Search

The objective of these guidelines is to ensure efficient and effective clinical practice. The panel of experts who produced this consensus document developed a research protocol based on a review of the literature.The prevalence of allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is estimated to be 1:170 000, that is, 0.05%-0.1% of patients undergoing radiologic studies with ICM (more than 75 million examinations per year worldwide). Hypersensitivity reactions can appear within the first hour after administration (immediate reactions) or from more than 1 hour to several days after administration (nonimmediate or delayed reactions). The risk factors for immediate reactions include poorly controlled bronchial asthma, concomitant medication (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors), rapid administration of the ICM, mastocytosis, autoimmune diseases, and viral infections.The most common symptoms of immediate reactions are erythema and urticaria with or without angioedema, which appear in more than 70% of patients. Maculopapular rash is the most common skin feature of nonimmediate reactions (30%-90%).Skin and in vitro tests should be performed for diagnosis of both immediate and nonimmediate reactions. The ICM to be administered will therefore be chosen depending on the results of these tests, the ICM that induced the reaction (when known), the severity of the reaction, the availability of alternative ICM, and the information available on potential ICM cross-reactivity.Another type of contrast media, gadolinium derivatives, is used used for magnetic resonance imaging. Although rare, IgE-mediated reactions to gadolinium derivatives have been reported.

The absence of large-scale international studies means that data on anaphylaxis in emergency departments in different geographic areas are still necessary.To determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and subtypes of anaphylaxis and their distribution by age group in the emergency department of Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcon, Alcorcon (Madrid), Spain.Our study was performed between 2004 and 2005. We used the definition of anaphylaxis established by the NIAID-FAAN Symposium. Patient information was collected from the electronic clinical records of the emergency department using alphanumeric strings to identify acute allergic illnesses. This strategy recovered 91.7% of all anaphylaxis episodes in a pilot study.We observed a crude cumulative incidence of 0.9 episodes of anaphylaxis per 1000 emergency episodes (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.1), and 0.8 episodes per 1000 people (95% CI, 0.7-0.9). Standardized cumulative incidence of anaphylaxis according to the Standardized European Population was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.2). On analyzing the 213 cases of anaphylaxis, we discovered that the main cause was food (28.6%), followed by drugs (28.2%), unknown causes (27.2%), Anisakis (10.8%), Hymenoptera venom (3.3%), exercise (2.4%), and latex (0.9%). Food-induced anaphylaxis was less frequent in all groups older than the 0-4 age group in both reference populations (people who attend the emergency department and the general population).The cumulative incidence of anaphylaxis in our emergency department is low. Anaphylaxis by foods is more frequent in the 0-4 year group than in the other age groups. Drugs and food are the most frequent causes of anaphylaxis in our emergency department.

Our objective was to ascertain the degree of adherence to recommendations made to patients with anaphylaxis, most of whom were attended in our allergy outpatient clinic.A questionnaire was sent to 1512 patients who had experienced anaphylaxis and completed by 887. The chosen definition of anaphylaxis was that of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network Symposium. We evaluated the prescription, purchase, and use of epinephrine auto-injectors and oral drugs, as well as the avoidance of allergens involved in previous anaphylaxis episodes.Most patients (94.53%) reported that they had received advice on avoidance of responsible allergens after their allergy workup. Epinephrine auto-injectors and oral drugs were prescribed according to the subtype of anaphylaxis. Only 30.74% of patients used the epinephrine auto-injector; 54.26% took oral medication. Most patients (88.3%) avoided the allergen.Despite general agreement that anaphylaxis occurring in the community should be treated with epinephrine auto-injectors, use of these devices to treat recurrences was low in our patients. Oral medication intake was more common than the epinephrine auto-injector in all subtypes. In order to increase adherence to epinephrine auto-injectors, it is necessary to think beyond the measures recommended during regular visits to allergy outpatient clinics.