium-related adverse drug reactions

PURPOSE

To determine whether switching to contrast media based on the sharing of N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl) carbamoyl side chain reduces the recurrence of iodinated contrast media (ICM)-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 2133 consecutive patients (mean age ± SD, 56.1 ± 11.4 years; male, 1052 [49.3%]) who had a history of ICM-associated ADRs and underwent contrast-enhanced CT examinations. The per-patient and per-exam-based recurrence ADR rates were compared between cases of switching and non-switching the ICM from ICMs that caused the previous ADRs, and between cases that used ICMs with common and different carbamoyl side chains from ICMs that caused the previous ADRs. Downgrade rates (no recurrence or the occurrence of ADR less severe than index ADRs) were also compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were additionally performed.

RESULTS

In per-patient analysis, switching of ICM showed a lower recurrence rate (switching, 10.4% [100/965] vs. non-switching, 28.4% [332/1168]), with the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.34; p < 0.001). The result was consistent in PSM (OR, 0.29 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.39]; p < 0.001), IPTW (OR, 0.28 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.36]; p < 0.001), and in per-exam analysis (5.5% vs. 13.8%; OR, 0.32 [95% CI: 0.27, 0.37]; p < 0.001). There was lower per-exam recurrence (5.0% [195/3938] vs. 7.8% [79/1017]; OR, 0.63 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.83]; p = 0.001) and higher downgrade rates (95.6% [3764/3938] vs. 93.3% [949/1017]; OR, 1.51 [95% CI: 1.12, 2.03]; p = 0.006) when using different side chain groups.

CONCLUSION

Switching to an ICM with a different carbamoyl side chain reduced the recurrent ADRs and their severity during subsequent examinations.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Switching to an iodinated contrast media with a different carbamoyl side chain reduced the recurrent adverse drug reactions and their severity during subsequent examinations.

Iopromide safety assessment in a radiology department: A seven-year retrospective characterization of adverse events

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-20th century, contrast agents have been widely used in radiology due to their ability to provide high-definition radiographic images and greater precision in diagnostic exams. Different types of contrast agents are used in image diagnosis, namely radiological media. Despite being considered safe, there are still uncertainties about their safety profile, interactions, and incidence of adverse drug reactions in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVE

To characterise the pattern of adverse events, during 7 years, in a radiology unit.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational and descriptive study at an Image Center in Portugal between August 2012 and October 2019. A total of 77,449 computed tomography (CT) were registered, and from those 15,640 cases of iopromide were used as a contrast agent. The authors have accessed, under the authorization, the data of adverse events and procedures after the event.

RESULTS

Most of the hypersensitivity events were immediate or with a short time of onset, with the majority of cases developing events with skin involvement and mild degree, where the most common events were papules (n = 60), pruritus (n = 42), erythema (n = 27) and urticaria (n = 14). Severe events, including hypersensitivity, were mainly represented by vomiting (n = 11), stridor (n = 8), breathing difficulties (n = 7) and syncope (n = 3). Abdominal-pelvic CT exam presented a higher frequency of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Despite all the current information about iopromide usage, the utilization of this agent is not abstent of risks and its safety profile not fully established. Most frequent symptoms were local, as skin adverse events, including papules, pruritus and erythema. Common medications used to treat or control adverse events were frequently hydrocortisone, clemastine and methylprednisolone.

Management of Severe Allergic-Like Contrast Media Reactions: Pitfalls and Strategies, From the AJR Special Series on Contrast Media

Adverse reactions to contrast media are often high-acuity events that are uncommon potentially life-threatening. Nonetheless, these events are treatable, and radiologists may be called upon to manage a contrast media reaction. However, because these events are infrequent, they are prone to management errors. This article highlights common pitfalls and practical tips for the management of acute contrast media reactions in children and adults. Recognition of frequent management errors and implementation of the mitigation strategies presented can ameliorate risk and improve patient outcomes. These measures include proper training on reaction management and medication administration, the prompt use of IM epinephrine autoinjectors whenever a severe allergic-like reaction is suspected, the use of visual aids for quick reference in the setting of a reaction, and the recognition of adverse events that are not allergic-like reactions, which commonly require only supportive care.

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.

Research progress on desensitization of hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast media

Desensitization therapy for iodinated contrast media (ICM) aims to induce drug tolerance in patients with a history of severe allergic reactions to ICM in a short time. Currently, there is no widely accepted consensus on inducing desensitization to avoid severe allergic responses to ICM. The clinically successful cases have shown that prophylactic use of antihistamines and glucocorticoids can increase the desensitization effect; repeatedly desensitizing and gradually increasing the dose can be conducive to establishing better tolerance to ICM. Most desensitization effects, including stress resistance, can endure 24-48 h. The mechanisms of desensitization therapy remain unclear, the initial dose, administration interval and dose gradient are largely based on clinical experiences and the reaction of patients. This article reviews the current research progress on ICM-related allergies, desensitization methods and related mechanisms, as well as the benefits and hazards of desensitization, to provide a reference for desensitization treatment of hypersensitivity to ICM .

A Survey of Practicing Radiologists on the Use of Premedication Before Intravenous Iodinated Contrast Medium Administration

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether updated guidance by the ACR in 2017 advocating use of intravenous (IV) premedication in emergency department (ED) patients and inpatients with reported iodinated contrast allergy was associated with a change in clinical practice.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed via e-mail in October 2020 to practicing radiologist members of the ACR interrogating use of corticosteroid premedication for two clinical vignettes: an indicated routine (perform within 24 hours) inpatient contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and an indicated urgent (perform within 6 hours) ED CE-CT. In both scenarios, the patient had a prior moderate hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast media. Clinical management was evaluated. Data were compared to historical controls from 2009.

RESULTS

The response rate was 11% (724 of 6,616). For the inpatient scenario, 72% (518 of 724) would use corticosteroid premedication with CE-CT, and 28% (200 of 724) would perform noncontrast CT. For the ED scenario, 67% (487 of 724) would use corticosteroid premedication with CE-CT, and 30% (217 of 724) would perform noncontrast CT. Oral premedication (85%, 439 of 518) was preferred for routine inpatients, and rapid IV premedication (89%, 433 of 487) was preferred for urgent ED patients. Of those who provided rapid IV dosing data in the ED, two doses of corticosteroids were used by 53% (216 of 410) and one dose was used by 45% (185 of 410), with academic radiologists more likely than private or hybrid practice radiologists to administer two doses (74% [74 of 100] versus 48% [151 of 312], P < .001, odds ratio, 3.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-5.00). Rapid IV premedication was more commonly used in 2020 than in 2009 (60% [433 of 724] versus 29% [20 of 69], P < .001, odds ratio, 3.65; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-6.26). Antihistamine use was common in both inpatient (93%, 480 of 518) and ED settings (92%, 447 of 487). Only 32% (229 of 721) of radiologists practiced in accordance with ACR guidelines, suggesting no need for routine premedication before CE-CT in patients with prior severe hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based contrast media. Nonetheless, most (93%, 670 of 724) said the ACR Manual on Contrast Media was a major determinant of their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of rapid IV premedication in urgent settings has increased since 2009, following updated ACR guidelines, but there is disagreement over whether one or two corticosteroid doses is required. Despite reported high reliance on ACR guidelines, deviations from those guidelines remain common. In general, when ACR guidelines were not followed, it was in a risk-averse direction.

Low dose of contrast agent and low radiation liver computed tomography with deep-learning-based contrast boosting model in participants at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective, randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the image quality and lesion conspicuity of a deep-learning-based contrast-boosting (DL-CB) algorithm on double-low-dose (DLD) CT of simultaneous reduction of radiation and contrast doses in participants at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Participants were recruited and underwent four-phase dynamic CT (NCT04722120). They were randomly assigned to either standard-dose (SD) or DLD protocol. All CT images were initially reconstructed using iterative reconstruction, and the images of the DLD protocol were further processed using the DL-CB algorithm (DLD-DL). The primary endpoint was the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the secondary endpoint was qualitative image quality (noise, hepatic lesion, and vessel conspicuity), and the tertiary endpoint was lesion detection rate. The t-test or repeated measures analysis of variance was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight participants with 57 focal liver lesions were enrolled (20 with HCC and 37 with benign findings). The DLD protocol had a 19.8% lower radiation dose (DLP, 855.1 ± 254.8 mGy·cm vs. 713.3 ± 94.6 mGy·cm, p = .003) and 27% lower contrast dose (106.9 ± 15.0 mL vs. 77.9 ± 9.4 mL, p < .001) than the SD protocol. The comparative analysis demonstrated that CNR (p < .001) and portal vein conspicuity (p = .002) were significantly higher in the DLD-DL than in the SD protocol. There was no significant difference in lesion detection rate for all lesions (82.7% vs. 73.3%, p = .140) and HCCs (75.7% vs. 70.4%, p = .644) between the SD protocol and DLD-DL.

CONCLUSIONS

DL-CB on double-low-dose CT provided improved CNR of the aorta and portal vein without significant impairment of the detection rate of HCC compared to the standard-dose acquisition, even in participants at high risk for HCC.

KEY POINTS

• Deep-learning-based contrast-boosting algorithm on double-low-dose CT provided an improved contrast-to-noise ratio compared to standard-dose CT. • The detection rate of focal liver lesions was not significantly differed between standard-dose CT and a deep-learning-based contrast-boosting algorithm on double-low-dose CT. • Double-low-dose CT without a deep-learning algorithm presented lower CNR and worse image quality.

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.

Safety findings after intravenous administration of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles to 463,434 examinations at 24 centers

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the safety of the ultrasound contrast agent sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles in a large group of patients referred for routine contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).

METHODS

A retrospective assessment was made of all patients that received sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles intravenously for CEUS at 24 centers between January 2006 and April 2019. Patient demographic details, examination type, and the dose of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles administered were recorded with specific adverse events (AEs) documentation tools at each center. All AEs were recorded as serious or non-serious. Non-serious AEs were classified by intensity as mild, moderate, or severe according to ACR criteria. The frequencies of AEs across patient subgroups were compared using the chi-square test.

RESULTS

A total of 463,434 examinations were evaluated. Overall, 157 AEs (153 [0.033%] non-serious; 4 [0.001%] serious) were reported after sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles administration, giving an AE frequency of 0.034% (157/463,434). Among the non-serious AEs, 66 (0.014%) were mild, 70 (0.015%) moderate, and 17 (0.004%) severe in intensity. The liver was the most common examination site, presenting an AE frequency of 0.026%. The highest AE frequency (0.092%) was for patients undergoing CEUS for vascular disease. There were no significant gender differences in either the total number or the severity of non-serious AEs (chi-square = 2.497, p = 0.287). The onset of AEs occurred within 30 min of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles administration in 91% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of AEs to sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles is very low and severe reactions are rare, confirming that sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles are appropriate for routine CEUS applications.

KEY POINT

• The frequency of AEs to sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles is very low and severe reactions are rare.

Stratified assessment and warning regimen for prevention of acute adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media: results of 150,343 cases in a tertiary hospital

For contrast-enhanced CT examinations, there is a lack of comprehensive optimal management strategies of risk factors to reduce the risk of iodinated contrast media (ICM)-induced acute adverse reactions (AAR). Here, we determine the relationship between the rate of ICM-AAR and a stratified assessment and warning (SAW) regimen, which integrated risk identification, stratification, early warning, and prevention. A total of 120,822 cases in the conventional assessment period (58 years ± 15, 55.25% men) and 150,343 cases (58 years ± 14, 55.83% men) in the SAW period were enrolled. The results showed that the total AAR incidence in the SAW period (414/150,343, 0.28%) was lower than that in the conventional assessment period (506/120,822, 0.42%, P < 0.001), in which the proportion of AAR patients decreased by one-third. It mainly presented as decreases in mild and moderate reactions (P < 0.001), and a decrease in the proportion of moderate AAR patients (P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed lower mild and moderate AAR incidence in patients with different risk levels and with different ICM injection parameters following SAW regimen. We concluded that SAW regimen was associated with lower incidence of mild and moderate AAR, and decreased proportion of moderate AAR patients, which held potential for improved ICM safety.

Validation of Practical Pathway in Patients With Anaphylaxis to Low Osmolar Contrast Media: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

An optimal strategy for choosing safe alternative low osmolar contrast media (LOCM) has not yet been established in patients with a history of LOCM-induced anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To validate the practical pathway in patients with anaphylaxis to LOCMs and to compare 2 different doses of challenge testing with skin test-negative LOCM.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in patients with LOCM-induced anaphylaxis. Patients were challenged with intravenous LOCMs showing negativity in the skin test according to 2 different protocols: low-dose and high-dose (maximum dose 10 and 30 mL, respectively). Challenge-negative LOCMs were selected for use during computed tomography scans, and patients received intravenous pretreatment with 4 mg chlorpheniramine and 40 mg methylprednisolone.

RESULTS

Of the 110 challenge tests, there were 4 (3.6%) positive challenges. Among 106 enhanced computed tomography scans performed using challenge-negative LOCMs, breakthrough reactions occurred in 8 (7.6%). Breakthrough reaction rates were not statistically different between the 2 protocols (8.9% and 6.0% in the low-dose challenge and the high-dose challenge, respectively). Compared with the low-dose protocol, the number needed to test of the high-dose challenge test decreased 2.5-fold. Moreover, none of the patients in the high-dose challenge group incurred severe reactions during computed tomography scans with challenge-negative LOCM, whereas 80% of reactions were severe in the low-dose challenge group.

CONCLUSIONS

We validated a pathway consisting of a battery of skin testing to LOCMs and challenge with skin test-negative LOCM in patients with LOCM-induced anaphylaxis.

Differences in the Recurrence Rate of Immediate Adverse Drug Reactions According to the Components of Alternative Contrast Media: Analysis of Repetitive Computed Tomography Cases in a Single Tertiary Hospital

INTRODUCTION

The recurrence rates of immediate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the alternative radiocontrast media (RCM) are not well known. Previous studies suggest selection of alternative RCM considering carbamoyl side chains; however, its usefulness for preventing the recurrence of ADRs has not been clearly verified.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to verify the recurrence rate of immediate ADRs according to the alternative RCM.

METHOD

This retrospective study analyzed 6420 contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) cases of 2009 patients registered in the ADR system from 861,664 CT cases in a single tertiary hospital between 2015 and 2020. Iohexol, iopromide, iobitridol, and iopamidol were used for CT. According to the carbamoyl side chains present, iohexol belongs to group 1, iopromide belongs to groups 1 and 2, iobitridol belongs to group 2, and iopamidol belongs to group 3.

RESULTS

Replacing iobitridol with iopamidol (odds ratio [OR] 2.595, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48-4.550) or iopromide (OR 3.354, 95% CI 1.420-7.926) as the subsequent RCM was associated with increased recurrence, while replacing iopamidol with iobitridol (OR 0.506, 95% CI 0.282-0.908) and iopromide with iohexol (OR 0.355, 95% CI 0.177-0.711) was associated with decreased recurrence. Other changes did not influence the recurrence of ADRs.

CONCLUSIONS

The recurrence of immediate ADRs increased in certain RCM combinations of preceding and subsequent CT scans, and the RCMs did not show cross-reactivity. Therefore, the clinical benefit of the alternative RCM considering cross-reactivity is limited. This result suggests that the side chains of RCM do not have an important role in the recurrence of immediate ADRs.

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.

Risk of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iopromide in Children and Elderly: An Analysis of 132,850 Patients From 4 Observational Studies and Pharmacovigilance Covering >288 Million Administrations

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze the risk of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to iopromide in children and elderly patients in comparison to adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four observational studies were pooled and analyzed (analysis I). In addition, spontaneous reports from 1985 to 2020 from the pharmacovigilance database were evaluated (analysis II). All patients received iopromide for angiographic procedures or contrast-enhanced computed tomography in various indications. In analysis I, a nested case-control analysis, including a multivariable logistic regression model, based on pooled observational study data, was performed. Cases were defined as patients with a typical and unequivocal HSR; controls were patients without any recorded reaction. In analysis II, all spontaneous reports on HSRs after iopromide administration recorded in the pharmacovigilance database were descriptively analyzed. Exposure estimates on the size of the exposed age groups were derived from sales data and data from market research. The primary target variable was the risk of HSR to iopromide in children (<18 years) and elderly patients (≥65 years) compared with adults (≥18 to <65 years).

RESULTS

In analysis I, a total of 132,850 patients were included (2978 children, 43,209 elderly, and 86,663 adults). Hypersensitivity reactions were significantly less frequent in children (0.47%) and elderly (0.38%) compared with adults (0.74%). The adjusted odds ratio (vs adults) for children was 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.98; P < 0.043), and that for the elderly was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.61; P < 0.001), indicating a lower risk for both subpopulations as compared with adults. In analysis II, of the overall >288 million iopromide administrations, 5.87, 114.18, and 167.97 million administrations were administered to children, elderly, and adults, respectively. The reporting rate for HSRs in children (0.0114%) and elderly (0.0071%) was significantly lower as compared with adults (0.0143%) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypersensitivity reactions to iopromide were significantly less frequent in children and elderly compared with adults.

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.

Implementation of a Semistructured Clinical Event Documentation Tool for Acute Adverse Contrast Reactions

PURPOSE

To improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinicians documenting acute clinical events related to contrast agent administration using a web browser-based semistructured documentation support tool.

METHODS

A new tool called CISaR (Contrast Incident Support and Reporting) was developed to enable radiologists responding to contrast reactions to document inciting contrast class, type of event, severity of contrast reaction, and recommendation for future contrast use. Retrospective analysis was conducted of all CT and MRI examinations performed between February 2018 and December 2019 across our hospital system with associated contrast reaction documentation. Time periods were defined as before tool deployment, early adoption, and steady-state deployment. The primary outcome measure was the presence of event documentation by a radiologist. The secondary outcome measure was completeness of the documentation parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 431 CT and MRI studies with reactions were included in the study, and 50% of studies had radiologist documentation during the pre-CISaR period. This increased to 66% during the early adoption period and 89% in the post-CISaR period. It took approximately 9 months from the introduction of CISaR to reach full adoption and become the main method for adverse contrast reaction documentation. The percentage of radiologist documentation that detailed provoking contrast agent class, severity of reaction, reaction type, and future contrast agent recommendation all significantly increased (P < .0001), with greater than 95% inclusion of each element.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a semistructured electronic application for adverse contrast reaction reporting significantly increased radiologist documentation rate and completeness of the documentation.

Change the preprocedural fasting policy for contrast-enhanced CT: results of 127,200 cases

Objectives

To analyze the relationship between the dietary preparation status prior to contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) and adverse drug reactions (ADR) and emetic complications.

Methods

Non-emergency adult patients who underwent routine CECT in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Stratified dietary preparation regimens were implemented for different clinical scenarios. The relationship between actual dietary preparation status and ADR and emetic complications was analyzed.

Results

A total of 127,200 cases were enrolled, including 49,676 cases in the fasting group (57 years ± 13, 56.79% men) and 77,524 cases in the non-fasting group (60 years ± 13, 54.55% men). No statistical difference was found in the overall incidence of ADR (0.211% vs. 0.254%, p = 0.126) or emetic complications (0.030% vs. 0.046%, p = 0.158) between the two groups, and no aspiration pneumonia or death occurred. For patients with an ICM-ADR history, the ADR incidence in non-fasting group was significantly lower than fasting group (2.424% vs. 12.371%, p = 0.002). For patients with hypertension, injection dose ≥ 100 mL, injection rate ≥ 5 mL/s, and Iopromide 370 usage, non-fasting was associated with higher ADR incidence (p < 0.05). 36.67% of the patients experienced unnecessary excessive fasting in practice. Excessive fasting (≥ 10 h) and more water ingestion (≥ 500 mL) within 1 h prior to CECT were associated with higher ADR incidence (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Unrestricted food ingestion would not increase the overall risk of ADR and emetic complications. For some special patient subgroups, non-fasting, excessive fasting, and more water ingestion were associated with higher ADR incidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01173-z.

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.

Patients have very limited knowledge of their contrast allergies

PURPOSE

To quantify patients' knowledge of their iodinated contrast allergies; and to compare this data to literature estimates of patient knowledge of other medication allergies.

METHODS

Using a key word search of 15,715 patients undergoing a total of 19,043 CT studies over a six-month period, a cohort of 307 adult patients claiming prior allergic reaction to iodinated intravenous contrast was identified. A patient questionnaire with the CT studies inquired about the specifics of their contrast allergy, including the symptoms of their prior allergic reaction; when and where the reaction occurred; and if patients could name the contrast agent to which they claim to be allergic.

RESULTS

In the cohort of 307 patients claiming a prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast, 86.6% could describe their prior allergic reaction symptoms. Only 36.8% could provide an approximate year of the reaction, with an additional 6.5% claiming that their reactions were remote, for a total of 43.3% providing some information when their reaction occurred. 56.7% provided no information on the year of their reaction. 40.7% named either the facility or the city where the reaction occurred, while 59.3% could not. Only 5 of 307 (1.6%, p < 0.00001) could name the contrast agent to which they believed they were allergic.

CONCLUSION

Other studies have reported inconsistencies, limited documentation, and limited ability to confirm patients' pharmacologic allergies, estimating that patients prior to pharmacist consultation are approximately 60-70% accurate in listing their drug allergies by name. Nevertheless, patients' knowledge of their iodinated contrast allergies is markedly more limited when compared to expected patient knowledge of medication allergies in general.

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.

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.

The Use of Contrast Agents in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multispecialty and Multisociety Practice Advisory on Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain, Encephalopathy After Unintentional Intrathecal Gadolinium Injection, and Hypersensitivity Reactions

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

Fidelity of Electronic Documentation for Reactions Prompting Premedication to Iodinated Contrast Media

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to assess the fidelity of electronic health record documentation prompting premedication to iodinated contrast media and to determine the appropriateness of administered premedication on the basis of that documentation.

METHODS

In this retrospective quality assurance cohort study, medication adverse events recorded in electronic health records between January 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019, to "iodine," "iodine-containing products," and "iodinated contrast media" were identified (N = 4,309); entries missing documentation (n = 1,651) and breakthrough reactions (n = 22) were excluded. Reaction description, severity, and free-text comments were used to categorize each entry as concordant (documentation matches recorded severity per the ACR Manual on Contrast Media version 10.3), discordant (description-severity mismatch, agent unrelated to iodinated contrast media, not a hypersensitivity reaction), or unclear. A subset of patients undergoing premedication was identified, and premedication was categorized as appropriate, inappropriate, or unsure on the basis of the index reaction using the aforementioned framework. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

There were 2,636 adverse event entries in 2,441 patients: 59.9% (1,578 of 2,636) were classified as concordant, 30.2% (797 of 2,636) as discordant (n = 377 not a hypersensitivity reaction, n = 317 description-severity mismatch, and n = 103 unrelated agent), and 9.9% (n = 261) as unclear documentation. For the premedicated subset, concordance classification was feasible for 202 unique patients premedicated 335 times. Premedication was appropriate in 72% (240 of 335) and inappropriate in 22% (73 of 335); 17% of premedication events (56 of 335) were inappropriately administered for a prior physiologic reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication prompts in the electronic health record are often erroneous because of inaccurate coding, incomplete data, and reaction misclassification. These errors result in inappropriate premedication for a substantial minority of patients.

Risk of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iopromide After Intra-Arterial Versus Intravenous Administration: A Nested Case-Control Analysis of 133,331 Patients

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of hypersensitivity reactions to iopromide after intra-arterial (IA) administration and intravenous (IV) administration.

Materials and Methods

Four observational studies were pooled. Almost half of the study population (48.1%) was from Europe, and one quarter each from China (27.6%) and other Asia countries (24.1%). All patients received iopromide either intra-arterially or intravenously for angiographic procedures (mostly cardio-angiography) or contrast-enhanced computed tomography. A nested case-control analysis, including a multivariable logistic regression model, was performed. Cases were defined by patients with a typical and unequivocal hypersensitivity (assumed non–IgE-mediated) reaction; controls were patients without any recorded reaction. The primary target variable is the odds ratio of having a hypersensitivity reaction after IA versus IV administration.

Results

A total of 133,331 patients met the inclusion criteria, 105,460 and 27,871 patients received iopromide IV or IA, respectively. Hypersensitivity reactions were recorded for 822 patients, and 132,509 patients served as controls.

Major risk factors for hypersensitivity reactions were method of injection (IV vs IA), age (18 to <50 years vs ≥65 years), history of allergy or previous contrast media reaction (all P < 0.001), and asthma (P = 0.005).

A total of 766 patients (0.7%) and 56 patients (0.2%) were recorded with hypersensitivity reactions after IV or IA administration, respectively (P < 0.0001).

Adjusted odds ratio (IA vs IV) was 0.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.16–0.32) for all countries together: for China only, 0.22 (0.11–0.44); for all countries without China, 0.36 (0.25–0.53).

Most frequent reactions were erythema/urticaria/rash, pruritus, and cough/sneezing.

Conclusions

Hypersensitivity reactions to iopromide were significantly less frequently recorded after IA administrations. This could be related to the delayed and diluted arrival of iopromide to the lungs.

A Comparison of Biannual Two-Phase Low-Dose Liver CT and US for HCC Surveillance in a Group at High Risk of HCC Development

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biannual ultrasonography (US) is a current recommendation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in a high-risk group. The sensitivity of US, however, has been low in patients with a high risk of developing HCC. We aimed to compare sensitivity for HCC of biannual US and two-phase low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in patients with a high risk of HCC.

METHODS

In this prospective single-arm study, participants with an annual risk of HCC greater than 5% (based on a risk index of ≥2.33) and who did not have a history of HCC were enrolled from November 2014 to July 2016. Participants underwent paired biannual US and two-phase LDCT 1-3 times. Two-phase LDCT included arterial and 3-min delayed phases. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of HCC detection using US and two-phase LDCT were compared using a composite algorithm as a standard of reference.

RESULTS

Of the 139 enrolled participants, 137 underwent both the biannual US and two-phase LDCT at least once and had follow-up images. Among them, 27 cases of HCC (mean size: 14 ± 4 mm) developed in 24 participants over 1.5 years. Two-phase LDCT showed a significantly higher sensitivity (83.3% [20/24] vs. 29.2% [7/24], p < 0.001) and specificity (95.6% [108/113] vs. 87.7% [99/113], p =0.03) than US. A false-positive result was reported in 14 participants at US and 5 participants at two-phase LDCT, resulting in a significantly higher positive predictive value of two-phase LDCT (33.3% [7/21] vs. 80% [20/25], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a risk index ≥2.33 showed a high annual incidence of HCC development in our study, and two-phase LDCT showed significantly higher sensitivity and specificity for HCC detection than US.

Multi-energy computed tomography and material quantification: Current barriers and opportunities for advancement

Computed tomography (CT) technology has rapidly evolved since its introduction in the 1970s. It is a highly important diagnostic tool for clinicians as demonstrated by the significant increase in utilization over several decades. However, much of the effort to develop and advance CT applications has been focused on improving visual sensitivity and reducing radiation dose. In comparison to these areas, improvements in quantitative CT have lagged behind. While this could be a consequence of the technological limitations of conventional CT, advanced dual-energy CT (DECT) and photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) offer new opportunities for quantitation. Routine use of DECT is becoming more widely available and PCD-CT is rapidly developing. This review covers efforts to address an unmet need for improved quantitative imaging to better characterize disease, identify biomarkers, and evaluate therapeutic response, with an emphasis on multi-energy CT applications. The review will primarily discuss applications that have utilized quantitative metrics using both conventional and DECT, such as bone mineral density measurement, evaluation of renal lesions, and diagnosis of fatty liver disease. Other topics that will be discussed include efforts to improve quantitative CT volumetry and radiomics. Finally, we will address the use of quantitative CT to enhance image-guided techniques for surgery, radiotherapy and interventions and provide unique opportunities for development of new contrast agents.

Preventive Effect of Changing Contrast Media in Patients With A Prior Mild Immediate Hypersensitivity Reaction to Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent

OBJECTIVES

Currently, the prevention of recurrent immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to contrast media (CM) requests premedication and changing the culprit contrast agent. However, strategies for the prevention of immediate HSRs to gadolinium-based magnetic resonance contrast agents (GBCAs) have not yet been established. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of changing the contrast agent and single-dose premedication for HSR recurrence prevention in patients with a history of mild immediate HSR to GBCA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The outcomes of patients with mild immediate HSR to GBCA who subsequently underwent enhanced magnetic resonance imaging between October 2012 and July 2017 were analyzed. The institutional CM monitoring system was retrospectively reviewed, and data on the application of premedication and choice of CM were obtained. Gadolinium-based magnetic resonance contrast agents were classified into 3 classes according to their molecular structure (macrocyclic ionic, macrocyclic nonionic, and linear ionic). Intravenous chlorpheniramine 4 mg, 30 minutes before the GBCA administration, or intravenous methylprednisolone sodium succinate 40 mg plus chlorpheniramine 4 mg, 1 hour before the GBCA administration, was administrated as premedication regimen. Recurrence rates of immediate HSR were compared according to prevention strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients with a history of mild immediate HSR to GBCA were re-exposed to GBCA 397 times during the study period. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6% (78/397). Changing the culprit GBCA significantly reduced the recurrence rate, compared with reusing the culprit GBCA (6.9%, 9/130 and 25.8%, 69/267; P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was lowest when the GBCA was changed to a different molecular structure class from the culprit agent, followed by changing to CM with the same molecular structure and reusing the culprit GBCA (6.2%, 7/113 vs 11.8%, 2/17 vs 25.8%, 69/267; P < 0.001 with χ test for trend). Single-dose premedication demonstrated no significant prophylactic effect on recurrence (20.4%, 17/98 vs 17.3%, 61/299 with and without premedication, respectively; P = 0.509). Premedication in addition to changing CM also showed no additional prophylactic effect (7.2%, 7/97 and 6.1%, 2/33, respectively; P = 0.821).

CONCLUSIONS

Changing the CM from the culprit agent could reduce the chance of HSR recurrence in patients with prior mild immediate HSR to GBCA, especially when the CM was changed to one of a different molecular structure class. However, single-dose premedication administration did not show significant HSR recurrence rate difference.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.

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.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions in Asia: regional issues and challenges

There are geographical, regional, and ethnic differences in the phenotypes and endotypes of patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) in different parts of the world. In Asia, aspects of drug hypersensitivity of regional importance include IgE-mediated allergies and T-cell-mediated reactions, including severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), to beta-lactam antibiotics, antituberculous drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and radiocontrast agents. Delabeling of low-risk penicillin allergy using direct oral provocation tests without skin tests have been found to be useful where the drug plausibility of the index reaction is low. Genetic risk associations of relevance to Asia include human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*1502 with carbamazepine SCAR, and HLA-B*5801 with allopurinol SCAR in some Asian ethnic groups. There remains a lack of safe and accurate diagnostic tests for antituberculous drug allergy, other than relatively high-risk desensitization regimes to first-line antituberculous therapy. NSAID hypersensitivity is common among both adults and children in Asia, with regional differences in phenotype especially among adults. Low dose aspirin desensitization is an important therapeutic modality in individuals with cross-reactive NSAID hypersensitivity and coronary artery disease following percutaneous coronary intervention. Skin testing allows patients with radiocontrast media hypersensitivity to confirm the suspected agent and test for alternatives, especially when contrasted scans are needed for future monitoring of disease relapse or progression, especially cancers.

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.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media: A Multicenter Study of 196 081 Patients

Background Multicenter studies may be required for establishing guidelines for safe usage of iodinated contrast media (ICM). Purpose To identify the prevalence, patterns, risk factors, and preventive measures for ICM-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Materials and Methods Between March 2017 and October 2017, a total of 196 081 patients who underwent ICM administration were enrolled from seven participating institutions. The occurrence of HSRs and baseline patient information were recorded. χ² and Student t test were performed, and logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors that predict occurrence and recurrence of HSR. Results Among 196 081 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 59.1 years ± 16.0; 105 014 men and 91 067 women) who underwent ICM administration, the overall prevalence of HSRs was 0.73% (1433 of 196 081), and severe reactions occurred in 0.01% (17 of 196 081). Conditional logistic regression for patients with HSR (n = 1433) and a control group (1:1 matched group for age, sex, ICM product, and institution) demonstrated that a patient's previous individual history of an ICM-related HSR (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 198.8; P < .001), hyperthyroidism (adjusted OR, 3.6; P = .04), drug allergy (adjusted OR, 3.5; P < .001), and other allergic diseases (adjusted OR, 6.8; P < .001) and a family history of ICM-related HSRs (adjusted OR, 14.0; P = .01) were predictors of HSR occurrence. Logistic regression analysis showed that use of premedication with antihistamine (OR, 0.5; P = .01) and change in the generic profile of ICM (OR, 0.5; P < .001) were preventive against recurrent HSR. Conclusion Family history as well as previous individual history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) were risk factors for HSR occurrence, suggesting a potential genetic predisposition. A change in the culprit ICM and premedication with antihistamine are useful for reducing the recurrence of HSRs. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.