Effective prophylactic protocol in delayed hypersensitivity to contrast media: report of a case involving lymphocyte transformation studies with different compounds

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Successful rapid oral desensitization for dual hypersensitivity to isoniazid and rifampin while treating central nervous system tuberculosis

Tuberculosis of the central nervous system (CNS-TB) is a critical disease with poor prognosis if not diagnosed and treated early. A regimen of drugs with good CNS penetration is required for treatment. Treatment options are limited in case of hypersensitivity reaction of the recommended regimen. We are reporting a rare instance where a patient developed hypersensitivity to both first line agents (isoniazid and rifampin) for CNS-TB and was successfully desensitized against both these medications to complete the treatment course using the rapid desensitization process. There have been reported cases of desensitization to anti tuberculous medications in cases with pulmonary tuberculosis and hypersensitivity reaction. In this review article we discuss the prior used methods of slow and rapid desensitization in case on non-CNS tuberculosis infections. This is the first reported case to use similar method of rapid desensitization in treatment of central nervous system infection.

Nausea and vomiting after exposure to non-ionic contrast media: incidence and risk factors focusing on preparatory fasting

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the incidence of nausea and vomiting after exposure to non-ionic iodinated contrast media (ICM), and to identify potential risk factors, with a focus on fasting duration for solid food and fluids, separately.

METHODS

From January to March 2017, 1175 patients (605 males, 570 females; median age, 60 years; range, 20-91 years) undergoing ICM-enhanced CT were included in this study. Patients received instructions for a 6 h preparatory fast from solid food. Nausea and vomiting after ICM exposure were assessed on a 3-point scale (mild, moderate, severe). Patients' characteristics and the fasting duration were evaluated to identify risk factors using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 1175 patients, 34 [2.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.0-4.0)] experienced mild nausea. No patients experienced vomiting [95% CI (0.0000-0.0005)]. 1173 (99.8%) carried out a 6 h fast, and the median fasting durations were 14 h for solid food (interquartile range, 12.5-15.5 h) and 11 h for fluid (interquartile range, 0-13.5 h), respectively. Fasting durations for solid food and fluids were not associated with nausea on univariate regression analyses (p = 0.282-1.000 and  0.146-1.000, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that a history of drug hypersensitivity [odds ratio = 4.33; 95% CI (1.85-17.52); p = 0.039] was independent risk factors for nausea, whereas iobitridol was less nauseous [odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI (0.11-0.90); p = 0.032].

CONCLUSION

Mild nausea occurred in 2.9% of patients and none vomited in our study population with a 6 h preparatory fast from solid food. Many patients underwent excessive fasting for fluids as well as solid food and their fasting durations were not associated with nausea. Advances in knowledge: We firstly evaluated fasting durations for solid food and fluids, and their impacts on vomiting or nausea after ICM exposure with an instruction of 6 h preparatory fast for solid food: many patients underwent excessive fasting for fluids and the fasting duration was unrelated to nausea.

Delayed-type hypersensitivity to oral and parenteral drugs

Adverse drug reactions of the delayed type rank among the most common dermatoses and are predominantly characterized by exanthematous macular or maculopapular eruptions. However, approximately 2 % of affected individuals develop severe or even life-threatening systemic immune reactions associated with organ involvement, requiring immediate diagnosis and treatment. Numerous drugs are capable of eliciting delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, with antibiotics, anticonvulsant drugs, and the xanthine oxidase inhibitor allopurinol being the most common. Apart from genetic susceptibility, predisposing factors for the development of drug hypersensitivity reactions include high drug doses, polypharmacy, long treatment duration, female gender, as well as acute or chronic infections.

Prevention of Allergic Reactions in Anesthetized Patients

Hypersensitivity reactions during perioperative period are increasing and may be potentially life-threatening. Therefore, major emphasis is given to prevention. We perform a review to examine which measures should be taken to prevent reactions to products used in elective and emergency surgery. Any patient with a history of previous anaphylaxis or severe reaction during anaesthesia should be referred to allergist for detection of the offending compound. However, the identification of the triggering agent is not always feasible because of the low accuracy of diagnostic tests. In these cases and when emergency surgery is required, it should be considered to replace all drugs administered before the onset of the reaction with alternatives. Furthermore, any cross-reacting agent and latex, especially in patients belonging to populations at-risk for latex allergy should be avoided. In susceptible patients, premedication with antihistamines and corticosteroids might reduce the severity of reaction to drugs or contrast material while it is unclear whether pre-treatment decreases incidence of anaphylactic reactions. There is no evidence that premedication prevents allergic reactions to latex. Overall, physicians should not rely on the efficacy of premedication.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with a previous history of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are at high risk of the development of HSR to ICM. Many studies have tried to evaluate the diagnostic potential of skin tests in this population but have not yet reached a common conclusion. We investigated the role of skin tests in patients with HSR to ICM in terms of positive rate, cross-reactivity rate, and tolerability to skin test-negative ICM according to the type of HSR.

METHODS

We performed literature searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and included studies where skin tests were performed in patients with HSR to ICM, with extractable outcomes. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. Pooled per-patient positive rates of skin tests were 17% (95% CI, 10-26%) in patients with immediate HSR, and up to 52% (95% CI, 31-72%) when confined to severe immediate HSR. Among patients with nonimmediate HSR, the positive rate was 26% (95% CI, 15-41%). The pooled per-patient cross-reactivity rate was higher in nonimmediate HSR (68%; 95% CI, 48-83%) than that in immediate HSR (39%; 95% CI, 29-50%). Median per-test cross-reactivity rates between pairs of ICM were 7% (IQR, 6-9%) in immediate HSR and 38% (IQR, 22-51%) in nonimmediate HSR. Pooled per-patient recurrence rates of HSR to skin test-negative ICM were 7% (95% CI, 4-14%) in immediate HSR and 35% (95% CI, 19-55%) in nonimmediate HSR.

CONCLUSION

Skin tests may be helpful in diagnosing and managing patients with HSR to ICM, especially in patients with severe immediate HSR.

Desensitization in delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions -- an EAACI position paper of the Drug Allergy Interest Group

Drug hypersensitivity may deprive patients of drug therapy, and occasionally no effective alternative treatment is available. Successful desensitization has been well documented in delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. In certain situations, such as sulfonamide hypersensitivity in HIV-positive patients or hypersensitivity to antibiotics in patients with cystic fibrosis, published success rates reach 80%, and this procedure appears helpful for the patient management. A state of clinical tolerance may be achieved by the administration of increasing doses of the previously offending drug. However, in most cases, a pre-existent sensitization has not been proven by positive skin tests. Successful re-administration may have occurred in nonsensitized patients. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of desensitization is needed. Currently, desensitization in delayed hypersensitivity reactions is restricted to mild, uncomplicated exanthems and fixed drug eruptions. The published success rates vary depending on clinical manifestations, drugs, and applied protocols. Slower protocols tend to be more effective than rush protocols; however, underreporting of unsuccessful procedures is very probable. The decision to desensitize a patient must always be made on an individual basis, balancing risks and benefits. This paper reviews the literature and presents the expert experience of the Drug Hypersensitivity Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with nonimmediate cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media

BACKGROUND

Nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (CM) are common. Allergological evaluation is necessary to confirm the diagnosis and to find a tolerated alternative. The aim of this study was to establish the role of skin testing and the drug provocation test (DPT) in the diagnosis of nonimmediate reactions to CM.

METHODS

Skin intradermal testing and patch testing with delayed readings were carried out with different CM (iobitridol, iomeprol, iodixanol, iohexol, ioversol, iopramide and ioxaglate). Single-blind placebo-controlled DPT was carried out in those cases with a negative skin test. In seven cases, a skin biopsy was obtained from positive skin tests and positive DPT.

RESULTS

Of the 161 subjects evaluated, 34 (21.1%) were skin-test positive, 21 (50%) to Iomeprol, 7 (16.7%) to Iodixanol, 5 (11.9%) to Iobitridol, 4 (9.5%) to Ioxaglate, 3 (7.1%) to Iohexol and 1 (2.4%) to Iopramide. DPT was positive in 44 cases (34.6%) that were skin-test negative, 38 (76%) to Iodixanol, 8 (16%) to Iomeprol and 4 (8%) to Iohexol. Of 78 cases (48.4%) with confirmed hypersensitivity, 34 (43.6%) were identified by skin testing and 44 (56.4%) by DPT. Skin biopsies showed a perivascular mononuclear cell infiltrate, mainly in the dermis, with higher levels of CD4 than CD8 T lymphocytes, with expression of activation markers and skin homing receptors.

CONCLUSION

Patients with nonimmediate reactions to CM were identified by skin testing in 43.6% and by DPT in 56.4%. The method to confirm the diagnosis differed depending on the CM involved.

Skin testing in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media - a European multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media cause both immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of skin tests in patients who have experienced such reactions.

METHODS

Skin prick, intradermal and patch tests with a series of contrast media were conducted in 220 patients with either immediate or nonimmediate reaction. Positive skin tests were defined according to internationally accepted guidelines. Seventy-one never-exposed subjects and 11 subjects who had tolerated contrast medium exposure, served as negative controls.

RESULTS

Skin test specificity was 96-100%. For tests conducted within the time period from 2 to 6 months after the reaction, up to 50% of immediate reactors and up to 47% of nonimmediate reactors were skin test positive. For immediate reactors, the intradermal tests were the most sensitive, whereas delayed intradermal tests in combination with patch tests were needed for optimal sensitivity in nonimmediate reactors. Contrast medium cross-reactivity was more common in the nonimmediate than in the immediate group. Interestingly, 49% of immediate and 52% of nonimmediate symptoms occurred in previously unexposed patients. Many of these patients were skin test positive, indicating that they were already sensitized at the time of first contrast medium exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that at least 50% of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media are caused by an immunological mechanism. Skin testing appears to be a useful tool for diagnosis of contrast medium allergy and may play an important role in selection of a safe product in previous reactors.

Monitoring non-immediate allergic reactions to iodine contrast media

Non-immediate reactions to iodine contrast media (ICM) affect 2-5% of patients receiving these agents. We studied the immunological mechanisms involved in patients with a confirmed non-immediate reaction, maculopapular exanthema, after administration of ICM. The diagnosis was carried out by skin testing or drug provocation test. The immunological study was performed in sequential peripheral blood mononuclear cells taken from the onset of the reaction by flow cytometry and in skin biopsy by immunohistochemistry, with specific recognition by the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) with different ICM. Flow cytometry showed an increase in the different activation markers [CD69, CD25 and human leucocyte antigen D-related (HLA-DR)] and the skin homing receptor [cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen (CLA)] in CD4 lymphocytes, whereas perforin was higher in the CD8 lymphocytes. The skin biopsy showed a perivascular mononuclear infiltrate composed of CD4 lymphocytes, expressing CD25, HLA-DR and CLA, with eosinophils. Intradermal skin tests and the LTT were positive to several ICM, including the culprit agent in four and three patients, respectively, with negative results in all 10 tolerant controls. We showed that a specific immunological mechanism was implicated in patients with non-immediate reactions to ICM. Moreover, the positive results in skin tests and lymphocyte proliferation tests indicated that an important cross-reactivity exists.

Cross-reactivity patterns of T cells specific for iodinated contrast media

BACKGROUND

Approximately 3% of patients exposed to iodinated contrast media develop delayed hypersensitivity reactions.

OBJECTIVE

We wanted to better understand the molecular basis of contrast media cross-reactivity.

METHODS

Cross-reactivity was assessed by skin testing and measurement of T-cell activation (CD69 upregulation) and proliferation ((3)H-thymidine uptake, 5,6-carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester staining) of PBMCs, T-cell lines, and T-cell clones of 2 patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iohexol and iomeprol, respectively. Thirteen different contrast media and potassium iodide were compared.

RESULTS

Skin testing and analyses of PBMCs, T-cell lines, and clones showed broad cross-reactivity in both patients. Broad as well as more restricted cross-reactivity patterns were found in iohexol-specific and iomeprol-specific CD4(+) T-cell clones, whereas 1 iomeprol-specific CD8(+) T-cell clone showed no cross-reactivity at all. The reactivity to equimolar concentrations of iohexol and its dimer iodixanol was very similar, suggesting that the dimer was not more stimulatory than its monomer. Consistently low reactivity to iobitridol was found in both patients, but never to iodide. A frequency analysis of contrast medium-specific peripheral T cells gave values between 0.6 % (iomeprol) and 0.05 % (iobitridol).

CONCLUSION

Clinically observed cross-reactivity between different contrast media is a result of the presence of contrast media-specific T cells, some of which show a broad cross-reactivity pattern. Iodide ions, known to be present at low concentration in contrast media solutions, do not seem to be the causative moiety.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Detailed in vitro analysis might help identify noncross-reactive contrast media.

Fixed drug eruption induced by an iodinated non-ionic X-ray contrast medium: a practical approach to identify the causative agent and to prevent its recurrence

We describe the case of a 61-year-old physician who developed a fixed drug eruption (FDE) after i.v. administration of a non-ionic monomeric iodinated X-ray contrast medium (CM) (iopromide). During CM injection, a sensation of heat occurred, which was most intense in the right inguinal region. Four hours later, the FDE arose with a red macule of approximately 2 cm in diameter covering a dermal infiltration in the right inguinal region, and enlarged up to a final size of 15 x 8 cm, accompanied by a burning sensation. The patient's history revealed a similar reaction in the same localization and of the same clinical appearance after CM injection 1 year before. Patch testing 4 months later revealed positive reactions to iomeprol and iohexol. Iopamidol injection for another CT examination 23 months later was well tolerated. Based on these results, we suggest patch testing after CM-induced FDE, which could help to select a CM for future CT examinations. Late onset of adverse CM reactions may manifest as FDE. Patch testing within the previous skin reaction area is the diagnostic tool that should be used to confirm the suspected agent, possible cross-reacting agents and well-tolerated agents.

Frequently asked questions: iodinated contrast agents

Although iodinated contrast agents are safe and widely used, adverse events occur and questions remain about their use, safety, and interactions. Some questions are easily answered and others still require extensive investigation. For one frequent question--is informed consent necessary before all contrast media injections--the simple answer is no. Another question concerns use of contrast media in patients with prior reactions or allergies. Contrast agents can be safely used in such patients, but special care must be taken to be aware of what the previous reaction was and to be ready to treat any reaction. The protective role of pre-treatment with steroids is well established for minor reactions, but they may not prevent major reactions. It is important to realize that even life-threatening, anaphylactoid reactions are not the result of a true allergy to contrast media. Many questions arise about contrast agent-induced nephropathy. Baseline serum creatinine values should be obtained in patients who are at risk, not all patients. The incidence and natural history of contrast agent-induced nephropathy remain unclear. It occurs only in patients with compromised renal function before contrast agent injection, but even patients with normal serum creatinine levels can have renal dysfunction. Calculated creatinine clearance is a better way to determine risk and to follow this complication. The outcome in almost all patients is benign, with progression to end-stage renal disease being rare. The major risk factors, in addition to renal dysfunction, are long-standing diabetes mellitus, dehydration, and use of other nephrotoxic medications. Recent work in preventing and ameliorating contrast agent-induced nephropathy with N-acetyl cysteine, substitution of an isosmolal nonionic contrast agent, and various hydration regimens has been promising. Another common concern is use of iodinated contrast agents in pregnant or breast-feeding women. In both cases, there is no evidence of harm to the fetus or infant, but it is prudent to weigh the theoretical risks and benefits and avoid contrast agent administration unless it is truly necessary.

Immediate-type allergy to drugs and related compounds: evaluation and management

Adverse drug reactions (ADR) constitute a major health issue in outpatient and inpatient clinical settings. An allergic drug reaction is an immunologically mediated adverse drug reaction that exhibits specificity and recurrence on re-exposure to the offending and/or cross-reactive compound(s). Diagnosis of drug allergy is difficult, as a broad spectrum of different drugs can elicit various immune-mediated diseases with distinct (sometimes unclear) pathomechanism, the exact structure (epitope) that causes the reaction is frequently unknown, the presence of an in vitro or in vivo test results might not be predictive of a clinical situation, and the gold standard or reference test for diagnosis, the drug challenge, is a complicated and sometimes dangerous endeavour. Nevertheless, during the past few years serious attempts have been made to standardise and validate in vitro and in vivo techniques for the diagnosis of drug allergy. New techniques, e.g. flow-assisted analysis of in vitro basophil activation, are replacing older ones like histamine release for immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions. However, additional comprehensive studies are required to further validate the technique and allow its entrance in mainstream diagnostic use, particularly for non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity. This review attempts to summarize the major causes of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and related compounds. Special attention is paid to the diagnostic and therapeutic management of this common iatrogenic complication.

Allergy-like reactions to iodinated contrast agents. A critical analysis

Allergy-like reactions may occur following administration of iodinated contrast media (CM), mostly in at-risk patients (patients with history of previous reaction, history of allergy, co-treated with interleukin-2 or beta-blockers, etc.) but remain generally unpredictable. Severe and fatal reactions are very rare events. All categories of CM may induce such reactions, although first generation (high osmolar CM) have been found to induce a higher rate of adverse events than low osmolar CM. However, no differences were found between the two categories of CM with respect to mortality. Delayed reactions can also occur. There are no differences between the various categories of CM except for non-ionic dimers, which are more likely to induce such effect. Numerous clinical studies have evaluated the prophylactic value of drugs (mostly antihistamines and corticosteroids). Results are unclear and highly variable. Any prevention depends upon the mechanism involved. However, the mechanism of CM-induced allergy-like reaction remains disputed. Relatively recent data revived the hypothesis of a type-I hypersensitivity mechanism. Positive skin tests to CM have been reported. However, the affinity of IgE towards CM has been found to be very low in the only study which actually evaluated it. Other pathophysiological mechanisms (involving direct secretory effects on mast cells or basophils, or activation of the complement system associated or not with the plasma contact system) are also much debated. Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions are, in the end, clinically undistinguishable.

Cross-reactivity among drugs: clinical problems

Cross-reactivity among drugs is either mediated by immunologic mechanisms or not. The former kind is usually explained by the presence of common antigenic determinants in the cross-reacting drugs. In the case of compounds provoking non-allergic hypersensitivity reactions, cross-reactivity is explained by a common pharmacological characteristic, such as the inhibitory effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on cyclooxygenase-1 and the capability of muscle relaxants or contrast media to release histamine through a non-immunologic mechanism. The main clinical problem deriving from cross-reactivity among drugs is the compelling need to choose a potentially cross-reactive compound and, therefore, to assess cross-reactivity by diagnostic tests. In choosing alternative compounds, skin testing has been used in evaluating IgE-mediated cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins, as well as among muscle relaxants. In assessing T cell-mediated cross-reactivity among contrast media, corticosteroids, anticonvulsants and heparins, delayed-reading intradermal tests and patch tests, together with lymphocyte transformation tests, can be performed. Because of the limited sensitivity of in vivo and in vitro testing, the most prudent way of establishing the tolerability of a compound of the same group in patients who especially require one is a graded challenge when other allergologic tests are negative.

R�ntgenkontrastmittel�berempfindlichkeit

There has been a remarkable progress in our understanding of the pathophysiology of hypersensitivity to contrast media (CM). Immediate reactions develop within one hour after application of CM under the clinical picture of anaphylaxis. Pruritic exanthems appearing several days afterwards account for the majority of non-immediate reactions. Current evidence indicates an allergic basis of severe immediate as well as of non-immediate reactions involving CM-reactive IgE-antibodies and T-lymphocytes, respectively. Skin tests are helpful to establish the diagnosis of these reactions. The use of skin tests to predict tolerability of CM in patients with previous hypersensitivity reaction to CM is controversial. The value of cellular in-vitro tests is unknown. In patients with previous hypersensitivity to CM, premedication with antihistamins and/or corticosteroids is recommended, but current premedication protocols do not suppress all repeat reactions. European multicenter studies addressing sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of test procedures as well as prophylaxis and risk factors of CM hypersensitivity are currently ongoing.

Anaphylactoid and adverse reactions to radiocontrast agents

Over the past 75 years, radiocontrast agents have provided numerous diagnostic and therapeutic advances. The benefits of these agents must be weighed against the potential risks for each individual undergoing radiologic tests. This summary is intended to be a guide for the allergy and immunology specialist to direct him or her to the current literature regarding adverse reactions to traditional and less commonly used radiologic contrast agents.