Search

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Background: Food allergies including cofactor-dependent allergies such as cofactor-dependent wheat allergy (CDWA) decrease the quality of life (QOL) of patients., Objective: To define the health-related QOL and fears in patients with CDWA and to evaluate the impact of diagnosis confirmation by oral challenge test (OCT)., Methods: Patients with CDWA diagnosed by clinical history, sensitization, and OCT were invited to participate. Clinical characteristics, patients' fears, self-perceived overall QOL, the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Adult Form score, and the risks and benefits of OCT were evaluated after the final diagnosis., Results: A total of 22 adults with CDWA (13 male, 9 female; mean age 53.5 years; median 5 years until diagnosis) were included. Specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels for gluten proteins were inversely correlated with the reaction threshold (P < .05). Higher reaction severity in the patients' histories correlated with increased basal serum tryptase levels (P = .003) and gluten and gliadin specific IgE (P < .05), but not to QOL. After the first allergic reaction, patients reported a drop in QOL (P < .001). Challenge-confirmed diagnosis and medical consultation could restore the patients' QOL (P < .05) and reduce their fear of further reactions (P < .01). No severe reactions occurred during OCT, which was rated as not stressful and highly beneficial. Compared with patients with CDWA diagnosed without OCT in the literature, health-related QOL was less impaired (mean Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Adult Form score 3.8), especially regarding the emotional impact (P < .001 vs existing literature)., Conclusion: Until final diagnosis, patients with CDWA have a severe physical and psychological burden. OCT is a safe method to confirm the diagnosis, restore the patients' severely affected QOL, and reduce their fear of further reactions., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM) are at increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs). Although Hymenoptera venoms are the predominant triggers, cases of contrast media-induced HR (CMIHR) have also been reported and prophylactic premedication is often performed. However, data from larger series are limited and differences between indolent and advanced SM have not yet been investigated., Objective: To determine the incidence and severity of CMIHR in all subtypes of SM., Methods: We analyzed 162 adult patients with SM (indolent systemic mastocytosis [ISM], n = 65; advanced systemic mastocytosis [advSM], n = 97). First, the cumulative incidence of CMIHR was retrospectively assessed in the patient's history. Second, at our institution, patients underwent 332 contrast media (CM)-enhanced imaging including 80 computed tomography (CT) scans with iodine-based contrast agent and 252 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a gadolinium-based contrast agent, and tolerance was assessed., Results: Previous CMIHRs to CT (vomiting, n = 1, erythema, n = 1, cardiovascular shock, n = 1), and MRI (dyspnea, n = 1, cardiovascular shock, n = 1) had been reported by 4 out of 162 (2.5%) patients (ISM, n = 3; advSM, n = 1). In contrast, during or after 332 CM-enhanced CT or MRI examinations at our institution, no CMIHRs were reported. Premedication was solely given to 3 patients before CT scans, including 1 with previous CMIHR, who tolerated the imaging well., Conclusion: We conclude that: (1) there is a substantial discrepancy between the perception and prevalence of HRs to CM in SM; (2) reactions are scarce in ISM and even rarer in advSM; and (3) in SM patients without previous history of CM hypersensitivity, prophylactic premedication before CM-enhanced CT or MRI is dispensable., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This review provides an overview of the literature on hypersensitivity reactions during procedures to commonly used contrast agents and dyes. A synthesis of current knowledge on clinical symptoms, epidemiology and risk factors, pathomechanism, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to these substances is presented., Data Sources: A literature search was conducted through Medline. Included were peer-reviewed articles written in English between 2000 and 2019., Study Selections: Relevant clinical studies, experimental studies, and review articles have been selected. Additionally, case reports have been included if they carried significant information about rare clinical forms of hypersensitivity reactions, disease mechanisms, or therapy., Results: An allergological workup is only indicated for patients with a history of immediate (IHR) and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR) but not for toxic or unrelated adverse events. Skin tests with or without experimental cellular laboratory tests in patients with previous reactions can provide evidence for an allergic mechanism. Positive skin tests indicating allergy are more common in severe reactions. If the adverse event was allergic, skin testing of alternatives is helpful for the selection of other contrast agents for future procedures. Premedication alone may be insufficient in these cases, and breakthrough reactions occur. For nonallergic reactions, change of contrast agent and premedication is often but not always sufficient to suppress reactions., Conclusion: Patients with previous NIHR or IHR, especially moderate and severe IHR, needing potential re-administration of contrast agents should be skin tested to identify an allergic mechanism as well as alternative agents to be used for future procedures., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)