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.

Adverse reactions after intravascular iodinated contrast media administration and their management.

Endovascular interventions and diagnostic examinations using iodinated contrast media (ICM) are standard of care in current vascular medicine. Although ICM use is generally considered safe, it may be associated with adverse reactions, vary from minor disturbances to rare, but severe life-threatening complications. This position paper of European Society of Vascular Medicine integrates current knowledge and summarizes the key information related to the use of intravascular ICM, serving as recommendation on prevention and management of acute, late, and very late adverse reactions. It should help the health professionals in all fields of vascular medicine to make decisions in daily practice for safe use of contrast media.

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.

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.

Shortage of iodinated contrast media: Status and possible chances - A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Covid-19 related lockdowns have resulted in a shortage of iodinated contrast media (ICM) in 2022. Health care providers have reacted with implementing conservation strategies to stay operational without compromising patient care. Although articles describing the implemented Interventions have been published, possible chances of the shortage have not yet been mentioned in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar, and analysed the background, interventions, and possible benefits of low-dose ICM regimens. RESULTS: We included 22 articles dealing with "ICM shortage" for the analysis. The delivery bottlenecks in the USA and Australia led to two different countermeasures, 1. reduction of the number of contrast-enhanced image-guided examinations and 2. reduction of the (single) ICM dose. Interventions from both groups have resulted in significant reduction of ICM usage; however, group 1 has contributed more to overall ICM reduction. As benefit of the ICM reduction, we revealed an increased safety for patients at risk (e.g. hypersensitivity reactions, contrast-induced acute kidney injury, thyroid toxic effects). CONCLUSION: The ICM shortage of 2022 has forced health care providers to implement conservation strategies to stay operational. Although there were already proposals for dose reduction before the corona pandemic and the associated supply bottlenecks, this situation led to the use of a reduced amount of contrast agent on a large scale. This presents a good opportunity to reconsider protocols and the use of contrast-enhanced imaging in general for future practice as it offers chances and advantages regarding costs, environmental impact, and patient safety.

Differences in Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media: Analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database.

BACKGROUND: A comparative hypersensitivity risk profile of frequently used iodinated contrast media (ICM) may be required for their safer use. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) and specific ICM and characterize the spectrum of ICM-related HSRs. METHODS: We performed a disproportionality analysis and proportionality test to assess the safety profile of ICM-related HSRs and compare the frequency ratio of specific HSRs in diverse age, sex, and country subgroups. We used reports downloaded from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and data on the national use of individual ICM for this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11,343,365 adverse event reports were collected from the first quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2021, among which 5,432 cases were identified as ICM-induced HSRs. All of the studied ICMs were associated with overreporting frequencies of HSRs, in which iomeprol showed the highest reporting odds ratio (ROR) of 24.75 (95% CI, 19.61-31.24). Iopromide (ROR = 22.29; 95% CI, 20.18-24.62) and ioversol (ROR = 20.85; 95% CI, 18.54-23.44) were more likely to cause angioedema than other ICMs, particularly in the group aged 45 to 64 years. Iomeprol was associated with the largest disproportionality for severe cutaneous adverse reactions (ROR = 127.90; 95% CI, 103.32-159.88), whereas iodixanol exhibited maximal incidence when total use cases were considered. Regarding anaphylactic shock, iopamidol presented the highest disproportionality (ROR = 31.11; 95% CI, 27.15-35.65), especially in males or seniors aged greater than 65 years, whereas iopromide resulted in the maximum frequency in China and the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Different ICMs exhibited diverse profiles regarding HSRs, which could be further affected by age, sex, or geographic area. Prospective studies are required for patient safety.

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.

Iodinated Contrast Media Substitution to Prevent Recurrent Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background Changing iodinated contrast media (ICM) may reduce the risk of recurrent ICM-induced hypersensitivity reactions in patients with a prior reaction. Purpose To perform a systematic review on the effectiveness of ICM change in comparison with no change to prevent recurrent ICM immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Materials and methods Multiple data bases were searched without language restriction between January 1990 and August 2021 to identify comparative studies of any design that included patients with a prior ICM hypersensitivity reaction to low-osmolality ICM and re-exposure to intravascular ICM. The methods used included a duplicate assessment of eligibility, double extraction of quantitative data, validity assessment, and random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of all-grade immediate recurrent hypersensitivity reactions. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of severe immediate recurrent hypersensitivity reactions and other adverse events associated with ICM change. Results Six retrospective observational studies at moderate to severe risk of bias assessed 7155 adult patients (4329 in the ICM change group and 2826 in the no-change group). Studies adopted nonstandardized switching methods, and the proportions of the ICM change group ranged between 19% (five of 27 examinations) and 80% (3104 of 3880 examinations). A Bayesian meta-analysis revealed that changing ICM was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent hypersensitivity reaction by 61% (risk ratio = 0.39; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.24, 0.58). The wide-ranging estimates of risk reduction were not explained by the risk of bias ratings, the event rates in the no-change group, the index-reaction severity, or the co-administered nonstandard premedication. Rare severe recurrent reactions (five studies with five events) precluded a conclusion (risk ratio = 0.34, favoring ICM change; CrI: 0.01, 3.74). Adverse events associated with ICM change were not reported. Conclusion In observational evidence of limited quality, iodinated contrast media (ICM)-change was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent immediate hypersensitivity reaction in patients with a prior ICM-induced hypersensitivity reaction. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by McDonald in this issue.

A Retrospective Study to Compare the Effects of Methylprednisolone and Dexamethasone in 35 Patients with Anaphylactic Shock Due to Iodinated Contrast Media During Cardiac Catheterization.

BACKGROUND This retrospective study aimed to compare the effects of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in 35 patients with anaphylactic shock due to iodinated contrast media (ICM) during cardiac catheterization. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-five patients diagnosed with ICM-related anaphylactic shock were enrolled. Nineteen patients received methylprednisolone, while 16 patients received dexamethasone. RESULTS The mean age of patients was 59.8 years in the methylprednisolone group and 57.2 years in the dexamethasone group (P=0.502). Most patients were male (82.9% [26/35]). The groups were matched for cardiac function, kidney function, comorbidities, prior contrast, previous radiocontrast media reactions, and allergic tendencies (all P>0.05). The severity of coronary artery disease, assessed using the SYNTAX II score, was similar between groups (P=0.620). Six patients died from ICM-induced anaphylactic shock. There was no significant difference in mortality between the 2 groups (P=1.000). CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference in patient mortality from anaphylactic shock associated with ICM during cardiac catheterization between the methylprednisolone and dexamethasone groups.

Isn't it time to consider oncological status as a new risk factor of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity?

SUMMARY: Background. The literature describes several risk factors for hypersensitivity (HS) reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM). Objective. To analyze the characteristics of patients experiencing HS reactions to ICM with a focus on oncological status. Methods. All patients (n = 80) with suspected HS to ICM who underwent an allergy evaluation in a Belgian University Hospital over a 5-year period were retrospectively included. Results. Overall, forty patients (50%) had a history of neoplasia, and this group was characterized by less atopy (p less than 0.004). No significant difference was observed between oncological and non-oncological patients in terms of gender, age, cardiovascular diseases, medical treatment, and number of previous exposures or reactions to ICM. Conclusions. A high proportion of oncological patients was observed in our population with HS to ICM. They did not have other known risk factors, and they were less atopic. Larger multicentric studies should explore cancer as a potential new risk factor.

Skin Tests for the Exploration of Hypersensitivity Reactions Associated with Iodinated Contrast Media.

BACKGROUND: Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are responsible for multiple side effects, especially hypersensitivity reactions. These reactions can either be authentic allergies or non-allergic hypersensitivity reactions. Skin tests (prick and intradermal tests) are simple to perform and can be of great help, especially if the ICM needs to be re-used. The aim of the study was to assess the characteristics of the patients in whom skin tests were performed and the results of these tests. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from June 2014 to June 2019. All included patients had at least one episode of hypersensitivity reaction to ICM and underwent skin tests. RESULTS: We included 35 patients aged 18 to 85 years. The iopromide was the most implicated ICM. The reactions were mainly cutaneous (n=30) and immediate (n=27). The skin tests were negative, except for two patients. The re-use of ICM occurred in 11 patients: 9 with an ICM other than the one suspected and two patients with the same ICM. Among these patients, 5 did not have any premedication. Two of them had a second hypersensitivity reaction, the first with another ICM and the second with the same ICM. CONCLUSION: One of the main pillars of allergic exploration is ICM skin testing, not only to prevent a recurrence, but also to allow patients to benefit from ICM re-use, which are sometimes essential.

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.