A study on adverse drug reactions to non-ionic contrast medium in an Indian population: a 1-year experience

Subhrojyoti Bhowmick, Esha Bhat, Buddhadev Panja, Satarupa Mukherjee, Shreya Sikdar, Arnab Biswas, A. Bari Ejaz, Tapan K. Chatterjee

Abstract


Background: To the best of our understanding, very few studies focusing on the adverse drug reaction (ADR) profile of non-ionic contrast medium (NICM) has been carried out until date among the Indian population. Hence, this study was planned. We sincerely believe that the knowledge gathered from this study can improve safer usage of these agents among the patients of Indian origin. The objective was to evaluate the incidence and severity of ADRs of non-ionic radio contrast media (CM) used in tertiary care hospital in Eastern India.

Methods: For the duration of 1-year from July 2011 to July 2012, we prospectively recorded all the ADRs associated with the administration of NICM (iohexol and ioversol) in 3708 patients of Indian origin undergoing computed tomography scan at the hospital. The average median age, weight, dose used; types of ADRs, concomitant medication, final diagnosis, reasons for use were recorded and analyzed with appropriate statistical tools. Causality assessment was performed using Naranjo scale.

Results: Eleven of 3708 patients who received either ioversol or iohexol developed ADRs (i.e. 0.3% of patients). The most common ADR was rigor. The incidences of mild, moderate and severe reactions were 55%, 36% and 9%, respectively. Average median age, weight, and dose used were 35 years, 66 kg and 70 ml, respectively. All the ADRs were early (occurred within 1 hr of CM administration). Due to logical constraints, the follow-up of these patients was not possible and hence late ADRs were not captured. The common concomitant medication used was pantoprazole (63.63% of patients). The difference in the incidence of ADRs by age distribution (Group 1 - Iohexol, Group 2 - Ioversol) and weight distribution was not statistically significant (p=0.75 and p=0.18, respectively). Causality analysis revealed that all the ADRs were possible (Score of 4). Interestingly, the incidence of reactions was noted to be higher in patients with a history of gastro intestinal disorders (45.45%).

Conclusions: This pilot study reveals that adverse reactions to NICM are rare and severe reactions are less common among the patients of Indian origin. However, a larger multicentric study across the country should be carried out to understand the safety profile of these CM better among the Indian population.


Keywords


Adverse drug reaction, Non-ionic contrast medium, Indian population, Pharmacovigilance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Siddiqui NH. Contrast Medium Reactions, Recognition and Treatment. E Medicine. Available at http//:www.emedicine.medscape.com/article/422855 overview. Accessed 09 Oct 2012.

Katayama H, Tanaka T. Clinical survey of adverse reactions to contrast media. Invest Radiol. 1988;23 Suppl 1:S88-9.

Shehadi WH. Adverse reactions to intravascularly administered contrast media. A comprehensive study based on a prospective survey. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther. Nucl Med. 1975;124:145-52.

Bush WH, Swanson DP. Acute reactions to intravascular contrast media: types, risk factors, recognition, and specific treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157(6):1153-61.

Christiansen C, Pichler WJ, Skotland T. Delayed allergy-like reactions to X-ray contrast media: mechanistic considerations. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(12):1965-75.

Brockow K, Christiansen C, Kanny G, Clément O, Barbaud A, Bircher A, et al. Management of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media. Allergy. 2005;60(2):150-8.

Maddox TG. Adverse reactions to contrast material: recognition, prevention, and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2002;66(7):1229-34.

Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Form. Available at http://www.cdsco.nic.in. Accessed 09 Oct 2012.

Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30(2):239-45.

Namasivayam S, Kalra MK, Torres WE, Small WC. Adverse reactions to intravenous iodinated contrast media: a primer for radiologists. Emerg Radiol. 2006;12(5):210 5.

Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Caoili EM, Wang G, Francis IR. Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):409-15.

Mortelé KJ, Oliva MR, Ondategui S, Ros PR, Silverman SG. Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):31-4.

Jung KE, Chung J, Park BC, Jee KN, Jee YK, Kim MH. A clinical study of cutaneous adverse reactions to nonionic contrast media in Korea. Ann Dermatol 2012;24:22-5.

Cochran ST, Bomeya K, Sayre WJ. Trends in adverse events from iodinated contrast media. Acad Radiol. 2002;9 Suppl 1:S65-8.

Kim SS, Park CH, Park MJ, Choi SH, Kim YS, Park HW, et al. Adverse reactions to radio-contrast media in computed tomography (CT) in general population: incidence and clinical features. Korean J Asthma Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;27:157-161.

Thomas M, Peedicayil J, Koshi T, Korah I. Adverse reactions to radio contrast media in an Indian population. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(859):648-52.

Gharekhanloo F, Torabian S. Comparison of allergic adverse effects and contrast enhancement between iodixanol and iopromide. Iran J Radiol. 2012;9(2):63-6.

Ho J, Kingston RJ, Young N, Katelaris CH, Sindhusake D. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to IV non-ionic iodinated contrast in computed tomography. Asia Pac Allergy. 2012;2(4):242-7.