Drug Safety

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 547–556 | Cite as

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Case/Non-Case Study Based on an Italian Pharmacovigilance Database
  • Roberto Leone
  • Anita Conforti
  • Mauro Venegoni
  • Domenico Motola
  • Ugo Moretti
  • Ilaria Meneghelli
  • Alfredo Cocci
  • Giulia Sangiorgi Cellini
  • Stefania Scotto
  • Nicola Montanaro
  • Giampaolo Velo
Original Research Article


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.


  1. 1.
    Bochner BS, Lichtenstein LM. Anaphylaxis. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1785–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ewan PW. Anaphylaxis. BMJ 1998; 316: 1442–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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]
  4. 4.
    Anderson JA. Allergic reactions to drugs and biological agents. JAMA 1992; 268: 2845–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neugut AI, Ghatak AT, Miller RL. Anaphylaxis in the United States: an investigation into its epidemiology. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kemp SF, Lockey RF. Anaphylaxis: a review of causes and mechanisms. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110: 341–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lieberman PL. Anaphylaxis. Medscape General Medicine 1999; 1(1) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408706 [Accessed 2005 Apr 21]
  8. 8.
    Sheikh A, Alves B. Hospital admissions for acute anaphylaxis: time trend study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown AFT, McKinnon D. Emergency department anaphylaxis: a review of 142 patients in a single year. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108: 861–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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: 141–6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stark BJ, Sullivan TJ. Biphasic and protracted anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1986; 78: 76–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 452–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haddi E, Cherpin D, Taffareau M, et al. Atopy and systemic reactions to drugs. Allergy 1990; 45: 236–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: 1571–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drain KL, Volcheck GW. Preventing and managing drug-induced anaphylaxis. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 843–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weiss WE, Adkinson NF. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin and related antibiotics. Clin Allergy 1988; 18: 515–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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: 195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang D-Y, Forslund C, Persson U, et al. Drug-attributed anaphylaxis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998; 7: 269–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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: 1185–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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: 1355–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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: 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson AM, Thabane L, Holbrook A. Application of data mining techniques in pharmacovigilance. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 57: 127–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyboom RHB, Hekster YA, Egberts ACG, et al. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 17: 374–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Puijenbroek EP, Egberts ACG, Meyboom RHB, et al. Different risks for NSAID induced anaphylaxis. Ann Pharmacother 2002; 36: 24–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hauben M, Zhou X. Quantitative methods in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2003; 26: 159–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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: 2027–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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: 513–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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: 989–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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: 269–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 185–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cars O, Mölstad S, Melander A. Variation in antibiotic use in the European Union. Lancet 2001; 357: 1851–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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: 791–815Google Scholar
  33. 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: 839–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sgro C, Clinard F, Ouazir K, et al. Incidence of drug-hepatic injuries: a French population-based study. Hepatology 2002; 36: 451–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miller MA. Gender-based differences in the toxicity of pharmaceuticals: Food and Drug Administration’s perspective. Int J Toxicol 2001; 20: 149–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weis KH. Haemaccel 35: adverse reactions in a multicentric, prospective study. Anaesthesist 1983; 32: 488–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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: 933–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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: 408–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet 1977; I: 466–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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: 1111–39Google Scholar
  41. 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: 621–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thomsen HS, Bush WH. Adverse effects of contrast media: incidence, prevention and management. Drug Saf 1998; 19: 313–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Maddox TG. Adverse reactions to contrast material: recognition, prevention, and treatment. Am Fam Physician 2002; 66: 1229–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: 295–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Alvarez Fernandez JA, Valero AM, Pulido Z, et al. Hypersensitivity reaction to ioversol. Allergy 2000; 55: 581–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dewachter P, Mouton-Faivre C, Felden F. Allergy and contrast media. Allergy 2001; 56: 250–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakamura I, Hori S, Funabiki T, et al. Cardiopulmonary arrest induced by anaphylactoid reaction with contrast media. Resuscitation 2002; 53: 223–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ketkar M, Shrier D. An allergic reaction to intraarterial non-ionic contrast material [letter]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Laroche D, Aimone-Gastin I, Dubois F, et al. Mechanisms of severe, immediate reactions to iodinated contrast material. Radiology 1998; 209: 183–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Laroche D, Namour F, Lefrancois C, et al. Anaphylactoid and anaphylactic reactions to iodinated contrast material. Allergy 1999; 54Suppl. 58: 13–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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: 282–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lasser EC. The radiocontrast molecule in anaphylaxis: a surprising antigen. Novartis Found Symp 2004; 257: 211–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bartlett MJ, Bynevelt M. Acute contrast reaction management by radiologists: a local audit study. Australas Radiol 2003; 47: 363–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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]Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smythe MA, Cappelletty DM. Anaphylactoid reaction to levofloxacin. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 1520–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ho D, Song J, Wang C. Anaphylactoid reaction to ciprofloxacin. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 37: 1018–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cinobac® product information. Corona (CA): Oclassen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a division of Watson Labs, Inc., 1999 Jun 23Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stricker BH, Slagboom G, Demaeseneer R, et al. Anaphylactic reactions to cinoxacin. BMJ 1988; 297: 1434–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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: 61–3Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Polk RE. Alaphylactoid reactions to glycopeptide antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27Suppl. B: 17–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Perrett CM, McBride SR. Teicoplanin induced drug hypersensitivity syndrome. BMJ 2004; 328: 1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dux S, Groslop I, Garty M, et al. Anaphylactic shock induced by diclofenac. Brit Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286: 1861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Alkhawajah AM, Eifawal M, Mahmoud SF. Fatal anaphylactic reaction to diclofenac. Forensic Sci Int 1993; 60: 107–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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: 763–5Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sen I, Mitra S, Gombar KK. Fatal anaphylactic reaction to oral diclofenac sodium [letter]. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jonker MJ, Bruynzeel DP. Anaphylactic reaction elicited by patch testing with diclofenac. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49: 114–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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: 400–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Del Pozo MD, Lobera T, Blasco A. Selective hypersensitivity to diclofenac. Allergy 2000; 55: 412–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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: 167–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Klasco RK, editor. DRUGDEX® System. Greenwood Village (CO): Thomson MICROMEDEX, 2004Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hernandez C, Aragones N, Estanyol N. Two cases of anaphylactic shock after metamizol given during postoperative recovery. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2004; 51: 168–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Janke C, Schmeck J, Passami D, et al. Anaphylactic cardiocirculatory failure after intraoperative application od dipyrone. Anaesthesist 2003; 52: 321–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Priima OB. The clinical picture and ambulatory treatment of drug-induced anaphylactic shock with a favourable course. Feldsher Akush 1991; 56: 33–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bohlke K, Davis RL, Marcy SM, et al. Risk of anaphylaxis after vaccination of children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 815–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Leone
    • 1
  • Anita Conforti
    • 1
  • Mauro Venegoni
    • 2
  • Domenico Motola
    • 3
  • Ugo Moretti
    • 1
  • Ilaria Meneghelli
    • 1
  • Alfredo Cocci
    • 2
  • Giulia Sangiorgi Cellini
    • 3
  • Stefania Scotto
    • 2
  • Nicola Montanaro
    • 3
  • Giampaolo Velo
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Reference Centre for Education and Communication within the WHO Programme for International Drug MonitoringUniversity of Verona, Policlinico G.B. RossiVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Lombardy Centre of PharmacovigilanceMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology, Interuniversity Research Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology, University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations