Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: While hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to intravenously administered iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been well studied, not much is known about HSR to intra-arterially administered ICM. Methods: A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate coronary angiography (CAG)-induced ICM hypersensitivity in patients who underwent CAG using ICM including ioversol, a low-osmolar non-ionic monomer, and iodixanol, an iso-osmolar non-ionic dimer. The HSR were investigated through in-patient monitoring after CAG and telephone interview after discharge. Results: A total of 714 patients were enrolled during the observation period, of whom 26 (3.6%) showed immediate HSR and 108 (15.1%) showed delayed HSR. With regard to severity, proportion of immediate HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 57.7%, 38.5%, and 3.8%, respectively, whereas that of delayed HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 85.2%, 13.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that previous intra-arterial exposure to ICM was an independent risk factor for immediate HSR (odds ratio (OR) 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22–6.96; p = 0.015). Iodixanol was a significant risk factor for delayed HSR (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07–2.43; p = 0.024) and correlated with a higher incidence of delayed HSR within 24-h post-ICM administration compared to ioversol. Conclusion: The incidence rate of immediate and delayed HSR in intra-arterially administered ICM was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. Previous exposure to intra-arterially administered contrast media was a significant risk factor for immediate HSR. Compared to ioversol, iodixanol was associated with relatively earlier and more frequent delayed HSR. Key Points: • In this prospective study, the incidence of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity in intra-arterial injection of contrast media during coronary angiography was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. • Delayed hypersensitivity reactions were more common but less severe than immediate hypersensitivity reactions during coronary angiography. • Previous exposure to ICM via intra-arterial route was a significant risk factor for immediate hypersensitivity to intra-arterial contrast medium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study investigated the characteristics of oxaliplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) and evaluated the efficacy of premedication and desensitization administration for controlling HSR in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. Methods: This retrospective study includes oxaliplatin hypersensitivity cases reported to our in-hospital, adverse drug reaction monitoring system between May 2008 and April 2012. We analyzed administration histories of oxaliplatin and premedication treatments, chemotherapy cycle and severity of the initial HSR, and prophylactic measures and their outcomes in subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Results: One hundred and seventy-three patients showed hypersensitivity to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin HSR developed after mean chemotherapy cycle 6.3 ± 0.3. Specifically, while HSR occurred at cycle 7.6 ± 0.3 in the case of patients previously unexposed to oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, it occurred at cycle 2.6 ± 0.3 in previously exposed patients. Of the 173 patients who exhibited HSR, premedication was administered in 134 patients and 71.6 % of them succeeded in preventing HSR. Desensitization was attempted in 38 patients, including 20 patients in whom premedication administration was unsuccessful, and 89 % of desensitized patients successfully underwent oxaliplatin chemotherapy without HSR. As severity of HSR increased, the success rate by premedication decreased and the percentage of patients that underwent desensitization increased. Conclusions: Attention should be paid to patients with any prior exposure to oxaliplatin, especially during early chemotherapy cycles. Given the high success rate of preventing HSR by desensitization administration and its apparent safety profile, we suggest that desensitization be considered as the first option for the treatment of grades 3 and 4 HSR cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]