Douglas Rogers1, Chandni Sheth2, Laura Eisenmenger1, Eugene Mignogna3, Thomas Winter4,5. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Science, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. , Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Science, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. thomas.winter@hsc.utah.edu. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Utah University Hospital, 30 N 1900 E RM 1A071, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132-2140, USA. thomas.winter@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the palatability of iopamidol and iohexol. METHODS: This was a blinded and randomized trial in which fifty healthy subjects taste testediopamidol (Isovue, Bracco Diagnostics), iohexol (Omnipaque, GE Healthcare), diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (Gastrografin, Bracco Diagnostics), and barium sulfate suspension 2.1% w/v, 2.0% w/w (READI-CAT2, E-Z-EM). Participants scored palatability on a continuous scale from 0 to 40 (0 = intolerable, 10 = unpleasant but tolerable, 20 = neutral, 30 = kind of like, 40 = strongly like). RESULTS:Mean scores (SD/SEM) for the contrast agents (n = 50) were iopamidol = 21.0 (8.4/1.2); iohexol = 21.8 (7.1/1.0); Gastrografin = 16.8 (9.6/1.4); and barium = 23.7 (9.1/1.3). One-way ANOVA equality of means test shows rejection of the hypothesis that the means are equal (F* = 6.550, p = .000). Post hoc testing demonstrates Gastrografin to be significantly less preferred to barium (p = .000) and iohexol (p = .012). No difference was found between iopamidol and iohexol (p = .959). One-way ANOVA equality of means test of just iopamidol, iohexol, and barium does not reject the hypothesis that means are equal (F* = 1.778 and p = .174). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in palatability between iopamidol and iohexol, supporting the use of iopamidol as a viable alternative to iohexol as an oral contrast agent.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the palatability of iopamidol and iohexol. METHODS: This was a blinded and randomized trial in which fifty healthy subjects taste tested iopamidol (Isovue, Bracco Diagnostics), iohexol (Omnipaque, GE Healthcare), diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (Gastrografin, Bracco Diagnostics), and barium sulfate suspension 2.1% w/v, 2.0% w/w (READI-CAT2, E-Z-EM). Participants scored palatability on a continuous scale from 0 to 40 (0 = intolerable, 10 = unpleasant but tolerable, 20 = neutral, 30 = kind of like, 40 = strongly like). RESULTS: Mean scores (SD/SEM) for the contrast agents (n = 50) were iopamidol = 21.0 (8.4/1.2); iohexol = 21.8 (7.1/1.0); Gastrografin = 16.8 (9.6/1.4); and barium = 23.7 (9.1/1.3). One-way ANOVA equality of means test shows rejection of the hypothesis that the means are equal (F* = 6.550, p = .000). Post hoc testing demonstrates Gastrografin to be significantly less preferred to barium (p = .000) and iohexol (p = .012). No difference was found between iopamidol and iohexol (p = .959). One-way ANOVA equality of means test of just iopamidol, iohexol, and barium does not reject the hypothesis that means are equal (F* = 1.778 and p = .174). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in palatability between iopamidol and iohexol, supporting the use of iopamidol as a viable alternative to iohexol as an oral contrast agent.