Clinical Trial Results:
A Multicenter, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Safety and Diagnostic Efficacy of Mangoral in Patients with Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions and Severe Renal Impairment
Summary
|
|
EudraCT number |
2019-001599-12 |
Trial protocol |
DE SE PL IT |
Global end of trial date |
17 Feb 2023
|
Results information
|
|
Results version number |
v1(current) |
This version publication date |
22 Dec 2024
|
First version publication date |
22 Dec 2024
|
Other versions |
Trial Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
|
|||
Trial identification
|
|||
Sponsor protocol code |
ASC-Man-P016
|
||
Additional study identifiers
|
|||
ISRCTN number |
- | ||
US NCT number |
NCT04119843 | ||
WHO universal trial number (UTN) |
- | ||
Sponsors
|
|||
Sponsor organisation name |
Ascelia Pharma AB
|
||
Sponsor organisation address |
Hyllie Boulevard 34, Malmö, Sweden, 215 32
|
||
Public contact |
Jennie Wilborgsson, Ascelia Pharma AB, +46 700721144, jennie.wilborgsson@ascelia.com
|
||
Scientific contact |
Andreas Norlin, Ascelia Pharma AB, +46 735179119, an@ascelia.com
|
||
Paediatric regulatory details
|
|||
Is trial part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) |
No
|
||
Does article 45 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Does article 46 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Results analysis stage
|
|||
Analysis stage |
Final
|
||
Date of interim/final analysis |
17 Feb 2023
|
||
Is this the analysis of the primary completion data? |
No
|
||
Global end of trial reached? |
Yes
|
||
Global end of trial date |
17 Feb 2023
|
||
Was the trial ended prematurely? |
No
|
||
General information about the trial
|
|||
Main objective of the trial |
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of mangoral (800 mg MnCl2 4H2O) in participants with known or suspected focal liver lesions and severe renal impairment.
|
||
Protection of trial subjects |
This study was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice, including the archiving of essential documents. An Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board also reviewed all safety data available once 30 participants had completed the third follow-up visit (5 days after the administration of mangoral), and made recommendations to the Sponsor.
|
||
Background therapy |
- | ||
Evidence for comparator |
- | ||
Actual start date of recruitment |
19 Feb 2020
|
||
Long term follow-up planned |
No
|
||
Independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) involvement? |
Yes
|
||
Population of trial subjects
|
|||
Number of subjects enrolled per country |
|||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Argentina: 2
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Germany: 9
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Italy: 20
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Mexico: 7
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Poland: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Russian Federation: 13
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Sweden: 4
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Türkiye: 12
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
United States: 19
|
||
Worldwide total number of subjects |
87
|
||
EEA total number of subjects |
34
|
||
Number of subjects enrolled per age group |
|||
In utero |
0
|
||
Preterm newborn - gestational age < 37 wk |
0
|
||
Newborns (0-27 days) |
0
|
||
Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months) |
0
|
||
Children (2-11 years) |
0
|
||
Adolescents (12-17 years) |
0
|
||
Adults (18-64 years) |
42
|
||
From 65 to 84 years |
45
|
||
85 years and over |
0
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Recruitment
|
|||||||||||||||||
Recruitment details |
A total of 87 participants were enrolled in 32 study sites in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America between February 2020 and February 2023. | ||||||||||||||||
Pre-assignment
|
|||||||||||||||||
Screening details |
The study consisted of: • Screening Period (Day -28 to Day -1) • Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0, i.e., within 24 hours of mangoral administration) • Day of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Day 0) included intake of mangoral and mangoral-enhanced liver MRI • Follow-up visits following contrast administration (up to Day 7). | ||||||||||||||||
Period 1
|
|||||||||||||||||
Period 1 title |
Overall Study (overall period)
|
||||||||||||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
Yes | ||||||||||||||||
Allocation method |
Not applicable
|
||||||||||||||||
Blinding used |
Not blinded | ||||||||||||||||
Arms
|
|||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Mangoral | ||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
All participants received a single oral dose of mangoral (800 mg manganese [II] chloride tetrahydrate [MnCl2 4H2O]). Mangoral is a novel manganese-based contrast agent for liver MRI. Unenhanced MRI of the liver was performed during the Baseline Period, i.e., either on the day prior to the mangoral-enhanced MRI or predose on the same day as the mangoral-enhanced MRI. Mangoral-enhanced MRI of the liver was performed 4 (±1) hours after investigational medicinal product (IMP) administration. Each unenhanced and each mangoral-enhanced liver MRI examination will consist of axial T1- and T2-weighted image sequences and a diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence. | ||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Experimental | ||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Mangoral
|
||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||
Other name |
Orviglance, CMC-001, ACE-MBCA
|
||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Powder for oral solution in sachet
|
||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Oral use
|
||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
800 mg manganese chloride (II) tetrahydrate, 500 mg L-alanine, and 800 IU vitamin D3.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Baseline characteristics reporting groups
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Mangoral
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
All participants received a single oral dose of mangoral (800 mg manganese [II] chloride tetrahydrate [MnCl2 4H2O]). Mangoral is a novel manganese-based contrast agent for liver MRI. Unenhanced MRI of the liver was performed during the Baseline Period, i.e., either on the day prior to the mangoral-enhanced MRI or predose on the same day as the mangoral-enhanced MRI. Mangoral-enhanced MRI of the liver was performed 4 (±1) hours after investigational medicinal product (IMP) administration. Each unenhanced and each mangoral-enhanced liver MRI examination will consist of axial T1- and T2-weighted image sequences and a diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
End points reporting groups
|
|||
Reporting group title |
Mangoral
|
||
Reporting group description |
All participants received a single oral dose of mangoral (800 mg manganese [II] chloride tetrahydrate [MnCl2 4H2O]). Mangoral is a novel manganese-based contrast agent for liver MRI. Unenhanced MRI of the liver was performed during the Baseline Period, i.e., either on the day prior to the mangoral-enhanced MRI or predose on the same day as the mangoral-enhanced MRI. Mangoral-enhanced MRI of the liver was performed 4 (±1) hours after investigational medicinal product (IMP) administration. Each unenhanced and each mangoral-enhanced liver MRI examination will consist of axial T1- and T2-weighted image sequences and a diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence. | ||
Subject analysis set title |
Unenhanced MRI
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
All participants undertook an unenhanced MRI examination of the liver during the Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0, i.e., within 24 hours of mangoral administration).
Unenhanced MRI was defined as the reading of the pre-mangoral, unenhanced MRI only.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
All participants undertook an unenhanced MRI examination of the liver during the Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0, i.e., within 24 hours of mangoral administration).
On the day of MRI (Day 0), all participants received a single oral dose of mangoral (800 mg) after a fast of at least 4 hours and undertook a mangoral-enhanced MRI examination of the liver 4 [±1] hours after mangoral administration.
Mangoral-enhanced MRI was defined as the reading of the mangoral enhanced MRI only.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Combined MRI
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
All participants undertook an unenhanced MRI examination of the liver during the Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0, i.e., within 24 hours of mangoral administration).
On the day of MRI (Day 0), all participants received a single oral dose of mangoral equivalent to 800 mg MnCl2 4H2O after a fast of at least 4 hours and undertook a mangoral-enhanced MRI examination of the liver (paired with unenhanced MRI; combined MRI) 4 (±1) hours after mangoral administration.
Combined MRI was defined as the paired, simultaneous reading of both unenhanced and mangoral-enhanced MRIs.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Co-primary Endpoint: Lesion Border Delineation in Combined MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Visualization of focal liver lesions was measured by 2 co-primary variables: 'lesion border delineation' and 'lesion contrast' compared to liver background. Qualitative assessment determined on the 4-point scales for up to 15 lesions per participant. Each lesion was assessed for lesion border delineation from 1 (poor: lesion border is poorly distinct) to 4 (excellent: lesion border is sharply and clearly distinct). Central reading sessions were undertaken by 3 independent, blinded readers.
Full Analysis Set (FAS): All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); combined MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0) and 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 1: combined MRI versus (vs.) unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion border delineation (combined MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Combined MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.95
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.743 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.165 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.824
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [1] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 61. [2] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 2: combined MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion border delineation (combined MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Combined MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [4] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.552 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.043 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.892
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [3] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 53. [4] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 3: combined MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion border delineation (combined MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Combined MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [5] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [6] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.65
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.494 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.813 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.622
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [5] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 61. [6] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Co-primary Endpoint: Lesion Contrast in Combined MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Visualization of focal liver lesions was measured by 2 co-primary variables: 'lesion border delineation' and 'lesion contrast' compared to liver background. Qualitative assessment determined on the 4-point scales for up to 15 lesions per participant. Each lesion was assessed for lesion contrast from 1 (poor: difference in signal intensity between the lesion and the surrounding normal liver tissue is poor) to 4 (excellent: difference in signal intensity between the lesion and the surrounding liver is marked). Central reading sessions were undertaken by 3 independent, blinded readers.
The scores were calculated for each participant by summing the individual lesion scores and calculating the mean. The total score could range from 1 to 4 for each participant with higher scores representing a better outcome.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); combined MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0) and 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 1: combined MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success for the primary endpoint was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion contrast (combined MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Combined MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [7] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [8] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.98
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.759 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.196 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.853
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [7] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 61. [8] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 2: combined MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success for the primary endpoint was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion contrast (combined MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Combined MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [9] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [10] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
1.02
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.766 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.267 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.909
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [9] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 53. [10] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 3: combined MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success for the primary endpoint was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion contrast (combined MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Combined MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [11] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [12] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.81
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.638 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.985 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.678
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [11] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 61. [12] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Number of Lesions Detected by Each MRI Method | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Assessments of unenhanced MRI, mangoral-enhanced MRI, and combined MRI for detection of lesions were undertaken by on-site readers (assessing participants at their own site) and during central reading sessions by 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0; and combined MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0) and 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [13] - Readers 1 and 2 N = 84. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Lesion Border Delineation in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Visualization of focal liver lesions was measured by variables: 'lesion border delineation' and 'lesion contrast' compared to liver background. Qualitative assessment determined on the 4-point scales for up to 15 lesions per participant. Each lesion was assessed for lesion border delineation from 1 (poor: lesion border is poorly distinct) to 4 (excellent: lesion border is sharply and clearly distinct). Central reading sessions were undertaken by 3 independent, blinded readers.
The scores were calculated for each participant by summing the individual lesion scores and calculating the mean. The total score could range from 1 to 4 for each participant with higher scores representing a better outcome.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 1: mangoral-enhanced MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion border delineation (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [14] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [15] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.76
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.555 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.971 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.805
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [14] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 60. [15] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 2: mangoral-enhanced MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion border delineation (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [16] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [17] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.76
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.464 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.054 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
1.059
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [16] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 52. [17] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 3: mangoral-enhanced MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion border delineation (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [18] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [19] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.59
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.429 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.747 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.609
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [18] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 59. [19] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Lesion Contrast in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Visualization of focal liver lesions was measured by variables: 'lesion border delineation' and 'lesion contrast' compared to liver background. Qualitative assessment determined on the 4-point scales for up to 15 lesions per participant. Each lesion was assessed for lesion contrast from 1 (poor: difference in signal intensity between the lesion and the surrounding normal liver tissue is poor) to 4 (excellent: difference in signal intensity between the lesion and the surrounding liver is marked). Central reading sessions were undertaken by 3 independent, blinded readers.
The scores were calculated for each participant by summing the individual lesion scores and calculating the mean. The total score could range from 1 to 4 for each participant with higher scores representing a better outcome.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 1: mangoral-enhanced MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion contrast (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [20] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [21] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.95
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.726 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.166 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.852
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [20] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 60. [21] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 2: mangoral-enhanced MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion contrast (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [22] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [23] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.73
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.38 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.082 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
1.261
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [22] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 52. [23] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Reader 3: mangoral-enhanced MRI vs. unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Reader success was achieved if the reading results of a reader demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.
Positive changes in lesion contrast (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to the unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Unenhanced MRI v Mangoral-enhanced MRI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [24] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [25] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 1-sided | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.72
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.517 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.927 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard deviation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.786
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [24] - Actual number subjects in this analysis: 59. [25] - p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Confidence in Lesion Detection Score | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Each lesion was evaluated on a 3-point scale: 1 (lesion is detected with low confidence), 2 (lesion is detected with moderate confidence), 3 (lesion is detected with high confidence). Higher confidence in lesion detection scores represent better outcomes.
Assessments of unenhanced MRI, mangoral-enhanced MRI, and combined MRI for confidence in lesion detection were undertaken by on-site readers (assessing participants are their own site) and during central reading sessions by 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0; and combined MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0) and 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [26] - N values within row titles represent number of lesions included within analysis. [27] - N values within row titles represent number of lesions included within analysis. [28] - N values within row titles represent number of lesions included within analysis. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Confidence in Lesion Localization Score | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Each lesion was evaluated on a 3-point scale: 1 (lesion is localized to a liver segment with low confidence), 2 (lesion is localized to a liver segment with moderate confidence), 3 (lesion is localized to a liver segment with high confidence).
Assessments of unenhanced MRI, mangoral-enhanced MRI, and combined MRI for confidence in lesion localization were undertaken by on-site readers (assessing participants at their own site) and during central reading sessions by 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0; and combined MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0) and 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [29] - N values within row titles represent number of lesions included within analysis. [30] - N values within row titles represent number of lesions included within analysis. [31] - N values within row titles represent number of lesions included within analysis. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Longest Diameter of Largest and Smallest Lesion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Assessments of unenhanced MRI and mangoral-enhanced MRI for lesion dimensions were undertaken during central reading sessions by 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||
End point title |
Percentage Liver Signal Intensity (SI) Enhancement in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | ||||||||||||||
End point description |
Quantitative SI was measured by positioning circular regions of interest in a homogenous area in the liver and the assessed liver lesion on the same image. SI liver was defined as the SI of the liver. Liver SI enhancement (%) = ([SI liver post contrast – SI liver pre contrast] / [SI liver pre contrast]) × 100.
Assessments of unenhanced MRI and mangoral-enhanced MRI for liver SI were undertaken during central reading sessions by the 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable. As pre-specified in the statistical analysis plan, results are presented for SI enhancement following mangoralenhanced MRI only.
|
||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Liver-to-lesion Contrast (LLC) in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Quantitative SI was measured by positioning circular regions of interest in a homogenous area in the liver and the assessed liver lesion on the same image. Up to 5 lesions per participant of ≥ 2 cm in diameter were evaluated and these lesions were the same on pre-and post-contrast images. SI lesion was defined as the SI of these lesions. SI liver was defined as the SI of the liver. LLC = (SI liver – SI lesion) / (SI liver + SI lesion). Higher ratio scores represent a better outcome.
Assessments of unenhanced MRI and mangoral-enhanced MRI for LLC ratio were undertaken during central reading sessions by the 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Signal-to-noise Ratio (SNR) in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Quantitative SI was measured by positioning circular regions of interest in a homogenous area in the liver and the assessed liver lesion on the same image. Up to 5 lesions per participant of ≥ 2 cm in diameter were evaluated and these lesions were the same on pre-and post-contrast images. SI liver was defined as the SI of the liver. Standard deviation of the background noise was measured using the largest possible rectangular region of interest vertical to the patient's abdomen in the direction of the phase-encoding gradient. SNR = SI liver / standard deviation noise. Higher ratio scores represent a better outcome.
Assessments of unenhanced MRI and mangoral-enhanced MRI for SNR were undertaken during central reading sessions by the 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Contrast-to-noise Ratio (CNR) in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Quantitative SI was measured by positioning circular regions of interest in a homogenous area in the liver and the assessed liver lesion on the same image. Up to 5 lesions per participant of ≥ 2 cm in diameter were evaluated and these lesions were the same on pre-and post-contrast images. SI lesion was defined as the SI of these lesions. SI liver was defined as the SI of the liver. Standard deviation of the background noise was measured using the largest possible rectangular region of interest vertical to the patient's abdomen in the direction of the phase-encoding gradient. CNR = (SI liver - mean of SI lesion) / standard deviation noise.
Assessments of unenhanced MRI and mangoral-enhanced MRI for CNR were undertaken during central reading sessions by the 3 independent, blinded readers.
FAS: All participants of the Safety Population who received the IMP and for whom the primary efficacy variable was assessable, i.e. all unenhanced / enhanced liver MRI images are assessable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [32] - Higher ratio scores represent a better outcome. [33] - Higher ratio scores represent a better outcome. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Number of Participants With Change(s) in Recommended Management Based on Diagnostic Performance of Combined MRI or Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
A participant was considered to have a change in recommended management when compared to unenhanced MRI if recommended management was different following assessment of the combined MRI or mangoral-enhanced MRI, including next steps in management (i.e. chemotherapy, surgery, local ablation procedure, combination therapy, or other [specify]). Recommended patient management from "other" in unenhanced MRI to "other" in combined MRI or mangoral-enhanced MRI was considered not a change regardless of the free text.
Assessments of unenhanced MRI, mangoral-enhanced MRI, and combined MRI for confidence in lesion detection were undertaken by on-site readers (assessing participants at their own site with access to patient records) and during central reading sessions by 3 independent, blinded readers (without access to patient records).
FAS. Results are presented for change in recommended management following combined and mangoral-enhanced MRI.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Unenhanced MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0); mangoral-enhanced MRI: 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0; and combined MRI: Baseline Period (Day -1 to Day 0) and 4 hours after mangoral administration on Day 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse events information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timeframe for reporting adverse events |
Up to Day 7
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse event reporting additional description |
Safety Population: All participants enrolled in the study (fulfil all inclusion criteria, but none of the exclusion criteria and have been included in the clinical study at Visit 2).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessment type |
Systematic | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary used for adverse event reporting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary name |
MedDRA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary version |
25.0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Mangoral
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
All participants received a single oral dose of mangoral (800 mg). Mangoral is a novel manganese-based contrast agent for liver MRI. Unenhanced MRI of the liver was performed during the Baseline Period, i.e., either on the day prior to the mangoral-enhanced MRI or predose on the same day as the mangoral-enhanced MRI. Mangoral-enhanced MRI of the liver was performed 4 (±1) hours after IMP administration. Each unenhanced and each mangoral-enhanced liver MRI examination will consist of axial T1- and T2-weighted image sequences and a DWI sequence. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 0% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
Substantial protocol amendments (globally) |
|||
Were there any global substantial amendments to the protocol? Yes | |||
Date |
Amendment |
||
26 Sep 2019 |
In summary, the main changes included the following:
• Further details on the pharmacokinetics of mangoral
• Clarification to the text of the secondary objectives
• Additional assessment of pregnancy testing for participant safety
• Corrections made to the text describing variables and method for visualization of focal liver lesions
• Clarification on the text for brain MRI procedures
• Addition of an Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board
• Clarification that the inter-reader agreement was to be evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient for the 2 co-primary efficacy variables based on the participant level. |
||
23 Apr 2020 |
In summary, the main changes included the following:
• Additional objectives included to ensure consistency with the variables analyzed
• Revised some of the ranges of MRI parameters in Protocol Table 6 based on feedback received during the site initiation visits and discussions with the investigators
• Clarification that the brain MRI is not a mandatory procedure
• Additional exclusion criterion to exclude participants with simple liver cysts only
• Revision of exclusion criterion 24 so as to allow patients with iron deficiency anemia or participants on iron therapy to enter the study as discussions with the investigators revealed that neither iron therapy nor iron deficiency anemia would jeopardize the analysis of the variables
• Exclusion of participants with conditions that could interfere with excretion of mangoral
• Revised details of prohibited concomitant medications specifically dietary iron supplementation
• Additional detail to the primary objective to only include lesions identified on unenhanced images in analysis of co-primary efficacy variables
• Addition of a fourth reader who was not included in the efficacy reads to track and match detected lesions on unenhanced MRI, mangoral-enhanced MRI, and combined MRI as per Food and Drug Administration recommendations
• Clarification of analysis populations
• Revision of the primary efficacy analysis to use mean scores instead of sum scores and to include an analysis of comparison between unenhanced MRI and mangoral-enhanced MRI alone in the same way as the primary analysis
• Addition of both inter-reader and intra-reader agreement analysis. |
||
06 Jul 2020 |
In summary, the main changes included the following:
• Increase in the number of sites
• Correction of IMP shelf life. |
||
06 Apr 2021 |
In summary, the main changes included the following:
• Clarification of inclusion criteria defining chronic kidney disease according to clinical practice and guidelines
• Clarification of inclusion criteria to achieve approximately a 20% hepatic carcinoma cap
• Clarification to the primary objective to align with exclusion criterion 1 (participants with simple liver lesions only)
• Revision to MRI parameters to fit with sites’ clinical practices and MRI machine settings
• Clarification that new or worsening events should be reported as an adverse event (irrespective of clinical significance) if observed after IMP administration compared to previous predose assessments
• Revision to assessment of serious adverse event to include seizure, stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, and QTcF or QTcB >480 msec or QTcF or QTcB increase of 60 msec over baseline as important medical events. |
||
12 Oct 2021 |
In summary, the main changes included the following:
• Revision to the inclusion criteria so participants requiring dialysis are allowed at all sites
• Added a section on permitted oral intake to include glucose or juice intake during the fasting period to treat hypoglycemia or diabetes mellitus type I and type II
• Revision to exclusion criteria to remove the restriction of moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score B)
• Removal of the exclusion criteria for patients on dialysis (excluding patients in the pharmacokinetic [PK] subgroup)
• Changed follow up 1 (Visit 4) and follow up 2 (Visit 5) to optional remote visits (excluding patients from the PK subgroup). |
||
Interruptions (globally) |
|||
Were there any global interruptions to the trial? No | |||
Limitations and caveats |
|||
Limitations of the trial such as small numbers of subjects analysed or technical problems leading to unreliable data. | |||
None reported |