Retrospective analysis of non-laboratory-based adverse drug reactions induced by intravenous radiocontrast agents in a Joint Commission International-accredited academic medical center hospital in China

Case Report: A Rare Case of Iodixanol-Induced Anaphylactic Shock in Cerebral Angiography

Background

Adverse reactions induced by isoosmolar contrast medium (iodixanol) are mostly mild, with rashes and headaches being the most common. Although anaphylactic shock has been reported, no related incidents have been documented on cerebral angiography.

Objective

This article reports a serious case of anaphylactic shock possibly induced by iodixanol and provides an overview of the case report.

Case Summary

A 65-year-old female with persistent headaches for nearly six months and CTA examination revealed multiple intracranial aneurysms. After two treatments, she returned to the hospital for aneurysm of reexamination a month ago. Following a preoperative assessment, cerebral angiography was performed. Three minutes after the procedure, the patient experienced dizziness, increased heart rate, followed by hypotension (BP 90/43 mm Hg), a sudden drop-in heart rate (HR 68 bpm), and a drop in SpO2 to 92%. Intravenous dexamethasone for anti-allergic were administered immediately, along with therapy through oxygen-inhalation. However, the patient then developed limb convulsions, unresponsiveness, and was urgently given diazepam for sedation and sputum aspiration to maintain airway patency. Blood pressure decrease to 53/29 mm Hg, and SpO2 readings were unavailable. Intravenous dopamine to elevates blood pressure, and assists breathing by intubating in the endotracheal. After 3 minutes, as the blood pressure remained undetectable, intermittent intravenous epinephrine 1mg was administered to raise the blood pressure, gradually restoring it to 126/90 mm Hg, and SpO2 increased to 95%. The patient was diagnosed with iodixanol-induced anaphylactic shock and urgently transferred to the NICU for monitoring and treatment. The patient died despite immediate treatment.

Conclusion

A 65-year-old female developed serious anaphylactic shock during cerebral angiography after receiving iodixanol. Although iodixanol is considered one of the safest iodinated contrast mediums (ICM), clinicians should be aware of its the potential for serious hypersensitivity reactions that can lead to fatal and life-threatening events.

Thyroid dysfunction associated with iodine-contrast media: A real-world pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Objective

To comprehensively analyze characteristics of thyroid dysfunction associated with iodine contrast media (ICM) based on data from the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS).

Methods

Disproportionate analysis was employed to identify signals of thyroid dysfunction caused by ICM, and descriptive analysis was performed to examine the clinical characteristics of reported cases involving ICM-related thyroid dysfunctions.

Results

A total of 83 adverse event reports were identified, documenting thyroid dysfunctions associated with ICM agents. Treatment with ICM was significantly associated with higher reporting of hypothyroidism ([ROR] = 2.21, 95 % CI: 1.59-3.08; IC025 = 0.58) and hyperthyroidism (ROR = 3.49, 95 % CI: 2.37-5.13; IC025 = 1.14). Among the six ICM agents investigated, iodixanol demonstrated the highest signal strength in both hypothyroidism (ROR = 9.47) and hyperthyroidism (ROR = 5.44). Hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism almost occurred in the first 30 days after ICM administration (76.9 % and 70 % of patients, respectively). Furthermore, the proportion of severe outcomes in hyperthyroidism was significantly higher than that in hypothyroidism (12/26 vs. 2/35, P = 0.009).

Conclusion

The present study highlights the varying risks of thyroid dysfunction associated with different ICM agents, with iodixanol exhibiting the highest signal intensity. Hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism associated with ICM generally manifest within the first month following administration. Consequently, monitoring of thyroid function during this period is strongly recommended for ICM agents presenting higher risk profiles.

Pharmacist-led iodinated contrast media infusion risk assessment service

Background: With the increasing development of medical imaging, the use of iodinated contrast media has become more widespread. Adverse reactions caused by iodinated contrast media have drawn much attention. Despite this, there is still a lack of unified standards for the safe infusion process of iodinated contrast media in clinical practice both domestically and internationally. Objectives: Establishing a risk management service system to better predict the risks associated with iodinated contrast media infusion, reduce the incidence of adverse reactions and minimize patient harm. Method: A prospective interventional study was carried out from April 2021 to December 2021 at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital in China. During this study, a service system was established to manage the risks associated with the infusion of iodinated contrast media. Personalized risk identification and assessment were performed by a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary team before iodinated contrast media infusion. Early warning, prevention, and adverse reaction management were performed according to different risk levels during and after infusion. Results: A multidisciplinary team led by pharmacists was established to evaluate the risks associated with infusion of iodinated contrast media. A total of 157 patients with risk factors related to the iodinated contrast media were screened out, which prevented 22 serious adverse events and enhanced the quality of medical care. All participants expressed high satisfaction with the service. Conclusion: Through practical exploration, the pharmacist-led multidisciplinary team can provide advance warning and effectively limit the risks of adverse reactions caused by iodinated contrast media to a preventable and controllable level. This approach serves as a valuable reference for developing strategies and schemes to reduce the incidence of such reactions. Therefore, we encourage the implementation of this intervention in other areas of China.

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.

Clinical impact of allergy and pre-medication in CT studies with low-osmolality intravenous iodinated contrast media

AIM

To evaluate the occurrence and severity of allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM), including associated risk factors and the impact of pre-medication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on patients who had experienced allergic reactions during outpatient computed tomography (CT) examinations between January 2014 and September 2018 were analysed retrospectively. Response severity was assessed according to validated criteria. A control group was selected among individuals who underwent CT during the study period and did not experience allergic reactions.

RESULTS

Screening of 36,920 CT studies revealed 74 (0.2%) individuals with systemic reactions to ICM. No significant differences in patient characteristics were found among patients who experienced mild (n=54), moderate (n=17), or severe (n=4) reactions. Previous ICM allergy was reported in 10 patients (13.3%). Patients with a history of ICM allergy had mild (9/10) or moderate (1/10) reactions, with one individual showing decreased intensity of the allergic response compared to a previous event. Within the control group, four patients (4%) had previous ICM allergy. In these individuals, lack of allergic reactions could not be attributed to pre-medication. All patients with severe reactions did not have a prior history of ICM allergy.

CONCLUSION

Severe allergic reactions to ICM are rare, lack significant risk factors, and do not appear to be impacted by pre-medication. The findings presented herein highlight the need for prospective work that will re-evaluate the yield of pre-medication protocols.

Acute Urticaria in Inpatients Undergoing Non-emergent Coronary Angiography With Corticosteroid Prophylaxis: A Retrospective Study

Background and Aims: Acute urticaria (AU) is the most frequently reported immediate hypersensitivity reaction in skin by administration of iodinated contrast media (ICM). We aimed to establish the pattern and identify the risk factors of AU among inpatients undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography (CAG) with prophylactic corticosteroids in China.

Methods: Medical records of 19,326 adult inpatients undergoing non-emergent CAG with prophylactic methylprednisolone in 2013–2019 were retrospectively investigated. AU was identified within 1 h post-ICM administration, and diffuse involvement was defined when wheals occur in two or more body parts, including the back, abdomen, chest, and extremities. Age- and sex-matched inpatients (1:4) without AU were randomly selected for assessment of risk factors.

Results: Approximately 0.8% of CAG inpatients had AU, including 101 diffuse and 64 limited form. The diffuse AU was more common in settings of non-diagnostic CAG, iohexol used, average ICM injection≥3 ml/min, recurrent CAG, and past history of immediate hypersensitivity to ICM. Inpatients with preexisting allergies, decreased evaluated glomerular filtration rate, and increased high sensitivity C reactive protein or neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio prior to CAG had a higher probability of AU (odds ratio >1, P < 0.05 for all variables). All AU inpatients complained of pruritus, and mild itching predominated. AU dissipated in several days under treatment of ebastine or levocetirizine 10 mg/daily, but ebastine showed superiority.

Conclusions: ICM-induced AU is not uncommon in non-emergent CAG inpatients with prophylactic methylprednisolone. Preexisting allergies, renal dysfunction, and mild inflammation are high-risk factors, and antihistamine monotherapy is a favorable candidate for ICM-related AU.

Pharmacovigilance and radiologists: How well do they get along?

OBJECTIVES

Considering the growing use of imaging modalities and contrast agents, radiologists are prone to encounter adverse drug reactions (ADR). In the current study, we mainly aim to evaluate the knowledge of radiologists regarding pharmacovigilance (PV). Also, we intend to gather information about their previous ADR experiences. Secondarily, we hope to increase the awareness about contrast-medium-related ADRs and attract attention to the importance of properly reporting these ADRs.

METHODS

A survey was generated by using an online survey webpage, and the relevant link was e-mailed to radiologists and radiology residents. The survey begins with a short explanation about the study. The second section contains questions about PV knowledge level, and the final section aims to gather information about the experienced ADRs.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 202 participants. 65.3% stated that they were aware of PV. 24.8% of the participants said that they know the national PV program. 97% told that they knew the term ADR. 66.3% of the participants encountered an ADR. 53.7% of them reported these ADRs. 70.8% of them reported these ADRs to a clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists encounter ADRs almost as frequently as the other doctors. Their awareness about PV is similar with other healthcare professionals. They have fewer information about TUFAM and PvCPs. Radiologists generally prefer to communicate with a clinician about an ADR. Overall condition of radiologists about PV is quite similar with other healthcare professionals and education can improve it, as for the others.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Radiologists encounters ADRs almost as frequently as the other doctors. Overall condition of radiologists about PV is quite similar with other healthcare professionals and education can improve it, as for the others.