The prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated contrast media are relatively common and potentially life threatening. Opinion is divided as to the utility of medications for preventing these reactions. We performed a systematic review to assess regimes for the prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated contrast media. METHODS: Searches for studies were conducted in the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases. Bibliographies of included studies and review articles were examined and experts were contacted. Randomised clinical trials that examined agents given prior to iodinated contrast material for the prevention of anaphylactoid reactions were included in the review. The validity of the included studies was examined using a component approach. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, but only one of these fulfilled all of the validity criteria. There were four studies that examined the use of H1 antihistamines, each was used to prevent anaphylactoid reactions to ionic contrast. The random effects pooled relative risk demonstrated a significant reduction in the overall rate of anaphylactoid reactions (RR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.18-0.9, p = 0.027). There were insufficient studies to produce a pooled statistic for the use of corticosteroids, however regimes of steroids (methylprednisolone 32 mg) given at least six hours and again two hours prior to the administration of contrast suggested a reduction in the incidence of anaphylactoid reactions. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, there are few high quality randomised clinical trials that have addressed the question of the optimal methods to prevent allergic type reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media. Allowing for these limitations, the results suggest that H1 antihistamines given immediately prior to the administration of ionic contrast may be useful in preventing reactions to ionic contrast and are suggestive of a protective effect of corticosteroids when given in two doses at least six hours prior and again two hours prior to the administration of contrast, both ionic and non-ionic. These agents should be considered for use in patients who are at high risk of an anaphylactoid reaction to contrast media and for who prophylactic therapy is considered necessary. Further research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made

Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and benefit of pharmacological treatment is unclear. Although prophylactic use of corticosteroid for reduction of pancreatic injury after ERCP has been evaluated, discrepancy about beneficial effect of corticosteroid on pancreatic injury still exists. The aim of current study is to evaluate effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid in prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We employed the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration to perform a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroid in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) around the world.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most of the seven RCTs were of high quality. When the RCTs were analyzed, odds ratios (OR) for corticosteroid were 1.13 [95% CI (0.89~1.44), p = 0.32] for PEP, 1.61 [95% CI (0.74~3.52), p = 0.23] for severe PEP, 0.92 [95% CI (0.57~1.48), p = 0.73] for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia respectively. The results indicated that there were no beneficial effects of corticosteroid on acute pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia. No evidence of publication bias was found.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Corticosteroids cannot prevent pancreatic injury after ERCP. Therefore, their use in the prophylaxis of PEP is not recommended.</p

Antecedents of hospital admission for deliberate self-harm from a 14-year follow-up study using data-linkage

Antecedents of hospital admission for deliberate self-harm from a 14-year follow-up study using data-linkageFrancis Mitrou1 email, Jennifer Gaudie1 email, David Lawrence1,2 email, Sven R Silburn1,2 email, Fiona J Stanley1 email and Stephen R Zubrick1,2 email1 Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Centre for Child Health Research, The University of Western Australia. PO Box 855, West Perth, WA. 6872, Australia2 Centre for Developmental Health, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, Australiaauthor email corresponding author emailBMC Psychiatry 2010, 10:82doi:10.1186/1471-244X-10-82The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/10/82Received: 22 April 2010Accepted: 18 October 2010Published: 18 October 2010© 2010 Mitrou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Iodixanol nasal solution reduces allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms in Allergen BioCube&reg;:&nbsp;a randomized clinical trial

Paul J Gomes,1 Mark B Abelson,1,2 Linda Stein,1 Erik Viirre,3 J Ernest Villafranca,3 Elliott C Lasser3 1Allergy Department, Ora, Inc., Andover, MA, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, USA; 33E Therapeutics Corporation, La Jolla, CA, USA Purpose: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects ~20% of the population worldwide. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iodixanol nasal solution (Nasapaque) for AR treatment, using the Allergen BioCube&reg; (ABC&reg;), an environmental exposure unit. Iodixanol is a commonly used contrast media agent that shows efficacy on the signs and symptoms of AR. Patients and methods: Seventy-three adult subjects with AR were randomized to iodixanol or placebo treatment in a double-masked efficacy and safety study conducted outside of ragweed pollen season. In-office treatment was administered after BioCube&reg; ragweed pollen exposure, and again 8 days later prior to ragweed exposure. Nasal and ocular efficacy and safety assessments were conducted before and after treatment. Results: Iodixanol treatment resulted in statistically significantly lower total nasal symptom scores as compared to placebo at several time points post-treatment and ABC exposure. Individual nasal and ocular symptoms, notably nasal itching and ocular itching, showed evidence of lower scores in the iodixanol group. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) improved (9%&ndash;16%) with iodixanol from baseline as compared to PNIF in the placebo group which ranged from 3% worsening to improvement of 2%. Few (9) adverse events occurred. Conclusion: Iodixanol nasal solution demonstrated efficacy for relief of several nasal and ocular allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms, and was safe and well tolerated in this early Phase II exploratory trial. Further studies with iodixanol are warranted. Allergy challenge models such as the ABC provide valuable assessments of allergen exposures and drug efficacies. Study Identification Number: NCT02377895 Keywords: allergic rhinitis, contrast media agent, allergy, environmental exposure uni