The multipotential pseudoantigenicity of X-ray contrast media. Pseudoantigen excess may downregulate the release of hypotensive mediators

Bridging the gap between bench and clinic: the importance of understanding the mechanism of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity

Since the advent of CT, iodinated contract media (ICM) has become one of the most regularly administered intravenous medications in clinical settings. Although considered generally safe, ICM is one of the most common causes of adverse drug reactions in clinical practice, accounting for more than 2 million adverse reactions worldwide. Currently, there are few useful tools to diagnose patient hypersensitivity, with the major limitation being the lack of consensus regarding the mechanisms of hypersensitivity to ICM. While there is an overwhelming abundance of literature pertaining to clinical features including incidence, symptomatology, and risk, few studies have further investigated the underlying mechanisms behind their clinical observations. Of the available literature discussing pathophysiology, most primary studies were completed over 20 years ago, since which the molecular characteristics of ICM have changed. Furthermore, many reviews mentioning pathophysiology fail to adequately emphasize the clinical importance of understanding the molecular pathways involved in hypersensitivity. In this review, we aim to emphasize the clinical relevance of pathophysiology as it relates to the prediction and diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to ICM. To this end, we will first briefly characterize hypersensitivity reactions to ICM with respect to epidemiology and clinical presentation. We will then present the existing evidence supporting various proposed mechanisms of hypersensitivity, highlighting the gaps that remain in the mechanistic delineation of both immediate and delayed reactions. Finally, we discuss the possibility of in vitro testing as a way to predict and diagnose hypersensitivity reactions, pending a more complete elucidation of mechanisms.

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.

Iodixanol nasal solution reduces allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms in Allergen BioCube®: a randomized clinical trial

Purpose

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects ~20% of the population worldwide. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iodixanol nasal solution (Nasapaque) for AR treatment, using the Allergen BioCube^® (ABC^®), an environmental exposure unit. Iodixanol is a commonly used contrast media agent that shows efficacy on the signs and symptoms of AR.

Patients and methods

Seventy-three adult subjects with AR were randomized to iodixanol or placebo treatment in a double-masked efficacy and safety study conducted outside of ragweed pollen season. In-office treatment was administered after BioCube^® ragweed pollen exposure, and again 8 days later prior to ragweed exposure. Nasal and ocular efficacy and safety assessments were conducted before and after treatment.

Results

Iodixanol treatment resulted in statistically significantly lower total nasal symptom scores as compared to placebo at several time points post-treatment and ABC exposure. Individual nasal and ocular symptoms, notably nasal itching and ocular itching, showed evidence of lower scores in the iodixanol group. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) improved (9%–16%) with iodixanol from baseline as compared to PNIF in the placebo group which ranged from 3% worsening to improvement of 2%. Few (9) adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Iodixanol nasal solution demonstrated efficacy for relief of several nasal and ocular allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms, and was safe and well tolerated in this early Phase II exploratory trial. Further studies with iodixanol are warranted. Allergy challenge models such as the ABC provide valuable assessments of allergen exposures and drug efficacies.

Study Identification Number

NCT02377895

Adverse Reactions to Contrast Material: A Canadian Update

Imaging techniques frequently employ contrast agents to improve image resolution and enhance pathology detection. These gadolinium- and iodine-based media, although generally considered safe, are associated with a number of adverse effects ranging from mild to severe. Reactions are classified as either anaphylactoid (“anaphylaxis-like”) or nonanaphylactoid, depending on a number of elements that will be reviewed. Herein, we have summarized predisposing risk factors for adverse events resulting from the use of contrast, their associated pathophysiological mechanisms as well as known prophylaxis for the antitreatment of high-risk patients. In the unlikely event that a serious adverse reaction does occur, we have provided a comprehensive summary of treatment protocols. Our goal was to thoroughly evaluate the current literature regarding adverse reactions to radiocontrast agents and provide an up to date review for the health care provider.

X-ray contrast media mechanisms in the release of mast cell contents: understanding these leads to a treatment for allergies

A long history of searching for the etiology of X-ray contrast material (CM) reactions has led to the understanding that the CM do not produce anti-CM antigens. Since CM reactions are anaphylactoid in nature, however, a source for mast cell activation was sought. This resulted in the finding that concentrated CM could suppress mast cell activation by attachment to the Fc portion of IgE and IgG. This is presumed to be a steric hindrance effect. In a study of the effects of CM on BP and a study of the effects of CM in sensitized rats, it was concluded that less concentrated CM activated mast cells and that this mechanism was best explained by bridging of adjacent IgE molecules via attachment to their Fc segments. The mast cell release of heparin activating the contact system, as well as the release of histamine, is believed to be responsible for CM reactions and allergic diatheses.

Drug-induced anaphylaxis : case/non-case study based on an italian pharmacovigilance database

OBJECTIVE

To identify the number of cases of anaphylaxis reported in association with different classes of drugs and compare it with other reports contained in the same database.

METHODS

The data were obtained from a database containing all of the spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) coming from the Italian regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and the Veneto, which are the main contributors to the Italian spontaneous surveillance system. The ADRs reported between January 1990 and December 2003 with a causality assessment of certainly, probably or possibly drug related (according to the WHO criteria) were analysed using a case/non-case design. The cases were defined as the reactions already coded by the WHO preferred terms of 'anaphylactic shock' or 'anaphylactoid reaction' (this last term also included anaphylactic reaction) and those with a time of event onset that suggested an allergic reaction and involved at least two of the skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, CNS or cardiovascular systems; the non-cases were all of the other ADR reports. The frequency of the association between anaphylaxis and the suspected drug in comparison with the frequency of anaphylaxis associated to all of the other drugs was calculated using the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality.

RESULTS

Our database contained 744 cases (including 307 cases of anaphylactic shock with 10 deaths) and 27 512 non-cases. The percentage of anaphylaxis cases reported in inpatients was higher than that among outpatients (59.1% vs 40.9%). This distribution is significantly different from that of the other ADR reports that mainly refer to outpatients. After intravenous drug administrations, anaphylactic shock cases were more frequent than anaphylactoid reactions or other ADRs, but more than one-third of these reactions were caused by an oral drug. Blood substitutes and radiology contrast agents had the highest RORs. Among the systemic antibacterial agents, anaphylaxis was disproportionally reported more often for penicillins, quinolones, cephalosporins and glycopeptides, but diclofenac was the only NSAID with a significant ROR. As a category, vaccines had a significantly lower ROR, thus indicating that anaphylaxis is reported proportionally less than other ADRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaphylaxis is a severe ADR that may also occur with commonly used drugs. It represents 2.7% of all of the ADRs reported in an Italian spontaneous reporting database.

Current understanding of contrast media reactions and implications for clinical management

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

Review article: Acute serious and fatal reactions to contrast media: our current understanding

Serious or fatal reactions to a contrast medium (CM) are unpredictable but fortunately rare. History of serious reaction to CM, bronchial asthma or multiple allergies increases the incidence of serious reactions by a factor of 5. Serious or fatal reaction to CM could be due to direct effect on basophils and mast cells or IgE mediated (type 1 hypersensitivity reaction). Activation of the kinin system leading to the formation of bradykinin could also be involved. Complement activation is unlikely to be a primary factor in initiating a serious reaction to CM. Avoiding CM administration in patients at high risk of serious reaction is advisable, but if the administration is deemed essential all precautions should be implemented and measures to treat serious reactions should be readily available. Oxygen supplementation, intravenous administration of physiological fluids and intramuscular injection of 0.5 ml adrenalin (1:1000) should be considered in the first line management of acute anaphylaxis. The ability to assess and treat serious CM reaction effectively is an essential skill that the radiologist should have and maintain.