Three clinical trials from 1996-2001 compared the low-osmolar contrast media Omnipaque (iohexol) and Xenetix (iobitridol) in various imaging procedures. The studies involved over 700 patients total and evaluated safety and diagnostic image quality. The findings were that both contrast agents had an excellent safety profile and produced diagnostic images of good-excellent quality in the majority of cases. Few adverse events occurred and none were found to be statistically different between the two contrast media. Overall, the studies demonstrated Omnipaque and Xenetix to have equivalent safety and image quality for computed tomography, intravenous urography, phlebography and digital subtraction angiography.

1. 1 /
GE Presenter and Event /
3/13/2023
Omnipaque vs. Iobitridol (Xenetix)
Head-to-Head trials
Study Comp Year n Procedure Findings
Smet et al
( London, UK)
Iohexol
300 vs.
Iobitridol
300
1996 40 in each
arm
Clinical tolerance and
Diagnostic Efficacy in CE-CT
in Children
AE : 5/40 in Iohexol vs. 6/40 in
Iobitridol ( not statistically significant)
IQ: IQ judged to be good/excellent in
both groups
Drouillard et al
( 7 centers in
France)
Iohexol
350 vs.
Iobitridol
350
1996 140/136
respectively
Efficacy and Safety of both
LOCMs for CE-CT of the head
in adults
AE: 7.1% in Iohexol and 11% in
Iobitridol ( not statistically significant)
IQ: Good-Excellent is 69%/70%
respectively
Legmann et al
( France)
Iohexol
300 vs.
Iobitridol
300
2001 76/71
respectively
CE-CT of the liver with dual
phase helical CT
Clinical tolerance: Very well
tolerated 75% for Iohexol and 70%
for Iobitridol ( not statistically
significant)
IQ: Good-Excellent in 94% in Iohexol
and 97% in Iobitridol ( not
statistically significant)
Excellent safety
profile

2. 2 /
GE Presenter and Event /
3/13/2023
Omnipaque vs. Iobitridol (Xenetix)
Head-to-Head trials
Study Comp Year n Procedure Findings
Fournier et al
( Switzerland)
Iohexol 350
vs. Iobitridol
350 vs.
Iopamidol
370
1996 60 for Xenetix
and 30 each for
Iohexol and
Iopamidl
Clnical efficacy and
efficacy in IVU
AE: Iohexol 10% vs. Iopamidol 35%
vs. Iobitridol 18% ( mostly warmth
feeling when injected)- note not
stated as statistically significant or
not
IQ: Iohexol 93% rated good-excellent
vs. Iopamidol 73% and Iobitridol
63%
Chagnaud et al
(France)
Iohexol 240
vs. Iobitridol
250
1996 35 in each arm Efficacy and Safety of
both LOCMs for
Phlebography of Lower
Limbs ( i.e. venograms)
AE: 12 of 35 in Iohexol and 16 of 35 in
Iobitridol ( not statistically signicant)
IQ: rated as equivalent for both
LOCMs
Bouard et al
( France)
Iohexol 240
vs. Iobitridol
250 (I.A.)and
Iobitridol
300 vs.
Iopamidol
300 (I.V.)
1996 30/30 in first
study and
39/40 in 2nd
study group
DSA- IQ and safety Clinical tolerance: Very well for both
study groups and hence all 3 LOCMs
IQ: Not statistically significant for
both IV and IA studies.
Excellent safety
profile