Diagnostic approach to hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: a single-center experience on 98 patients.

Summary: Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are reported in 1%-3% of diagnostic procedures. They represent a relevant problem involving patients' safety as well as relevant costs for healthcare systems. Premedication with antihistamines and corticosteroids is still widely used, but evidence of its efficacy is lacking and there is a risk for under-estimation of possible severe adverse reactions to ICM in those who undergo premedication. Data from 98 patients with a previous reaction to ICM that consecutively referred to our unit between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. They underwent an allergologic workup comprehending skin tests and drug provocation tests (DPT) with ICM. The skin test showed a very high negative predictive value (NPV) compared to DPT in patients with a previous immediate adverse reaction, while the NPV in patients with a previous delayed adverse reaction was lower. After completion of the allergologic workup, 94 patients (95.9%) could tolerate a DPT with the culprit or alternative ICM. Subsequently, 90 patients were reached by phone to assess if they had been re-exposed to ICM for radiologic procedure. Thirty-nine patients had been re-exposed, without any premedication in 13 cases: 12 of them had tolerated the ICM, while one reacted again despite a negative DPT with the same ICM. Overall, the NPV of this protocol was elevated (92.3%) for patients undergoing DPT and subsequent exposure to the same ICM in a real-life setting. Collaboration between the prescribing physician, the radiologist and the allergist, and an accurate allergologic workup are essential to ensure maximum safety for the patient.

Clinical approach on challenge and desensitization procedures with aspirin in patients with ischemic heart disease and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) constitutes a serious problem for subjects with coronary artery disease. In such subjects, physicians have to choose the more appropriate procedure between challenge and desensitization. As the literature on this issue is sparse, this study aimed to establish in these subjects clinical criteria for eligibility for an ASA challenge and/or desensitization. METHODS: Collection and analysis of data on ASA challenges and desensitizations from 10 allergy centers, as well as consensus among the related physicians and an expert panel. RESULTS: Altogether, 310 subjects were assessed; 217 had histories of urticaria/angioedema, 50 of anaphylaxis, 26 of nonimmediate cutaneous eruptions, and 17 of bronchospasm related to ASA/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) intake. Specifically, 119 subjects had index reactions to ASA doses lower than 300 mg. Of the 310 subjects, 138 had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 101 of whom underwent desensitizations, whereas 172 suffered from a chronic ischemic heart disease (CIHD), 126 of whom underwent challenges. Overall, 163 subjects underwent challenges and 147 subjects underwent desensitizations; 86 of the latter had index reactions to ASA doses of 300 mg or less. Ten subjects reacted to challenges, seven at doses up to 500 mg, three at a cumulative dose of 110 mg. The desensitization failure rate was 1.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable CIHD and histories of nonsevere hypersensitivity reactions to ASA/NSAIDs, an ASA challenge is advisable. Patients with an ACS and histories of hypersensitivity reactions to ASA, especially following doses lower than 100 mg, should directly undergo desensitization.

Classification and practical approach to the diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Hypersensitivity reactions to aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) constitute only a subset of all adverse reactions to these drugs, but due to their severity pose a significant burden to patients and are a challenge to the allergist. In susceptible individuals, NSAIDs induce a wide spectrum of hypersensitivity reactions with various timing, organ manifestations, and severity, involving either immunological (allergic) or nonimmunological mechanisms. Proper classification of reactions based on clinical manifestations and suspected mechanism is a prerequisite for the implementation of rational diagnostic procedures and adequate patient management. This document, prepared by a panel of experts from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force on NSAIDs Hypersensitivity, aims at reviewing the current knowledge in the field and proposes uniform definitions and clinically useful classification of hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs. The document proposes also practical algorithms for the diagnosis of specific types of NSAIDs hypersensitivity (which include drug provocations, skin testing and in vitro testing) and provides, when data are available, evidence-based recommendations for the management of hypersensitive patients, including drug avoidance and drug desensitization.

Skin test concentrations for systemically administered drugs -- an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper.

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

Aspirin challenge/desensitisation before coronary stenting in subjects with history of hypersensitivity. A pragmatic approach.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin hypersensitivity may represent a major problem in patients with ischemic coronary disease who need a stenting procedure. In those patients, clinically unsettled reasonably quick desensitisation procedures are needed. In our study we attempted to select the most suitable procedure on the basis of characteristics and severity of ASA hypersensitivity. METHODS: Thirty patients with a history of mild reactions to anti-inflammatory doses of aspirin (> 325 mg) were considered at low risk and underwent a tolerance test in 5 steps. Thirty-one patients, with a history of severe reactions to anti-platelet doses of aspirin 0 mg) underwent a slow desensitisation in 12 steps, reaching a cumulative dose of 150 mg ASA in 220 minutes. RESULTS: In the first group, 29 patients tolerated the challenge. One developed urticaria, thus underwent challenge/desensitisation and achieved tolerance. In the second group, 3 patients did not tolerate the procedure and had to discontinue. CONCLUSION. Our approach to aspirin hypersensitivity in patients needing coronary stenting, based on a severity stratification, allowed to achieve an effective tolerance to aspirin in the majority of subject in a reasonable short time.

Mutational and haplotype map of NOTCH3 in a cohort of Italian patients with cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL).

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), the most common form of familial vascular dementia, is caused by mutations of the NOTCH3 gene. Approximately two hundred pathogenic mutations have been reported within five exons (exons 3, 4, 6, 11 and 19) which accounted for 78% of known mutations in worldwide series. We reported twenty-one NOTCH3 pathogenic mutations (including five novel ones) identified in 53 index Italian patients. Exons 4 (28%), 7 (21%) and 19 (24%) were the most frequently involved. To dissect genetic heterogeneity, we analyzed five haplotyped tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs1044009, rs4809030, rs10426042, rs10423702 and rs3815188) in 95 patients, 39 unaffected pedigree members and 50 healthy controls. SNPs were analyzed using the Illumina VeraCode Universal Capture Beads technology by Allele Specific Primer Extension (ASPE). We identified ten different haplotypes named H1-H10; H1 was the most common haplotype in patients and controls and it was associated with at least twelve out of the twenty-one mutations. Detected mutations were not associated to specific haplotypes while genotyping was compatible with a possible founder effect for the novel p.S396C mutation which clustered in a restricted geographical area of northeast Italy. The results added on to the genetic heterogeneity of CADASIL and emphasized difficulties in designing algorithms for molecular diagnosis.