碘化造影剂的皮内测试:我们应该检测纯碘还是仅检测稀释后的化合物?

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1111/fcp.12998
Adrian A. Schmid, Martin N. Hungerbühler, Paolo Lombardo, Ingrid B. Boehm
{"title":"碘化造影剂的皮内测试:我们应该检测纯碘还是仅检测稀释后的化合物?","authors":"Adrian A. Schmid,&nbsp;Martin N. Hungerbühler,&nbsp;Paolo Lombardo,&nbsp;Ingrid B. Boehm","doi":"10.1111/fcp.12998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Intradermal testing (IDT) with iodinated contrast media (ICMs) is an established diagnostic tool in patients with ICM hypersensitivity. Currently, it is unclear which test concentration is the more useful one, up to pure or up to 1:10 diluted ICMs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched the literature database PubMed for eligible papers dealing with ICM allergy and their IDT results. We analyzed the data presented by the papers and compared the pooled groups tested with diluted and undiluted ICMs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified 29 eligible original papers, and extracted data of 1137 patients that formed the study population. Although in the cohort tested with diluted ICMs the number of tested ICMs was greater, the percentage of positive tests was significantly less (9.0% vs. 24.7%; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001; OR 0.30 [0.26–0.34]). The frequency of positive tested culprit ICMs was also lesser in the group tested with diluted ICMs (31.0% vs. 72.5%; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001; OR 0.17 [0.12–0.23]). The number of drug provocation tests (DPTs) was greater in patients with diluted IDTs (374 vs. 89; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001; OR 2.54 [1.93–3.36]). We detected an increased sensitivity in patients with undiluted tests (0.774 vs. 0.282) and a nearly identical specificity in both groups (1 vs. 0.983).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>For the first time, we show that IDT up to pure ICM concentrations is superior to using diluted ICMs only. Possibly, we can reduce the number of DPTs when performing IDTs with pure ICMs. In the undiluted group, there were no hints for skin irritations or unspecific test reactions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12657,"journal":{"name":"Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcp.12998","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intradermal testing of iodinated contrast media: Should we test up to pure or with diluted compounds only?\",\"authors\":\"Adrian A. Schmid,&nbsp;Martin N. Hungerbühler,&nbsp;Paolo Lombardo,&nbsp;Ingrid B. Boehm\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fcp.12998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Intradermal testing (IDT) with iodinated contrast media (ICMs) is an established diagnostic tool in patients with ICM hypersensitivity. Currently, it is unclear which test concentration is the more useful one, up to pure or up to 1:10 diluted ICMs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched the literature database PubMed for eligible papers dealing with ICM allergy and their IDT results. We analyzed the data presented by the papers and compared the pooled groups tested with diluted and undiluted ICMs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identified 29 eligible original papers, and extracted data of 1137 patients that formed the study population. Although in the cohort tested with diluted ICMs the number of tested ICMs was greater, the percentage of positive tests was significantly less (9.0% vs. 24.7%; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001; OR 0.30 [0.26–0.34]). The frequency of positive tested culprit ICMs was also lesser in the group tested with diluted ICMs (31.0% vs. 72.5%; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001; OR 0.17 [0.12–0.23]). The number of drug provocation tests (DPTs) was greater in patients with diluted IDTs (374 vs. 89; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001; OR 2.54 [1.93–3.36]). We detected an increased sensitivity in patients with undiluted tests (0.774 vs. 0.282) and a nearly identical specificity in both groups (1 vs. 0.983).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>For the first time, we show that IDT up to pure ICM concentrations is superior to using diluted ICMs only. Possibly, we can reduce the number of DPTs when performing IDTs with pure ICMs. In the undiluted group, there were no hints for skin irritations or unspecific test reactions.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcp.12998\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcp.12998\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcp.12998","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用碘化造影剂(ICMs)进行皮内试验(IDT)是诊断 ICMs 过敏症患者的成熟工具。目前,还不清楚哪种浓度的碘化造影剂更有用,是纯碘化造影剂还是 1:10 稀释碘化造影剂:我们在文献数据库 PubMed 中搜索了有关 ICM 过敏及其 IDT 结果的合格论文。我们分析了论文中提供的数据,并对使用稀释和未稀释 ICMs 进行测试的汇总组进行了比较:结果:我们找到了 29 篇符合条件的原始论文,并提取了构成研究人群的 1137 名患者的数据。虽然在使用稀释 ICMs 检测的人群中,检测的 ICMs 数量更多,但检测结果呈阳性的比例却明显较低(9.0% 对 24.7%;P 结论:我们首次发现,在使用稀释 ICMs 检测的人群中,检测结果呈阳性的比例明显较低(9.0% 对 24.7%;P):我们首次证明,IDT 达到纯 ICM 浓度要优于仅使用稀释 ICM。在使用纯 ICM 进行 IDT 时,我们有可能减少 DPT 的数量。在未稀释组中,没有提示皮肤刺激或非特异性试验反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intradermal testing of iodinated contrast media: Should we test up to pure or with diluted compounds only?

Background

Intradermal testing (IDT) with iodinated contrast media (ICMs) is an established diagnostic tool in patients with ICM hypersensitivity. Currently, it is unclear which test concentration is the more useful one, up to pure or up to 1:10 diluted ICMs.

Methods

We searched the literature database PubMed for eligible papers dealing with ICM allergy and their IDT results. We analyzed the data presented by the papers and compared the pooled groups tested with diluted and undiluted ICMs.

Results

We identified 29 eligible original papers, and extracted data of 1137 patients that formed the study population. Although in the cohort tested with diluted ICMs the number of tested ICMs was greater, the percentage of positive tests was significantly less (9.0% vs. 24.7%; P < 0.0001; OR 0.30 [0.26–0.34]). The frequency of positive tested culprit ICMs was also lesser in the group tested with diluted ICMs (31.0% vs. 72.5%; P < 0.0001; OR 0.17 [0.12–0.23]). The number of drug provocation tests (DPTs) was greater in patients with diluted IDTs (374 vs. 89; P < 0.0001; OR 2.54 [1.93–3.36]). We detected an increased sensitivity in patients with undiluted tests (0.774 vs. 0.282) and a nearly identical specificity in both groups (1 vs. 0.983).

Conclusions

For the first time, we show that IDT up to pure ICM concentrations is superior to using diluted ICMs only. Possibly, we can reduce the number of DPTs when performing IDTs with pure ICMs. In the undiluted group, there were no hints for skin irritations or unspecific test reactions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
6.90%
发文量
111
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology publishes reports describing important and novel developments in fundamental as well as clinical research relevant to drug therapy. Original articles, short communications and reviews are published on all aspects of experimental and clinical pharmacology including: Antimicrobial, Antiviral Agents Autonomic Pharmacology Cardiovascular Pharmacology Cellular Pharmacology Clinical Trials Endocrinopharmacology Gene Therapy Inflammation, Immunopharmacology Lipids, Atherosclerosis Liver and G-I Tract Pharmacology Metabolism, Pharmacokinetics Neuropharmacology Neuropsychopharmacology Oncopharmacology Pediatric Pharmacology Development Pharmacoeconomics Pharmacoepidemiology Pharmacogenetics, Pharmacogenomics Pharmacovigilance Pulmonary Pharmacology Receptors, Signal Transduction Renal Pharmacology Thrombosis and Hemostasis Toxicopharmacology Clinical research, including clinical studies and clinical trials, may cover disciplines such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacogenomics and pharmacoeconomics. Basic research articles from fields such as physiology and molecular biology which contribute to an understanding of drug therapy are also welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Induction of Ca2+ signaling and cytotoxic responses of human lung fibroblasts upon an antihistamine drug oxatomide treatment and evaluating the protective effects of Ca2+ chelating. Nociceptive TRP channels function as molecular target for several antifungal drugs. In vitro evidence that the vasorelaxant effects of 2-nitro-1-phenyl-1-propanol on rat coronary arteries involve cyclic nucleotide pathways. Evaluation of chemotherapy toxicities in patients receiving treatment for gastrointestinal cancers and therapeutic monitoring of 5-fluorouracil as a clinical support tool. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1