Cargando…
Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials
Background and study aims Remimazolam is an ultra-short acting, fast onset/fast offset benzodiazepine for intravenous use in procedural sedation, general anesthesia, and Intensive Care Unit sedation. The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam dosed according to...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2022
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1743-1936 |
_version_ | 1784687413789982720 |
---|---|
author | Dao, Van-Anh Schippers, Frank Stöhr, Thomas |
author_facet | Dao, Van-Anh Schippers, Frank Stöhr, Thomas |
author_sort | Dao, Van-Anh |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and study aims Remimazolam is an ultra-short acting, fast onset/fast offset benzodiazepine for intravenous use in procedural sedation, general anesthesia, and Intensive Care Unit sedation. The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam dosed according to medical practice (real-world midazolam) and midazolam dosed according to US prescribing information (on-label midazolam) for procedural sedation. Patients and methods This post hoc analysis was performed using integrated data from three randomized, placebo, and active (midazolam) controlled, phase 3 clinical trials in patients undergoing colonoscopy and bronchoscopy. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups, without adjustment for potential confounding factors, were exploratory and observational in nature. Results The mean ± SD dose of midazolam in the real-world midazolam group was 6.2 ± 3.1 mg, compared with 3.5 ± 1.5 mg in the on-label midazolam group. remimazolam showed significantly shorter time from first dose to start of procedure (median 3 minutes) compared to on-label midazolam (median 8 minutes). Recovery time from end of procedure to fully alert was significantly shorter for remimazolam (median 6 minutes) than real-world midazolam (median 14 minutes), enabling earlier transfer of patients from the procedure room to the recovery area with a lower requirement for patient monitoring. The onset and recovery times with remimazolam showed significantly less inter-patient variability than with on-label midazolam and real-world midazolam, respectively. Patients treated with remimazolam received significantly less fentanyl for analgesia (78.2 ± 28.4 µg) than did those treated with real-world midazolam (113.6 ± 60.1 µg) and on-label midazolam (92.5 ± 40.0 µg). Conclusions Remimazolam offers advantages over midazolam in terms of faster recovery and less fentanyl requirement, which may facilitate increased procedural throughput in clinical practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9010109 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90101092022-04-15 Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials Dao, Van-Anh Schippers, Frank Stöhr, Thomas Endosc Int Open Background and study aims Remimazolam is an ultra-short acting, fast onset/fast offset benzodiazepine for intravenous use in procedural sedation, general anesthesia, and Intensive Care Unit sedation. The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam dosed according to medical practice (real-world midazolam) and midazolam dosed according to US prescribing information (on-label midazolam) for procedural sedation. Patients and methods This post hoc analysis was performed using integrated data from three randomized, placebo, and active (midazolam) controlled, phase 3 clinical trials in patients undergoing colonoscopy and bronchoscopy. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups, without adjustment for potential confounding factors, were exploratory and observational in nature. Results The mean ± SD dose of midazolam in the real-world midazolam group was 6.2 ± 3.1 mg, compared with 3.5 ± 1.5 mg in the on-label midazolam group. remimazolam showed significantly shorter time from first dose to start of procedure (median 3 minutes) compared to on-label midazolam (median 8 minutes). Recovery time from end of procedure to fully alert was significantly shorter for remimazolam (median 6 minutes) than real-world midazolam (median 14 minutes), enabling earlier transfer of patients from the procedure room to the recovery area with a lower requirement for patient monitoring. The onset and recovery times with remimazolam showed significantly less inter-patient variability than with on-label midazolam and real-world midazolam, respectively. Patients treated with remimazolam received significantly less fentanyl for analgesia (78.2 ± 28.4 µg) than did those treated with real-world midazolam (113.6 ± 60.1 µg) and on-label midazolam (92.5 ± 40.0 µg). Conclusions Remimazolam offers advantages over midazolam in terms of faster recovery and less fentanyl requirement, which may facilitate increased procedural throughput in clinical practice. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2022-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9010109/ /pubmed/35433203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1743-1936 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Dao, Van-Anh Schippers, Frank Stöhr, Thomas Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
title | Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
title_full | Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
title_fullStr | Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
title_short | Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
title_sort | efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for procedural sedation: post hoc integrated analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1743-1936 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT daovananh efficacyofremimazolamversusmidazolamforproceduralsedationposthocintegratedanalysesofthreephase3clinicaltrials AT schippersfrank efficacyofremimazolamversusmidazolamforproceduralsedationposthocintegratedanalysesofthreephase3clinicaltrials AT stohrthomas efficacyofremimazolamversusmidazolamforproceduralsedationposthocintegratedanalysesofthreephase3clinicaltrials |