Indian Journal of Dermatology
  Publication of IADVL, WB
  Official organ of AADV
Indexed with Science Citation Index (E) , Web of Science and PubMed
Users online: 3506  
Home About  Editorial Board  Current Issue Archives Online Early Coming Soon Guidelines Subscriptions  e-Alerts    Login  
    Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this page Email this page

Table of Contents 
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 57  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 245
Gadolinium-bound contrast agents: No evidence-based data to support a relationship between structure and hypersensitivity reactions

1 Research Division, Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, Villepinte, France
2 Pharmacovigilance Division, Guerbet, Villepinte, France

Date of Web Publication16-May-2012

Correspondence Address:
Jean-Marc Idee
Research Division, Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, Villepinte
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.96223

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Idee JM, Gaillard S, Corot C. Gadolinium-bound contrast agents: No evidence-based data to support a relationship between structure and hypersensitivity reactions. Indian J Dermatol 2012;57:245

How to cite this URL:
Idee JM, Gaillard S, Corot C. Gadolinium-bound contrast agents: No evidence-based data to support a relationship between structure and hypersensitivity reactions. Indian J Dermatol [serial online] 2012 [cited 2021 Dec 4];57:245. Available from:


We came across a recent article [1] concerning nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, where the discussion on the structure-toxicity relationship of gadolinium-bound contrast agents (GBCAs) included the assertion that the patently lower thermodynamic and kinetic stability of nonionic and linear GBCAs "does not necessarily reflect overall risk for individual patients because nonionic contrast agents have fewer serious allergic-type adverse events and fewer deaths (see FDA AERS database)". We believe that this allegation is not evidence-based and can be confusing.

To support their statement, Zou and Ma quote three articles. The first one [2] refers to the retrospective analysis of hypersensitivity reactions in patients who received a nonionic, linear agent (gadodiamide), an ionic and linear agent (gadopentetate) or a nonionic, macrocyclic GBCA (gadoteridol) (53 responses to a questionnaire, from 105 centers). As stressed by the authors of the article, "high usage of a particular agent by an institution that carefully records reactions could bias the comparison with another agent commonly employed at other institutions that record reactions less meticulously". [2] The second article [3] is a single case report involving gadobenate. It seems quite difficult to draw general conclusions from such a report. The third article [4] refers to a large-scale, prospective study concerning first-generation, high-osmolality ionic, and second generation, low osmolality and nonionic iodinated contrast agents. Extrapolating the general conclusions from this study to GBCAs (based, as we assume, on the 'ionicity' of the molecules and the fact that there are contrast agents in both cases) makes no sense.

The currently published prospective, controlled, double-blind clinical trials confirm that all marketed GBCAs cannot be differentiated with respect to hypersensitivity reactions. In our opinion, the retrospective analysis of databases (where several GBCAs such as gadobutrol or gadoterate may not be taken into account) can be subjected to many potential biases and should be performed with extreme caution.

Hypersensitivity reactions to GBCAs do occur, and they can be very serious, but their nature (allergic or non-allergic) remains a topic of debate. Should there be allergic hypersensitivity reactions, polysensitization between GBCAs is not always found and the notion of class allergy is debated. [5] However, suggesting a higher incidence for some molecular category of GBCA is scientifically groundless. Even as a structure-activity relationship seems plausible with regard to the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, as indicated by Zou and Ma, there are no rigorous data to support any structure-activity relationship concerning GBCA-induced hypersensitivity reactions so far. Furthermore, there is definitely no link between these two categories of adverse reactions to GBCAs. In our opinion, permitting unsubstantiated rumors to circulate regarding a supposedly higher rate of adverse reactions with one or another category of GBCAs can be misleading in daily practice.

   References Top

1.Zou Z, Ma L. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: Review of 408 biopsy-confirmed cases. Indian J Dermatol 2011;56:65-73.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Murphy KP, Szopinski KT, Cohan RH, Mermillod B, Ellis JH. Occurrence of adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast material and management of patients at increased risk: A survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Fellowship Directors. Acad Radiol 1999;6:656-64.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Singer BD, Woodrisk RS, Pedicano JB. Severe adverse drug reaction to gadobenate dimeglumine. Scientific World Journal 2009;9:363-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990;175:621-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.Galera C, Pur Ozygit, Caviglioli S, Bousquet PJ, Demoly P. Gadoteridol-induced anaphylaxis - not a class allergy. Allergy 2010;65:130-9.  Back to cited text no. 5


Print this article  Email this article
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (330 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal