Iomeprol versus iopromide for intravenous urography

Abstract

Iomeprol (B16880) is a new non-ionic tri-iodinated radiographic contrast medium. It was the aim of this double blind randomized phase III clinical trial to compare the local and systemic tolerance of iomeprol-300 (300 mg I ml-1) with the commercially available iopromide-300 (300 mg I ml-1) in a group of 198 patients needing intravenous urography. The contrast medium was injected rapidly into an antecubital vein within 2-3 min in most cases, using a standard dosage of 1 ml kg-1 body weight. The proportion of patients with an allergic diathesis was 25% in the iomeprol group and 17.3% in the iopromide group. There were no life-threatening adverse reactions. Eight patients (8%) receiving iomeprol and 6 (6.1%) receiving iopromide had a sensation of heat related to the injection of contrast medium. Only one patient (1%) in the iomeprol group and two patients (2%) in the iopromide group noted pain on injection. Although the incidence of all other side-effects was relatively high (7% after iomeprol and 11.2% after iopromide) these reactions were generally harmless. The most common symptom was nausea and/or vomiting, which occurred with the same incidence (5%) in both groups. Only one patient in each group developed urticaria or erythema. Vital parameters remained essentially unchanged in all patients. The results suggest that iomeprol is a safe contrast medium, with a tendency to produce fewer side effects than iopromide, which is known to be particularly well tolerated.

Are there any differences in acute adverse reactions among five low-osmolar non-ionic iodinated contrast media?

“…The incidence of adverse reactions in the iopromide group was also high. Compared with the results of the present study, previous reports noted no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among different non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media [7][8][9][10][11][12]. This discrepancy in results may reflect the relatively small number of patients examined in previous reports, or perhaps racial differences between the studies: all previous reports were from Europe and the United States, whereas all subjects in the present study were Japanese.…”

“…Various contrast media are currently available, none of which has safety problems. Randomised evaluations of the safety profile of low-osmolar non-ionic iodinated contrast media have been performed in small patient populations [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Adverse reactions did not differ significantly among the contrast media used in these trials; however, the incidence of mild acute-type adverse reactions differed with regard to gender [13] and age [3].…”

Proteomic Analysis of Iodinated Contrast Agent-Induced Perturbation of Thyroid Iodide Uptake

“…Recently, we have provided the evidence that the sublingual delivery of ICM is efficient in mice and could be considered in humans [16]. In addition, randomized, multicenter evaluations of the safety profile of iodinated contrast agents are widely available [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. Considering the safety profile of ICM, the long-lasting effect of single ICM sublingual administration on thyroid iodide uptake and in the light of the mechanistic observations presented in this report, we advocate that formulations based on ICM could be used in conjunction or instead of KI tablets in radioprotection.…”

Nicht-ionische R�ntgenkontrastmittel - Klinische Relevanz der Unterschiede verschiedener Kontrastmittel. Vorbereitungspapier f�r Konsensuskonferenz. Studie im Auftrag des Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbundes. Institut f�r Technikfolgen-Absch�tzung

“…Geschmackssensationen wurden bei 3 %-27 % der Patienten berichtet, sind aber prinzipiell vergleichbar mit anderen KM [25,49,50,145].…”

“…Die Inzidenz war aber wieder sehr unterschiedlich und lag zwischen 8 % und 45 % [25,49,50,74,143,145,176]. In bis zu 6 % der Patienten wurden während der KM-Applikation Schmerzen dokumentiert, die aber in jedem Fall als mild oder geringgradig beschrieben wurden [14,35,49,50,74,143,145,174,176].…”