Compares the imaging capabilities of DPA-814 and DPA-714 for inflammation in macaques, suggesting important differences in tracer effectiveness.
Purpose [ 18 F]DPA-714 is a valuable tracer for studying (neuro)inflammation, with well-characterized tracer kinetics and an established imaging window. However, its clinical utility is restricted by the TSPO polymorphism (rs6971), which influences binding affinity in humans. The newly developed tracer [ 18 F]DPA-814 overcomes this limitation and has shown promising results in a preclinical rat model. To further assess its clinical potential, we compared [ 18 F]DPA-814 to [ 18 F]DPA-714 for inflammation imaging in SARS-CoV-2-infected macaques in a longitudinal setting. Procedures Dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) imaging was conducted in four healthy macaques to identify the optimal imaging window for [ 18 F]DPA-814. Four additional macaques were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and monitored for 12 months using whole-body PET-computed tomography (CT) with both tracers. Baseline scans were compared to PET-CTs obtained at 4, 9 and 16 days and at 6 and 12 months post-infection, covering the head, thorax and abdomen. Tracer uptake was assessed in several organs. Results At baseline, [ 18 F]DPA-814 showed higher lung uptake with minimal washout compared to [ 18 F]DPA-714. Although lung lesions developed after infection, [ 18 F]DPA-814 did not demonstrate lesion-specific uptake, unlike [ 18 F]DPA-714. In the brain, the tracers also displayed divergent uptake patterns despite comparable TSPO levels across animals and regions. Conclusions [ 18 F]DPA-814 exhibits a distinct whole-body distribution, particularly in the lungs and brain, in both naïve and SARS-CoV-2-infected macaques compared with [ 18 F]DPA-714, likely reflecting differences in tracer kinetics. Based on these data, [ 18 F]DPA-814 may not fully replace [ 18 F]DPA-714 for lung and brain imaging, and further studies are required to evaluate its suitability in other anatomical regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: