Approval Probability
TA Base Rate
Adjusted LOA
ML Risk
Gadobutrol · 17 trials · 11 indications
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score \[RPS: 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region was rated to have a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis of \>=50% for primary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) verified by standard of reference (SoR, coronary angiography \[CA\] or computed tomography angiography \[CTA, only if disease can be unequivocally rejected\]). Sensitivity= true positive/ (true positive + false negative).
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score \[RPS: 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region was rated to have a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as QCA stenosis of \>=70%, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI verified by SoR (CA or CTA \[only if disease can be unequivocally rejected\]). Sensitivity= true positive/ (true positive + false negative). This additional secondary analysis of sensitivity was retrospective analysis.
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score \[RPS: 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region was rated to have a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as QCA stenosis of \>=50% for primary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI verified by SoR (CA or CTA \[only if disease can be unequivocally rejected\]). Specificity= true negative/ (true negative + false positive).
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score \[RPS: 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region was rated to have a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as QCA stenosis of \>=70%, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI verified by SoR (CA or CTA \[only if disease can be unequivocally rejected\]). Specificity= true negative/ (true negative + false positive). This additional secondary analysis of specificity was retrospective analysis.
Presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus the presence of wall motion abnormalities on unenhanced CMRI images (based on regional perfusion/regional wall motion score of the 6 myocardial regions) was calculated by blinded readers' assessment. Significant CAD was defined as QCA stenosis of \>=50% for primary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI or the presence of wall motion abnormalities on unenhanced CMRI images verified by SoR (CA or CTA \[only if disease can be unequivocally rejected\]). Sensitivity= true positive/ (true positive + false negative).
Presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus the presence of wall motion abnormalities on unenhanced CMRI images (based on regional perfusion/regional wall motion score of the 6 myocardial regions) was calculated by blinded readers' assessment. Significant CAD was defined as QCA stenosis of \>=70%, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI or the presence of wall motion abnormalities on unenhanced CMRI images verified by SoR (CA or CTA \[only if disease can be unequivocally rejected\]). Sensitivity= true positive/ (true positive + false negative). This additional secondary analysis of sensitivity was retrospective analysis.
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score (RPS), 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis of \>=50% for primary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) verified by standard of reference (SoR). Sensitivity= true positive/ (true positive + false negative).
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score (RPS), 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis of \>=70% for secondary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) verified by standard of reference (SoR). Sensitivity= true positive/ (true positive + false negative). This additional secondary analysis of sensitivity was prospective analysis.
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score (RPS), 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis of \>=50% for primary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) verified by standard of reference (SoR). Specificity= true negative/ (true negative + false positive).
Blinded readers evaluated 6 myocardial regions based on regional perfusion score (RPS), 0=normal; 1=abnormal, reversible perfusion defect (stress); 2=abnormal, mixed perfusion defect (reversible and fixed/permanent components); 3=abnormal, fixed/permanent perfusion defect/scar (stress and rest)\]. A myocardial region a perfusion defect in case of a RPS of \>=1 and was rated to have normal perfusion in case of a RPS of 0. Significant CAD was defined as quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis of \>=70% for primary analysis, and was determined based on the presence of a myocardial perfusion defect on gadobutrol-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) verified by standard of reference (SoR). Specificity= true negative/ (true negative + false positive). This additional secondary analysis of specificity was prospective analysis.
Blinded readers evaluate contrast of at maximum 5 lesions and 4 normal brain structures in scans taken with and without injection of gadobutrol on a 4-point-scale.
Blinded readers evaluate border delineation of at maximum 5 lesions and 4 normal brain structures in scans taken with and without injection of gadobutrol on a 4-point-scale.
Blinded readers evaluate internal morphology of at maximum 5 lesions and 4 normal structures in scans taken with and without gadobutrol on a 3-point-scale.
Blinded readers determine number of detected lesions in scans with and without gadobutrol.
Each vascular segment was visualized using unenhanced MRA and gadobutrol-enhanced MRA, characterized by the on-site investigators, three independent blinded readers (BR) (BR 1, BR 2 and BR 3) and majority readers (the outcome determined by at least two of the blinded readers). A segment was assessable if it was visualized along its entire length and if any region of stenosis, was measured reliably. There were 21 segments of the supra-aortic arteries assessed per participant.
Clinically significant disease was defined as 70 to 99% stenosis of a segment, but not occluded, as assessed by the standard of reference (SoR) (computed tomographic angiography \[CTA\]; blinded readers). This was determined using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria. For each segment, the most severe stenosis/narrowing was identified and considered for the evaluation of clinically significant disease. In case of multiple stenosis in any one segment, the most severe stenosis in the segment was recorded.
Clinically significant disease was defined as 70 to 99% stenosis of a segment, but not occluded, as assessed by the SoR (CTA; blinded readers). This was determined using the NASCET criteria. For each segment, the most severe stenosis/narrowing was identified and considered for the evaluation of clinically significant disease. In case of multiple stenosis in any one segment, the most severe stenosis in the segment was recorded.
Clinically significant disease was defined as 70 to 99% stenosis of a segment, but not occluded as assessed by the SoR (CTA; blinded readers). For each segment, the most severe stenosis/narrowing was identified and considered for the evaluation of clinically significant disease. Gadobutrol minimum performance criteria was based on a stenosis of 50% calculated from the native vessel diameter.
Clinically significant disease was defined as 70 to 99% stenosis of a segment, but not occluded as assessed by the SoR (CTA; blinded readers). For each segment, the most severe stenosis/narrowing was identified and considered for the evaluation of clinically significant disease. Gadobutrol minimum performance criteria was based on a stenosis of 50% calculated from the native vessel diameter.
Clinically significant disease was defined as \>50% stenosis of a segment, but not occluded as assessed by the SoR. For each segment, the most severe stenosis/narrowing was identified and considered for the evaluation of clinically significant disease. Gadobutrol minimum performance criteria was based on a stenosis of 50% calculated from the native vessel diameter.
For a single participant the sensitivity was defined as the proportion of malignant breast regions that were recognized by the clinical investigators and the 3 blinded readers using the respective imaging modality as malignant. Subsequently the sensitivity percentage was calculated based on the mean of the sensitivities across all participants. The difference was calculated as CMRM value minus UMRM value. For ease of expression, the following abbreviations will be used: Magnetic Resonance Mammography (MRM), Unenhanced MRM (UMRM), combined unenhanced and contrast (gadobutrol)-enhanced MRM (CMRM), X-ray mammography (XRM).
For a single participant the sensitivity was defined as the proportion of malignant breast regions that were recognized by the clinical investigators and the 3 blinded readers using the respective imaging modality as malignant. Subsequently the sensitivity percentage was calculated based on the mean of the sensitivities across all participants.
A non-malignant breast was defined as false positive (FP), when the reader assessed at least one breast region as malignant. When all breast regions were assessed as non-malignant, the breast was defined as true negative (TN). Breast level specificity was first defined in participant as number of TN-breasts in participant divided by number of non-malignant breasts in participant. Subsequently the specificity percentage was calculated based on the mean of the specificities across all participants who contributed with at least one non-malignant breast.
For a single participant the sensitivity was defined as the proportion of malignant breast regions that were recognized by the clinical investigators and the 3 blinded readers using the respective imaging modality as malignant. Subsequently the sensitivity percentage was calculated based on the mean of the sensitivities across all participants. The difference was calculated as CMRM value minus UMRM value. For ease of expression, the following abbreviations will be used: Magnetic Resonance Mammography (MRM), Unenhanced MRM (UMRM), combined unenhanced and contrast (gadobutrol)-enhanced MRM (CMRM), X-ray mammography (XRM).
BR1 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR2 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR3 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
The blinded readers evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.
BR1 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR2 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR3 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR1 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR2 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
BR3 evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Number of metastatic lesions (unenhanced and enhanced) per participant detected on postcontrast Magnetic resonance (MR) images by averaged blinded reader and investigator
Each arterial segment visualized in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) enhanced by Gadavist and Magnevist was characterized by the on-site investigators and by three independent blinded readers (reader 1, 2 and 3) according to a five-point scale (none/not assessable, poor, moderate, good, excellent), which takes into consideration intravascular contrast quality as well as vessel border delineation. The number of vessel segments with adequate diagnostic quality, i.e. good or excellent scores, was determined for each MRA image.
CNR = (signal intensity \[SI\] lesion - SI normal tissue) / standard deviation (SD) background. SI lesion is the signal intensity in the lesion, SI normal tissue is the signal intensity in the normal tissue, and SD background is the standard deviation of the background noise. The signal intensity (SI) on the pre-contrast and on the post-contrast MR scans was to be measured in the enhanced lesion, normal tissue and background.
Rest and stress perfusion Magnetic Resonance (MR) images were evaluated by 3 independent blinded readers for presence/absence of cardiac perfusion deficits in 3 myocardial regions representing the 3 coronary territories/arteries (left anterior decendent \[LAD\], left circumflex \[LCX\], right coronary artery \[RCA\]). Data were compared to the corresponding regional data from Single Photon Emission Computer Tomography (SPECT). The number of regional assessments was calculated by multiplication of the number of participants with the number of the blinded readers and number of the myocardial regions.
Rest and stress perfusion MR images were evaluated by 3 independent blinded readers for presence/absence of cardiac perfusion deficits in 16 myocardial segments (defined according to the American Heart Association). These data were compared to the corresponding segmental data from SPECT. The number of segmental assessments was calculated by multiplication of the number of participants with the number of the blinded readers and the number of the myocardial segments.
Compare enhancing lesions in gadobutrol-enhanced central nervous system (CNS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) low dose groups (0.01 mmol/kg, 0.025 mmol/kg), and standard dose (0.1 mmol/kg).
AUC is a measure of systemic drug exposure, which is obtained by collecting a series of blood samples and measuring the concentrations of drug in each sample. AUC from time 0 (start of injection) to infinity was reported in micromole\*hour per liter (micromole\*h/L).
Clearance is the volume of the fluid presented to the eliminating organ that is effectively completely cleared of drug per unit time and depends on the rate of elimination. CL of gadobutrol normalized for body weight, was reported in Liter per hour per kilogram (L/(h\*kg).
Vss is an estimate of drug distribution independent of the elimination process and is proportional to the amount of drug in the body versus the drug plasma concentration at steady-state.
MRT is the average time that the molecules introduced into the body stay in the body. MRT of Gadobutrol is expressed in hours.
Half-life refers to the elimination of the drug, that is, the time it takes for the blood plasma concentration to reach half the concentration. Terminal elimination half-life of gadobutrol from plasma is expressed in hours and is derived from the terminal slope of the concentration versus time curve.
Simulation is the use of the model to predict data other than observed data, in this case early Gadobutrol plasma concentration after intravenous injection. Plasma concentration serves as a surrogate for efficacy (signal and contrast enhancement) in MRI. C20 was simulated for virtual pediatric subjects with homogenous distribution over age. Simulated median (5th and 95th percentile in parenthesis) gadolinium plasma concentrations for a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight were presented.
Simulation is the use of the model to predict data other than observed data, in this case early Gadobutrol plasma concentration after intravenous injection. Plasma concentration serves as a surrogate for efficacy (signal and contrast enhancement) in MRI. C30 was simulated for virtual pediatric subjects with homogenous distribution over age. Simulated median (5th and 95th percentile in parenthesis) gadolinium plasma concentrations for a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight were presented.
Total body clearance of Gadobutrol in plasma in L/h after intravenous injection.
Total body clearance of Gadobutrol in plasma corrected for body weight (L/h/kg) after intravenous injection.
Apparent volume of distribution at steady state expressed in L after intravenous injection.
Apparent volume of distribution at steady state corrected for body weight (L/h/kg) after intravenous injection.
Area under the concentration versus time curve from zero to infinity after intravenous injection expressed in µmol\*h/L.
Terminal elimination half-life of Gadobutrol from plasma expressed in h and derived from the terminal slope of the concentration versus time curve.
Mean residence time of Gadobutrol in plasma expressed in h.
| Arm | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received gadobutrol at the total approved standard dose of 0.1 millimole per kilogram body weight (mmol/kg BW) in 2 separate bolus injections: 0.05 mmol/kg BW at peak pharmacologic stress and 0.05 mmol/kg BW at rest via a power injector. |
| Arm 1 | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | EXPERIMENTAL | Patients first received an unenhanced magnetic resonance mammography (MRM), followed by a gadobutrol-enhanced MRM. Gadobutrol was administered at the standard dose of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) \[0.1 ml/kg bw\] as an intravenous injection (i.v.) at a rate of 2 ml/sec. Unenhanced MRM (UMRM) and combined unenhanced and contrast (gadobutrol)-enhanced MRM (CMRM) image sets were evaluated in a randomized fashion. After the evaluation of the UMRM or CMRM the respective X-ray mammography (XRM) was added and evaluated together with the UMRM images. |
| Arm 2 | ACTIVE_COMPARATOR | - |
| Gadobutrol then Gadoteridol | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v. (intravenous) in Period 1 and a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v. in Period 2. |
| Gadoteridol then Gadobutrol | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v. in Period 1 and a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg bw via i.v. in Period 2. |
| Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg bw | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received first injection (intravenous \[i.v.\]) of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw), corresponding to a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg bw |
| Gadobutrol 0.2 mmol/kg bw | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received second injection (i.v.) of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg bw, corresponding to a total dose of 0.2 mmol/kg bw. The interval of two bolus injections is 13-15 min |
| Gadoteridol (ProHance) | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received two injections (i.v.) of gadoteridol 0.1 mmol/kg bw, corresponding to a total dose of 0.2 mmol/kg bw. The interval of two bolus injections is 13-15 min |
| Gadobutrol, then Gadopentate dimeglumine | EXPERIMENTAL | Period 1: Participant received Gadobutrol 1.0 M (iv: intravenous injection), at a dose of 0.2 mL/kg BW, up to 0.3 mL/kg BW if 3 Fields of View (FOVs) to be imaged; Period 2: Participant received Gadopentate 0.5 M (iv), at a dose of 0.4 mL/kg BW, up to 0.6 mL/kg BW if 3 FOVs to be imaged |
| Gadopentate, dimeglumine then Gadobutrol | EXPERIMENTAL | Period 1: Participant received Gadopentate 0.5 M (iv), at a dose of 0.4 mL/kg BW, up to 0.6 mL/kg BW if 3 FOVs to be imaged; Period 2: Participant received Gadobutrol 1.0 M (iv: intravenous injection), at a dose of 0.2 mL/kg BW, up to 0.3 mL/kg BW if 3 Fields of View (FOVs) to be imaged |
| Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg Body Weight (BW) (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | EXPERIMENTAL | Participant received 0.1 mmol/kg BW Gadobutrol (= 0.1 mL/kg BW by intravenous injection at a rate of 1.0 mL/sec) |
| GD 0.1 mmol/kg BW (Magnevist, BAY86-4882) | ACTIVE_COMPARATOR | Participant received 0.1 mmol/kg BW Gadopentetate Dimeglumine (GD) (= 0.2 mL/kg BW by intravenous injection at a rate of 2.0 mL/sec |
| Gadobutrol 0.01 mmol/kg BW (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received 1 i.v. bolus injections of Gadobutrol 0.01 mmol/kg body weight (BW) (0.01mL/kg) for stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) via a power injector at a rate of 3 mL/s. The second i.v. bolus injection of Gadobutrol 0.01 mmol/kg BW was given after a 10-15 minutes wash-out period of the stressor for the rest MRI. |
| Gadobutrol 0.025 mmol/kg BW (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received 1 i.v. bolus injections of Gadobutrol 0.025 mmol/kg BW (0.01mL/kg) for stress MRI via a power injector at a rate of 3 mL/s. The second i.v. bolus injection of Gadobutrol 0.025 mmol/kg BW was given after a 10-15 minutes wash-out period of the stressor for the rest MRI. |
| Gadobutrol 0.05 mmol/kg BW (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received 1 i.v. bolus injections of Gadobutrol 0.05 mmol/kg BW (0.01mL/kg) for stress MRI via a power injector at a rate of 3 mL/s. The second i.v. bolus injection of Gadobutrol 0.05 mmol/kg BW was given after a 10-15 minutes wash-out period of the stressor for the rest MRI. |
| Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg BW (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received 1 i.v. bolus injections of Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg BW (0.01mL/kg) for stress MRI via a power injector at a rate of 3 mL/s. The second i.v. bolus injection of Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg BW was given after a 10-15 minutes wash-out period of the stressor for the rest MRI. |
| Group A (10% dose GV) | ACTIVE_COMPARATOR | Each participant will receive a Standard dose gadobutrol (0.1 mmol/kg) in Period 1 and 10% dose gadobutrol (0.01 mmol/kg) in Period 2. During study Period 1, each participant will receive gadobutrol as a single intravenous (IV) administration at the standard dose for contrast-enhanced MRI followed by study Period 2 where a single IV low dose (10% dose) of gadobutrol will be administered. There will be a washout period of at least 72 hours but less than 15 days between the two periods. The individual study duration will therefore range from 4 to 15 days. |
| Group B (25% dose GV) | ACTIVE_COMPARATOR | Each participant will receive a Standard dose gadobutrol (0.1 mmol/kg) in Period 1 and Study Period 2: 25% dose gadobutrol (0.025 mmol/kg) in Period 2. During study Period 1, each participant will receive gadobutrol as a single intravenous (IV) administration at the standard dose for contrast-enhanced MRI followed by study Period 2 where a single IV low dose (25% dose) of gadobutrol will be administered. There will be a washout period of at least 72 hours but less than 15 days between the two periods. The individual study duration will therefore range from 4 to 15 days. |
| Overall study | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) - age 2 to 6 years | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (BW) = 0.1 mL/kg BW as single intravenous bolus injection |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) - age 7 to 11 years | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (BW) = 0.1 mL/kg BW as single intravenous bolus injection |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) - age 12 to 17 years | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (BW) = 0.1 mL/kg BW as single intravenous bolus injection |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) - age 2 to 17 years | EXPERIMENTAL | Participants received Gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (BW) = 0.1 mL/kg BW as single intravenous bolus injection |
| Name | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, Gadovist, BAY86-4875) | DRUG | Participants received gadobutrol at the total approved standard dose of 0.1 millimole per kilogram body weight (mmol/kg BW) in 2 separate bolus injections: 0.05 mmol/kg BW at peak pharmacologic stress and 0.05 mmol/kg BW at rest via a power injector. |
| Gadobutrol (Gadovist, Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | DRUG | Participants received gadobutrol at the total approved standard dose of 0.1 millimole per kilogram body weight (mmol/kg BW) in 2 separate bolus injections: 0.05 mmol/kg BW at peak pharmacologic stress and 0.05 mmol/kg BW at rest via a power injector. |
| Gadobutrol (Gadovist, BAY86-4875) | DRUG | A single bolus injection of gadobutrol 1.0M 0.1mmol/kg body weight. |
| Gadopentetate Dimeglumine (Magnevist, BAY86-4882) | DRUG | Single administration at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg |
| Gadoteridol (ProHance) | DRUG | Participants received a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v. |
| ProHance | DRUG | ProHance enhanced MRI (two injections of gadoteridol 0.1 mmol/kg bw, corresponding to a total dose of 0.2 mmol/kg bw) |
| Gadopentate dimeglumine (Magnevist, BAY86-4882) | DRUG | Participant received a single intravenous injection with Gadopentate (0.5 M) at a volume of 0.4 mL/kg BW (dose = 0.2 mmol/kg BW) or up to 0.6 mL/kg BW when 3 Fields of View were imaged (up to dose = 0.3 mmol/kg BW) |
| Magnevist | DRUG | 0,5M, intra venous injection at a dose of 0,2 ml/kg BW (= 0,1 mmol Gd/kg BW) |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist,Gadovist, BAY86-4875) | DRUG | 0.01 mmol/kg BW (0.01 mL/kg) for stress MRI and 0.01 mmol/kg BW (0.01 mL/kg) for rest MRI (total dose 0.02 mmol/kg) |
| SubtleGAD | DEVICE | SubtleGAD is an image processing software developed to enhance MR images acquired with low dose gadobutrol. |
| Gadobutrol | DRUG | Gadavist is indicated for use with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in adult and pediatric patients including term neonates to detect and visualize areas with disrupted blood brain barrier and/or abnormal vascularity of the central nervous system. |
| Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875) | DRUG | Single intravenous bolus injection of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg BW in term newborns to infants \<2 years of age. |
Inclusion Criteria: * Male or female subjects aged ≥18 years * Subjects with suspected or known CAD based on signs and/or (typical or atypical) chest pain who have routine CA without intervention within plus/minus 4 weeks of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI or subjects at low risk of CAD with / or schedule...
Gadobutrol is a small molecule diagnostic imaging agent used in oncology and other settings to enhance magnetic resonance imaging. It is indicated for diagnostic imaging in central nervous system diseases, brain metastases, carotid stenosis, enhancing brain lesions, and myocardial perfusion imaging. It is being developed by Bayer AG.
Gadobutrol is a gadolinium-based contrast agent used in magnetic resonance imaging. It works by shortening the T1 relaxation time of protons, which enhances the signal from tissues where it accumulates, such as brain lesions and areas of myocardial perfusion. This allows better visualization of abnormalities during diagnostic imaging.
Gadobutrol is developed by Bayer AG, a German pharmaceutical company. Bayer AG is publicly traded under the ticker symbol BAYRY on the over-the-counter market. The drug is being investigated for use in diagnostic imaging procedures, particularly for central nervous system and cardiac applications.
Gadobutrol is in Phase 3 clinical development. It has completed four Phase 3 trials with a total enrollment of 906 participants. These trials were controlled but not double-blinded, and none are currently active. The drug remains investigational and is not yet approved for commercial use.
Gadobutrol has completed four Phase 3 clinical trials. These include NCT00522951 for brain metastases in Japan, NCT00709852 for central nervous system imaging across multiple countries, NCT01344460 for renal artery obstruction, and NCT01890434 for coronary artery disease. All trials are completed with no active studies ongoing.
Yes, Gadobutrol is the same as Gadavist. In clinical trials, Gadobutrol 1.0 Molar is referred to as Gadavist, as seen in the study titled 'Safety and Efficacy of Gadobutrol 1.0 Molar (Gadavist) in Patients for Central Nervous System (CNS) Imaging.' Both names refer to the same gadolinium-based contrast agent.