Jaggers Jordon, Stone Cosby, Krantz Matthew, Phillips Elizabeth
Department of Medicine, Center for Drug Safety and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Institute for Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Glob. 2025 Jul 21;4(4):100543. doi: 10.1016/j.jacig.2025.100543. eCollection 2025 Nov.
Diagnosis and management of intravenous iron reactions is often challenging, as skin testing has unproven utility and most reactions are non-IgE-mediated.
We aimed to identify clinical patterns and tolerability predictors in patients with reactions to intravenous iron.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with reactions to intravenous iron who were referred to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Drug Allergy Clinic from April 2014 through January 2025 and administered a follow-up survey via RedCap to evaluate patient outcomes with future intravenous iron administration.
Of the 51 patients presenting for adverse reactions to intravenous iron, 48 had skin testing performed. The skin testing results were deemed negative in all 48 cases (100%). Notable laboratory test results within 1 year of reaction were low vitamin D level (47%), high parathyroid hormone level (46%), and low phosphorus level (10%). Many patients (56%) were dermatographic, and their drug alert labels included opioids (31%), fluoroquinolones (14%), and radiocontrast dye (8%). Following assessment, 31 patients received intravenous iron (61%) using formulations that were the same as (n = 15 [48%]) and/or different from (n = 17 [55%]) the forumlation initially implicated, with the various modifications including antihistamines, slower infusion rate, and intravenous fluid pretreatment. Of these 31 patients, 27 (87%) tolerated the infusions. Additionally, following evaluation, the patients were surveyed regarding subsequent intravenous iron administrations, eliciting a 29% response rate (n = 15). Of the responders, 7 patients (47%) reported receiving intravenous iron after evaluation; all 7 reported tolerance.
Most reactions to intravenous iron are non-IgE-mediated; however, our study introduces 2 novel observations, namely, a high frequency of dermatographism (56%) and common colabeling of these patients with drug alerts to Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2)-activating drugs, suggesting a possible shared pathophysiologic mechanism.
静脉注射铁剂反应的诊断和管理通常具有挑战性,因为皮肤试验的效用未经证实,且大多数反应是非IgE介导的。
我们旨在确定静脉注射铁剂反应患者的临床模式和耐受性预测因素。
我们对2014年4月至2025年1月转诊至范德比尔特大学医学中心药物过敏诊所的静脉注射铁剂反应患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,并通过RedCap进行了随访调查,以评估患者未来静脉注射铁剂的治疗结果。
在51例出现静脉注射铁剂不良反应的患者中,48例进行了皮肤试验。所有48例(100%)皮肤试验结果均为阴性。反应发生后1年内显著的实验室检查结果为维生素D水平低(47%)、甲状旁腺激素水平高(46%)和磷水平低(10%)。许多患者(56%)有皮肤划痕症,他们的药物警示标签包括阿片类药物(31%)、氟喹诺酮类药物(14%)和放射性造影剂(8%)。评估后,31例患者(61%)接受了静脉注射铁剂,使用的制剂与最初涉及的制剂相同(n = 15 [48%])和/或不同(n = 17 [55%]),各种调整包括使用抗组胺药、减慢输注速度和静脉输液预处理。在这31例患者中,27例(87%)耐受了输注。此外,评估后,对患者进行了关于后续静脉注射铁剂的调查,回复率为29%(n = 15)。在回复者中,7例患者(47%)报告在评估后接受了静脉注射铁剂;所有7例均报告耐受。
大多数静脉注射铁剂反应是非IgE介导的;然而,我们的研究引入了两个新的观察结果,即皮肤划痕症的高发生率(56%)以及这些患者与Mas相关G蛋白偶联受体X2(MRGPRX2)激活药物的共同警示标签,提示可能存在共同的病理生理机制。