Immediate reactions to iodinated contrast media

Management and Prevention of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Radiocontrast Media: A Consensus Statement from the American College of Radiology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Intravenous iodinated contrast media (ICM) is widely used in the United States, and it is imperative to provide guidance on the management of adverse reactions to ICM as well as the preparation, planning, and potential premedication for patients with previous reactions. Currently there is a discordance between the American College of Radiology Contrast Manual, which recommends premedication to prevent repeat hypersensitivity reactions to ICM, and the Anaphylaxis 2020 Practice Parameters Update, which recommends against routine administration of glucocorticoids and/or antihistamines to prevent anaphylaxis with prior ICM hypersensitivity reactions. A task force of experts from radiology who are also members of the American College of Radiology Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media and expert allergists/immunologists including members of the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologics and Latex Committee of American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology evaluated the scientific evidence to develop consensus recommendations that are endorsed by both organizations. The task force took into account the strength of evidence and balanced the potential risks of recurrent reactions with those of premedication and product avoidance when making these recommendations to improve and standardize the care of patients who experience or have a history of reaction to ICM. © Radiological Society of North America and American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and by Radiological Society of North America. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. This paper was jointly developed by The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, Radiology and jointly published by Elsevier Inc and Radiological Society of North America. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article. Keywords: Contrast allergy, Contrast hypersensitivity, Iodinated contrast allergy, Iodinated contrast hypersensitivity, Anaphylaxis, Contrast skin testing, Contrast switching, Contrast reaction, Delayed contrast reaction, Immediate contrast reaction.

Management and Prevention of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Radiocontrast Media: A Consensus Statement From the American College of Radiology and the AAAAI

Intravenous iodinated contrast media (ICM) is widely used in the United States, and it is imperative to provide guidance on the management of adverse reactions to ICM as well as the preparation, planning, and potential premedication for patients with previous reactions. Currently there is a discordance between the American College of Radiology Contrast Manual, which recommends premedication to prevent repeat hypersensitivity reactions to ICM, and the Anaphylaxis 2020 Practice Parameters Update, which recommends against routine administration of glucocorticoids and/or antihistamines to prevent anaphylaxis with prior ICM hypersensitivity reactions. A task force of experts from radiology who are also members of the American College of Radiology Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media and expert allergists/immunologists including members of the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologics and Latex Committee of American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology evaluated the scientific evidence to develop consensus recommendations that are endorsed by both organizations. The task force took into account the strength of evidence and balanced the potential risks of recurrent reactions with those of premedication and product avoidance when making these recommendations to improve and standardize the care of patients who experience or have a history of reaction to ICM.

Skin-Related Adverse Reactions in Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents-Induced Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have been used in clinical settings for several decades and in general they have established a good safety profile. Despite the use of chelating agents, some adverse reactions might occur when using these agents. This review aimed to assess the relationship between administered dose of Gadolinium-based contrast and the rate, duration, and severity of skin-related adverse reactions. Four electronic databases were searched using various relevant keywords. Duplicate records were removed, and the remaining records were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. The inclusion criteria were observational or experimental studies that analyzed the rate of immediate and/or delayed adverse reactions to GBCAs in magnetic resonance imaging. Data were extracted into a pre-designed spreadsheet. Ten studies were deemed eligible to be included in this review. A total of 691,007 GBCAs injections/patients were included in these studies. Six hundred seventy-nine skin-related adverse reactions were reported among the study participants, with a rate of 0.10%, urticaria was the most common (499 cases, 74.7%), while allergic dermatitis (three cases, 0.5%) and angioedema (four cases, 0.6%) were least frequent. In conclusion, the rate of these skin-related adverse reactions was low. The most commonly reported reactions were urticaria, rash, and pruritus. Most of these reported reactions were mild, no significant association was found in the volume of contrast agents and the risk for developing adverse reactions reported in the included studies.

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) of contrast media: Useful or not useful? - A narrative review

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are also used in some patients with a history of a contrast medium (CM)-hypersensitivity reaction. Since the use of contrast agents requires special knowledge that is present in radiology but not necessarily in allergology, this overview should close the knowledge gaps. The literature, and the package inserts of the industry dealing with DPTs in contrast hypersensitivity reactions was analyzed and the results presented. Historical analyses revealed that provocation tests were already done in the past, and called pre-testing. Due to disadvantages, this diagnostic tool was abandoned. A few years later, DPT was introduced as an innovative diagnostic procedure. The DPT has the 3 main disadvantages: a missing standardization, patients at risk (such as compromised renal function) are rarely taken into account, and a negative DPT does not exclude a subsequent CM reaction. DPTs (formerly called pre-testing) are a well-known method for diagnosing CM-related hypersensitivity reactions. Since the disadvantages of this diagnosis outweigh the advantages, we propose replacing DPT with routine contrast-enhanced imaging examination in radiology.

Intradermal testing of iodinated contrast media: Should we test up to pure or with diluted compounds only?

BACKGROUND

Intradermal testing (IDT) with iodinated contrast media (ICMs) is an established diagnostic tool in patients with ICM hypersensitivity. Currently, it is unclear which test concentration is the more useful one, up to pure or up to 1:10 diluted ICMs.

METHODS

We searched the literature database PubMed for eligible papers dealing with ICM allergy and their IDT results. We analyzed the data presented by the papers and compared the pooled groups tested with diluted and undiluted ICMs.

RESULTS

We identified 29 eligible original papers, and extracted data of 1137 patients that formed the study population. Although in the cohort tested with diluted ICMs the number of tested ICMs was greater, the percentage of positive tests was significantly less (9.0% vs. 24.7%; P < 0.0001; OR 0.30 [0.26-0.34]). The frequency of positive tested culprit ICMs was also lesser in the group tested with diluted ICMs (31.0% vs. 72.5%; P < 0.0001; OR 0.17 [0.12-0.23]). The number of drug provocation tests (DPTs) was greater in patients with diluted IDTs (374 vs. 89; P < 0.0001; OR 2.54 [1.93-3.36]). We detected an increased sensitivity in patients with undiluted tests (0.774 vs. 0.282) and a nearly identical specificity in both groups (1 vs. 0.983).

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, we show that IDT up to pure ICM concentrations is superior to using diluted ICMs only. Possibly, we can reduce the number of DPTs when performing IDTs with pure ICMs. In the undiluted group, there were no hints for skin irritations or unspecific test reactions.

How to Define and Manage Low-Risk Drug Allergy Labels

Risk stratification in drug allergy implies that specific risk categories (eg, low, moderate, and high) classify historical drug hypersensitivity reactions. These risk categories can be based on reaction phenotypic characteristics, the timing of the reaction and evaluation, the required reaction management, and individual characteristics. Although a multitude of frameworks have been described in the literature, particularly for penicillin allergy labels, there has yet to be a global consensus, and approaches continue to vary between allergy centers. Immune-mediated drug allergies can sometimes be confirmed using skin testing, but a negative drug challenge is required to demonstrate tolerance and remove the allergy from the electronic health record ("delabel" the allergy). Even for quintessential IgE-mediated drug allergy, penicillin allergy, recent data reveal that a direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, is an appropriate diagnostic strategy in those who are considered low-risk. Drug allergy pathogenesis and clinical manifestations may vary depending on the culprit drug, and as such, the optimal approach should be based on risk stratification that considers individual patient and reaction characteristics, the likely hypersensitivity reaction phenotype, the drug class, and the patient's clinical needs. This article will describe low-risk drug allergy labels, focusing on β-lactam and sulfonamide antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast media, and common chemotherapeutics. This review will also address practical management approaches using currently available risk stratification and clinical decision tools.

Transient pulmonary and gastric bleeding after iopamidol administration in a patient with marginal zone lymphoma: a case report

BACKGROUND

Iopamidol is a non-ionic, water-soluble iodine contrast agent that is considered safe for intravenous or intra-arterial administration and is widely used both in the general population and in patients undergoing oncological treatment. While adverse reactions to iopamidol have been documented, to date, no pulmonary and gastric hemorrhages induced by iopamidol have been reported in oncology patients. We report the first case of this complication.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the case of a 60-year-old woman with marginal zone lymphoma who was receiving antineoplastic therapy. As part of the investigation for the condition, she underwent chest enhancement CT with iopamidol. Shortly thereafter(within five minutes), she experienced hemoptysis and hematemesis. She was intubated and admitted to the intensive care unit. Pre- and post-contrast images demonstrated the course of the hemorrhage. Flexible bronchoscopy and gastroscopy on the following day showed no active bleeding, and the patient recovered completely after antiallergy treatment. We speculate that contrast-induced hypersensitivity was the most likely cause of the transient pulmonary and gastric bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Although rare, the complications of iopamidol, which may cause allergic reactions in the lungs and stomach, should be considered.

Skin Test Reactivity Patterns in Patients Allergic to Iodinated Contrast Media: A Refined View

BACKGROUND

Two-dimensional (2D) classifications of iodinated contrast media (ICM) are insufficient to explain the observed skin test (ST) reactivity patterns in patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to ICM.

OBJECTIVE

To refine the current view on allergic DHRs to ICM by analyzing ST reactivity patterns in patients with previous reactions to ICM.

METHODS

Patients with a history of DHR to ICM and positive STs, who presented at the University Hospital of Montpellier between 2004 and 2022, were included in the study. The relative difference between every two ICM products was measured by Manhattan distance and odds ratios were computed for all pairs of products in the immediate reaction (IR) and non-immediate reaction (NIR) ST groups.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients were included in the study. Odds ratio analysis identified significant associations between classical cross-reactive ICM, such as iohexol-ioversol, iohexol-iomeprol, iomeprol-ioversol, and iohexol-iodixanol in the IR ST group and iohexol-ioversol, iopromide-iohexol, and iomeprol-ioversol in the NIR ST group. We also identified uncommon associations, such as ioxitalamate-amidotrizoate in the IR ST group and amidotrizoate-iopamidol and amidotrizoate-ioxitalamate in the NIR ST group. The results were reflected by the Manhattan distance, which suggested the existence of clusters containing the same classically associated ICM as well as uncommon associations, which we hypothesize to be related to similarities in the 3D structure of the respective ICM.

CONCLUSIONS

Current chemical (2D) classifications cannot explain all observed ST reactivity patterns. Whether the 3D structure can be integrated into the current classifications to interpret the observed ST reactivity patterns and predict tolerance to alternative ICM requires further research.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Skin Test-Guided Strategy to Select Alternative Iodinated Contrast Media in Patients With Immediate Hypersensitivity Reaction: A Prospective Confirmative Study

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are a common cause of drug-induced immediate hypersensitivity reaction (IHR). Repeated use of ICM is often necessary; therefore, a standardized protocol to prevent recurrence of IHR is required.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to propose an intradermal skin test (IDT)-guided strategy for previous reactors to prevent recurrence of IHR.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter study from May 2018 to December 2020 and recruited patients who had experienced IHR to ICM. Once enrolled, the participants underwent IDT with a causative ICM. The alternatives for reexposure were selected using the following protocol: (1) if the IDT with the culprit ICM was positive, further skin tests with other available ICM were conducted to choose IDT-negative agents as alternatives, and (2) if the IDT with the culprit ICM was negative, a randomly changed ICM was used without additional skin tests. The recurrence and severity of hypersensitivity were assessed in subsequent computed tomography examinations. Premedication was administered according to the severity of the index event in all cases.

RESULTS

A total of 496 participants were enrolled, and 299 were reexposed to ICM. Among 269 participants who followed the protocol, 228 (84.8%) completed computed tomography examinations without adverse reactions, and IHR recurred in 16 of 30 participants (53.3%) who did not follow the protocol (P < .001). In addition, application of the protocol reduced the severity of IHR in recurred cases (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our IDT-guided strategy not only reduced recurrence of IHR to ICM but also mitigated the severity in recurred cases. This provides evidence for recommending an IDT to diagnose ICM allergy and find safe alternatives.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: The diagnosis of allergy by skin testing

Among 74 patients with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (IHR) to iodinated contrast media (ICM), the rate of allergic patients confirmed by positive prick test or diluted intradermal test (IDT) was 8.1%. 12.5% of re-exposed patients had a recurrent IHR despite negative skin tests. Investigations on pure IDT to ICM and development of drug provocation test may provide additional safety nets to uncover recurrent ICM reactors. Agreements among allergists are needed to unify practices.

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.

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.

Mas-Related G Protein–Coupled Receptor-X2 and Its Role in Non-immunoglobulin E–Mediated Drug Hypersensitivity

A diverse group of Food and Drug Administration-approved cationic drugs including antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking drugs, opioids, antidepressants, and radiocontrast media activate mast cells and cause hypersensitivity reactions by both an immunoglobulin E IgE-dependent and independent manner. The recent discovery that these drugs activate mast cells via the G protein-coupled receptor known as Mas-related GPCR-X2 (MRGPRX2) has represented a paradigm shift of how drug hypersensitivity reactions are viewed. This article provides an overview of the current status of the role of MRGPRX2 on non-IgE-mediated drug hypersensitivity. Potential risk factors and evaluation for suspected MRGPRX2-mediated drug reactions are also discussed.

A systematic review of the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions and post-contrast acute kidney injury after ioversol in more than 57,000 patients: part 1-intravenous administration

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) and post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI), after intravenous (IV) administration of ioversol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search (1980-2021) of studies documenting IV use of ioversol and presence or absence of ADRs, HSRs, or PC-AKI was performed. Key information including patients' characteristics, indication and dose of ioversol, safety outcome incidence, intensity and seriousness were extracted.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies (> 57,000 patients) were selected, including 4 pediatric studies. The incidence of ADRs in adults was reported in 12 studies from ioversol clinical development with a median (range) of 1.65% (0-33.3%), and 3 other studies with an incidence between 0.13 and 0.28%. The incidence of HSRs (reported in 2 studies) ranged from 0.20 to 0.66%, and acute events (4 studies) from 0.23 to 1.80%. Severe reactions were rare with a median (range) of 0 (0-4%), and none were reported among pediatric patients. The incidence of ADRs and HSRs with ioversol, especially those of severe intensity, was among the lowest in studies comparing different iodinated contrast media (ICM) of the same class. PC-AKI incidence was variable (1-42% in 5 studies); however, ioversol exposure per se did not increase the incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

When administered by the IV route, ioversol has a good safety profile comparable to that of other ICM within the same class, with a low incidence of severe/serious ADRs overall, and particularly HSRs. PC-AKI incidence does not seem to be increased compared to patients who did not receive ioversol. Further well-designed studies are warranted to confirm these results.

KEY POINTS

• Ioversol has a good safety profile in adult and pediatric patients when IV administered. • ADR and HSR incidence with ioversol, especially those of severe intensity, was among the lowest compared to other ICM. • IV administration of ioversol per se did not increase PC-AKI incidence.

Cross-reactivity among iodinated contrast agents: should we be concerned?

Background

Although several papers deal with "cross-reactivity" in patients with iodinated contrast medium (ICM) hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), there is no in-depth knowledge of this phenomenon. To define ICM-groups as potential reaction partners and to identify any potential clinical relevance in patients with ICM-HSRs.

Methods

The literature database PubMed was searched for eligible papers dealing with ICM-allergy and "cross-reactivity". The data presented by the papers was analyzed and individual patient data was extracted for re-evaluation based on a definition for both 'polyvalent reactivity' and 'cross-reactivity' as well as for chemical structure-dependent ICM-groups.

Results

Twenty-five original papers (with n=340 extracted patients) formed the study population. Incidences of polyvalent reactivity were non-significantly higher than incidences of cross-reactivity (both range from 0% to 100%). Crossover evaluation in reaction pairings (culprit ICM A with ICM B versus culprit ICM B with ICM A) showed concordance of only 30%. Data support rather non-cross-reactivity (individual reaction pattern) than cross-reactivity constellations.

Conclusions

The obtained results favour an individual reaction pattern, rather than a reactivity driven by chemical structures and so-called cross-reactivity.

Outcomes in patients with known contrast allergy undergoing contrast-enhanced endourological procedures: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous administration of iodinated contrast agents carries the risk of allergic reaction, yet this risk is unclear with administration into the urinary tract. We sought to evaluate patients with known contrast, iodine, or shellfish allergies for allergic response when undergoing urologic imaging requiring intraluminal, urinary tract contrast administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing endourologic procedures from 2010 to 2015 at our institution. Clinical records were reviewed for demographics, medical history, allergies, procedure details, fluids administered, anesthetic and pharmacologic agents administered, and continuous monitoring parameters. Patients with known allergies to iodine, shellfish, and/or contrast were identified and evaluated for clinical or hemodynamic signs of allergy. A convenience sample of 50 patients without allergy history was used as a comparison group.

RESULTS

We identified 1,405 procedures involving 1,000 consecutive patients. Procedures included retrograde pyelograms and antegrade nephrostograms. Eighty-six cases involving 58 patients with contrast, iodine, or shellfish allergies were identified. Of those with contrast allergy history, 18 (20.1%) cases involved patients with a history of anaphylactic reaction. Of these, 11 (61%) received steroid prophylaxis. No patients in either group (Allergy, No Allergy) were identified as having an allergic reaction during the procedure. There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative intravenous fluids (p=0.931), procedure duration (p=0.747), or vasopressor use (p=0.973) between groups. Due to the zero event rate of contrast allergy, we used the Hanley and Lippman-Hand method, which places true population risk (95% confidence interval) of a significant event at less than 3.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

In 86 cases involving patients with a history of contrast allergy, we found no evidence of clinically significant allergic reaction to intraluminal endourologic contrast administration under continuous anesthesia monitoring. The risk of significant reactions to contrast administered within the urinary tract appears to be low in these patients, regardless of prophylaxis.

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.

HLA-DRB1*15: 02 Is Associated With Iodinated Contrast Media-Related Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of severe reaction induced by iodinated contrast media (ICM) has increased over the years with an increasing use of imaging modalities. Although ICM anaphylaxis is rare, it can be life-threatening, but currently, there is no biomarker that can identify individuals at risk of ICM anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the genetic susceptibility of ICM anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Patients who had ICM anaphylaxis were enrolled in the study, and their blood samples were collected for genotyping of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A, -B, -C, and -DR. The results were compared with those of healthy Korean general population. MRGPRX2 gene in ICM anaphylaxis group was also sequenced and compared with the Korean standard database of genetic polymorphism.

RESULTS

The frequencies of 3 HLA alleles (B*52:01, C*12:02, and DRB1*15:02) were significantly higher in 47 patients with ICM anaphylaxis. In particular, HLA-DRB1*15:02 was 5 times more frequent in the ICM anaphylaxis group than the Korean general population (34.0% vs 6.6%; odds ratio, 7.306; 95% confidence interval, 3.622-14.740), and this difference was most pronounced in subjects with iohexol-induced anaphylaxis (odds ratio, 16.516; 95% CI, 5.241-52.047; P < 0.0001). Eight single nucleotide polymorphisms were identified in MRGPRX2 gene, but their frequencies were not different in those with ICM anaphylaxis compared with the general Korean population.

CONCLUSIONS

HLA-DRB1*15:02 is associated with ICM anaphylaxis in the Korean population.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Multiple Iodinated Contrast Media

The incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) has risen over last years, representing an important health problem. HSRs to ICMs are classified into immediate reactions (IRs) and non-immediate reactions (NIRs) according to if they occur within 1 h or longer after ICM administration. The diagnosis of HSRs to ICM is complex as skin test (ST) sensitivity ranges widely, and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols are heterogeneous. In this manuscript, we describe the clinical characteristics of a series of patients confirmed as HSR to ICM and the diagnosis procedure carried out, looking into those cases confirmed as HSRs to multiple ICMs. For this purpose, we prospectively evaluated patients suggestive of HSRs to ICMs and classified them as IRs or NIRs. STs were carried out using a wide panel of ICMs, and in those with a negative ST, a single-blind placebo controlled DPT was performed with the culprit. If ST or DPT were positive, then tolerance was assessed with an alternative negative ST ICM. We included 101 cases (12 IRs and 89 NIRs) confirmed as allergic. Among them, 36 (35.64%) cases were allergic to more than one ICM (8 IRs and 28 NIRs). The most common ICM involved were iomeprol and iodixanol. Although not statistically significant, the percentage of patients reporting anaphylaxis was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with patients allergic to a single ICM (50 vs. 25%). Likewise, the percentage of positive results in STs was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with those allergic to a single ICM (for IR 62.5 vs. 25%, p > 0.05; and for NIR, 85.71 vs. 24.59%, p < 0.000). In cases allergic to more than one ICM, DPT with negative-ST ICM was positive in more than 60% (24/36) of cases. Therefore, allergy to multiple ICMs is common, associated to severe reactions in IRs, and confirmed frequently by positive STs. The allergological work-up should include DPT not only to establish the diagnosis but also to identify safe alternative ICM, even if ICM is structurally unrelated and ST is negative. More studies are needed to clarify mechanisms underlying cross-reactivity among ICMs.

SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) can be distinguished in immune-mediated (including allergic reactions) and non-immune-mediated reactions, even if clinical manifestations could be similar. Such manifestations range from mild skin eruptions to severe anaphylaxis, making it important for radiologists to know how to identify and manage them. A panel of experts from the Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM) and the Società Italiana di Allergologia, Asma e Immunologia Clinica (SIAAIC) provided a consensus document on the management of patients who must undergo radiological investigations with CM. Consensus topics included: the risk stratification of patients, the identification of the culprit CM and of a safe alternative by an allergy workup, as well as the use of premedication and the correct procedure to safely perform an elective (i.e., scheduled) or urgent examination. The most important recommendations are: (1) in all patients, a thorough medical history must be taken by the prescribing physician and/or the radiologist to identify at-risk patients; (2) in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to CM, the radiologist must consider an alternative, non-contrast imaging study with a comparable diagnostic value, or prescribe a different investigation with another class of CM; (3) if such options are not feasible, the radiologist must address at-risk patients to a reference centre for an allergy evaluation; (4) if timely referral to an allergist is not viable, it is recommended to use a CM other than the responsible one, taking into account cross-reactivity patterns; in the case of patients with histories of severe reactions, the presence of an anesthesiologist is also recommended and a premedication is suggested.

Carbon Dioxide As a Standard of Care for Zero Contrast Interventions: When, Why and How?

BACKGROUND

Traditional contrast media containing iodine remain the gold standard for vessel visualization during endovascular procedures. On the other hand, their use has several side effects and implications and may cause contrast medium-induced nephropathy. Carbon dioxide (CO2) angiography is an old alternative technique used only for critical patients in order to prevent kidney damages or allergic reactions. Zero contrast procedure: The availability of automated CO2 injectors has led to an increase in the use of CO2 angiography, providing an option for zero contrast interventions, preserving patient renal function and saving costs for the hospital facility. Taking advantage of the properties of CO2 gas, it is possible to improve the performance of some complex procedures such as atherectomy and the detection of type II endoleaks after EVARs. However, a learning curve is needed to get good imaging, and learn about the qualities and limitations of the technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of automatic delivery systems for CO2 angiography appears to be a good choice for the use of CO2 as the first imaging option. The standardization of injection protocols and the extensive use of this technique could lead to significant benefits both for the patient's prospects and health facilities.

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

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

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

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

The incidence of skin lesions in contrast media-induced chemical hypersensitivity

Contrast agents are used in radiology to increase the sensibility and specificity of radiological techniques. Some of these compounds have side effects that include organ toxicity (with kidney being the most affected organ) and hypersensitivity reactions. We performed multiple PubMed searches from January, 2008 to January, 2018 for studies regarding adverse reactions to compounds used as contrast agents in imagistic techniques. The initial research identified 929 records written in English. After further excluding 223 non-human studies, 292 articles that had irrelevant designs as reviews, meta-analysis, commentaries, editorials and case reports, 414 studies were selected for retrieval. After reading the abstracts, we excluded 363 studies as they had little relevance to the study. In total, 51 full-articles were assessed for eligible studies to be included. Finally, 20 articles were included in the analysis. In our systematic literature search the incidence of overall skin immediate reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) had an incidence between 1.15 and 0.12%, depending on the cohort analyzed in the studies. The percentage of cutaneous manifestations in the cohort that experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions was between 33.33 and 87.7%. The most frequent skin manifestations were urticaria, rashes, pruritus and limited facial edema. Non-iodinated contrast agents have a safer profile compared with ICM, the incidence of immediate adverse reactions being very low in gadolinium-based contrast agents and other agents used for contrast-enhanced ultrasound. The incidence of delayed reactions was between 10.1 and 0.03%. In the studies analyzed by us the main adverse reactions due to delayed hypersensitivity phenomena were cutaneous manifestations that were present between 70.27 and 100% of the cases. Regarding the risk factors for developing immediate adverse reactions, being female was a predisposing factor accompanied by history of allergy and history of reactions to contrast media. An accurate anamnesis of the patients and a correctly conducted pretreatment can limit the incidence and the severity of the adverse reactions and also can avoid the life occurrence of life-threatening reactions.

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Contrast Agents: The French 5-year CIRTACI Study

BACKGROUND

Iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media (ICM; GBCM) induce immediate hypersensitivity (IH) reactions. Differentiating allergic from non-allergic IH is crucial; allergy contraindicates the culprit agent for life. We studied frequency of allergic IH among ICM or GBCM reactors.

METHODS

Patients were recruited in 31 hospitals between 2005 and 2009. Clinical symptoms, plasma histamine and tryptase concentrations and skin tests were recorded. Allergic IH was diagnosed by intradermal tests (IDT) with the culprit CM diluted 1:10, "potentially allergic" IH by positive IDT with pure CM, and non-allergic IH by negative IDT.

FINDINGS

Among 245 skin-tested patients (ICM = 209; GBCM = 36), allergic IH to ICM was identified in 41 (19.6%) and to GBCM in 10 (27.8%). Skin cross-reactivity was observed in 11 patients with ICM (26.8%) and 5 with GBCM (50%). Allergy frequency increased with clinical severity and histamine and tryptase concentrations (p < 0.0001). Cardiovascular signs were strongly associated with allergy. Non-allergic IH was observed in 152 patients (62%) (ICM:134; GBCM:18). Severity grade was lower (p < 0.0001) and reaction delay longer (11.6 vs 5.6 min; p < 0.001). Potentially allergic IH was diagnosed in 42 patients (17.1%) (ICM:34; GBCM:8). The delay, severity grade, and mediator release were intermediate between the two other groups.

INTERPRETATION

Allergic IH accounted for < 10% of cutaneous reactions, and > 50% of life-threatening ones. GBCM and ICM triggered comparable IH reactions in frequency and severity. Cross-reactivity was frequent, especially for GBCM. We propose considering skin testing with pure contrast agent, as it is more sensitive than the usual 1:10 dilution criteria.