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.

Recognition of iodixanol by dendritic cells increases the cellular response in delayed allergic reactions to contrast media.

BACKGROUND: Delayed reactions to iodine contrast media (CM) account for 1-3% of patients with adverse reactions to iodine CM. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of these reactions remain poorly documented. Although most of these reactions are T cell mediated, the involvement of dendritic cells (DC) has not been investigated sufficiently. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the T cell response to iodixanol requires DC as antigen-presenting cell and, more particularly, to evaluate the changes induced by iodixanol on DC maturation and in vitro production of cytokines after drug stimulation in patients with maculopapular exanthema. METHODS: Peripheral blood lymphocytes, immature monocyte-derived DC (imDC) and skin biopsies were obtained from patients with delayed reactions to iodixanol and tolerant subjects. We studied the consequences of the interaction between DC, lymphocytes and iodixanol by phenotype analysis, proliferation and cytokine production. RESULTS: A T-cell-mediated reaction was evidenced in patient biopsies, with a lymphocyte-rich, peri-vascular infiltrate. Iodixanol induced maturation of imDC from patients but not from controls, with expression of the co-stimulatory markers CD83, CD86 and CD40 and an increase in mean fluorescence intensity of CD80, CD86 and HLA-DR. In the absence of DC, positive cell proliferation to iodixanol was detected in only one patient while the addition of DC produced a positive test in five of the six patients. Similarly, the increase in cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-6, IL-1b and TNF-α) was higher when imDC were introduced into the culture together with the culprit drug. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results provide evidence for a DC-mediated mechanism in delayed allergic reactions to CM, influencing T cell proliferation and cytokine production. These new insights will be helpful for designing immunotherapeutic strategies and in vitro diagnostic tests of CM-delayed reactions.

The role of iodine in hypersensitivity reactions to radio contrast media.

INTRODUCTION: Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated radio contrast media (RCM) are either immediate-type (IT) or delayed reactions (DT). In IT, the pathomechanism is unclear. In DT, delayed positive patch (PT) and intradermal tests (IDT) and RCM-specific T cells suggest a T cell-mediated mechanism. In both, the role of iodine has not been clarified; however, patients are often labelled as 'iodine allergic'. Occasionally, positive skin tests to iodine-containing drugs are observed. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the presence of hypersensitivity to iodine in patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions to RCM. METHODS: Nineteen patients with a history of IT (n=9) or DT (n=10) to RCM were investigated. Skin prick tests, IDT and PT with several RCM and iodine formulations were carried out. All underwent oral provocation with Lugol's solution (LS). Two patients each with iodine mumps, contact dermatitis to iodized antiseptics and chronic idiopathic urticaria served as control or proof of concept. RESULTS: In the IT group, skin tests were positive in three out of nine patients to one RCM. One patient with negative skin tests reacted twice to oral iodine with urticaria. In the DT group, sensitization to one or several RCM was identified in 10 out of 10 patients. In seven out of 10 patients, additional sensitizations to the iodine formulations were found. Two patients developed a mild exanthema after oral provocation with LS. CONCLUSION: We have previously demonstrated in patients with iodine mumps that an oral challenge with LS is a valid means to elicit hypersensitivity reactions to iodine. In 19 patients, we showed that iodine is rarely the eliciting agent in hypersensitivity reactions to RCM. Only one patient with a late urticaria to an RCM with a late urticaria to LS and two patients with DT and broad sensitization to all RCM tested reacted to LS with an exanthema. In most cases, more likely the RCM molecules and not iodine are the eliciting compounds.

[Mechanism of severe, immediate reactions to iodinated contrast material]. / Mécanismes des réactions immédiates sévères aux produits de contraste iodés.

Immediate reactions to iodinated contrast material are usually supposed to be due to complement activation. Histamine has not been proved responsible for signs. However the results described in the literature are controversial: they have been obtained from non-reacting patients or during minor or moderate reactions. We suggest to study mediator release during unexpected severe reactions and to perform skin tests and IgE measurements in patients with proved liberation of mediators.