Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Apr;89:81-89. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.01.015. Epub 2017 Jan 18.

Is gender still a predisposing factor in contrast-media associated adverse drug reactions? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.

Author information

1
Evidence-Based Research Laboratory, Division of Health, Social and Clinical Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: sselmul@hanmail.net.
2
Evidence-Based Research Laboratory, Division of Health, Social and Clinical Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: tmddus0121@hotmail.com.
3
Evidence-Based Research Laboratory, Division of Health, Social and Clinical Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Pharmacy, Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: rky221@hanmail.net.
4
College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: wkang@cau.ac.kr.
5
Evidence-Based Research Laboratory, Division of Health, Social and Clinical Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea; College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: eykimjcb777@cau.ac.kr.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the role of gender as a risk factor for developing contrast media-associated adverse drug reactions (CM-ADRs) by comparing the incidence of CM-ADR between male and female patients according to study design, ADR type, and computed tomography (CT) examination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

We systematically searched three electronic databases for eligible studies. In the studies included (n=18), we assessed effect estimates of the relative incidence of CM-ADR, analysed by experimental design, ADR type and CT examination. This was calculated by using a random effects model if clinical conditions showed heterogeneity; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS:

We identified 10,776 patients administered CM. According to the designs, studies were classified into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Results were as follows: risk ratio (RR)=1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.46, P=0.66) for RCTs, and RR=0.77 (95% CI: 0.58-1.04, P=0.09) for observational studies. The results of analysis according to ADR type and for undergoing CT demonstrated that the incidence of CM-ADR did not differ between males and females.

CONCLUSIONS:

We found no significant difference in the incidence of CM-ADRs between male and female patients according to study design, ADR type, or CT examination. Future studies to determine why gender has shown different roles as a risk factor between CM-ADRs and non-CM ADRs are needed.

KEYWORDS:

Adverse drug reaction; Contrast media; Gender; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

PMID:
28267554
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.01.015
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center