Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33071787›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Multiple Iodinated Contrast Media.

Inmaculada Doña, Gádor Bogas, María Salas, Almudena Testera, Esther Moreno, Jose Julio Laguna, María José Torres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Stroke in a patient of anaphylaxis-a case report and brief review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Inmaculada DoñaAllergy Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Allergy Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, ARADyAL, Málaga, Spain.
Gádor BogasAllergy Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Allergy Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, ARADyAL, Málaga, Spain.
María SalasAllergy Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Allergy Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, ARADyAL, Málaga, Spain.
Almudena TesteraAllergy Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Allergy Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, ARADyAL, Málaga, Spain.
Esther MorenoAllergy Unit, University Hospital of Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca-IBSAL, ARADyAL, Salamanca, Spain.
Jose Julio LagunaAllergy Unit, Allergo-Anaesthesia Unit, Hospital Central de la Cruz Roja, Faculty of Medicine, Alfonso X El Sabio University. ARADyAL, Madrid, Spain.
María José TorresAllergy Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Allergy Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, ARADyAL, Málaga, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) has risen over last years, representing an important health problem. HSRs to ICMs are classified into immediate reactions (IRs) and non-immediate reactions (NIRs) according to if they occur within 1 h or longer after ICM administration. The diagnosis of HSRs to ICM is complex as skin test (ST) sensitivity ranges widely, and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols are heterogeneous. In this manuscript, we describe the clinical characteristics of a series of patients confirmed as HSR to ICM and the diagnosis procedure carried out, looking into those cases confirmed as HSRs to multiple ICMs. For this purpose, we prospectively evaluated patients suggestive of HSRs to ICMs and classified them as IRs or NIRs. STs were carried out using a wide panel of ICMs, and in those with a negative ST, a single-blind placebo controlled DPT was performed with the culprit. If ST or DPT were positive, then tolerance was assessed with an alternative negative ST ICM. We included 101 cases (12 IRs and 89 NIRs) confirmed as allergic. Among them, 36 (35.64%) cases were allergic to more than one ICM (8 IRs and 28 NIRs). The most common ICM involved were iomeprol and iodixanol. Although not statistically significant, the percentage of patients reporting anaphylaxis was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with patients allergic to a single ICM (50 vs. 25%). Likewise, the percentage of positive results in STs was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with those allergic to a single ICM (for IR 62.5 vs. 25%, p > 0.05; and for NIR, 85.71 vs. 24.59%, p < 0.000). In cases allergic to more than one ICM, DPT with negative-ST ICM was positive in more than 60% (24/36) of cases. Therefore, allergy to multiple ICMs is common, associated to severe reactions in IRs, and confirmed frequently by positive STs. The allergological work-up should include DPT not only to establish the diagnosis but also to identify safe alternative ICM, even if ICM is structurally unrelated and ST is negative. More studies are needed to clarify mechanisms underlying cross-reactivity among ICMs.

Indexed as

anaphylaxisdrug allergydrug provocation testexanthemahypersensitivityiodinated contrast mediaskin testurticaria

Identifiers

PMID33071787
PMCPMC7538657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.