In this article, we report the safety evaluation of gadolinium-based nanoparticles in nonhuman primates (NHP) in the context of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies in atherosclerosis bearing animals and healthy controls. In healthy NHP, the pharmacokinetics and toxicity profiles demonstrated the absence of dose, time, and sex-effects, as well as a suitable tolerance of intravenous administration of the nanoparticles. We investigated their imaging properties for arterial plaque imaging in a standard diet or a high cholesterol diet NHP, and compared their characteristics with clinically applied Gd-chelate. This preliminary investigation reports the efficient and safe imaging of atherosclerotic plaques.

Background: Inflammation involves a heterogeneous macrophage population, for which there is no readily available MR assessment method. Purpose: To assess the feasibility of distinguishing proinflammatory M1 and antiinflammatory M2 macrophages at MRI enhanced with gadolinium liposomes or ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles. Study Type: In vitro. Specimen: We employed cultured RAW macrophages. M0 macrophages were polarized with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or interleukin-4 (IL-4), resulting in M1 or M2 macrophages. The macrophages were incubated with gadolinium (±rhodamine) liposomes or iron oxide particles and cell pellets were prepared for MRI. Field Strength/Sequence: Transverse relaxation rates and quantitative susceptibility were obtained at 3.0T with multiecho turbo spin echo and spoiled gradient echo sequences. Assessment: MRI results were compared with confocal microscopy, flow cytometry, and expression of endocytosis, M1 and M2 genes. Statistical Tests: Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed. Results: Higher transverse relaxation rates and susceptibility were observed in M1 than in M2 and M0 macrophages (P < 0.01 both with liposomes and USPIO) and significantly different susceptibility in M2 and M0 macrophages (P < 0.01 both with liposomes and USPIO). These MRI results were confirmed at confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. LPS macrophages displayed M1 gene expression, whereas IL-4 macrophages showed M2 polarization and lower endocytosis gene expression rates. Data Conclusion: These in vitro results show that it is feasible to distinguish between proinflammatory M1 and antiinflammatory M2 macrophages according to their level of contrast agent uptake at MRI.