They rock! They’re sexy! They’re hotter than a rope burn! They’re … imaging contrast agents? That’s right. What’s more, they’re big business. The international market for X-ray/CT, MR and ultrasound contrast agents was valued at $3.39 billion as of 1999, according to business analysts Frost and Sullivan (San Jose, Calif.). That’s $2.93 billion for X-ray/CT, $459 million for MR, and $49 million for ultrasound. By 2006, Frost claims, their combined revenues will reach $4.22 billion. We’re not talking Cheeze Wiz here.

The contrast agent market’s upsurge can be attributed to multiple factors: new ultrasound agents, new organ-specific agents for MRI and CT, more widespread interactive use of them, and new imaging methods — ultrafast CT, digital radiography, high-field MRI, pulse inversion, nuclear imaging, harmonic imaging in ultrasound — newcomers that increase the procedure base utilizing contrast media.

“About a decade ago, only those contrast agents that could be used with X-ray and computed tomography machines existed,” states the Frost report. “In the early ’90s, Schering AG [Berlin] introduced contrast media for the MRI and ultrasound markets. Some 86.4 percent of dollar sales in 1999 were from products for the X-ray/CT market, 13.5 percent in the MRI market and only 0.06 percent in the ultrasound market. The X-ray/CT contrast media market is characterized as a mature market, while the MRI market is a rapidly growing one and the ultrasound market is still struggling to come out of it infancy.”

The first MR contrast agent was approved for clinical use in 1988. Since then, the introduction of gadolinium-enhanced (Gd) techniques has solved many visualization and toxicity problems inherent with older methods. One fourth of MR exams in the U.S. now involve intravenous injection of a gadolinium chelate. The most popular are Magnevist, ProHance, and Omniscan. The next generation of Gd-enhanced agents, already in the development pipeline, promises multitasking miracles (see the sidebar “New Ions for Better Living” on page 64).

Please refer to the January 2002 issue for the complete story. For information on article reprints, contact Martin St. Denis