Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Case/Non-Case Study Based on an Italian Pharmacovigilance Database

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To identify the number of cases of anaphylaxis reported in association with different classes of drugs and compare it with other reports contained in the same database.

Methods: The data were obtained from a database containing all of the spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) coming from the Italian regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and the Veneto, which are the main contributors to the Italian spontaneous surveillance system. The ADRs reported between January 1990 and December 2003 with a causality assessment of certainly, probably or possibly drug related (according to the WHO criteria) were analysed using a case/non-case design. The cases were defined as the reactions already coded by the WHO preferred terms of ‘anaphylactic shock’ or ‘anaphylactoid reaction’ (this last term also included anaphylactic reaction) and those with a time of event onset that suggested an allergic reaction and involved at least two of the skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, CNS or cardiovascular systems; the non-cases were all of the other ADR reports. The frequency of the association between anaphylaxis and the suspected drug in comparison with the frequency of anaphylaxis associated to all of the other drugs was calculated using the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality.

Results: Our database contained 744 cases (including 307 cases of anaphylactic shock with 10 deaths) and 27 512 non-cases. The percentage of anaphylaxis cases reported in inpatients was higher than that among outpatients (59.1% vs 40.9%). This distribution is significantly different from that of the other ADR reports that mainly refer to outpatients. After intravenous drug administrations, anaphylactic shock cases were more frequent than anaphylactoid reactions or other ADRs, but more than one-third of these reactions were caused by an oral drug. Blood substitutes and radiology contrast agents had the highest RORs. Among the systemic antibacterial agents, anaphylaxis was disproportionally reported more often for penicillins, quinolones, cephalosporins and glycopeptides, but diclofenac was the only NSAID with a significant ROR. As a category, vaccines had a significantly lower ROR, thus indicating that anaphylaxis is reported proportionally less than other ADRs.

Conclusions: Anaphylaxis is a severe ADR that may also occur with commonly used drugs. It represents 2.7% of all of the ADRs reported in an Italian spontaneous reporting database.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bochner BS, Lichtenstein LM. Anaphylaxis. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1785–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ewan PW. Anaphylaxis. BMJ 1998; 316: 1442–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Hollaren MT. Anaphylaxis: new clues to clinical patterns and optimum treatment. Medscape Allergy & Clinical Immunology 2002; 2(2) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/439721 [Accessed 2005 Apr 21]

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson JA. Allergic reactions to drugs and biological agents. JAMA 1992; 268: 2845–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Neugut AI, Ghatak AT, Miller RL. Anaphylaxis in the United States: an investigation into its epidemiology. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 15–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kemp SF, Lockey RF. Anaphylaxis: a review of causes and mechanisms. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110: 341–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lieberman PL. Anaphylaxis. Medscape General Medicine 1999; 1(1) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408706 [Accessed 2005 Apr 21]

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sheikh A, Alves B. Hospital admissions for acute anaphylaxis: time trend study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown AFT, McKinnon D. Emergency department anaphylaxis: a review of 142 patients in a single year. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108: 861–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. International Collaborative Study of Severe Anaphylaxis. An epidemiologic study of severe anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions among hospital patients: methods and overall risks. Epidemiology 1998; 9: 141–6

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stark BJ, Sullivan TJ. Biphasic and protracted anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1986; 78: 76–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yocum MW, Butterfield LH, Klein JS, et al. Epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Olmsted County: a population-based study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 104: 452–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Haddi E, Cherpin D, Taffareau M, et al. Atopy and systemic reactions to drugs. Allergy 1990; 45: 236–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sheikh A, Alves B. Age, sex, geographical and socio-economic variations in admissions for anaphylaxis: analysis of four years of English hospital data. Clin Exp Allergy 2001; 31: 1571–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Drain KL, Volcheck GW. Preventing and managing drug-induced anaphylaxis. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 843–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Weiss WE, Adkinson NF. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin and related antibiotics. Clin Allergy 1988; 18: 515–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaufman DW, Kelly JP. Risk of anaphylaxis in a hospital population in relation to the use of various drugs: an international study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12: 195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang D-Y, Forslund C, Persson U, et al. Drug-attributed anaphylaxis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998; 7: 269–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lenler-Petersen P, Hansen D, Andersen M, et al. Drug-related anaphylactic shock in Denmark 1968-1990: a study based on notifications to the Committee on Adverse Drug Reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 1185–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Van der Klauw MM, Wilson JHP, Stricker BH. Drug-associated anaphylaxis: 20 years of reporting in the Netherlands (1974–1994) and review of the literature. Clin Exp Allergy 1996; 26: 1355–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens GM, et al. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 1: 3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson AM, Thabane L, Holbrook A. Application of data mining techniques in pharmacovigilance. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 57: 127–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Meyboom RHB, Hekster YA, Egberts ACG, et al. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 17: 374–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. van Puijenbroek EP, Egberts ACG, Meyboom RHB, et al. Different risks for NSAID induced anaphylaxis. Ann Pharmacother 2002; 36: 24–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hauben M, Zhou X. Quantitative methods in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2003; 26: 159–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Van der Heijden PGM, van Puijenbroek EP, van Buuren S, et al. On the assessment of adverse drug reactions from spontaneous reporting systems: the influence of under-reporting on odds ratio. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2027–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moore N, Kreft-Jais C, Haramburu F, et al. Reports of hypoglycaemia associated with the use of ACE inhibitors and other drugs: a case/non-case study in the French pharmacovigilance system database. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44: 513–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vaccheri A, Bjerrum L, Resi D, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in general practice: striking differences between Italy (Ravenna) and Denmark (Funen). J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 989–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergman U, Andersen M, Vaccheri A, et al. Deviation from evidence-based prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in three European Regions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 269–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Magrini N, Einarson T, Vaccheri A, et al. Use of lipid-lowering drugs from 1990 to 1994: an international comparison among Australia, Finland, Italy (Emilia Romagna region), Norway and Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 53: 185–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cars O, Mölstad S, Melander A. Variation in antibiotic use in the European Union. Lancet 2001; 357: 1851–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Assem E-SK. D rug allergy and tests for its detection. In: Davies DM, Ferner RE, de Glanville H, editors. Davies’s textbook of adverse drug reactions. 5th ed. London: Chapman & Hall Medical, 1998: 791–815

    Google Scholar 

  33. Naldi L, Conforti A, Venegoni M, et al. Cutaneous reactions to drugs: an analysis of spontaneous reports in four Italian regions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 839–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sgro C, Clinard F, Ouazir K, et al. Incidence of drug-hepatic injuries: a French population-based study. Hepatology 2002; 36: 451–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Miller MA. Gender-based differences in the toxicity of pharmaceuticals: Food and Drug Administration’s perspective. Int J Toxicol 2001; 20: 149–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Weis KH. Haemaccel 35: adverse reactions in a multicentric, prospective study. Anaesthesist 1983; 32: 488–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lorenz W, Duda D, Dick W, et al. Incidence and clinical importance of perioperative histamine release: randomised study of volume loading and antihistamines after induction of anaesthesia. Trial Group Mainz/Marburg. Lancet 1994; 343: 933–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Celik I, Duda D, Stinner B, et al. Early and late histamine release induced by albumin, hetastarch and polygeline: some unexpected findings. Inflamm Res 2003; 52: 408–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet 1977; I: 466–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Koch C. Blood, blood components, plasma and plasma products. In: Dukes MNG, Aronson JK, editors. Meyler’s side effects of drugs. 14th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000: 1111–39

    Google Scholar 

  41. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and non-ionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990; 175: 621–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Thomsen HS, Bush WH. Adverse effects of contrast media: incidence, prevention and management. Drug Saf 1998; 19: 313–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Maddox TG. Adverse reactions to contrast material: recognition, prevention, and treatment. Am Fam Physician 2002; 66: 1229–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zuckerman GB, Riess PL, Patel L, et al. Development of a life-threatening anaphylactoid reaction following administration of ioversol in a child. Pediatr Radiol 1999; 29: 295–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Alvarez Fernandez JA, Valero AM, Pulido Z, et al. Hypersensitivity reaction to ioversol. Allergy 2000; 55: 581–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Dewachter P, Mouton-Faivre C, Felden F. Allergy and contrast media. Allergy 2001; 56: 250–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakamura I, Hori S, Funabiki T, et al. Cardiopulmonary arrest induced by anaphylactoid reaction with contrast media. Resuscitation 2002; 53: 223–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ketkar M, Shrier D. An allergic reaction to intraarterial non-ionic contrast material [letter]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Laroche D, Aimone-Gastin I, Dubois F, et al. Mechanisms of severe, immediate reactions to iodinated contrast material. Radiology 1998; 209: 183–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Laroche D, Namour F, Lefrancois C, et al. Anaphylactoid and anaphylactic reactions to iodinated contrast material. Allergy 1999; 54Suppl. 58: 13–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lasser EC. The multipotential pseudoantigenicity of X-ray contrast media: pseudoantigen excess may downregulate the release of hypotensive mediators. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2000; 123: 282–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lasser EC. The radiocontrast molecule in anaphylaxis: a surprising antigen. Novartis Found Symp 2004; 257: 211–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bartlett MJ, Bynevelt M. Acute contrast reaction management by radiologists: a local audit study. Australas Radiol 2003; 47: 363–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ministero della Salute. Drug utilization in Italy. National report year 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ministerosalute.it/medicinali/osmed/osmed.jsp [Accessed 2005 Apr 22]

  55. Smythe MA, Cappelletty DM. Anaphylactoid reaction to levofloxacin. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 1520–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Ho D, Song J, Wang C. Anaphylactoid reaction to ciprofloxacin. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 37: 1018–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cinobac® product information. Corona (CA): Oclassen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a division of Watson Labs, Inc., 1999 Jun 23

  58. Stricker BH, Slagboom G, Demaeseneer R, et al. Anaphylactic reactions to cinoxacin. BMJ 1988; 297: 1434–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Quercia O, Pafanelli S, Emiliani F, et al. Anaphylactic reaction to cinoxacin: report of one case associated with inferior acute myocardial infarction. Allerg Immunol (Paris) 2003; 35: 61–3

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Polk RE. Alaphylactoid reactions to glycopeptide antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27Suppl. B: 17–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Perrett CM, McBride SR. Teicoplanin induced drug hypersensitivity syndrome. BMJ 2004; 328: 1292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Dux S, Groslop I, Garty M, et al. Anaphylactic shock induced by diclofenac. Brit Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286: 1861

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Alkhawajah AM, Eifawal M, Mahmoud SF. Fatal anaphylactic reaction to diclofenac. Forensic Sci Int 1993; 60: 107–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Schabitz WR, Berger C, Knauth M, et al. Hypoxic brain damage after intramuscular self-injection of diclofenac for acute back pain. Eur J Anaesth 2001; 18: 763–5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Sen I, Mitra S, Gombar KK. Fatal anaphylactic reaction to oral diclofenac sodium [letter]. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 421

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Jonker MJ, Bruynzeel DP. Anaphylactic reaction elicited by patch testing with diclofenac. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49: 114–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Van der Klauw MM, Stricker BHCH, Herings RMC, et al. A population based case-cohort study of drug-induced anaphylaxis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 35: 400–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Del Pozo MD, Lobera T, Blasco A. Selective hypersensitivity to diclofenac. Allergy 2000; 55: 412–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gutting BW, Updyke LW, Amacher DE. Diclofenac activates T cells in the direct popliteal lymph node assay and selectively induces IgG1 and IgE against co-injected TNP-OVA. Toxicol Lett 2002; 131: 167–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Klasco RK, editor. DRUGDEX® System. Greenwood Village (CO): Thomson MICROMEDEX, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hernandez C, Aragones N, Estanyol N. Two cases of anaphylactic shock after metamizol given during postoperative recovery. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2004; 51: 168–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Janke C, Schmeck J, Passami D, et al. Anaphylactic cardiocirculatory failure after intraoperative application od dipyrone. Anaesthesist 2003; 52: 321–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Priima OB. The clinical picture and ambulatory treatment of drug-induced anaphylactic shock with a favourable course. Feldsher Akush 1991; 56: 33–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Bohlke K, Davis RL, Marcy SM, et al. Risk of anaphylaxis after vaccination of children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 815–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the Pharmaceutical Departments of Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and the Veneto and their local Health Districts for collecting the adverse reaction forms.

We would also like to thank the Uppsala Monitoring Centre for allowing us to consult the WHO database. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Reference Centre for Education and Communication within the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring, University of Verona, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale L. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy

    Roberto Leone, Anita Conforti, Ugo Moretti, Ilaria Meneghelli & Giampaolo Velo

  2. Lombardy Centre of Pharmacovigilance, Milan, Italy

    Mauro Venegoni, Alfredo Cocci & Stefania Scotto

  3. Department of Pharmacology, Interuniversity Research Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Domenico Motola, Giulia Sangiorgi Cellini & Nicola Montanaro

Authors
  1. Roberto Leone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anita Conforti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauro Venegoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Domenico Motola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ugo Moretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ilaria Meneghelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alfredo Cocci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giulia Sangiorgi Cellini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stefania Scotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nicola Montanaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giampaolo Velo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Leone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leone, R., Conforti, A., Venegoni, M. et al. Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis. Drug-Safety 28, 547–556 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528060-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528060-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation