Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
The role of skin testing, drug challenge and IFN-γ ELISpot in delayed hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Copaescu Ana Maria, Chua Kyra Y L, Mouhtouris Effie, Holmes Natasha E, AlGassim Moneerah, Al Otaibi Ibtihal, Stehlin Florian, Isabwe Ghislaine A C, Tsoukas Christos, Toupin Jean-Francois, Lee Derek, Ben-Shoshan Moshe, Phillips Elizabeth J, Trubiano Jason A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of in vivo and ex vivo diagnostic tools for delayed hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) associated with iodinated contrast media (ICM) is currently ill-defined.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of in vivo and ex vivo diagnostic tools for DHRs occurring >6 h following intravenous low-osmolality ICM.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international cohort study. The patients were recruited from two tertiary care adult allergy clinics, Austin Health, Australia and the McGill University Health Centre, Canada. Eligible participants were adults who reported a DHR after receiving ICM. In vivo testing (skin testing and intravenous challenge) was performed to identify an alternative agent. Ex vivo testing using interferon-γ enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot assay was performed in four Australian patients to explore its diagnostic performance.
RESULTS: The culprit ICM was identified by dIDT in 17/20 (85%) while in 3/20 (15%) a challenge was necessary to confirm delayed hypersensitivity. All patients with a positive dIDT to iohexol were positive to iodixanol (15/15; 100%) while 3/4 (75%), 3/4 (75%), 4/6 (67%), and 3/5 (60%) were positive to iopromide, ioversol, iopamidol, and iobitridol, respectively. Overall, 7/20 (35%) patients tolerated a challenge with an alternative ICM. The IFN-γ release assay was negative for the implicated ICM in 4 patients with confirmed DHR through a positive dIDT.
CONCLUSION: dIDT allowed confirmation of T cell-mediated allergy to the implicated ICM in 85% of patients with a strong clinical suspicion of DHR and identification of non-cross-reactive ICM in 35% of patients. The IFN-y ELISpot was not useful in the four patients tested.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of in vivo and ex vivo diagnostic tools for DHRs occurring >6 h following intravenous low-osmolality ICM.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international cohort study. The patients were recruited from two tertiary care adult allergy clinics, Austin Health, Australia and the McGill University Health Centre, Canada. Eligible participants were adults who reported a DHR after receiving ICM. In vivo testing (skin testing and intravenous challenge) was performed to identify an alternative agent. Ex vivo testing using interferon-γ enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot assay was performed in four Australian patients to explore its diagnostic performance.
RESULTS: The culprit ICM was identified by dIDT in 17/20 (85%) while in 3/20 (15%) a challenge was necessary to confirm delayed hypersensitivity. All patients with a positive dIDT to iohexol were positive to iodixanol (15/15; 100%) while 3/4 (75%), 3/4 (75%), 4/6 (67%), and 3/5 (60%) were positive to iopromide, ioversol, iopamidol, and iobitridol, respectively. Overall, 7/20 (35%) patients tolerated a challenge with an alternative ICM. The IFN-γ release assay was negative for the implicated ICM in 4 patients with confirmed DHR through a positive dIDT.
CONCLUSION: dIDT allowed confirmation of T cell-mediated allergy to the implicated ICM in 85% of patients with a strong clinical suspicion of DHR and identification of non-cross-reactive ICM in 35% of patients. The IFN-y ELISpot was not useful in the four patients tested.