Dataset Information

Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To review the efficacy of pharmacological prevention of serious reactions to iodinated contrast media.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Systematic search (multiple databases, bibliographies, all languages, to October 2005) for randomised comparisons of pretreatment with placebo or no treatment (control) in patients receiving iodinated contrast media. Review methods Trial quality was assessed by all investigators. Information on trial design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by one investigator and cross checked by the others. Data were combined by using Peto odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Nine trials (1975-96, 10 011 adults) tested H1 antihistamines, corticosteroids, and an H1-H2 combination. No trial included exclusively patients with a history of allergic reactions. Many outcomes were not allergy related, and only a few were potentially life threatening. No reports on death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, irreversible neurological deficit, or prolonged hospital stays were found. In two trials, 3/778 (0.4%) patients who received oral methylprednisolone 2x32 mg or intravenous prednisolone 250 mg had laryngeal oedema compared with 11/769 (1.4%) controls (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.88). In two trials, 7/3093 (0.2%) patients who received oral methylprednisolone 2x32 mg had a composite outcome (including shock, bronchospasm, and laryngospasm) compared with 20/2178 (0.9%) controls (odds ratio 0.28, 0.13 to 0.60). In one trial, 1/196 (0.5%) patients who received intravenous clemastine 0.03 mg/kg and cimetidine 2-5 mg/kg had angio-oedema compared with 8/194 (4.1%) controls (odds ratio 0.20, 0.05 to 0.76).

Conclusions

Life threatening anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media are rare. In unselected patients, the usefulness of premedication is doubtful, as a large number of patients need to receive premedication to prevent one potentially serious reaction. Data supporting the use of premedication in patients with a history of allergic reactions are lacking. Physicians who are dealing with these patients should not rely on the efficacy of premedication.

SUBMITTER: Tramer MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1584363 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review.

Tramèr Martin R MR von Elm Erik E Loubeyre Pierre P Hauser Conrad C

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060731 7570

<h4>Objective</h4>To review the efficacy of pharmacological prevention of serious reactions to iodinated contrast media.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>Systematic search (multiple databases, bibliographies, all languages, to October 2005) for randomised comparisons of pretreatment with placebo or no treatment (control) in patients receiving iodinated contrast media. Review methods Trial quality was assessed by all investigators. Information on trial design, population, inte ...[more]

PMID: 16880193

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:IntroductionIodinated contrast media (ICM)-induced hyperthyroidism is an underestimated, potentially severe condition; however, its prevention has not been sufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ICM on thyroid status, the advantages of prophylactic therapy for iodine-induced hyperthyroidism (IIH) in patients with euthyroid goiter and cardiovascular comorbidities, and the association between the incidence of IIH and thyroid volume.MethodsThirty-six euthyroid patients undergoing procedures involving ICM administration were divided into 2 groups: the first group (n = 13) received prophylactic treatment with thiamazole or thiamazole combined with sodium perchlorate during ICM exposure; the second group (n = 23) did not receive prophylaxis. Thyroid-stimulating hormone levels were evaluated before and after ICM, and thyroid hormone levels were assessed after ICM at different points in time. The morphology of the thyroid was evaluated by ultrasonography.ResultsTwenty-one patients (58%) developed hyperthyroidism after ICM. Hyperthyroidism was observed more frequently in the group without prophylactic treatment than in the group with prophylaxis (65 vs. 15%, respectively; p = 0.006). No cases of overt hyperthyroidism were observed in the group receiving thiamazole with sodium perchlorate. IIH persisted for a median time of 52.5 days. Larger thyroid volume was associated with a significantly higher occurrence of ICM-induced hyperthyroidism (p = 0.04).ConclusionsPatients with euthyroid goiter receiving ICM are at risk of developing hyperthyroidism. The occurrence of hyperthyroidism after ICM in euthyroid patients with goiter is higher in those with larger thyroid volume. The frequency of ICM-induced hyperthyroidism in euthyroid patients with goiter is lower in those receiving prophylactic therapy with thiamazole in monotherapy or in combination with sodium perchlorate than in those not receiving prophylactic treatment.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Iodinated contrast media are commonly used in medical imaging and can cause hypersensitivity reactions, including rare but severe life-threatening reactions. Although several prophylactic approaches have been proposed for severe reactions, their effects remain unclear. Therefore, we aim to review systematically the preventive effects of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions and predictors of acute, hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 1990 through 31 December 2019 and will examine the bibliographies of eligible studies, pertinent review articles and clinical practice guidelines. We will include prospective and retrospective studies of any design that evaluated the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological preventive interventions for adverse reactions of non-ionic iodinated contrast media. Two assessors will independently extract the characteristics of the study and intervention and the quantitative results. Two independent reviewers will assess the risk of bias using standard design-specific validity assessment tools. The primary outcome will be reduction in acute contrast media-induced hypersensitivity reactions. The secondary outcomes will include characteristics associated with the development of contrast media-induced acute hypersensitivity reactions, and adverse events associated with specific preventive interventions. Unique premedication regimens (eg, dose, drug and duration) and non-pharmacological strategies will be analysed separately. Average-risk and high-risk patients will be considered separately. A meta-analysis will be performed if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is not applicable, as this will be a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019134003.

Dataset Information

Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets