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

Knowledge mapping and global trends of drug hypersensitivity from 2013 to 2023: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug hypersensitivity is a major global public health issue with a significant increase in prevalence in populations. Here, we provide a deep insight into the frontier hotspot and future direction in the field of drug hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A knowledge map is portrayed based on publications related to drug hypersensitivity from Web of Science Core Collection using CiteSpace. Co-occurrence relationships of countries, institutes, authors, journals, references, and keywords are constructed. According to the co-occurrence relationships, hotspots and future trends are overviewed.

RESULTS

The United States ranked first in the world and China with the second highest publications was the only developing country. Torres, Mayorga, and Blanca were highly productive authors. Harvard University was the institution with the most research publications. Keywords co-occurrence analysis suggested applications in emerging causes, potential mechanisms, and clinical diagnosis as the research hotspots and development frontiers.

CONCLUSION

Research on drug hypersensitivity is in a rapid development stage and an emerging trend in reports of anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycols is identified. Developing algorithms for understanding the standardization process of culprit drugs, clinical manifestations, and diagnostic methods will be the focus of future direction. In addition, a better understanding of the mechanisms to culprit drugs with immunological precise phenotypic definitions and high-throughput platforms is needed.

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.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: A diagnostic approach by skin tests

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have risen due to their increasing use in x-ray-based imaging modalities. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by nonionic monomeric compounds and represent an issue impacting the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of cancer, cardiology and surgery patients.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of skin tests in delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM and to evaluate the tolerability of iobitridol, a monomeric nonionic low osmolality compound, as a possible safe alternative.

METHODS

Patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM referred to us from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent patch test and, if negative, intradermal test with the culprit ICM and iobitridol as alternative.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients (females 24, 64.9%) were enrolled in the study. Iodixanol and iomeprol were the most frequently involved ICM (48.5% and 35.2%, respectively); 62.2% of patients presented maculopapular eruption, while 37.8% reported delayed urticaria-like rash. Skin tests resulted positive to the culprit ICM in 19 patients (51.4%), 16 to patch test and 3 to intradermal test. Skin tests with iobitridol, tested as alternative, resulted positive in 3/19 patients (15.8%). All 16 patients with negative results to iobitridol were administered this ICM and tolerated it.

CONCLUSIONS

In at least half of patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity was demonstrated by skin tests, particularly by patch test. This diagnostic approach resulted simple, cost-effective and safe, not only to confirm the culprit ICM but also to identify iobitridol as feasible alternative.

Non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iomeprol: Diagnostic value of skin tests and cross-reactivity with other iodinated contrast media

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media produce non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR). The goal of this prospective study was to determine the utility of skin tests and the subsequent tolerance to negative skin-tested iodinated contrasts in patients with NIHR caused by iomeprol.

METHODS

Prick and intradermal tests with iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, and iobitridol were performed in all patients. IV challenge with the causative contrast (iomeprol in 90%) was made if skin tests were negative. In case of a positive skin test with the causal contrast, or a positive challenge test with it, IV challenge test with an alternative, negative skin-tested contrast was performed in all patients.

RESULTS

Skin tests were positive in 47.6% (20/42) of patients with NIHR induced by iomeprol. Of the 66 challenge tests performed with negative skin-tested iodinated contrasts, tolerance was confirmed in 35 (53%): 32 iomeron, 2 iobitridol, 1 iopamidol. Cross-reactivity between iomeprol and iopamidol was 22% (4/20 in patients with positive skin tests and 5/21 in patients with negative skin tests).

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitivity of the skin tests was less than 50% NIHRs due to iomeprol, while the negative predictive value of skin tests in patients who tolerated challenges with alternative contrasts (mainly iopamidol) was 53% (35 tolerated out of 66 performed). The cross-reactivity between iomeprol and iopamidol is high.

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 radiocontrast media: Cluster analysis reveals distinct clinical phenotypes

Background

Drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to iodinated radiocontrast media (iRCM) is reported in 1%–3% of injections. Risk assessment of patients with suspicion of DHR to iRCM relies solely on clinical phenotyping and drug allergy workup. Using a novel unsupervised TwoStep cluster analysis, we aimed to identify prototypic patterns within a large cohort of patients evaluated for a potential iRCM DHR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using data from the Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database of the Allergy Unit, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. All referred patients during February 2001 to December 2019 with suspicion of iRCM DHR with either confirmed positive or confirmed negative skin tests were included in the analysis.

Results

A total of 1439 patients were evaluated. The chronology of the index reaction was immediate and nonimmediate in 77.1% and 22.4%, respectively. Cluster analysis categorized the total study population in 5 clusters. Cluster 1 compiled all nonimmediate and cluster 2–5 almost all immediate reactors. Cluster 1 and 2 had recent reactions (<1 y) with mostly known iRCMs and the highest iRCM allergy prevalence (16–17%). In the other clusters, more remote reactions, unknown iRCMs and a lower allergy prevalence (3–8%) was observed. Chronology and semiology of the index reaction were the factors most strongly differentiated among clusters. History of anaphylactic shock and chronology of immediate hypersensitivity reactions were shown to be independent predictors of allergy with adjusted OR (aOR) of 4.68 (95%CI: 3.01–7.27, p < 0.001) and 2.51 (95%CI: 1.67–3.78, p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

Unsupervised cluster analysis identified 5 prototypic patterns within patients with a suspected DHR to iRCMs. Well-phenotyped patients cluster together in 2 groups in which the prevalence of allergy is approximately 1 in 6. However, this value decreases for patients with reactions dating back to more than a decade.

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.

Radiocontrast Media Hypersensitivity Reactions in Children

Hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media seem to be rare in children. Furthermore, the use of radiocontrast media in children remains quite safe in terms of the severity of reactions. Since pediatric guidelines are lacking, the diagnostic workup employed in adults could be adapted to children, taking into account that results have not yet been validated in this age group. Specific protocols for risk stratification and management of severe reactions have been proposed so far.

Contrast Medium Hypersensitivity: A Large Italian Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) are a major problem. We compared differences of HRs to iodinated contrast media (ICM) versus gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM), collecting data on prevalence, type, latency and severity. Secondly, the predisposition to perform new contrast tests, use of premedication and possible appearance of new reactions were explored in a long-term follow-up of 5 years. Clinical data, comorbidities, skin test (ST) results, re-exposure to CM procedures with any new reactions, premedication and CM used were collected. In a retrospective single-center study, 350 patients with mild to moderate HRs were enrolled. Asthma, food allergy, non-allergic drug hypersensitivity and neurologic disease were significantly more frequent in patients with HRs to GBCM compared to the high evidence of cardiovascular disease and history of cancer in patients with HRs to ICM. A marked delay in performing STs was reported by patients with negative results (66 months, p < 0.01). Iomeprol, iopamidol and gadobenic acid were the culprit CM most involved in HRs in patients with positive STs. During follow-up, 7.1% of responders reported new HRs to CM despite negative STs, premedication and infusion of alternative CM in most cases.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review

INTRODUCTION

Allergic and nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media are classified as immediate or non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHR and NIHR), respectively. Skin tests and provocation tests are recommended for the evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agents; however provocations are not common in clinical practice.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted to investigate studies comprising both skin tests and provocation tests that evaluated hypersensitivity reactions to ICM.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified that reported on skin tests, followed by provocations. In the case of IHR to ICM, 65/69 (94%) patients with a positive skin test for the culprit media tolerated a challenge with a skin-test-negative alternative ICM. In IHR to ICM with a negative skin test for the culprit media, provocations were positive in 3.2%-9.1% patients. In the case of a NIHR to ICM with a positive skin test, provocation with a skin-test-negative agent was tolerated in 75/105 (71%) of cases. In NIHR with a negative skin test for the culprit agent, re-exposure to the culprit or an alternative was positive in 0%-34.6% patients. Provocations with the same ICM in skin test positive patients with IHR or NIHR were positive for a majority of the patients, although such provocation tests were rarely performed. Data on hypersensitivity reactions, skin tests and provocations with gadolinium-based contrast media were limited; however, they exhibited a pattern similar to that observed in ICM.

CONCLUSION

In both ICM and gadolinium-based contrast media, the risk of an immediate repeat reaction is low when skin tests are negative. In contrast, a provocation with a skin-test-positive contrast medium showed a high risk of an immediate repeat hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, a thorough medical history is necessary, followed by skin tests. A provocation is recommended, for diagnostic work-up, when the diagnosis is uncertain.

Delabeling Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity: How Far Can You Safely Go?

Delayed immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (IM-ADRs) are defined as reactions occurring more than 6 hours after dosing. They include heterogeneous clinical phenotypes that are typically T-cell-mediated reactions with distinct mechanisms across a wide spectrum of severity from benign exanthems through to life-threatening cutaneous or organ-specific diseases. For mild reactions such as benign exanthem, considerations for delabeling are similar to immediate reactions and may include a graded or single-dose drug challenge with or without preceding skin or patch testing. Evaluation of challenging cases such as the patient who is on multiple drugs at the time a severe delayed IM-ADR occurs should prioritize clinical ascertainment of the most likely phenotype and implicated drug(s). Although not widely available and validated, procedures such as patch testing, delayed intradermal skin testing, and laboratory-based functional drug assays or genetic (human leukocyte antigen) testing may provide valuable information to further help risk stratify patients and identify the likely implicated and/or cross-reactive drug(s). The decision to use a drug challenge as a diagnostic or delabeling tool in a patient with a severe delayed IM-ADR should weigh the risk-benefit ratio, balancing the severity and priority for the treatment of the underlying, and the availability of alternative efficacious and safe treatments.

CardioMEMS Implantation Using Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent: A Case Report

A 57-year-old woman with New York Heart Association Class III heart failure requiring multiple hospitalisations over the previous year presented for CardioMEMS implantation. Because of the patient’s allergy history of anaphylaxis to iodine-based contrast agent she underwent the device implantation with gadolinium-based contrast agent (Magnevist), which was successful.

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.

DRESS and AGEP Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media: A French Case Series

BACKGROUND

Drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESSs) and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) are potentially severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical findings and sensitization profiles of DRESS and AGEP patients who had been administered iodinated contrast media (ICM).

METHODS

All adult patients in the dermatologist's French Investigators for Skin Adverse Reactions to Drugs (FISARD) network diagnosed with a DRESS or AGEP highly suspected to have been caused by an ICM were included retrospectively.

RESULTS

Thirteen DRESS patients and 19 AGEP patients who had been administered ICM were included, and the median delay in DRESS and AGEP occurrence after ICM administration was short, 4 and 1 days, respectively. Five AGEP patients had systemic involvement. A high cosensitization rate (46%) was observed among the DRESS patients, mainly with beta-lactam antibiotics. Overall, 77% of our patients were sensitized to several ICM. Patch tests identified the suspected ICM for 21 cases (72%). The retrospective nature, the limited number of subjects, the absence of a control group of healthy individuals, and the lack of detailed information on previous exposure to sensitizing drugs are limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a large series of DRESSs and AGEPs related to ICM administration. Skin tests appear useful for diagnosis and potentially to identify alternative ICM.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

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.

Adverse reactions during procedures: Hypersensitivity to contrast agents and dyes

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an overview of the literature on hypersensitivity reactions during procedures to commonly used contrast agents and dyes. A synthesis of current knowledge on clinical symptoms, epidemiology and risk factors, pathomechanism, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to these substances is presented.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through Medline. Included were peer-reviewed articles written in English between 2000 and 2019.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant clinical studies, experimental studies, and review articles have been selected. Additionally, case reports have been included if they carried significant information about rare clinical forms of hypersensitivity reactions, disease mechanisms, or therapy.

RESULTS

An allergological workup is only indicated for patients with a history of immediate (IHR) and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR) but not for toxic or unrelated adverse events. Skin tests with or without experimental cellular laboratory tests in patients with previous reactions can provide evidence for an allergic mechanism. Positive skin tests indicating allergy are more common in severe reactions. If the adverse event was allergic, skin testing of alternatives is helpful for the selection of other contrast agents for future procedures. Premedication alone may be insufficient in these cases, and breakthrough reactions occur. For nonallergic reactions, change of contrast agent and premedication is often but not always sufficient to suppress reactions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with previous NIHR or IHR, especially moderate and severe IHR, needing potential re-administration of contrast agents should be skin tested to identify an allergic mechanism as well as alternative agents to be used for future procedures.

Anaesthetic management of patients with pre-existing allergic conditions: a narrative review

This narrative review seeks to distinguish the clinical patterns of pre-existing allergic conditions from other confounding non-allergic clinical entities, and to identify the potential related risks and facilitate their perioperative management. Follow-up investigation should be performed after a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity to establish a diagnosis and provide advice for subsequent anaesthetics, the main risk factor for perioperative immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylaxis being a previous uninvestigated perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction. The concept of cross-reactivity between drugs used in the perioperative setting and food is often quoted, but usually not supported by evidence. There is no reason to avoid propofol in egg, soy, or peanut allergy. The allergenic determinants have been characterised for fish, shellfish, and povidone iodine, but remain unknown for iodinated contrast agents. Iodinated drugs may be used in seafood allergy. Evidence supporting the risk for protamine allergy in fish allergy and in neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use is lacking. Conversely, cross-reactivity to gelatin-based colloid may occur in α-gal syndrome. Atopy and allergic asthma along with other non-allergic conditions, such as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, and hereditary or acquired angioedema, are not risk factors for IgE-mediated drug allergy, but there is a perioperative risk associated with the potential for exacerbation of the various conditions.

Pediatric drug hypersensitivity: which diagnostic tests?

Along with the anamnesis and clinical evaluation, diagnostic tests are one of the mainstream key points in the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). A wide knowledge gap, both in diagnosis and management of pediatric DHR, must be filled.  Only a few published studies evaluated sensitivity and specificity of skin and in vitro tests in children. However, selected case series show that diagnostic work-up for adults could be useful, with some limitations, in pediatric age. Indeed, despite improvement in in vivo and in vitro diagnosis, drug provocation test remains the gold standard in pediatric age, too. Unmet needs in children include multi-centric studies on incidence of DHR, utility and feasibility of in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests and specifically dedicated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of DHR in children.

Controversies in Drug Allergy: Radiographic Contrast Media

The risk for developing immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media (RCM) interferes with the diagnosis and treatment of a number of patients requiring imaging diagnostic methods for many common diseases. A group of experts met in Orlando, Florida, in March 2018 to analyze the similarities and differences in the management of RCM reactions in different areas of the world. This paper presents a summary of the recommendations provided by this consensus group, highlighting controversial issues and unmet needs that require further research.

The involvement of osmolarity in the safety of contrast media

Background

New non-ionic contrast agents, classified into low osmolar agents and iso-osmolar agents, present different biochemical characteristics that may influence the allergic reactions they cause. The aim of our study was to evaluate how osmolarity may affect safety in the use of contrast agents.

Case presentation

Six patients with a positive history for reaction to contrast agent were included in this study. Only one patient prick and intradermal skin test was positive. However, in 5 cases, patients presented an immediate reaction after administration of contrast agent that was not IgE mediated.

Conclusions

In this study, we focused on iodixanol, an iso-osmolar contrast agent, finding good safety of this product in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agent.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity

Drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug to diagnose immune- or non-immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity and the last step for accurate recognition of drug hypersensitivity reactions when the previous diagnostic evaluations are negative or unavailable. A DPT is performed only if other conventional tests fail to yield conclusive results. In each clinical presentation, "to provoke or not to provoke" a patient should be decided after careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Well-defined benefits of DPT include confirmative exclusion of diagnoses of drug hypersensitivity and provision of safe alternatives. However, disadvantages such as safety, difficulty in interpretations of results, lack of objective biomarkers, risks of resensitization, efficiency in daily practice, and lack of standardized protocols, are poorly debated. This review summarizes the current published research concerning DPT, with particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of DPT in an evidence-based manner.

Immediate hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media: diagnostic accuracy of skin tests and intravenous provocation test with low dose

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of HSR to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is challenging based on clinical history and skin tests.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the negative predictive value (NPV) of skin tests and intravenous provocation test (IPT) with low-dose ICM in patients with suspected immediate hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to ICM.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with suspected immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ICM were included retrospectively. Skin tests and a single-blind placebo-controlled intravenous provocation test (IPT) with low-dose iodinated contrast media (ICM) were performed.

RESULTS

Skin tests with ICM were positive in five cases (one skin prick test and five intradermal test). Thirty-six patients were challenged successfully by IPT, and only one patient had a positive challenge result, with a grade I reaction by the Ring and Messmer classification. Ten of 23 patients followed up by telephone were re-exposed to a negative tested ICM during radiologic examination; two experienced a grade I immediate reaction.

CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ICM, the NPV for skin tests and IPT with low dose was 80% (95% CI 44-97%).

Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement

One of the major concerns in the practice of allergy is related to the safety of procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease. Management (diagnosis and treatment) of hypersensitivity disorders involves often intentional exposure to potentially allergenic substances (during skin testing), deliberate induction in the office of allergic symptoms to offending compounds (provocation tests) or intentional application of potentially dangerous substances (allergy vaccine) to sensitized patients. These situations may be associated with a significant risk of unwanted, excessive or even dangerous reactions, which in many instances cannot be completely avoided. However, adverse reactions can be minimized or even avoided if a physician is fully aware of potential risk and is prepared to appropriately handle the situation. Information on the risk of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergic diseases has been accumulated in the medical literature for decades; however, except for allergen specific immunotherapy, it has never been presented in a systematic fashion. Up to now no single document addressed the risk of the most commonly used medical procedures in the allergy office nor attempted to present general requirements necessary to assure the safety of these procedures. Following review of available literature a group of allergy experts within the World Allergy Organization (WAO), representing various continents and areas of allergy expertise, presents this report on risk associated with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology and proposes a consensus on safety requirements for performing procedures in allergy offices. Optimal safety measures including appropriate location, type and required time of supervision, availability of safety equipment, access to specialized emergency services, etc. for various procedures have been recommended. This document should be useful for allergists with already established practices and experience as well as to other specialists taking care of patients with allergies.

[Recurrence of drug eruption after renewed injection of iodinated contrast medium in patients with known allergic contraindications]

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are used extensively by both radiologists and cardiologists. Injection of such products can induce immediate hypersensitivity reactions, some of which are IgE-mediated, and delayed hypersensitivity reaction with all types of drug eruptions being reported. Allergy tests, whether patch-tests or intradermal tests, are useful to confirm whether patients are allergic. At the end of these tests, depending on the reaction (chronology and clinical symptoms) and the results of the skin tests, patients are given an allergy card as well as a detailed certificate indicating the various ICM contraindicated and those allowed.

OBSERVATIONS

We report herein three cases of patients experiencing a confirmed allergic eruption after injection of ICM, and whose recommendations and contraindication were not taken into consideration, leading to recurrence of eruption after renewed ICM injection.

DISCUSSION

The three cases we report herein underscore the lack of knowledge concerning eruptions induced by ICM, particularly among radiologists. Better dissemination of information about the existence of such reactions appears necessary amongst the medical professionals concerned.