ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020
Hypersensitivity Reactions to Multiple Iodinated Contrast Media.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography method for iomeprol.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Model to Predict Iodine Contrast Media-Related Acute Adverse Reaction in Patients Without a Similar History for Enhanced CT.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Characterization of Hypersensitivity to Iodinated Contrast Media: Insights from a Six-Year Cohort of 26,465 Procedures.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: potential mechanisms and clinical management.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Insights into nanoparticle surface bonding and coating architecture via multinuclear NMR.Academia nano : science, materials, technology · 2025Article
- Drug provocation tests (DPTs) of contrast media: Useful or not useful? - A narrative review.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Review
- Clinical feasibility of deep learning based synthetic contrast enhanced abdominal CT in patients undergoing non enhanced CT scans.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Case Report: A Rare Case of Iodixanol-Induced Anaphylactic Shock in Cerebral Angiography.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2024Article
- Stroke in a patient of anaphylaxis-a case report and brief review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Pharmacist-led iodinated contrast media infusion risk assessment service.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: The diagnosis of allergy by skin testing.Clinical and translational allergy · 2022Article
- Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.