RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To review the safety and efficacy profiles of iomeprol by examining the most indicative comparative clinical studies of iomeprol with widely used low-osmolar ionic or nonionic contrast agents, and to illustrate the recent development in iomeprol liposomal formulations for liver imaging and intravascular enhancement. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, comparative studies were performed of iomeprol versus iopamidol, iopromide, ioxaglate, iopentol, iodixanol, ioversol, and iohexol. In all studies, safety controls included pre- and postadministration physical examinations, monitoring of vital signs, electrocardiography, clinical laboratory investigations, and 24- or 72-hour postadministration monitoring of patients for adverse events. Technically adequate images were rated for diagnostic efficacy by masked assessors. RESULTS:Iomeprol showed similar safety and diagnostic efficacy compared with the nonionic monomers iopamidol, iohexol, and ioversol, and no statistically significant differences were observed. No differences in diagnostic efficacy between iomeprol and iopromide were observed, but in one study on 1,200 patients, the incidence of adverse events and adverse reactions was significantly higher with iopromide than with iomeprol. Iomeprol caused significantly less heat/pain than iopentol in one study; it showed similar safety and tolerability to the nonionic dimer iodixanol, the two agents causing no or modest, superimposable pain and heat sensation at injection and showing similar renal tolerability after intra-arterial injection. A comparison of iomeprol versus ionic dimer ioxaglate in 2,000 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions showed that the incidence of thrombus-related events was similar with the two agents, but ioxaglate caused a significantly higher incidence of allergy-like reactions. First results with iomeprol-containing liposomal formulations show that these agents may facilitate the CT assessment of intrahepatic malignancies and CT angiography procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results of numerous randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical studies in a variety of indications show that the diagnostic efficacy of iomeprol solutions does not differ significantly from that of the low-osmolar contrast media available on the marketplace when similar iodine strengths are used, although iomeprol may have better tolerability and safety than the ionic dimer and some of the nonionic monomers in selective applications. First results obtained with iomeprol-containing liposomal formulations are promising and may foster additional clinical testing.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To review the safety and efficacy profiles of iomeprol by examining the most indicative comparative clinical studies of iomeprol with widely used low-osmolar ionic or nonionic contrast agents, and to illustrate the recent development in iomeprol liposomal formulations for liver imaging and intravascular enhancement. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, comparative studies were performed of iomeprol versus iopamidol, iopromide, ioxaglate, iopentol, iodixanol, ioversol, and iohexol. In all studies, safety controls included pre- and postadministration physical examinations, monitoring of vital signs, electrocardiography, clinical laboratory investigations, and 24- or 72-hour postadministration monitoring of patients for adverse events. Technically adequate images were rated for diagnostic efficacy by masked assessors. RESULTS:Iomeprol showed similar safety and diagnostic efficacy compared with the nonionic monomers iopamidol, iohexol, and ioversol, and no statistically significant differences were observed. No differences in diagnostic efficacy between iomeprol and iopromide were observed, but in one study on 1,200 patients, the incidence of adverse events and adverse reactions was significantly higher with iopromide than with iomeprol. Iomeprol caused significantly less heat/pain than iopentol in one study; it showed similar safety and tolerability to the nonionic dimer iodixanol, the two agents causing no or modest, superimposable pain and heat sensation at injection and showing similar renal tolerability after intra-arterial injection. A comparison of iomeprol versus ionic dimer ioxaglate in 2,000 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions showed that the incidence of thrombus-related events was similar with the two agents, but ioxaglate caused a significantly higher incidence of allergy-like reactions. First results with iomeprol-containing liposomal formulations show that these agents may facilitate the CT assessment of intrahepatic malignancies and CT angiography procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results of numerous randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical studies in a variety of indications show that the diagnostic efficacy of iomeprol solutions does not differ significantly from that of the low-osmolar contrast media available on the marketplace when similar iodine strengths are used, although iomeprol may have better tolerability and safety than the ionic dimer and some of the nonionic monomers in selective applications. First results obtained with iomeprol-containing liposomal formulations are promising and may foster additional clinical testing.