
==== Front
World Allergy Organ J
World Allergy Organ J
The World Allergy Organization Journal
1939-4551
World Allergy Organization

S1939-4551(24)00077-2
10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100946
100946
Review
Drug provocation tests (DPTs) of contrast media: Useful or not useful? – A narrative review☆
Dettwiler Manuel MMed a
Boehm Ingrid B. MD Ingrid.boehm@insel.ch
b⁎
a Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Zollikerberg, Zurich, Switzerland
b Department of Diagnostic, Interventional, and Pediatric Radiology, University Hospital of Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
⁎ Corresponding author. Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, University Hospital Bern, Anna Seiler Haus, Freiburgstrasse 20, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. Ingrid.boehm@insel.ch
20 8 2024
9 2024
20 8 2024
17 9 10094613 3 2024
12 7 2024
24 7 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are also used in some patients with a history of a contrast medium (CM)-hypersensitivity reaction. Since the use of contrast agents requires special knowledge that is present in radiology but not necessarily in allergology, this overview should close the knowledge gaps. The literature, and the package inserts of the industry dealing with DPTs in contrast hypersensitivity reactions was analyzed and the results presented. Historical analyses revealed that provocation tests were already done in the past, and called pre-testing. Due to disadvantages, this diagnostic tool was abandoned. A few years later, DPT was introduced as an innovative diagnostic procedure. The DPT has the 3 main disadvantages: a missing standardization, patients at risk (such as compromised renal function) are rarely taken into account, and a negative DPT does not exclude a subsequent CM reaction. DPTs (formerly called pre-testing) are a well-known method for diagnosing CM-related hypersensitivity reactions. Since the disadvantages of this diagnosis outweigh the advantages, we propose replacing DPT with routine contrast-enhanced imaging examination in radiology.

Keywords

Allergy
Contrast medium
Drug provocation test (challenge test)
Intradermal test
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are established diagnostic tools for various drug allergies (eg, penicillin allergy) and are also used in some patients with hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media (CM).1 CM hypersensitivity can significantly affect the patients, with reactions ranging from minor discomfort to severe, potentially fatal outcomes. With increasing importance of imaging diagnostics,2 and the increasing number of radiological examinations, hypersensitivities are also increasing.3 This is a process, which is still going on. This trend was interrupted briefly by the COVID-19 pandemic.4 This means that the diagnosis of CM hypersensitivity reactions is becoming more and more important. Although there are currently several publications on the subject of DPTs for CM-hypersensitivity,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 one should be critical.

Therefore, this overview shows the pros and cons and problems and risks involved in provoking contrast media; why test results may not be as relevant as sometimes expected, and how to perform a safe form of DPT.

Methods

Review of the literature

A literature search was conducted using the online databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Some articles, though, come from other sources (eg, reference list of included papers). All papers published until March 2024 were included in the search. Title and abstract were screened to identify eligible papers. We used the following search terms: “drug provocation test”, “pre-test(ing)”, “contrast media”, “contrast medium”, “contrast medium allergy”, and “hypersensitivity reaction” in different combinations.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: We included studies (original articles, reviews, case reports) describing pros and cons of DPTs of iodinated contrast media (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs).

Exclusion criteria: Research articles and reviews published in languages other than English and German were excluded. Studies that focused on DPTs of other drugs than contrast media were also excluded. Furthermore, articles that did solely target skin tests (eg, patch test, prick test, and intradermal test) were not included. News articles, editorials, and letters were also kept out.

Results

Paper selection

Initially, we found 164 papers, and excluded 101 of them. Finally, we used 63 papers1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 for the following review (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 Flowchart for selecting suitable publications

Fig. 1

Historical background

The DPT is regarded as a new tool for the diagnostic of CM hypersensitivity reactions since the 1990s. Is this true? A close search of the literature revealed that the idea and technique of the DPT already existed several decades ago in the form of so-called pre-testing. The origin of the pretesting could not be determined from the available literature. Radiologists in the United States probably first used such a diagnostic procedure in the 1930s.48 In Germany, based on a suggestion by Jungmichel, attempts have been made since 1940 to identify patients at risk by intravenously administering a small amount of contrast medium.49 In the following 2 decades, pretesting probably experienced its heyday. At the same time, undesirable CM reactions were observed despite a negative preliminary test50, 51, 52 and even small test doses themselves resulted in severe reactions and death.16,48,52, 53, 54 Based on these observations, Finby et al concluded that pretesting is of no proved value and recommended the pretesting as ultima ratio (ie, as final diagnostic option, when in doubt).16

At the beginning of the 1970s there were increasing reports showing that positive sensitivity tests correlated fairly well with mild or intermediate allergic-like reactions.15 The expectations that came with the pretests were not fulfilled. Rather, it turned out that pretests were of no value in predicting death or severe reaction to the definitive intravenous dose.15 Consequently, fewer and fewer pre-tests have been carried out since then. Shehadi mentioned in connection with a large study with 112,003 patients that the value of pre-testing is doubtful and routine pre-testing is not recommended.14 In Japan only, radiologists did stick to pretesting until the 1990s.55 During this period, Japan appears to be the only country in the world where the industry leaflets continue to recommend pre-testing.56 Probably, pre-tests also ended in Japan this decade.

The transition from pretesting to DPTs was gradual. The preliminary tests that Yocum's group published already had characteristics of the DPTs.13 They used graded challenge tests in patients with a history of immediate reactions to ICM. They injected 0.1 ml test doses starting with dilutions of 1:10 000 up to undiluted ICM in intervals of 15 min. Finally, the patients received 1 and 5 ml of the undiluted CM before the image-guided examination started. In 22%, positive reactions were documented; 50% of the patients with a positive pre-test received the full ICM-dose. The latter group reacted significantly more frequently than the group with a negative pre-test. However, the procedure could not be implemented at that time.

In the 1990s, pre-tests no longer played a clinical role (see also above) and were forgotten increasingly. At the same time, the literature contains provocation tests in individual cases that have now been carried out by allergists.57,58 In 2009, Seitz et al published the first group of 4 patients who underwent a controlled provocation test.59

Unfortunately, after the discontinuation of the pre-testing the knowledge about relevant facts was lost. So that “the wheel has to be reinvented again and again”. Interestingly, pretesting still has some clinical relevance today, as the package inserts for special contrast agents in use today indicate that pretesting should not be performed (see also under 3.5).

How did the pre-testing work? Patients with a history of CM hypersensitivity reaction received a small amount of the contrast agent as intravenous injection prior to the imaging. Then the radiologists observed what happened next. If the patient reacted, he/she received a premedication. If the patient did not respond, he/she received the diagnostically required CM dose. Although this procedure sounds logical, it turned out to be impractical. Some patients did not react to the low dose during the pre-testing, but afterwards to the diagnostically required CM dose. How is that possible? There are 2 possible explanations. On the one hand, there was no simultaneous exposure to X-rays in the pre-testing procedure (see below). On the other hand, the contrast agent dose is crucial for a reaction. Both low (eg, arthrography) and high (eg, angiography) doses of CM rarely induce an adverse reaction. CM doses used in CECT preferentially induce hypersensitivity reactions. Therefore, small CM-doses used for the pre-testing were often not able to induce an adverse reaction (further explanations see below under "3.3 Technique of DPT").

Technique of DPT

Standardization

Although a standardization would be useful, currently, no standardized procedure exists. This means that every allergy unit/clinic has its own concept of provocation. We found in the literature several different provocation tests as illustrated in Table 1. Some of which differ greatly from one another. Therefore, comparability of results from different publications should be done with great caution. Moreover, the statement that the DPT is the gold standard is problematic given the lack of standardization and is therefore not tenable. There are different protocols of provocation testing (Table 1). This fact also speaks against carrying out a DPT in its current form. There are different schedules and doses of CM administered to the patient. Which protocol is the optimal is currently unknown. Some protocols look very similar and others differ significantly from the majority. For example, there is a DPT where day 2 of testing is carried out 1 week later.20 We consider this delay as problematic.Table 1 Overview of the various DPT techniques in the literature showing the missing standardization. All analyzed papers reported about DPTs with iodinated contrast media (CM – contrast medium; DPTs – drug provocation tests; IHR – immediate hypersensitivity reaction; HSR – hypersensitivity reaction; NIHR – non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction; ST – skin test)

Table 1References	Precondition	Intravenous doses with ST-negative CM	Interval between doses	Total CM dose	
Vernassiere 200420	Negative ST	1/100 and 1/10 of dose required for radiol. examination.	2–24 h		
Torres 201210	Negative ST	5, 10, 15 ml (1st day)
50, 50 ml (2nd day)	1 h	125 ml	
Salas 20139	Negative ST	5, 15, 30, 50 ml	45 min	100 ml	
Lerondeau 201621	Negative ST	1/100 and 1/10 of dose required for radiol. examination.	1 h		
Sesé 201622	Negative ST	10 ml	1 dose	10 ml	
Morales-Cabeza 201723	Negative ST	5, 30, 60 ml (1st day)
120 ml (2nd day)	30 min	95 ml120 ml	
Trautmann 20197	Negative ST	0.05, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 25.0 ml (IHR)
1.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 25.0 ml (NIHR)	30 min	49.05 ml48.50 ml	
Gracia-Bara 201924	Negative ST	5, 20 ml (1st day)
50, 50 ml (2nd day the following week)	1 h	25 ml100 ml	
Soria 201925	–	20, 30 ml
5, 15, 30 ml (with Grade 3 HSR)	2 h1.5 h	50 ml	
Doña 20205	Negative ST	5, 15, 30, 50 ml (IHR)
5, 10, 15 ml (NIHR)
20, 30, 50 ml (NIHR 2nd run 7 days later if no reaction occurred)	45 min	100 ml30 ml100 ml	
Meucci 20206	Negative ST & characteristics of index reaction	5, 30, 60 ml (IHR)
5, 30 ml (NIHR)
30, 60 ml (NIHR 2nd run 7–14 days later if no reaction occurred)	30 min	95 ml35 ml90 ml	

Due to a missing standardization, the indications vary also. Some authors consider any negative CM skin test to be an indication for DPT. They call for this as definitive proof of tolerance, and also to identify safe alternative CMs for future radiological examinations.5,7,8 Others, mainly older studies, describe DPTs for patients with CM-hypersensitivity generally as contraindicated17 due to lack of predictive values,18 or lower death rate and lower incidence of serous reactions in absence of intravenous pretesting.19 Also, radiology guidelines such as these from the American College of Radiology (ACR) or the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) do not recommend CM pretesting in general. Both societies propose prophylactic measures for managing patients at risk with an emphasis on assessment of the initial reaction rather than on pre-exposure testing.

Iodinated contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast agents

Although hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are increasing due to the worldwide rise in nuclear magnetic resonance diagnostic techniques using GBCAs, during the past, GBCAs were tested only scarcely.26,27 Only few studies about pretesting GBCAs have been conducted so far.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Therefore, data on this subject are limited, which can border the interpretation of the results. Several studies or reviews26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 report a high negative 166 predictive value (NPV) on GBCA-skin tests often referring to results of the studies by Chiriac 167 et al33 and Seta et al28 with random samples of 27 respectively 14 patients. Only few studies and reports27,28,31 with small case series speak out cautiously for DPTs with GBCAs to confirm or exclude the diagnosis or find alternative GBCAs. Nevertheless, most allergists no longer perform DPTs with GBCAs. The reason for this is a possible deposition of GBCAs in the patients’ organism (involved organs are brain, liver, spleen, kidneys, skin, and bone).34 Currently, DPTs are exclusively performed with ICMs.

DPT as continuation of the intradermal test (IDT)

The low sensitivity from skin testing (SPT and intradermal test, IDT) is the reason why DPT was established. It should also be taken into account that the sensitivity of the skin tests is greater within the first 6 months following the occurrence of the immediate hypersensitivity reaction than afterwards.46 The point that IDT should be carried out up to the undiluted level, is a specific feature of contrast agents,42 and thereby it is quite different from immediate hypersensitivity to other allergens such as foods, penicillin, and venoms.60

Currently, the recommended method for hypersensitivity reactions is to begin with a skin prick (SPT) using undiluted CM. If the SPT yields negative result, an IDT is performed using progressively lower dilutions of CM (ie, 1:1000, 1:100, 1:10). Should a patient exhibit a positive reaction at any dilution, further testing with less diluted CM is not advised. Nonetheless, in the vast majority of studies and guidelines the IDT is carried out with a 1:10 dilution of CM only.3,35 Additionally, some authors5,8,10,36 suggest repeating the IDT with undiluted CM for higher sensitivity if the IDT is negative at the 1:10 dilution since IDTs apparently do not induce false positives in non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions and no adverse reactions were observed in doing so.10,37

Generally, the informative value of skin tests, including IDT with 1:10 dilution, is limited by low sensitivity.38,39 The study of Goksel et al reported on a sensitivity of 20% and Kim et al. to 21.7% and for patients with severe reactions after all to a sensitivity of 57.1%. In summary, SPTs solely or combined with IDTs (up to 1:10 dilution) are incomplete diagnostic tools. The timeframe of the tests is also important. Tests performed more than 6 weeks after the acute event have a lower chance of a positive result.

We recommend a possible algorithm for the management of patients with reactions to contrast media (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Flowchart shows the proposed procedure for patients with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media. Dashed lines indicate additional options

Fig. 2

Test of culprit CM

Which contrast agents should be checked by using DPT? In general, negative tested CMs (by IDT) are used as test compounds. CMs that tested positive were rarely provoked in patients.5,7,8,10,40 Regardless of the IDT result, both culprit and non-culprit CMs are tested.

DPT with the culprit CM is more than questionable. Exact documentation of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including the culprit CM, should be enough to inform the doctor about what has happened in the past.41 Re-exposure to the culprit CM so that the allergist can satisfy himself that the radiologist's statement is correct means a high degree of stress for the patient. This stress itself can lead to an ADR. The clinical differentiation between allergy and stress-induced reaction can be difficult or impossible in individual cases. Moreover, such an approach is ethically unacceptable. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of a provocation with the culprit CM is low, and should be omitted.

Test of non-culprit CMs

DPT with a negatively tested non-culprit CM is used to confirm the IDT result and therefore provide an impression of safety. In particular, IDTs with diluted contrast agents are incomplete and therefore have low sensitivity and specificity.42 In other words, the test result induces a feeling of uncertainty in the doctor. Instead of completing the IDT with undiluted contrast media and thus achieving significantly higher sensitivity and specificity,43 provocation tests are carried out. Interestingly, the number of CMs and the number of patients tested is higher when IDT is performed with diluted CMs (it is significantly lower when IDTs are performed with undiluted CMs).42

Contrast media that tested negative are recommended as tolerable substances for future CECTs. According a study conducted by Meucci et al., following a negative DPT, an adverse reaction occurred in 7.7% (1 out of 13 re-exposed patients) of cases under routine radiological conditions.6 Another study by Ahn et al. showed similar results with an overall sample of 106 cases that were intravenously challenged with challenge-negative CM. Eight (7.5%) out of 106 patients showed a breakthrough reaction (BTR) during the CT scans. The study also distinguishes between CT scan with challenge-negative low-dose CM (2, 5 and 10 ml = 17 ml) with n = 56 and CT scan with challenge-negative high-dose CM (5 and 30 ml = 37 ml) with n = 50. Out of 56 negative patients with low-dose challenge, 5 patients (8.9%) had BTRs and 4 out of 5 patients (7.1%) showed severe reactions (namely asymptomatic hypotension). On the other hand, there were relatively mild reactions within the high-dose challenge group and no severe reactions were observed. The BTR rate was with 6% (3/50) slightly lower than within the low-dose challenge group but not statistically significant.44

This fact is interpreted as “such a reaction can always happen”. On the other hand, one should realize that DPTs only represent the pharmacological part, but not the physical one (ie, X-rays) (see below).

Exposure of X-rays seems to be also necessary

Serious hypersensitivity reactions are predominantly triggered by IgE-antibodies, while most mild to moderate reactions tend to be non-allergic in nature.40 The discrepancy between the results of allergy tests and reaction under radiological conditions is usually explained by the fact that the reactions are pseudo-allergic in nature. There might be, however, another explanation for this phenomenon. This was published in 2019 by Park et al45 who were able to show that X-rays may also play a part in the induction of a reaction. They compared CT examinations with higher and lower voltage (120 kVp versus 100 kVp), and found that the rate of acute hypersensitivity reactions occurred in parallel to the voltage used (1.86% versus 1.42%). Due to simultaneously used higher injection speed as well as higher ICM-doses, the influences of single parameters remains to be elucidated.

Since exposure to X-rays is not possible during DPT, DPT should be performed in the form of a routine CECT.

Risks of DPTs

Contrast media are well-tolerated agents but can induce side effects (such as contrast-induced acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions). Such adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can occur during both contrast-enhanced image-guided procedures, and during DPTs.

While radiologists are trained to comply with safety aspects of contrast media, in the context of DPT, allergists expect a hypersensitivity reaction, but do not consider other adverse reactions. We would therefore like to draw attention to important undesirable reactions caused by contrast media.

All CMs (ie, iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are nephrotoxic. If a provocation with CMs is carried out, the same precautionary measures must be taken as in radiology. This means, patients should be asked about existing kidney disease or nephrotoxic medications. In addition, one should ask when the last contrast-enhanced imaging was done.3,46

ICMs should be used with special precautions or not at all in patients with thyroid dysfunction such as hyperthyroidism. In the worst case, provocation with an ICM can trigger thyrotoxicosis. Therefore, before applying iodinated contrast media, one should make sure that there is no thyroid disease.46

In pregnancy and breast-feeding women, the indication for CMs is limited. Iodinated contrast agents should only be applied if the mother's life is at risk.46 It is unclear whether the question of a possible pregnancy is asked in the context of a DPT with CMs, since the corresponding information is missing in the literature.

Due to the potential risks associated with DPTs, ethical considerations and safety aspects are valuable. Patients who should undergo DPT, especially in vulnerable populations, require a detailed doctor-patient communication. This is necessary to show the patient all possible risks and to involve the patient in the decision-making process. This means, among other things, that the patient must understand the test procedure in order to then be able to sign the informed consent. Monitoring of vital parameters during the test and emergency preparedness (standby of an anaesthesiologist) could also improve the safety during a DPT.

Industry recommendations

The industry recommendations were evaluated based on the package inserts for (FDA)-approved contrast media that are available on the market (see under Supplement). The consensus of manufacturers of contrast media is that pretesting with a low dose for hypersensitivity reactions is not recommended. This is a consistent stance across various products because of the lack of predictive value of such tests and the potential for pretesting to trigger serious or even fatal hypersensitivity reactions. Manufacturers of Ioversol (Optiray®), Iodixanol (Visipaque®), Iopromid (Ultravist®) and Iomeprol (Imeron®) all advise against pretesting, as it does not accurately indicate tolerance and poses a risk of inducing severe reactions. Instead of pretesting, the manufacturer of Iopamidol (Isovue®) emphasizes the importance of a detailed medical history focusing on allergy and hypersensitivity as a more accurate method for predicting potential ADRs.

For GBCAs, the recommendations are more specific to patient history. For Gadobutrol (Gadovist®) it is emphasized that in patients with a history of allergic reactions, the decision to use Gadovist® should be made after careful consideration of the benefit-risk ratio. No specific pretesting recommendations were provided for other GBCAs like Gadopentetate-dimeglumine (Magnevist®), Gadoteridol (ProHance®), Gadodiamide (Omniscan®), and Gadoteric Acid (Dotarem®).

Overall, the industry advises against pretesting in general due to the potential risks involved. Instead, a thorough patient history is recommended to better predict and manage possible adverse reactions to CM administration. In addition, the exact documentation of previous hypersensitivity reactions is also very important.41

Pros and cons

As mentioned above, there are advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) to using the DPT, which are summarized in Table 2. Briefly, the counterpoints predominate. The most important of these are that 1) undesirable effects are possible in the context of a provocation (eg, renal insufficiency), 2) a negative DPT does not rule out a subsequent reaction with CECT, and 3) the DPT is not standardized and therefore, it is not a gold standard.Table 2 A non-exhaustive overview of the positive aspects and limitations associated with the use of DPTs in diagnosing hypersensitivity to CM

Table 2Pros	Cons	
Diagnostic confirmation: DPTs can serve as a definitive step in diagnosing hypersensitivity reactions to CM. They can confirm or rule out an allergy when skin tests are inconclusive or negative.10	Risks of DPT: DPTs carry a risk for inducing severe hypersensitivity reactions46 and other side effects (eg, renal complaints including CI-AKI) not to be neglected, as mentioned above.	
Risk assessment: DPTs may offer a clearer assessment of the risk for future CM administration, which is crucial for patients requiring recurrent imaging.	Breakthrough reactions despite negative DPT: Despite the screening, a significant number of breakthrough reactions still occur despite using DPT-negative CMs, indicating that the method cannot eliminate the risk of reactions,6,44 as mentioned above.	
Identification of safe alternative: DPTs can help identify safe alternative CMs for patients with a history of reactions.8,10,36	False results: False positive or negative reactions.	
Potential for false security: Premedication protocols to prevent reactions are not foolproof and may give a false sense of security. Breakthrough reactions can still occur.46	
Potential for spontaneous desensitization: There is a possibility that a negative result might be due to a spontaneous desensitization rather than true tolerance.47	
No standardized protocols: No standardized procedure exists. Comparing results from different publications and health institutions is difficult, as mentioned above.	
Resource intensive: DPTs are time-consuming and resource-intensive procedures requiring careful monitoring and emergency readiness, which may not be practical in every healthcare situation and institution.10,46	
Low sensitivity: SPT and IDT have a low sensitivity. Moreover, the time frame of the test is also important (within the first 6 months following the acute event).46	

The lack of standardization, the potential risk to certain patient populations, and the inability of a negative DPT to rule out subsequent reactions are significant concerns. Several authors mention the lack of standardized protocols and indications1,3,40,44,61

Several authors are aware of the risk for certain patient groups and the inability of a negative DPT to effectively rule out subsequent reactions. Therefore, various studies generally state that a thorough check3,62 of patients should be carried out before performing DPTs and that those with contraindications such as renal dysfunction, taking nephrotoxic drugs, pregnant or breastfeeding, and hyperthyroidism should be excluded. Some studies, such as Meucci et al or Ahn et al, report adverse or breakthrough reactions of 7–8% despite negative DPTs. But there are hardly any studies examining or quantifying the risk of DPTs to certain patient populations or the inability of a negative DPT to conclusively rule out subsequent reactions.

We identified 3 key studies that were either prospective5,10 or retrospective studies.44 Even in patients with negative IDT, there were some cases of positive responses to DPT. The problem here is that 1) the dose increase does not correspond to the situation in radiology and 2) that it is not known whether an injection in the context of CM-supported imaging was tolerated or not.

Doña et al investigated 101 patients with both immediate and non-immediate reactions who underwent intradermal testing followed by DPTs.5 They performed a single-blind placebo controlled DPT with the culprit ICM in individuals with negative skin test. If skin test or DPT were positive, they assessed tolerance with an alternative skin test negative ICM. The main finding was that in patients with allergy to more than 1 ICM, DPT performed with skin test negative ICM was positive in more than 60% (24/36) of cases.5 Thereby, they confirmed the notation that pretesting is of less sensitivity.

Ahn et al analyzed 85 patients with a history of ICM-anaphylaxis.44 Patients with negative skin tests were challenged with 2 different protocols intravenous ICMs: low-dose and high-dose (maximum dose 10 and 30 ml, respectively). They found that 4 (3.6%) of the 110 challenge tests were positive challenges. Among 106 enhanced CT-scans performed in challenge-negative patients, breakthrough reactions occurred in 8 occasions (7.6%). The main disadvantage of this study is the fact that the investigation was done in individuals that were premedicated.44 This means that a comparison with other non premedicated cohorts is not possible.

Recommendation for contrast re-exposure

The transition from pre-testing to DPT involved a change of location. While pre-tests took place in radiology, DPTs are done in allergology clinics/departments/units. The proposal to perform contrast re-exposures as part of contrast-enhanced imaging would mean that the diagnostics return to the original location. This would be an advantage for doctor and patient in terms of the logistical process of contrast-enhanced examinations because it could save time and resources. In particular, the fact that the CM exposure would only have to occur once instead of twice would be a benefit for the patient. Another advantage would be that the CM exposure takes place under investigational conditions (ie, CM plus X-radiation) and not under experimental conditions in allergy departments without simultaneous X-ray exposure. Another argument in favour of re-exposure carried out in radiology is that the high safety standards of CM application are applied. What risks does this approach have? In our opinion, no risks are to be expected. It could be disadvantageous if, for example, the radiologists do not precisely document the re-exposed CM or the adverse reactions that have occurred.41 Important information would then be missing for future contrast-enhanced examinations.

Future research directions

Due to the problems described, it would make sense in the future if there were alternatives to DPT that were safer for the patient. Hence the question arises, are there novel diagnostic methods on the horizon that could address the limitations of DPTs? The basophil activation test (BAT)63 could possibly replace the DPT in the future. The BAT is a provocation test carried out in vitro. This has the advantage of being safer. However, the procedure is not yet sufficiently developed to be used in clinical routine. Rather, it is an experimental procedure that can only be carried out in special laboratories.

Artificial intelligence (AI) could also be helpful in diagnosing CM-induced hypersensitivity reactions in the future. What scenarios might be conceivable here? Based on a very large amount of data, it may be possible to use AI to determine compatible and incompatible contrast media in individual patients.

Conclusions

The comprehensive review of DPT for CM hypersensitivity reveals a complex interplay of benefits and risks. DPTs can provide definitive diagnostic confirmation in cases where skin tests are ambiguous or negative.

However, the application of DPT bears several significant risks. Taken together, it can be assumed that all contrast media are potentially dangerous. Main risks are hypersensitivity reactions, contrast-induced acute kidney-injury (potentially resulting in end-stage renal disease or even death), as well as thyrotoxic crisis and lactic acidosis. Moreover, the absence of standardization of protocols complicates the comparability of results and raises concerns about the reproducibility of findings. Breakthrough reactions occurring despite the negative DPT results underlines the limitations of current testing methodologies in completely obviating the risk of adverse reactions following CM exposure.

Furthermore, DPTs might not always be necessary, particularly when a negative IDT with 1:10 is followed by an undiluted IDT. All these factors necessitate a cautious approach, advocating for the minimization of DPT usage to scenarios where alternative diagnostic modalities are insufficient or inconclusive. Furthermore, we advocate for the development of unified, evidence-based guidelines that standardize DPT procedures with CM, enhance patient safety, and optimize diagnostic accuracy. There is also a need for ongoing research to explore the underlying mechanisms of CM hypersensitivity reactions and to develop new diagnostic agents with improved safety profiles.

In summary, DPTs in its current form should not be carried out due to the numerous disadvantages mentioned. Controlled provocation as part of contrast-enhanced imaging is an attractive alternative.

Abbreviations

ACR, American College of Radiology; ADR, adverse drug reaction; AI, artificial intelligence; BAT, basophil activation test; BTR, breakthrough reaction; CECT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography; CM, contrast medium; DPT(s), drug provocation test(s); EDTA, ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic acid; ESUR, European Society of Urogenital Radiology; GBCA, gadolinium-based contrast agent; HSR, hypersensitivity reaction; ICM, iodinated contrast medium; IDT, intradermal test; IHR, immediate hypersensitivity reaction; NIHR, non-immediate (delayed) hypersensitivity reaction; NPV, negative predictive value; SPT, skin prick test; ST, skin test.

Financial support

We did not receive financial support for this review article.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available in the manuscript or supplement; there are no further data.

Author contributions

Conception and design IBB; acquisition of data MD/IBB; analysis and interpretation of data MD/IBB; drafting the article MD/IBB; final approval of the version to be submitted MD/IBB.

Ethics statement

Not applicable, because it is a review article based on published papers.

Authors’ consent for publication

Both authors gave their consent to publish the work.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors report no competing interests.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

☆ Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100946.
==== Refs
References

1 Barbaud A. Garvey L.H. Torres M. EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing Allergy December 28, 2023 10.1111/all.15996 all.15996
2 Kwee T.C. Almaghrabi M.T. Kwee R.M. Diagnostic radiology and its future: what do clinicians need and think? Eur Radiol 33 12 2023 9401 9410 10.1007/s00330-023-09897-2 37436504
3 Kang H.R. Jeong J. Brockow K. Diagnosis and prevention of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 14 4 2022 348 10.4168/aair.2022.14.4.348 35837820
4 Koeppel D.R. Boehm I.B. Shortage of iodinated contrast media: status and possible chances – a systematic review Eur J Radiol 164 2023 110853 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110853
5 Doña I. Bogas G. Salas M. Hypersensitivity reactions to multiple iodinated contrast media Front Pharmacol 11 2020 575437 10.3389/fphar.2020.575437
6 Meucci E. Radice A. Fassio F. Diagnostic approach to hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: a single-center experience on 98 patients Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 52 5 2020 220 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.129 31920060
7 Trautmann A. Brockow K. Behle V. Stoevesandt J. Radiocontrast media hypersensitivity: skin testing differentiates allergy from nonallergic reactions and identifies a safe alternative as proven by intravenous provocation J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 7 7 2019 2218 2224 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.04.005 30980898
8 Rosado Ingelmo A. Doña Diaz I. Cabañas Moreno R. Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 26 3 2016 144 155 10.18176/jiaci.0058
9 Salas M. Gomez F. Fernandez T.D. Diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media Allergy 68 9 2013 1203 1206 10.1111/all.12214 23991759
10 Torres M.J. Gomez F. Doña I. Diagnostic evaluation of patients with nonimmediate cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media Allergy 67 7 2012 929 935 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2012.02840.x 22583135
11 Yamaguchi K. Katayama H. Kozuka T. Takashima T. Matsuura K. Pretesting as a predictor of severe adverse reactions to contrast media Invest Radiol 25 1990 S22 S23 10.1097/00004424-199009001-00010 2283245
12 Katayama H. Tanaka T. Clinical survey of adverse reactions to contrast media Invest Radiol 23 1988 S88 S89 10.1097/00004424-198809001-00005 3058637
13 Yocum M.W. Heller A.M. Abels R.I. Efficacy of intravenous pretesting and antihistamine prophylaxis in radiocontrast media-sensitive patients J Allergy Clin Immunol 62 5 1978 309 313 10.1016/0091-6749(78)90163-X 29919
14 Shehadi W.H. Adverse reactions to intravascularly administered contrast media: a comprehensive study based on a prospective survey Am J Roentgenol 124 1 1975 145 152 10.2214/ajr.124.1.145
15 Fischer H.W. Doust V.L. An evaluation of pretesting in the problem of serious and fatal reactions to excretory urography Radiology 103 3 1972 497 501 10.1148/103.3.497 5022943
16 Finby N. Evans J.A. Steinberg I. Reactions from intravenous organic iodide compounds: pretesting and prophylaxis Radiology 71 1 1958 15 18 10.1148/71.1.15 13568045
17 Audicana M. Ortega N. Spanish society of allergology and clinical immunology (SEAIC) vision of drug provocation tests: reply J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 32 3 2022 242 243 10.18176/jiaci.0808
18 Yamaguchi K. Katayama H. Takashima T. Kozuka T. Seez P. Matsuura K. Prediction of severe adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media in Japan: evaluation of pretesting. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media Radiology 178 2 1991 363 367 10.1148/radiology.178.2.1987594 1987594
19 Davies P. Roberts M.B. Roylance J. Acute reactions to urographic contrast media BMJ 2 5968 1975 434 437 10.1136/bmj.2.5968.434 236064
20 Vernassiere C. Trechot P. Commun N. Schmutz J.-L. Barbaud A. Low negative predictive value of skin tests in investigating delayed reactions to radio-contrast media Contact Dermatitis 50 6 2004 359 366 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00367.x 15274727
21 Lerondeau B. Trechot P. Waton J. Analysis of cross-reactivity among radiocontrast media in 97 hypersensitivity reactions J Allergy Clin Immunol 137 2 2016 633 635.e4 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.07.035 26428955
22 Sesé L. Gaouar H. Autegarden J.-E. Immediate hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media: diagnostic accuracy of skin tests and intravenous provocation test with low dose Clin Exp Allergy 46 3 2016 472 478 10.1111/cea.12703 26750091
23 Morales-Cabeza C. Roa-Medellín D. Torrado I. Immediate reactions to iodinated contrast media Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 119 6 2017 553 557 10.1016/j.anai.2017.08.014 29017901
24 Gracia-Bara M.T. Moreno E. Laffond E. Tolerability of iobitridol in patients with non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media Allergy 74 1 2019 195 197 10.1111/all.13603 30225896
25 Soria A. Masson N. Vial-Dupuy A. Allergological workup with half-dose challenge in iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity Allergy 74 2 2019 414 417 10.1111/all.13638 30353926
26 Sáenz De Santa María R. Labella M. Bogas G. Doña I. Torres M.J. Hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 23 4 2023 300 306 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000911 37357781
27 Gracia Bara M.T. Gallardo-Higueras A. Moreno E.M. Hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast media Front Allergy 3 2022 813927 10.3389/falgy.2022.813927
28 Seta V. Gaouar H. Badaoui A. Francès C. Barbaud A. Soria A. Low-dose provocation and skin tests in patients with hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast agents Clin Exp Allergy 49 5 2019 724 728 10.1111/cea.13306 30407672
29 Kolenda C. Dubost R. Hacard F. Evaluation of basophil activation test in the management of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents: a five-year experience J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 5 3 2017 846 849 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.01.020 28341169
30 Sellaturay P. Nasser S. Ewan P. Skin testing in gadolinium allergy: 2 case reports J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 6 1 2018 262 264.e1 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.04.040 28669891
31 Mankouri F. Gauthier A. Srisuwatchari W. Hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast agents: a single-center retrospective analysis over 7 years J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 9 4 2021 1746 1749.e2 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.023 33248281
32 Gallardo-Higueras A. Moreno E. Muñoz-Bellido F. Patterns of cross-reactivity in patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to gadobutrol J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 31 6 2021 504 506 10.18176/jiaci.0694
33 Chiriac A.-M. Audurier Y. Bousquet P.-J. Demoly P. Clinical value of negative skin tests to gadolinium contrast agents Allergy 66 11 2011 1504 1506 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02690.x 21854399
34 Van Der Molen A.J. Quattrocchi C.C. Mallio C.A. Dekkers I.A. for the European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Biology Gadolinium Research, Educational Committee (ESMRMB-GREC) Ten years of gadolinium retention and deposition: ESMRMB-GREC looks backward and forward Eur Radiol October 7, 2023 10.1007/s00330-023-10281-3 Published online
35 Brockow K. Wurpts G. Trautmann A. Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions ALSConnect 7 1 2023 122 139 10.5414/ALX02422E
36 Sánchez-Borges M. Aberer W. Brockow K. Controversies in drug allergy: radiographic contrast media J Allergy Clin Immunol 7 1 2019 61 65 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.06.030
37 Ahn Y.H. Koh Y.I. Kim J.H. The potential utility of iodinated contrast media (ICM) skin testing in patients with ICM hypersensitivity J Kor Med Sci 30 3 2015 245 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.3.245
38 Goksel O. Aydın O. Atasoy C. Hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media: prevalence, risk factors and the role of skin tests in diagnosis – a cross-sectional survey Int Arch Allergy Immunol 155 3 2011 297 305 10.1159/000320760 21293150
39 Kim S.H. Jo E.J. Kim M.Y. Clinical value of radiocontrast media skin tests as a prescreening and diagnostic tool in hypersensitivity reactions Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 110 4 2013 258 262 10.1016/j.anai.2013.01.004 23535089
40 Brockow K. Diagnosing and managing patients with reactions to radiocontrast media Curr Treat Options Allergy 8 3 2021 210 221 10.1007/s40521-021-00287-x
41 Böhm I.B. Van Der Molen A.J. Recommendations for standardized documentation of contrast medium-induced hypersensitivity J Am Coll Radiol 17 8 2020 1027 1028 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.02.007 32142634
42 Schmid A.A. Hungerbühler M. Lombardo P. Boehm I. Intradermal testing of iodinated contrast media: should we test up to pure or with diluted compounds only? Fund Clin Pharmacol 38 4 2024 789 798 10.1111/fcp.12998
43 Kim S.R. Park K.H. Hong Y.J. Oh Y.T. Park J.W. Lee J.H. Intradermal testing with radiocontrast media to prevent recurrent adverse reactions Am J Roentgenol 213 6 2019 1187 1193 10.2214/AJR.19.21547 31414881
44 Ahn K.M. Ahn Y.H. Cho M.K. Kang D.Y. Lee S.Y. Kang H.R. Validation of practical pathway in patients with anaphylaxis to low osmolar contrast media: a retrospective cohort study J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 10 10 2022 2685 2692.e2 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.03.030 35413472
45 Park H.J. Son J.H. Kim T.B. Relationship between lower dose and injection speed of iodinated contrast material for CT and acute hypersensitivity reactions: an observational study Radiology 293 3 2019 565 572 10.1148/radiol.2019190829 31617789
46 Torres M.J. Trautmann A. Böhm I. Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity Allergy 76 5 2021 1325 1339 10.1111/all.14656 33170954
47 Aberer W. Bircher A. Romano A. Drug provocation testing in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: general considerations Allergy 58 9 2003 854 863 10.1034/j.1398-9995.2003.00279.x 12911412
48 Dolan L.P. Allergic death due to intravenous use of Diodrast: suggestions for possible prevention JAMA 114 2 1940 138 139 10.1001/jama.1940.62810020003008a
49 Jungmichel G. Todesfall nach Per-Abrodilinjektion MMW (Muench Med Wochenschr) 87 1940 393
50 Alyea E.P. Intradermal test for sensitivity to Iodopyracet injection, or “Diodorast.” JAMA 135 1 1947 25 10.1001/jama.1947.02890010027008
51 Ansell G. A national survey of radiological complications: interim report Clin Radiol 19 2 1968 175 191 10.1016/S0009-9260(68)80059-5 5648074
52 Shehadi W.H. Clinical problems and toxicity of contrast agents Am J Roentgenol 97 3 1966 762 771 10.2214/ajr.97.3.762
53 Payne W.W. Morse W.H. Raines S.L. A fatal reaction following injection of urographic medium: a case report J Urol 76 5 1956 661 663 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)66746-6 13377478
54 Feldman R.G. Levy L.L. Glaser G.H. Neurallergic reaction to intravenous urography N Engl J Med 266 13 1962 636 639 10.1056/NEJM196203292661302 13892149
55 Kuwatsuru R. Katayama H. Tomita T. Naoi Y. Hirano A. Miyauchi T. Adverse reactions to low osmolar iodine contrast media (second report) Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 52 9 1992 1233 1246 1437529
56 Higashi T. Kuniyasu Y. Takizawa K. Ikeuchi T. Kai Y. The consideration and performing of pretesting of contrast medium: surveying in Kanagaw Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 53 11 1993 1324 1330 25 8284194
57 Gall H. Pillekamp H. Peter R. Late-type allergy to the X-ray contrast medium Solutrast® (iopamidol) Contact Dermatitis 40 5 1999 248 250 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb06058.x 10344479
58 Schick E. Weber L. Gall H. Delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the non-ionic contrast medium iopromid Contact Dermatitis 35 5 1996 312 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02403.x 312 9007387
59 Seitz C.S. Pfeuffer P. Raith P. Bröcker E.B. Trautmann A. Radiocontrast media-associated exanthema: identification of cross-reactivity and tolerability by allergologic testing Eur J Radiol 72 1 2009 167 171 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.010 18620831
60 Greenberger P.A. Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated radiocontrast media: to skin test or not to skin test J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 6 4 2018 1255 1256 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.01.014 30033919
61 Chiu T.M. Chu S.Y. Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media Biomedicines 10 5 2022 1036 10.3390/biomedicines10051036 35625773
62 Audicana M. Ortega N. Lobera T. Spanish society of allergology and clinical immunology (SEAIC) vision of drug provocation tests J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 31 5 2021 385 403 10.18176/jiaci.0681
63 Böhm I. Speck U. Schild H.H. Pilot study on basophil activation induced by contrast medium Fundam Clin Pharmacol 25 2 2011 267 276 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2010.00826.x 20412314
