BACKGROUND: All iodinated radiocontrast media (RCM) may cause hypersensitivity reactions, either immediate-type within 5-10 min of RCM injection or delayed-type, which become apparent more than 1h after RCM exposure. Delayed-type hypersensitivity to RCM may pose a problem for future radiologic investigations because due to possible immunological cross-reactivity all iodinated RCM are usually avoided. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was not only to identify the causal RCM for the exanthema but also to demonstrate that patients may receive alternative iodinated RCM despite a history of RCM-induced allergic exanthema. METHODS: We evaluated 32 patients with a history of exanthema after RCM application using standardized patch, prick and intradermal skin testing. In case of positive skin tests intravenous challenges with skin-test-negative RCM were performed to identify non-ionic monomer RCM which are tolerated. RESULTS: In 6 out of 32 patients skin tests strongly suggested a delayed-type non-IgE-mediated allergic hypersensitivity to the RCM iomeprol (3x), iopromide (2x), and iopamidol. In 4 patients alternative non-ionic monomer RCM (2x iosarcol, iopromide, and iomeprol) were identified by controlled challenge tests. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of patients with RCM-associated exanthema should always include appropriate skin tests ensuring that patients with a delayed-type allergic RCM-induced exanthema are not missed. Moreover, allergologic testing may identify alternative RCM of the group of non-ionic monomers, which are tolerated in future radiologic investigations.
BACKGROUND: All iodinated radiocontrast media (RCM) may cause hypersensitivity reactions, either immediate-type within 5-10 min of RCM injection or delayed-type, which become apparent more than 1h after RCM exposure. Delayed-type hypersensitivity to RCM may pose a problem for future radiologic investigations because due to possible immunological cross-reactivity all iodinated RCM are usually avoided. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was not only to identify the causal RCM for the exanthema but also to demonstrate that patients may receive alternative iodinated RCM despite a history of RCM-induced allergic exanthema. METHODS: We evaluated 32 patients with a history of exanthema after RCM application using standardized patch, prick and intradermal skin testing. In case of positive skin tests intravenous challenges with skin-test-negative RCM were performed to identify non-ionic monomer RCM which are tolerated. RESULTS: In 6 out of 32 patients skin tests strongly suggested a delayed-type non-IgE-mediated allergic hypersensitivity to the RCM iomeprol (3x), iopromide (2x), and iopamidol. In 4 patients alternative non-ionic monomer RCM (2x iosarcol, iopromide, and iomeprol) were identified by controlled challenge tests. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of patients with RCM-associated exanthema should always include appropriate skin tests ensuring that patients with a delayed-type allergic RCM-induced exanthema are not missed. Moreover, allergologic testing may identify alternative RCM of the group of non-ionic monomers, which are tolerated in future radiologic investigations.
Authors: Rakesh D Bansie; A Faiz Karim; Maurits S van Maaren; Maud Aw Hermans; Paul LA van Daele; Roy Gerth van Wijk; Saskia M Rombach Journal: Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol Date: 2021 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.219
Authors: Jung-Hyun Kim; Sang Il Choi; Yoon Jin Lee; Byung-Keun Kim; Heung-Woo Park; Sang-Heon Cho; Yoon-Seok Chang; Sae-Hoon Kim Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 4.084