4.5 Article

Cross-reactivity among iodinated contrast agents: should we be concerned?

期刊

出版社

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-1325

关键词

Cross-reactivity; drug provocation test (DPT); hypersensitivity reaction (HSR); immediate reaction (IR); iodinated contrast medium (ICM); non-immediate reaction (NIR); polyvalent reactions; risk stratification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study on cross-reactivity in patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions found that incidences of polyvalent reactivity were similar to incidences of cross-reactivity, but there was only 30% concordance in reaction pairings. The data suggest individual reaction patterns rather than cross-reactivity constellations.
Background: Although several papers deal with cross-reactivity in patients with iodinated contrast medium (ICM) hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), there is no in-depth knowledge of this phenomenon. To define ICM-groups as potential reaction partners and to identify any potential clinical relevance in patients with ICM-HSRs. Methods: The literature database PubMed was searched for eligible papers dealing with ICM-allergy and cross-reactivity. The data presented by the papers was analyzed and individual patient data was extracted for re-evaluation based on a definition for both 'polyvalent reactivity' and 'cross-reactivity' as well as for chemical structure-dependent ICM-groups. Results: Twenty-five original papers (with n=340 extracted patients) formed the study population. Incidences of polyvalent reactivity were non-significantly higher than incidences of cross-reactivity (both range from 0% to 100%). Crossover evaluation in reaction pairings (culprit ICM A with ICM B versus culprit ICM B with ICM A) showed concordance of only 30%. Data support rather non-cross-reactivity (individual reaction pattern) than cross-reactivity constellations. Conclusions: The obtained results favour an individual reaction pattern, rather than a reactivity driven by chemical structures and so-called cross-reactivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据