Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam tosylate for colonoscopy: single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial.

ABSTRACT: Remimazolam tosylate is a new sedative combining the advantages of etomidate with remifentanil. Remimazolam tosylate shows effective in colonoscopy, but the optimal dose is not confirm. In this study, a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam tosylate for colonoscopy. Before colonoscopy, 120 recruited patients were randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio into 3 treatment groups: group A, 0.1 mg/kg remimazolam tosylate; group B, 0.15 mg/kg remimazolam tosylate; group C, 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam tosylate. Patients received 1 µg/kg fentanyl by intravenous injection over 30 s followed by the respective induction dose of remimazolam tosylate over 1 min (±5 s). When adequate sedation was achieved, colonoscopy was performed. Sedation was maintained at Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤4 during the procedure. The additional administration of remimazolam tosylate (0.05 mg/kg per time) was permitted when necessary. Forty-one patients, 39 patients and 40 patients were respectively analyzed in group A, group B and group C. The procedural success rate was 80.49%, 87.18% and 95.00% in group A, group B and group C, respectively. During the induction period, patients in group A required additional doses of remimazolam tosylate more frequently than in group B and group C, but less during the maintenance period (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the induction time or time to recovery among the three groups. Incidence of adverse events (such as hypotension, hyoxemia and bucking) was similar among the three groups. The initial loading doses of 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam tosylate were all efficacy and safety for patients undergoing colonoscopy, and fewer times of the drug was re-administered. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000041331.

SUBMITTER: Zheng X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9761137 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam tosylate for colonoscopy: single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial.

Zheng Xiaoyan X Ji Junhui J Cheng Hao H Peng Ke K Liu Linlin L Ji Fuhai F

Annals of translational medicine 20221101 22

<h4>Background</h4>Remimazolam tosylate is a new sedative combining the advantages of etomidate with remifentanil. Remimazolam tosylate shows effective in colonoscopy, but the optimal dose is not confirm. In this study, a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam tosylate for colonoscopy.<h4>Methods</h4>Before colonoscopy, 120 recruited patients were randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio into 3 ...[more]

PMID: 36544645

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate versus propofol injection in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Design: A multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, single-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial. Setting: Operating room. Patients: Patients aged 18-65 years (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification I-III) undergoing a diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy. Interventions: Patients were administered intravenous injection of remimazolam besylate or propofol (active comparator) for sedation. Measurements: Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation [MOAA/S] scores of the included patients were assessed before dosing, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 min after the start of dosing, and then every 1 min until the MOAA/S score reached 5 on three consecutive occasions. Main Results: A total of 360 patients received remimazolam and 120 patients received propofol. The incidence of adverse events (67.8% vs. 84.2%, p = 0.001) was significantly lower in patients administered remimazolam compared to propofol. There was no significant difference in sedation success rates (full analysis set [FAS]: 98.9% vs. 99.2%; remimazolam vs. propofol). Remimazolam had a significantly longer onset of action, but the difference was not considered clinically significant (1.45 min vs. 1.24 min, remimazolam vs. propofol). Propofol achieved a deeper level of sedation (mean MOAA/S score 0.5 vs. 0.2; remimazolam vs. propofol). Mean time to discharge after the end of the last administration of study drug (20.3 vs. 21.8 min, p = 0.020) and incidence of injection pain was significantly lower in patients administered remimazolam (2.3% vs. 35.3%, p < 0.0001). Incidence of oxygen desaturation was significantly higher in patients administered propofol compared to patients administered remimazolam (6.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.001). Similarly, incidence of hypotension was more frequent in patients administered propofol compared to patients administered remimazolam (29.2% vs. 10.6%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Remimazolam besylate had a better safety and tolerability profile and similar sedative efficacy to propofol in patients undergoing a diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy in China, suggesting that remimazolam besylate has potential as a sedative agent for colonoscopy.

Project description:BackgroundWe explored the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation in painless colonoscopy.MethodsA total of 195 patients who underwent painless colonoscopy surgery were randomly divided into three groups: the propofol deep sedation group (group DS), the sufentanil combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS1) and the esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS2). The primary outcomes of this study included the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia and excellent and good rates of anaesthesia during colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes included perioperative changes in vital signs (MAP, HR, and SpO2), anaesthesia induction time, dischargeable time, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), drowsiness, dizziness, propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation and vasoactive medications.ResultsThe incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 7.081, P = 0.029). The incidence of hypotension in the CS2 group was significantly lower than that in the DS and CS1 groups (χ2 = 16.278, P < 0.001). The risk of hypoxemia was 5.727 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 5.727; 95%CI 1.203-27.273), and the risk of hypotension was 9.864 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 9.864; 95%CI 2.770-35.120). The risk of hypotension in Group CS1 was 5.167 times that in Group CS2 (OR 5.167; 95%CI 1.396-19.117). The incidence of propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation, ephedrine usage and drowsiness in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 57.618, P < 0.001; χ2 = 9.544, P = 0.008; χ2 = 14.820, P = 0.001; χ2 = 37.257, P < 0.001). The incidence of dizziness during recovery in the CS1 group was significantly greater than that in the DS and CS2 groups (χ2 = 6.594, P = 0.037). The dischargeable time in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 53.039, P < 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the endoscopist and patients in the DS group were significantly lower than those in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 17.390, P < 0.001; F = 19.282; P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn conclusion, esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation can be safely and effectively used for painless colonoscopy and has fewer complications.It is recommended for painless colonoscopy.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal endoscopy has been associated with difficult experiences and can leave patients with an unpleasant impression. Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, cardiac and pulmonary adverse events are the primary concerns associated with the use of these sedatives. Remimazolam tosylate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine drug with a mild inhibitory effect on the respiratory and circulatory systems. These properties qualify remimazolam tosylate to be used as a replacement for propofol or midazolam as a sedative during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.MethodsA multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, noninferiority clinical study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Participants (n = 1800) will be randomized to receive remimazolam tosylate at 0.15 mg/kg (experimental group 1), remimazolam tosylate at 0.2 mg/kg (experimental group 2), or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (control group). Procedure success will be assessed and defined as the completion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without the administration of a rescue sedative agent or more than two top-up doses of the trial drug in any 5-min period after initial administration. Sedation quality will be evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate safety.DiscussionThis study will determine the optimal dosage of remimazolam tosylate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and will describe its efficacy and safety. These findings may contribute to a more comfortable and safer experience for patients compared with that when the conventional sedative propofol is used.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727034. Registered on February 18, 2021.

Project description:BackgroundFibromyalgia is a chronic multidimensional pain disease with no curative treatment currently available. Its management relies on a multimodal approach involving pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic elements. Because a suggested factor in its etiology is a central sensitization phenomenon involving the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), NMDAR antagonists have been proposed as a treatment target. Ketamine and its levogyre form, S-ketamine, have been used to treat chronic pain for many years without consensus about their therapeutic efficiency. We aim to assess the efficacy of S-ketamine as a co-treatment for fibromyalgia.MethodsThis prospective, randomized, single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-escalation trial will compare a co-treatment with S-ketamine (intervention) to a control treatment without S-ketamine (control). It will consist of two successive cohorts with 2:1 randomization ratio (S-ketamine at two different doses: control) with 105 participants in each cohort. The protocol follow-up time will be 12 weeks, including 3 visits for the treatment (week 0, week 2, and week 4) and 3 visits for follow-up (week 6, week 9, and week 12). Our primary outcome, pain relief and/or better patient function, will be assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire. The statistical analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis. If the primary outcome is reached at the end of follow-up in the first cohort with low-dose S-ketamine (0.2 mg/kg), the trial will end. If not, the trial will continue with the second cohort and high-dose S-ketamine (0.4 mg/kg).DiscussionThe challenge of our trial is the inclusion of a large number of participants in comparison to other trials involving ketamine or S-ketamine infusions for chronic pain management. The originality of our protocol is to include functionality in addition to pain relief as a primary outcome because these two endpoints are not linked in a linear way. For some patients, functional status is more important than pain relief.Trial registrationEudraCT reference: 2020-000473-25, ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04436250, first posted June 18, 2020; last updated July 21, 2020. Protocol version 2.2 issued on September 30, 2020, after a revision by the ethics committee. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04436250.

Project description:BackgroundStocks of yellow fever vaccine are insufficient to cover exceptional demands for outbreak response. Fractional dosing has shown efficacy, but evidence is limited to the 17DD substrain vaccine. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of one-fifth fractional dose compared with standard dose of four WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines produced from three substrains.MethodsWe did this randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at research centres in Mbarara, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya. Eligible participants were aged 18-59 years, had no contraindications for vaccination, were not pregnant or lactating, had no history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and did not require yellow fever vaccination for travel. Eligible participants were recruited from communities and randomly assigned to one of eight groups, corresponding to the four vaccines at standard or fractional dose. The vaccine was administered subcutaneously by nurses who were not masked to treatment, but participants and other study personnel were masked to vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with seroconversion 28 days after vaccination. Seroconversion was defined as post-vaccination neutralising antibody titres at least 4 times pre-vaccination measurement measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50). We defined non-inferiority as less than 10% decrease in seroconversion in fractional compared with standard dose groups 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was measured in the per-protocol population, and safety analyses included all vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2017, and Feb 21, 2018, 1029 participants were assessed for inclusion. 69 people were ineligible, and 960 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to vaccine manufacturer and dose (120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz standard dose, 120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz fractional dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides standard dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides fractional dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar standard dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar fractional dose, 120 to Sanofi Pasteur standard dose, and 120 to Sanofi Pasteur fractional dose). 49 participants had detectable PRNT50 at baseline and 11 had missing PRNT50 results at baseline or 28 days. 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis. 959 participants were included in the safety analysis. The absolute difference in seroconversion between fractional and standard doses by vaccine was 1·71% (95% CI -2·60 to 5·28) for Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz, -0·90% (-4·24 to 3·13) for Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides, 1·82% (-2·75 to 5·39) for Institut Pasteur Dakar, and 0·0% (-3·32 to 3·29) for Sanofi Pasteur. Fractional doses from all four vaccines met the non-inferiority criterion. The most common treatment-related adverse events were headache (22·2%), fatigue (13·7%), myalgia (13·3%) and self-reported fever (9·0%). There were no study-vaccine related serious adverse events.InterpretationFractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines were non-inferior to the standard dose in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination, with no major safety concerns. These results support the use of fractional dosage in the general adult population for outbreak response in situations of vaccine shortage.FundingThe study was funded by Médecins Sans Frontières Foundation, Wellcome Trust (grant no. 092654), and the UK Department for International Development. Vaccines were donated in kind.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam tosylate for colonoscopy: single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam tosylate for colonoscopy: single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets