The viewpoints presented here include Gadolinium Toxicity news and thoughts about various aspects of living with the effects of Gadolinium Toxicity. They may just be one person’s idea or an experience that happened to them. These viewpoints are important to share, because someone looking at them from a different viewpoint may be able to tie some things together in a way that we did not see.
Editorial – May 25, 2017
I am very disappointed and frustrated by the May 22, 2017, FDA Safety Announcement about gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs). I am beginning to wonder how many more people must be adversely affected by retained gadolinium before the FDA decides to take decisive action.
Personally, I don’t blame the FDA or radiologists for what happened to NSF patients. What happened to those patients was terrible, but I want to believe that no one knew then just how unstable the linear agents are, especially when they remain in the body for longer periods of time like they might do in renally-impaired patients. However, once the connection between NSF and GBCAs was discovered in 2006, that all began to change. No longer could the FDA and radiology community say that they didn’t know that gadolinium might be retained from MRI contrast agents or what it might do to the human body when that occurred.
From 2006 until the end of 2013, the FDA and medical community thought that only patients with severe renal problems were at risk of retaining gadolinium. Warnings were issued and action was taken to better screen renally-impaired patients and reports of new cases of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) dropped dramatically. However, no one seemed to be investigating what might happen when less gadolinium was retained such as what might occur in patients with “normal” renal function or eGFRs greater than 60.
Since December of 2013 and the first paper by Kanda and his colleagues, the evidence has been mounting that clearly shows that patients with normal renal function retain gadolinium in their brains, bones, and elsewhere in their bodies. This seemed to be news to the FDA and radiology community, but it was something that patients affected by gadolinium have long been trying to tell their doctors. I first brought it to the attention of the FDA in my letter of October 23, 2012. In that letter, I noted that evidence of gadolinium retention in patients with normal renal function was reported by Gibby et al. in 2004 – that was 13 years ago, and it occurred after administration of both a linear and a macrocyclic GBCA.
The published literature clearly states that “gadolinium is toxic”. The FDA has acknowledged that “all GBCAs may be associated with some gadolinium retention in the brain, and other body tissues”. So why is it okay to keep injecting the least stable gadolinium-based contrast agents into patients when it is highly likely that those people are going to retain some unknown amount of a toxic metal? Gadolinium is a toxic metal that has been found to be neurotoxic, to impair mitochondrial function, induce oxidative stress, and much more. Researchers are looking for histological changes in the brain, but what about functional changes? (more…)
On Monday, May 22, 2017, the FDA issued its second Safety Announcement about gadolinium retention in the brain. The following text is the FDA’s complete announcement.
FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA identifies no harmful effects to date with brain retention of gadolinium-based contrast agents for MRIs; review to continue
This is an update to the FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA evaluating the risk of brain deposits with repeated use of gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)issued on July 27, 2015.
A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review to date has not identified adverse health effects from gadolinium retained in the brain after the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All GBCAs may be associated with some gadolinium retention in the brain and other body tissues. However, because we identified no evidence to date that gadolinium retention in the brain from any of the GBCAs, including GBCAs associated with higher retention of gadolinium, is harmful, restricting GBCA use is not warranted at this time. We will continue to assess the safety of GBCAs and plan to have a public meeting to discuss this issue in the future.
Our recommendations for health care professionals and patients remain unchanged from July 2015 when we informed the public that we were investigating this potential risk with GBCAs. As is appropriate when considering the use of any medical imaging agent, health care professionals should limit GBCA use to circumstances in which additional information provided by the contrast agent is necessary, and assess the necessity of repetitive MRIs with GBCAs. Patients, parents, and caregivers should talk to their health care professionals if they have any questions or concerns about the use of GBCAs with MRIs. Retention of gadolinium affects only GBCAs, and does not apply to other types of scanning agents used for other imaging procedures, such as those that are iodine-based or radioisotopes.
GBCAs contain gadolinium, a type of heavy metal, that is linked to a carrier molecule. MRIs are a way to scan the body for problems such as cancer, infections, or bleeding. GBCAs are injected into a vein to enhance the quality of the MRI images of internal organs, blood vessels, and tissues, which helps health care professionals diagnose medical conditions. There are two types of GBCAs based on their chemical structures, linear GBCAs and macrocyclic GBCAs.
We evaluated scientific publications1-17 and adverse event reports submitted to FDA. Some human and animal studies looked at GBCA use over periods longer than a year. These publications and reports show that gadolinium is retained in organs such as the brain, bones, and skin. The publications show that linear GBCAs retain more gadolinium in the brain than macrocyclic GBCAs. However, our review did not identify adverse health effects related to this brain retention.
To date, the only known adverse health effect related to gadolinium retention is a rare condition called nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) that occurs in a small subgroup of patients with pre-existing kidney failure. NSF is a painful skin disease characterized by thickening of the skin, which can involve the joints and cause significant limitation of motion within weeks to months. Recent publications report cases of reactions involving thickening and hardening of the skin and other tissues in patients with normal kidney function who received GBCAs and did not have NSF; some of these patients also had evidence of gadolinium retention.3, 12, 16 We are continuing to evaluate such reports to determine if these fibrotic reactions are an adverse health effect of retained gadolinium.
The manufacturer of OptiMARK (gadoversetamide), a linear GBCA, updated its label with information about gadolinium retention in various body organs such as the brain, skin, and other organs. We are reviewing the labels of other GBCAs to determine if changes are needed.
A recent review by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also identified no adverse health effects with gadolinium retention in the brain, but that Committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of certain linear GBCAs because they cause a greater retention of gadolinium in the brain compared to macrocyclic GBCAs. The Committee’s recommendation is currently undergoing an appeal, which will be further reviewed by the PRAC and subsequently by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.18
We are continuing to assess the safety of GBCAs. FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) is conducting a study on brain retention of GBCAs in rats. Other research is also being conducted about how gadolinium is retained in the body. We will update the public when new information becomes available and we plan to have a public meeting to discuss this issue in the future.
We urge patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving GBCAs or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program, using the information in the “Contact FDA” box at the bottom of the page.
The list of approved GBCAs and References included with this FDA Communication can be found here: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm559007.htm
The link to MedWatch can be found on the Contact FDA page.
The Berkeley Labs Foundation is raising $120,000 for a full-time researcher who will be dedicated to understanding and treating gadolinium toxicity.
I hope you will consider making a tax-deductible donation and sharing this information with your family, friends, and doctors too.
You can find out about the fundraising effort here: http://www.berkeleylabfoundation.org/support-berkeley-lab/ Gadolinium Toxicity is the entry to the far-right and the “Donate” button is above it.
On behalf of affected patients around the world, thank you for donating! No amount is too small to give.
March 10, 2017 – A committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended the suspension of the marketing authorizations for four linear gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) used for MRI scans because of concerns about small amounts of gadolinium from administered GBCAs being deposited in the brain.
At the completion of its year-long review of GBCAs, the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) “found convincing evidence of accumulation of gadolinium in the brain from studies directly measuring gadolinium in brain tissues and areas of increased signal intensity seen on MRI scan images many months after the last injection of a gadolinium contrast agent”.
Linear agents recommended for suspension by the PRAC are:
Gadobenic acid, marketed as MultiHance by Bracco Diagnostics Inc.
Gadodiamide, marketed as Omniscan by GE Healthcare
Gadopentetic acid, marketed as Magnevist by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Gadoversetamide, marketed as OptiMARK by Mallinckrodt Inc.
The PRAC’s final recommendations will be sent to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) for its opinion. Further details will be published when CHMP renders its opinion regarding the removal of the four linear agents from the market.
In its press release, the PRAC noted that deposition of gadolinium in other organs and tissues has been associated with rare side effects of skin plaques and Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF). It also noted that “non-clinical laboratory studies have shown that gadolinium can be harmful to tissues”.
The PRAC said that two linear agents will remain available: gadoxetic acid (brand name Eovist), used at a low dose for liver scans, since it meets an important diagnostic need in patients with few alternatives, and a formulation of gadopentetic acid injected directly into joints because its gadolinium concentration is very low. The PRAC indicated that both agents should be used at “the lowest dose that enhances images sufficiently to make diagnoses and only if unenhanced scans are not suitable”.
On July 27, 2015, the FDA issued its first, and so far only, Safety Announcement regarding gadolinium retention in the brain following repeated use of a GBCA for MRIs. It acknowledged that trace amounts of gadolinium may stay in the body long-term, and noted that “recent studies conducted in people and animals have confirmed that gadolinium can remain in the brain, even in individuals with normal kidney function”.
The 2015 announcement said that the FDA, including its National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), “will study this possible safety risk further”. As of this writing, the FDA has made no further public safety announcements regarding the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents.
It remains to be seen if the FDA will follow the lead of the EMA and suspend the use of the linear GBCAs. Three of the four suspended agents are linked to the most unconfounded cases of NSF, and they are among the most widely used GBCAs for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures.
PRAC concludes assessment of gadolinium agents used in body scans and recommends regulatory actions, including suspension for some marketing authorisations. EMA/157486/2017. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Press_release/2017/03/WC500223209.pdf