Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor. AIM: To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Qianmei, Luo, Zhen, Wang, Xia, Wang, Dongxin, Li, Jun, Wei, Xinchuan, Tang, Jun, Yao, Shanglong, Ouyang, Wen, Zhang, Wensheng, Zuo, Yunxia, Wang, Xiao, Liu, Jin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36680620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x
_version_ 1785034865340579840
author Zhu, Qianmei
Luo, Zhen
Wang, Xia
Wang, Dongxin
Li, Jun
Wei, Xinchuan
Tang, Jun
Yao, Shanglong
Ouyang, Wen
Zhang, Wensheng
Zuo, Yunxia
Wang, Xiao
Liu, Jin
author_facet Zhu, Qianmei
Luo, Zhen
Wang, Xia
Wang, Dongxin
Li, Jun
Wei, Xinchuan
Tang, Jun
Yao, Shanglong
Ouyang, Wen
Zhang, Wensheng
Zuo, Yunxia
Wang, Xiao
Liu, Jin
author_sort Zhu, Qianmei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor. AIM: To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery, and to assess its safety. METHOD: A total of 109 patients undergoing selective non-emergency, non-cardiothoracic or non-neurosurgical surgery requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were enrolled. Ten patients per group were assigned to ciprofol-0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg, and propofol-2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively to receive an intravenous bolus dose. An additional 20 patients were enrolled in the ciprofol-0.3, 0.5 or propofol-2.0 mg/kg groups. The primary outcome was the success rate of induction defined as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤ 1 after the initial bolus dose. The secondary outcomes included the time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 1, the time to loss of the eyelash reflex, the incidences and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The success rates were 100% for all 5 groups. The mean time to MOAA/S ≤ 1 and the time to loss of the eyelash reflex were not different among the 5 groups, regardless of whether a top-up dose was needed. There were no significant differences in the incidences and severity of AEs in the dose ranges investigated of ciprofol vs. propofol. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of a single bolus dose of ciprofol-0.5 mg/kg for the general anesthesia induction in selective surgery patients was comparable to that of propofol-2.0 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03698617, retrospectively registered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10147789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101477892023-04-30 Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial Zhu, Qianmei Luo, Zhen Wang, Xia Wang, Dongxin Li, Jun Wei, Xinchuan Tang, Jun Yao, Shanglong Ouyang, Wen Zhang, Wensheng Zuo, Yunxia Wang, Xiao Liu, Jin Int J Clin Pharm Research Article BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor. AIM: To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery, and to assess its safety. METHOD: A total of 109 patients undergoing selective non-emergency, non-cardiothoracic or non-neurosurgical surgery requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were enrolled. Ten patients per group were assigned to ciprofol-0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg, and propofol-2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively to receive an intravenous bolus dose. An additional 20 patients were enrolled in the ciprofol-0.3, 0.5 or propofol-2.0 mg/kg groups. The primary outcome was the success rate of induction defined as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤ 1 after the initial bolus dose. The secondary outcomes included the time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 1, the time to loss of the eyelash reflex, the incidences and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The success rates were 100% for all 5 groups. The mean time to MOAA/S ≤ 1 and the time to loss of the eyelash reflex were not different among the 5 groups, regardless of whether a top-up dose was needed. There were no significant differences in the incidences and severity of AEs in the dose ranges investigated of ciprofol vs. propofol. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of a single bolus dose of ciprofol-0.5 mg/kg for the general anesthesia induction in selective surgery patients was comparable to that of propofol-2.0 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03698617, retrospectively registered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x. Springer International Publishing 2023-01-21 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10147789/ /pubmed/36680620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhu, Qianmei
Luo, Zhen
Wang, Xia
Wang, Dongxin
Li, Jun
Wei, Xinchuan
Tang, Jun
Yao, Shanglong
Ouyang, Wen
Zhang, Wensheng
Zuo, Yunxia
Wang, Xiao
Liu, Jin
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
title Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
title_full Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
title_short Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
title_sort efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36680620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x
work_keys_str_mv AT zhuqianmei efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT luozhen efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT wangxia efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT wangdongxin efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT lijun efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT weixinchuan efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT tangjun efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT yaoshanglong efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT ouyangwen efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT zhangwensheng efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT zuoyunxia efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT wangxiao efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial
AT liujin efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial