Flag of the European Union EU Clinical Trials Register Help

Clinical trials

The European Union Clinical Trials Register   allows you to search for protocol and results information on:
  • interventional clinical trials that were approved in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) under the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC
  • clinical trials conducted outside the EU/EEA that are linked to European paediatric-medicine development

  • EU/EEA interventional clinical trials approved under or transitioned to the Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014 are publicly accessible through the
    Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS).


    The EU Clinical Trials Register currently displays   44334   clinical trials with a EudraCT protocol, of which   7366   are clinical trials conducted with subjects less than 18 years old.   The register also displays information on   18700   older paediatric trials (in scope of Article 45 of the Paediatric Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006).

    Phase 1 trials conducted solely on adults and that are not part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) are not publicly available (see Frequently Asked Questions ).  
     
    Examples: Cancer AND drug name. Pneumonia AND sponsor name.
    How to search [pdf]
    Search Tips: Under advanced search you can use filters for Country, Age Group, Gender, Trial Phase, Trial Status, Date Range, Rare Diseases and Orphan Designation. For these items you should use the filters and not add them to your search terms in the text field.
    Advanced Search: Search tools
     

    < Back to search results

    Download PDF

    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

    Close Top of page
    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

    Subject disposition

    Close Top of page
    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.

    Number of subjects in period 1
    Mangoral
    Started
    87
    Underwent Unenhanced MRI
    85
    Underwent Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    85
    Completed
    83
    Not completed
    4
         Adverse event, non-fatal
    3
         Death
    1

    Baseline characteristics

    Close Top of page
    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.

    Reporting group values
    Mangoral Total
    Number of subjects
    87 87
    Age categorical
    Units: Subjects
    Age continuous
    Units: years
        arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
    64.7 ( 11.63 ) -
    Gender categorical
    Units: Subjects
        Female
    36 36
        Male
    51 51
    Ethnicity
    Units: Subjects
        Hispanic or Latino
    11 11
        Not Hispanic or Latino
    28 28
        Unknown or Not Reported
    48 48
    Race
    Units: Subjects
        White
    28 28
        Black or African American
    5 5
        American Indian or Alaska Native
    1 1
        Other
    6 6
        Unknown or Not Reported
    47 47

    End points

    Close Top of page
    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.

    Primary: Co-primary Endpoint: Lesion Border Delineation in Combined MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Combined MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: score on a scale
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 61, 61)
    2.51 ( 0.815 )
    3.46 ( 0.861 )
        Reader 2 (N = 53, 53)
    3.00 ( 0.952 )
    3.80 ( 0.607 )
        Reader 3 (N = 61, 61)
    2.31 ( 0.847 )
    2.97 ( 0.782 )
    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.

    Primary: Co-primary Endpoint: Lesion Contrast in Combined MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Combined MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: score on a scale
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 61, 61)
    2.49 ( 0.813 )
    3.47 ( 0.844 )
        Reader 2 (N = 53, 53)
    2.84 ( 0.926 )
    3.86 ( 0.417 )
        Reader 3 (N = 61, 61)
    2.51 ( 0.919 )
    3.33 ( 0.684 )
    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.

    Secondary: Number of Lesions Detected by Each MRI Method

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI Combined MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    85 [13]
    Units: lesions
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        On-site Readers
    5.7 ( 9.07 )
    6.2 ( 9.35 )
    6.4 ( 9.57 )
        Reader 1
    3.5 ( 5.18 )
    4.3 ( 5.39 )
    4.2 ( 5.19 )
        Reader 2
    3.1 ( 5.07 )
    3.6 ( 5.34 )
    3.2 ( 4.85 )
        Reader 3
    4.1 ( 5.58 )
    4.5 ( 5.55 )
    4.3 ( 5.59 )
    Notes
    [13] - Readers 1 and 2 N = 84.
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Lesion Border Delineation in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: score on a scale
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 60, 60)
    2.57 ( 0.783 )
    3.34 ( 0.814 )
        Reader 2 (N = 52, 52)
    2.95 ( 0.986 )
    3.71 ( 0.647 )
        Reader 3 (N = 59, 59)
    2.27 ( 0.854 )
    2.86 ( 0.881 )
    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.

    Secondary: Lesion Contrast in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: score on a scale
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 60, 60)
    2.57 ( 0.787 )
    3.52 ( 0.735 )
        Reader 2 (N = 52, 52)
    2.80 ( 0.940 )
    3.53 ( 0.816 )
        Reader 3 (N = 59, 59)
    2.46 ( 0.933 )
    3.18 ( 0.882 )
    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.

    Secondary: Confidence in Lesion Detection Score

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI Combined MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85 [26]
    85 [27]
    85 [28]
    Units: score on a scale
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        On-site Readers (N = 387, 417, 397)
    2.5 ( 0.66 )
    2.8 ( 0.42 )
    2.8 ( 0.47 )
        Reader 1 (N = 301, 362, 350)
    2.8 ( 0.54 )
    2.8 ( 0.53 )
    2.8 ( 0.57 )
        Reader 2 (N = 265, 306, 265)
    3.0 ( 0.26 )
    3.0 ( 0.20 )
    2.9 ( 0.29 )
        Reader 3 (N = 347, 381, 368)
    2.8 ( 0.59 )
    2.9 ( 0.45 )
    2.9 ( 0.38 )
    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

    Secondary: Confidence in Lesion Localization Score

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI Combined MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85 [29]
    85 [30]
    85 [31]
    Units: score on a scale
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        On-site Readers (N = 387, 417, 397)
    2.5 ( 0.65 )
    2.9 ( 0.42 )
    2.8 ( 0.49 )
        Reader 1 (N = 301, 362, 350)
    2.7 ( 0.57 )
    2.8 ( 0.51 )
    2.8 ( 0.51 )
        Reader 2 (N = 265, 306, 265)
    2.9 ( 0.30 )
    3.0 ( 0.20 )
    3.0 ( 0.19 )
        Reader 3 (N = 347, 381, 368)
    2.9 ( 0.33 )
    2.9 ( 0.26 )
    3.0 ( 0.17 )
    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

    Secondary: Longest Diameter of Largest and Smallest Lesion

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: mm
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Smallest Lesion: Reader 1 (N = 63, 69)
    23.5 ( 23.75 )
    21.4 ( 24.20 )
        Smallest Lesion: Reader 2 (N = 57, 62)
    27.2 ( 25.50 )
    25.3 ( 26.46 )
        Smallest Lesion: Reader 3 (N = 66, 66)
    19.8 ( 23.89 )
    17.0 ( 23.06 )
        Largest Lesion: Reader 1 (N = 63, 69)
    42.2 ( 32.49 )
    38.2 ( 29.53 )
        Largest Lesion: Reader 2 (N = 57, 62)
    44.5 ( 31.49 )
    47.9 ( 36.03 )
        Largest Lesion: Reader 3 (N = 66, 66)
    35.5 ( 31.25 )
    35.2 ( 27.45 )
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Percentage Liver Signal Intensity (SI) Enhancement in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    Units: Percentage SI enhancement
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 73)
    72.159 ( 148.2818 )
        Reader 2 (N = 83)
    59.633 ( 113.7548 )
        Reader 3 (N = 85)
    61.456 ( 105.3634 )
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Liver-to-lesion Contrast (LLC) in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: ratio
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 70, 70)
    0.143 ( 0.1694 )
    0.306 ( 0.1816 )
        Reader 2 (N = 57, 56)
    0.109 ( 0.2739 )
    0.291 ( 0.2709 )
        Reader 3 (N = 47, 47)
    0.142 ( 0.1882 )
    0.331 ( 0.2162 )
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Signal-to-noise Ratio (SNR) in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: ratio
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 70, 71)
    286.428 ( 581.8717 )
    322.951 ( 365.1663 )
        Reader 2 (N = 78, 79)
    226.367 ( 362.3748 )
    531.223 ( 1175.7566 )
        Reader 3 (N = 75, 79)
    248.653 ( 508.6403 )
    419.706 ( 694.8662 )
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Contrast-to-noise Ratio (CNR) in Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Unenhanced MRI Mangoral-enhanced MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85 [32]
    85 [33]
    Units: ratio
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Reader 1 (N = 67, 68)
    56.564 ( 197.1474 )
    137.281 ( 161.1640 )
        Reader 2 (N = 53, 54)
    33.506 ( 214.2616 )
    277.270 ( 650.8484 )
        Reader 3 (N = 43, 43)
    91.019 ( 306.2666 )
    241.093 ( 510.3520 )
    Notes
    [32] - Higher ratio scores represent a better outcome.
    [33] - Higher ratio scores represent a better outcome.
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Number of Participants With Change(s) in Recommended Management Based on Diagnostic Performance of Combined MRI or Mangoral-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI

    Close Top of page
    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
    End point values
    Mangoral-enhanced MRI Combined MRI
    Number of subjects analysed
    85
    85
    Units: participants
        On-site Readers (N = 83, 83)
    4
    4
        Reader 1 (N = 85, 84)
    19
    21
        Reader 2 (N = 85, 84)
    27
    29
        Reader 3 (N = 85, 85)
    19
    19
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Adverse events

    Close Top of page
    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.

    Serious adverse events
    Mangoral
    Total subjects affected by serious adverse events
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         number of deaths (all causes)
    1
         number of deaths resulting from adverse events
    Investigations
    Electrocardiogram QT prolonged
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 1
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    General disorders and administration site conditions
    Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 1
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 1
    Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 0%
    Non-serious adverse events
    Mangoral
    Total subjects affected by non serious adverse events
         subjects affected / exposed
    41 / 87 (47.13%)
    Investigations
    Aspartate aminotransferase increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood alkaline phosphatase increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         occurrences all number
    2
    Blood creatine increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    5
    Blood creatinine increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood glucose decreased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood glucose increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood magnesium decreased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood potassium decreased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood pressure increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood pressure systolic increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood urea increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    3 / 87 (3.45%)
         occurrences all number
    7
    Breath sounds abnormal
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Electrocardiogram QT prolonged
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Electrocardiogram abnormal
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Haemoglobin decreased
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         occurrences all number
    2
    Heart rate increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    International normalised ratio increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Lymphocyte count decreased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Neutrophil count increased
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    White blood cells urine positive
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         occurrences all number
    2
    Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
    Meningioma
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
    Iatrogenic injury
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Procedural vomiting
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Vascular disorders
    Hypotension
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Nervous system disorders
    Paraesthesia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Blood and lymphatic system disorders
    Leukocytosis
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Leukopenia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Lymphopenia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    General disorders and administration site conditions
    Asthenia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Chills
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Fatigue
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Pain
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Gastrointestinal disorders
    Abdominal discomfort
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Abdominal pain
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         occurrences all number
    2
    Abdominal pain upper
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Diarrhoea
         subjects affected / exposed
    12 / 87 (13.79%)
         occurrences all number
    13
    Dyspepsia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Nausea
         subjects affected / exposed
    14 / 87 (16.09%)
         occurrences all number
    15
    Retching
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         occurrences all number
    2
    Vomiting
         subjects affected / exposed
    8 / 87 (9.20%)
         occurrences all number
    8
    Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
    Scar pain
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Renal and urinary disorders
    Chronic kidney disease
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Haematuria
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 87 (2.30%)
         occurrences all number
    2
    Micturition urgency
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Proteinuria
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Metabolism and nutrition disorders
    Hyperglycaemia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1
    Hyperkalaemia
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 87 (1.15%)
         occurrences all number
    1

    More information

    Close Top of page

    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
    For support, Contact us.
    The status and protocol content of GB trials is no longer updated since 1 January 2021. For the UK, as of 31 January 2021, EU Law applies only to the territory of Northern Ireland (NI) to the extent foreseen in the Protocol on Ireland/NI. Legal notice
    As of 31 January 2023, all EU/EEA initial clinical trial applications must be submitted through CTIS . Updated EudraCT trials information and information on PIP/Art 46 trials conducted exclusively in third countries continues to be submitted through EudraCT and published on this website.

    European Medicines Agency © 1995-Thu May 01 11:22:24 CEST 2025 | Domenico Scarlattilaan 6, 1083 HS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    EMA HMA