Study reports elevated cytokine levels in patients with confirmed gadolinium retention
Results of a study to determine whether individuals with proposed gadolinium deposition disease (GDD) have elevated serum levels of pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic cytokines were recently published. GDD has been reported in patients with normal renal function after MRIs with a gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA). The study by Maecker et al., “An initial investigation of serum cytokine levels in patients with gadolinium retention”, also sought to determine whether specific cytokines are correlated with certain symptoms considered to be characteristic of GDD. The study involved 24 participants who were recruited between May 2016 and June 2017 and met the proposed GDD diagnostic criteria. Some of the participants were recruited from our MRI-Gadolinium-Toxicity support group. A control group of 64 subjects provided serum samples before their flu vaccination. Serum cytokine levels were obtained with Luminex serum cytokine assay using eBiosciences/Affymetrix human 62-plex kits.
In patients who had retained gadolinium, serum levels of 14 cytokines, including 9 pro-inflammatory cytokines, were “statistically significantly elevated” compared to controls (p ≤ 0.05). (more…)
Study Reports Gadolinium Clearance Times for 135 Contrast MRI Cases including Agent Administered for 63 Unconfounded Cases
On December 5, 2018, Hubbs Grimm and Sharon Williams, coauthors of GadoliniumToxicity.com, released their fifth research paper on gadolinium retention from Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents (GBCAs) administered for contrast-enhanced MRIs. The paper is titled Gadolinium Clearance Times for 135 Contrast MRI Cases and includes the contrast agents for the unconfounded cases.
Drawing on the contrast MRI history and 24-hour gadolinium urine testing results that have been received from members of the MRI-Gadolinium-Toxicity Support Group, the study reports retrospectively on 135 cases with 218 urine test results, including 63 unconfounded cases with 81 test results. The participants all had normal kidney function and report having symptoms of gadolinium toxicity. The results reported are dramatic and involve all linear and macrocyclic GBCAs currently in use in the United States.
About the Gadolinium Clearance Time Report
In addition to reporting on additional cases received since our previous paper in 2017, we now report the contrast agents received with each unconfounded case. Analysis of the these cases produced trend lines over time that indicate typical gadolinium found in 24-hour urine testing for each of the agents including Dotarem, Gadavist, Magnevist, MultiHance, Omniscan, OptiMARK, and ProHance. The graphs and tables provide helpful information for both patients and medical practitioners trying to understand their test results. The analysis of clearance times for each agent is presented on a separate page.
The results show that all agents, both linear and macrocyclic, do not clear from the body in a few days as most patients are told. None of the test results in the first 2.5 months following a contrast-enhanced MRI was within the reference range used by Mayo Clinic Laboratories. It should be noted that the contrast agent and test result information presented is from people who believe they are suffering symptoms of gadolinium toxicity since their contrast-enhanced MRI. It is not known whether the clearance times presented would also apply to individuals who are not symptomatic.
The complete set of test results, without any data that would identify patients, is available to other researchers upon request.
With the evidence provided that clearance times are much longer for all of the agents than expected by medical practitioners, the authors present five recommendations for needed actions by medical professionals, other researchers, government agencies, and contrast agent manufacturers.
We want to thank members of the MRI-Gadolinium-Toxicity Support Group for their willingness to share their test results and other information with us. Our papers would not be possible without their continued support.
We urge patients, clinicians, and researchers to read the entire report and share as appropriate with your families, caregivers, and colleagues.
Read the Gadolinium Clearance Times for 135 Contrast MRI Cases Report
Hubbs Grimm and Sharon Williams
My experience with Gadolinium urine testing
My first urine test for Gadolinium was not done until a full two years after my last dose of contrast. Part of the delay was because I did not know about the test until almost 18 months had gone by.
I wanted my first test to be performed by Mayo Clinic Labs; however, I had difficulty making that happen. The lab affiliated with the medical clinic where most of my doctors are located told me that they could not do any testing for heavy metals or send specimens out to another lab for the testing. But I finally found a way around that problem.
The lab at our local hospital regularly sends specimens to Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. (more…)
Gadolinium-Associated Plaques (GAP) in a patient without renal disease.
On November 12, 2014, an article was published online about a new condition called Gadolinium-Associated Plaques or GAP. The JAMA Dermatology article by Gathings, Reddy, Santa Cruz, and Brodell is titled, “Case Report/Case Series, Gadolinium-Associated Plaques – A New, Distinctive Clinical Entity”. The full-article is not freely available online at this time; however, the abstract can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.2660.
While this case series reports on only 2 patients, its findings are especially significant for patients with normal renal (kidney) function. Both patients had erythematous plaques which were determined to be sclerotic bodies in various stages of calcification. Previously these sclerotic bodies were thought to be associated with NSF (Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis) in patients with chronic renal disease after exposure to a Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent (GBCA). The significance of this case series is that neither patient had NSF; while one patient did have renal disease, the other patient did not. (more…)