Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Gadolinium-based contrast agent administration schedule for high- and low-exposure cohorts.
- Fig 2.
A, T2-weighted spin-echo images at the level of the posterior fossa with sample-points (white cross) placed at the center of the dentate and pons (P). B, T2-weighted spin-echo images at the level of the third ventricle with sample-points (white cross) placed at the center of the caudate, thalamus, globus pallidus, and white matter.
- Fig 3.
Patient disposition.
- Fig 4.
Unenhanced axial fast spin-echo T1-weighted MR images of a 48-year-old man in the high-exposure cohort who received linear nonionic GBCA. Images were obtained at week −4 (A), year 1 (B), and year 2 (C). A significant increase in T1 signal intensity is visualized in the dentate by year 1 (arrow), which persisted to year 2 (arrow).
Tables
Characteristic High-Exposure Group (n = 80) Low-Exposure Group (n = 115) P Value Age (yr)a 51 ± 8 (34–64) 52 ± 8 (27–82) NS Sex Female 52 (65%) 78 (68%) Male 28 (35%) 37 (32%) Weight (kg)a 72 ± 16 (48–120) 71 ± 15 (48–117) Gadolinium type Gadodiamide 30 (37.5%) 40 (34.8%) Gadopentetate dimeglumine 50 (62.5%) 75 (65.2%) Treatment assignment MBP8298 41 (51%) 57 (50%) Placebo 39 (49%) 58 (50%) EDSS at week −4a 5.57 ± 1.03 (3–6.5) 5.34 ± 1.13 (3–6.5) NS EDSS at year 2a 5.61 ± 1.00 (3.5–6.5) 5.66 ± 1.19 (2–7.5) NS Disease duration (yr)a 13.6 ± 5.5 (4–25) 11.7 ± 5.1 (2–27) NS (n = 65) (n = 84) Magnet strength 1T 0 (0%) 4 (3%) 1.5T 58 (73%) 93 (81%) 3T 22 (27%) 18 (16%) Note:—EDSS indicates Expanded Disability Status Scale; NS, not significant.
↵a Data are means ± SD (range).
- Table 2:
Absolute and relative increase in signal intensity ratios for the high-exposure cohorta
Δ Week –4 to Year 1 P Value Δ Year 1 to Year 2 P Value Δ Week –4 to Year 2 P Value L. DN 0.04 ± 0.09 (4%) <.001 0.01 ± 0.09 (1%) NS 0.05 ± 0.09 (5%) <.001 L. GP 0.05 ± 0.09 (5%) <.001 −0.02 ± 0.11 (−1%) NS 0.03 ± 0.10 (3%) .005 L. CD 0.03 ± 0.08 (3%) <.001 0 ± 0.11 (0%) NS 0.03 ± 0.09 (3%) .005 L. TH 0.03 ± 0.09 (3%) .01 0 ± 0.11 (0%) NS 0.03 ± 0.09 (3%) .01 Note:—L. indicates left; NS, not significant.
↵a Data are absolute (mean ± SD) and relative (%) increases.
- Table 3:
Absolute and relative increase in signal intensity ratios for the low-exposure cohorta
Δ Week –4 to Year 1 P Value Δ Year 1 to Year 2 P Value Δ Week –4 to Year 2 P Value L. DN 0.05 ± 0.17 (5%) .003 0 ± 0.20 (0%) NS 0.04 ± 0.15 (4%) .003 L. GP 0.01 ± 0.09 (1%) NS 0 ± 0.17 (0%) NS 0 ± 0.18 (0%) NS L. CD 0.01 ± 0.09 (1%) NS 0 ± 0.22 (0%) NS 0 ± 0.21 (0%) NS L. TH 0 ± 0.09 (0%) NS 0.01 ± 0.18 (1%) NS 0.01 ± 0.19 (1%) NS Note:—L. indicates left; NS, not significant.
↵a Data are absolute (mean ± SD) and relative (%) increases.
- Table 4:
Absolute and relative increase in signal intensity ratios in subjects who received linear nonionic and linear ionic GBCA in the high-exposure cohorta
Δ Week –4 to Year 2 Linear Nonionic P Value Linear Ionic P Value L. DN 0.08 ± 0.09 (8%) <.001 0.03 ± 0.09 (3%) .01 L. GP 0.06 ± 0.06 (6%) <.001 0.02 ± 0.11 (2%) NS L. CD 0.03 ± 0.06 (3%) .03 0.03 ± 0.10 (3%) .04 L. TH 0.04 ± 0.06 (4%) .001 0.02 ± 0.10 (2%) NS Note:—L. indicates left; NS, not significant.
↵a Data are absolute (mean ± SD) and relative (%) increases.
