Pharmacokinetics of gadobenate dimeglumine in children 2 to 5 years of age undergoing MRI of the central nervous system.

PURPOSE: To determine the pharmacokinetic profile of gadobenate dimeglumine in children aged between 2 and 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen children scheduled to undergo contrast-enhanced MRI for suspected disease of the central nervous system received a single intravenous injection of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine. Children were stratified into three age groups: 2 to <3 years, 3 to <4 years, and 4 to 5 (i.e., <6 years). Serial blood and urine samples collected at prespecified time-points before and after contrast administration were analyzed for gadolinium concentrations. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental and compartmental techniques. RESULTS: Mean values of 65.7 µg/mL for highest blood gadolinium concentration, 0.2 L/h/kg for blood clearance, 0.32 L/kg for steady-state volume of distribution, and 1.2 h for terminal elimination half-life were determined across all age groups combined. On average, more than 80% of the dose was eliminated in the urine during the first 24 h after administration. All pharmacokinetic parameters were similar between age groups and no effects of gender were noted. No adverse events considered related to gadobenate dimeglumine administration were reported. CONCLUSION: In terms of pharmacokinetic profile no dosage adjustment from the approved adult gadobenate dimeglumine dose of 0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight is necessary in children aged between 2 and 5 years.

Prospective Cohort Study of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis in Patients With Stage 3-5 Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing MRI With Injected Gadobenate Dimeglumine or Gadoteridol.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and moderate-to-severe impairment of kidney function who had not previously been exposed to gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) or referred to undergo contrast-enhanced MRI with gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoteridol. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two multicenter prospective cohort studies evaluated the incidence of unconfounded NSF in patients with stage 3 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] in cohort 1, 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) or stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR in cohort 2, < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) after injection of gadobenate dimeglumine (study A) or gadoteridol (study B). A third study (study C) determined the incidence of NSF in patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD who had not received a GBCA in the 10 years before enrollment. Monitoring for signs and symptoms suggestive of NSF was performed via telephone at 1, 3, 6, and 18 months, with clinic visits occurring at 1 and 2 years. RESULTS: For studies A and B, the populations evaluated for NSF comprised 363 and 171 patients, respectively, with 318 and 159 patients in cohort 1 of each study, respectively, and with 45 and 12 patients in cohort 2, respectively. No signs or symptoms of NSF were reported or detected during the 2 years of patient monitoring. Likewise, no cases of NSF were reported for any of the 405 subjects enrolled in study C. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, and consistent with reports in the literature, no association of gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoteridol with unconfounded cases of NSF has yet been established. Study data confirm that both gadoteridol and gadobenate dimeglumine properly belong to the class of GBCAs considered to be associated with the lowest risk of NSF.

Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the pelvic arteries.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 4 doses of gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) of the pelvic arteries and to compare CE-MRA with unenhanced time-of-flight MRA (2D-TOF-MRA). METHODS: A multicenter Phase II dose-finding study was performed in 136 patients with Gd-BOPTA doses of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mmol/kg bodyweight. Evaluation of CE-MRA images and comparison with 2D-TOF-MRA images was performed onsite and by 2 blinded offsite reviewers in terms of subjective image quality, number of lesions detected, and confidence in lesion characterization. RESULTS: Significant (P < 0.05) improvements over unenhanced findings were observed for CE-MRA at all dose levels. For reviewer 1 and the onsite investigators, the overall image quality increased up to a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg and then plateaued. For reviewer 2, increased image quality was noted up to a dose of 0.2 mmol/kg. Significant (P < 0.005) increases in diagnostic confidence on CE-MRA versus unenhanced MRA was observed for all dose groups by reviewer 1 and the onsite investigators and for the 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg dose groups by reviewer 2. No serious adverse events were recorded that were attributable to the study drug and no trends in laboratory parameters, vital signs, or electrocardiogram recordings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRA is safe and significantly more effective than unenhanced 2D-TOF-MRA for imaging the pelvic arteries. A dose of 0.1 mmol/kg appears the most appropriate dose for subsequent Phase III clinical evaluation.

Contrast-enhanced MRA of the renal and aorto-iliac-femoral arteries: comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Dedicated contrast agents are now available for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA). This study retrospectively compares the safety and diagnostic performance data from Phase III regulatory trials performed to evaluate gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance(®)) and gadofosveset trisodium (Vasovist®)) for renal and peripheral CE-MRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Similar examination and blinded assessment methodology was utilized in all studies to determine the safety and diagnostic performance of the agents for detection of significant (>50%) steno-occlusive disease. Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) was used as the standard of truth. Diagnostic performance data (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values [PVs], and likelihood ratios [LRs]) were compared (Chi-square test). RESULTS: CE-MRA with gadobenate dimeglumine was more specific (92.4% vs. 80.5%, p < 0.0001) and accurate (83.6% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.022) than CE-MRA with gadofosveset in the detection of significant renal artery stenosis. The average sensitivity was higher for gadofosveset (74.4% vs. 67.3%, p = 0.011) in peripheral vessels although gadobenate dimeglumine was more specific (93.0% vs. 88.2%, p < 0.0001) with no difference in accuracy (86.6% vs. 86.3%, p = 0.66). PPVs were higher (p < 0.0001) for gadobenate dimeglumine in both vascular territories. Pre- to post-test shifts in the probability of detecting significant disease were greater after gadobenate dimeglumine. Adverse events in the renal and peripheral studies were reported by 9.2% and 7.7% of patients after gadobenate dimeglumine compared with 30.3% and 22.1% of patients after gadofosveset. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CE-MRA for the detection of significant steno-occlusive disease is similar with gadofosveset and gadobenate dimeglumine although the rate of adverse events appears higher with gadofosveset.

Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR angiography: Diagnostic performance of four doses for detection and grading of carotid, renal, and aorto-iliac stenoses compared to digital subtraction angiography.

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) with four doses of gadobenate dimeglumine for detection of significant steno-occlusive disease of the carotid, renal, and pelvic vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients with suspected disease of the renal (n = 16), pelvic (n = 41), or carotid (n = 27) arteries underwent CE-MRA (3D-spoiled gradient-echo sequences) at 1.5T. CE-MRA was performed with gadobenate dimeglumine at 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mmol/kg (23, 24, 19, and 18 patients, respectively) administered at 2 mL/sec. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) for detection of significant disease (>50% stenosis or occlusion for renal/pelvic arteries; >70% stenosis or occlusion for carotid arteries) was determined by three fully blinded, independent radiologists using conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as reference standard. All comparisons were tested statistically (ANOVA, chi-square, and Mantel-Haenszel tests as appropriate) and reader agreement (kappa) was assessed. RESULTS: Values for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV on CE-MRA were consistently higher for 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine (accuracy = 95.2-97.3%, sensitivity = 84.2% (all readers), specificity = 96.9-99.2%, PPV = 80.0-94.1%, NPV = 97.6-97.7%). The greater accuracy of the 0.1 mmol/kg dose was significant (P < 0.01, all readers) compared to all other dose groups. Agreement between the three readers was good for all dose groups (kappa >/=0.58), with the highest percent agreement (85.7%) noted for the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. CONCLUSION: Significantly better diagnostic performance on CE-MRA of the renal, pelvic, and carotid arteries is achieved with a gadobenate dimeglumine dose of 0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight.

Safety characteristics of gadobenate dimeglumine: clinical experience from intra- and interindividual comparison studies with gadopentetate dimeglumine.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) relative to that of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) in patients and volunteers undergoing MRI for various clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 924 subjects were enrolled in 10 clinical trials in which Gd-BOPTA was compared with Gd-DTPA. Of these subjects, 893 were patients with known or suspected disease and 31 were healthy adult volunteers. Of the 893 patients, 174 were pediatric subjects (aged two days to 17 years) referred for MRI of the brain or spine. Safety evaluations included monitoring vital signs, laboratory values, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: The rate of AE in adults was similar between the two agents (Gd-BOPTA: 51/561, 9.1%; Gd-DTPA: 33/472, 7.0%; P = 0.22). In parallel-group studies in which subjects were randomized to either agent, the rate of AE was 10.9% for Gd-BOPTA and 7.9% for Gd-DTPA (P = 0.21). In the subset of subjects receiving both agents in intraindividual crossover trials, the rate of AE was 8.0% for Gd-BOPTA and 8.5% for Gd-DTPA (P = 0.84). Results of other safety assessments (laboratory tests, vital signs) were similar for the two agents. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of Gd-BOPTA is similar to Gd-DTPA in patients and volunteers. Both compounds are equally well-tolerated in patients with various disease states undergoing MRI.

Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) for enhanced MR imaging of brain and spine tumours in children.

BACKGROUND: Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) demonstrates superior enhancement of brain tumours in adult patients than Gd-DTPA. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Gd-BOPTA has advantages over Gd-DTPA for enhanced MR imaging of paediatric brain and spine tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three subjects, aged 6 months to 16 years, who were enrolled in a prospective, fully blinded, randomized parallel-group phase III clinical trial, received 0.1 mmol/kg doses of either Gd-BOPTA (n=29) or Gd-DTPA (n=34). The MR images were acquired before and within 10 min of contrast agent injection. The primary objective was to compare the difference from pre-dose to post-dose lesion visualization between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DTPA. Lesion visualization was determined as the sum of individual scores for three criteria of lesion morphological characteristics (lesion border delineation, internal morphology, and contrast enhancement), each assessed qualitatively using 4-point scales. Quantitative evaluation compared changes in lesion-to-background (LBR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios and per cent enhancement. Monitoring for adverse events and evaluation of vital signs and laboratory values was performed. RESULTS: Pre-dose to post-dose changes in lesion visualization were significantly better for Gd-BOPTA for both lesion level (2.68+/-2.17 vs. 1.05+/-1.90, P=0.0106) and patient level (2.55+/-2.18 vs. 1.14+/-1.68, P=0.0079) comparisons. The mean pre-dose to post-dose change in CNR was greater for Gd-BOPTA (9.13+/-15.36) than Gd-DTPA (2.18+/-9.90), but the difference was only marginally significant (P=0.0779; 95% CI: -0.553, 14.454) because of wide variations of signal intensity between lesions. Similar findings were obtained for LBR and per cent enhancement. No differences between the agents were noted in terms of safety parameters. CONCLUSIONS: At an equivalent dose Gd-BOPTA is significantly better than Gd-DTPA for visualization of enhancing CNS tumours in paediatric patients.

Factors associated with pattern of care before surgery for breast cancer in Quebec between 1992 and 1997.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines for breast cancer emphasize the importance of establishing an accurate diagnosis using a minimum number of procedures and selecting optimal treatment regimens. Understanding the determinants of waiting time is essential to develop optimum interventions to reduce delay. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to estimate the extent to which variability in 1) the number of procedures before surgery and 2) waiting time from initial procedure to surgery are explainable by factors related to the woman, to the provider, and to the care setting. RESEARCH DESIGN: Records of physicians' fee-for-service claims were obtained for 23,370 women undergoing breast cancer surgery in Quebec between 1992 and 1997. Multilevel logistic regression was used to determine predictors of having multiple procedures before surgery. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to identify predictors of waiting time, separately for women with lymph node involvement and without this involvement. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of the women had 3 or more procedures before surgery with significant variation found across hospitals and surgeons. Number of procedures was a strong predictor of waiting time. Waiting time also varied by stage, age, comorbidity, a history of benign disease, surgical setting, calendar time, month of initial procedure, and hospital teaching status. CONCLUSION: Although variability in waiting time was more strongly influenced by the characteristics of the women rather than by physician- or hospital-related factors, most variation remained unexplained by the factors included in this study. To reduce overall waiting time, strategies would need to be systemically applied.