Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dexmedetomidine (Dexdor ® ) is a highly selective α 2 -adrenoceptor agonist. It has sedative, analgesic and opioid-sparing effects and is suitable for short- and longer-term sedation in an intensive care setting. In the randomized, double-blind, multicentre MIDEX and PRODEX trials, longer-term sedation with dexmedetomidine was noninferior to midazolam and propofol in terms of time spent at the target sedation range, as well as being associated with a shorter time to extubation than midazolam or propofol, and a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine were also easier to rouse, more co-operative and better able to communicate than patients receiving midazolam or propofol. Dexmedetomidine had beneficial effects on delirium in some randomized, controlled trials (e.g. patients receiving dexmedetomidine were less likely to experience delirium than patients receiving midazolam, propofol or remifentanil and had more delirium- and coma-free days than patients receiving lorazepam). Intravenous dexmedetomidine had an acceptable tolerability profile; hypotension, hypertension and bradycardia were the most commonly reported adverse reactions. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine is an important option for sedation in the intensive care setting.

Suvorexant (MK-4305) is an orexin receptor antagonist shown to be efficacious for insomnia over 3 months. We aimed to assess its clinical profile during and after 1 year of treatment. We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial at 106 investigational centres in the Americas, Australia, Europe, and South Africa from December, 2009, to August, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with primary insomnia by DSM-IV-TR criteria were assigned using a computer-generated randomised allocation schedule to receive nightly suvorexant (40 mg for patients younger than 65 years, 30 mg for patients aged 65 years or older) or placebo at a 2:1 ratio for 1 year with a subsequent 2-month randomised discontinuation phase in which patients on suvorexant either continued suvorexant or were abruptly switched to placebo while patients on placebo remained on placebo. Treatment assignment was masked from patients and investigators. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of suvorexant for up to 1 year. Secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of suvorexant for improving patient-reported subjective total sleep time (sTST) and time to sleep onset (sTSO) over the first month of treatment. Efficacy endpoints over the first month were assessed with a mixed model with terms for baseline value of the response variable, age, sex, region, treatment, time, and treatment by time interaction. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01021813. 322 (62%) of 522 patients randomly assigned to receive suvorexant and 162 (63%) of 259 assigned to receive placebo completed the 1-year phase. Over 1 year, 362 (69%) of 521 patients treated with suvorexant experienced any adverse events compared with 164 (64%) of 258 treated with placebo. Serious adverse events were recorded in 27 patients (5%) who received suvorexant and 17 (7%) who received placebo. The most common adverse event, somnolence, was reported for 69 patients (13%) who received suvorexant and seven (3%) who received placebo. At month 1, suvorexant (517 patients in the efficacy population) showed greater efficacy than placebo (254 in the efficacy population) in improving sTST (38·7 min vs 16·0 min; difference 22·7, 95% CI 16·4 to 29·0; p<0·0001) and sTSO (–18·0 min vs −8·4 min, difference −9·5, −14·6 to −4·5; p=0·0002). Our findings show that suvorexant was generally safe and well tolerated over 1 year of nightly treatment in patients with insomnia, with efficacy noted for subjective measures of sleep onset and maintenance. Merck & Co Inc.

Background Remimazolam besylate is a newer benzodiazepine with characteristics of quick onset of effects, short maintenance and recovery times without accumulation in tissues. This trial was conducted to confirm the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate versus propofol during hysteroscopy. Methods Patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam (Group R) or the propofol group (Group P). Group R was administered an induction dose of 0.2 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 1.0 mg/kg/h. In Group P, propofol was started at 1.5–2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0–6.0 mg/kg/h. After remimazolam besylate or propofol induction, remifentanil was infused using a target-controlled infusion system with a target concentration of 1.5 ng/ml and titrated during the procedure. The incidence rates of injection pain, low oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) and adverse effects in both groups were compared. Results Eighty-two patients were included in this study. The incidence of adverse events in Group R (3.7%) was significantly lower than that in Group P (36.6%) ( p  < 0.001). The incidence of injection pain in Group P (80.5%) was much higher than that in Group R (2.4%) ( p  < 0.001). The incidence of other adverse events, such as low SpO 2 , bradycardia, and hypotension in Group R was lower than that in Group P ( p  < 0.05). Conclusions Remimazolam besylate proves to be a safer alternative for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Moreover, adverse events caused by propofol, such as low SpO 2 and injection pain, are largely avoided. Trial registration This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Mengcheng County No. 1 People’s Hospital (2020MYL20003) and registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (15/09/2020, ChiCTR-2000038252 ). The study protocol followed the CONSORT guidelines. The study protocol was performed in the relevant guidelines.

Background Septic shock is associated with decreased vasopressor responsiveness. Experimental data suggest that central alpha2-agonists like dexmedetomidine (DEX) increase vasopressor responsiveness and reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock. However, DEX may also cause hypotension and bradycardia. Thus, it remains unclear whether DEX is hemodynamically safe or helpful in this setting. Methods In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE III) trial, an international randomized trial comparing early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual care in critically patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we studied patients with septic shock admitted to two tertiary ICUs in Australia and Switzerland. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h after randomization, expressed as noradrenaline equivalent dose (NEq [μg/kg/min] = noradrenaline + adrenaline + vasopressin/0.4). Results Between November 2013 and February 2018, 417 patients were recruited into the SPICE III trial at both sites. Eighty-three patients with septic shock were included in this subgroup analysis. Of these, 44 (53%) received DEX and 39 (47%) usual care. Vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h were similar between the two groups. Median NEq dose was 0.03 [0.01, 0.07] μg/kg/min in the DEX group and 0.04 [0.01, 0.16] μg/kg/min in the usual care group ( p  = 0.17). However, patients in the DEX group had a lower NEq/MAP ratio, indicating lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Moreover, on adjusted multivariable analysis, higher dexmedetomidine dose was associated with a lower NEq/MAP ratio. Conclusions In critically ill patients with septic shock, patients in the DEX group received similar vasopressor doses in the first 48 h compared to the usual care group. On multivariable adjusted analysis, dexmedetomidine appeared to be associated with lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Trial registration The SPICE III trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01728558 ).

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for deep sedation in critically ill patients. Methods In this single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study, patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring deep sedation were randomized to receive remimazolam besylate or propofol intravenously. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score of − 4 or − 5. Sedation depth was monitored using RASS and Narcotrend Index (NI). The primary outcome was the percentage of time within the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes included ventilator-free hours within 7 days, successful extubation, length of ICU stay, and 28-day mortality. Adverse events during the interventional period were also recorded. Results Thirty patients were assigned to each group. The median (IQR) RASS score was − 5.0 (− 5.0, − 4.0), and the median (IQR) NI value was 29.0 (21.0, 37.0) during the intervention period. Target RASS was reached a median of 100% of the sedation time in the two groups. No significant differences were observed in ventilator-free hours within 7 days, successful extubation, length of ICU stay, or 28-day mortality among groups. Hypotension occurred in 16 (53.3%) patients of remimazolam group and 18 (60.0%) patients of propofol group ( p  > 0.05). No patient experienced bradycardia. Conclusions Remimazolam besylate appears to be an effective and safe agent for short-term deep sedation in critically ill patients. Our findings warrant large sample-sized randomized clinical trials.

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate compared with propofol in maintaining mild-to-moderate sedation in patients receiving long-term mechanical ventilation. Methods In this single-centered randomized pilot study, adult patients mechanically ventilated longer than 24 h were randomized to receive remimazolam besylate or propofol. The target sedation range was − 3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 7, the length of ICU stay and 28-day mortality. Results Thirty patients were assigned to each group. No difference was identified between the remimazolam group and propofol group in median age [60.0 (IQR, 51.5–66.3) years vs. 64.0 (IQR, 55.0–69.3) years, respectively, p  = 0.437] or the median duration of study drug infusion [55.0 (IQR, 28.3–102.0) hours vs. 41.0 (IQR, 24.8–74.3) hours, respectively, p  = 0.255]. The median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was similar in remimazolam and propofol groups [73.2% (IQR, 41.5–97.3%) vs. 82.8% (IQR, 65.6–100%), p  = 0.269]. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of ventilator-free days at day 7, length of ICU stay, 28-day mortality or adverse events. Conclusions This pilot study suggested that remimazolam besylate was effective and safe for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients compared with propofol.

Insomnia disorder is prevalent and associated with health risks in older adults; however, efficacy and safety issues with existing treatments create significant unmet needs in this patient population. To compare treatment with the orexin receptor antagonist lemborexant with placebo and zolpidem tartrate extended release in participants with insomnia disorder. The Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Lemborexant in Subjects 55 Years and Older With Insomnia Disorder (SUNRISE 1) clinical trial was a global randomized double-blind parallel-group placebo-controlled active-comparator phase 3 study conducted at 67 sites in North America and Europe from May 31, 2016, to January 30, 2018. Data analyses were conducted from January 31, 2018, to September 10, 2018. Participants were 55 years and older with insomnia disorder characterized by reported sleep maintenance difficulties and confirmed by sleep history, sleep diary, and polysomnography. Participants could have also had sleep onset difficulties. Participants received placebo, zolpidem tartrate extended release (6.25 mg), or lemborexant (5 mg or 10 mg) for 1 month at bedtime. Paired polysomnograms were collected at baseline, the first 2 nights, and the last 2 nights of treatment. The primary end point was the change from baseline in latency to persistent sleep for lemborexant therapy vs placebo. Key secondary end points were changes from baseline in sleep efficiency and wake-after-sleep onset compared with placebo, and wake-after-sleep onset in the second half of the night compared with zolpidem therapy. Among 1006 participants randomized (placebo, n = 208; zolpidem, n = 263; lemborexant 5 mg, n = 266; and lemborexant 10 mg, n = 269), 869 (86.4%) were women and the median age was 63 years (range, 55-88 years). Both doses of lemborexant therapy demonstrated statistically significant greater changes from baseline on objective sleep onset as assessed by latency to persistent sleep (log transformed) that was measured using polysomnography at the end of 1 month of treatment (nights 29 and 30) compared with placebo (primary end point for least squares geometric means treatment ratio vs placebo: for lemborexant 5 mg, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89; P < .001; for lemborexant 10 mg, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.83; P < .001). For nights 29 and 30, as measured using polysomnography, the mean change from baseline in sleep efficiency (LSM treatment difference vs placebo for lemborexant 5 mg, 7.1%; 95% CI, 5.6%-8.5%; P < .001 and for lemborexant 10 mg, 8.0%; 95% CI, 6.6%-9.5%; P < .001) and wake-after-sleep onset (least squares mean treatment ratio vs placebo for lemborexant 5 mg, -24.0 min; 95% CI, -30.0 to -18.0 min; P < .001 and for lemborexant 10 mg, -25.4 min; 95% CI, -31.4 to -19.3 min; P < .001) were significantly greater for both doses of lemborexant therapy compared with placebo. Also, for nights 29 and 30, wake-after-sleep onset in the second half of the night (least squares mean treatment difference vs zolpidem for lemborexant 5 mg, -6.7 min; 95% CI, -11.2 to -2.2 min; P = .004 and for lemborexant 10 mg, -8.0 min; 95% CI, -12.5 to -3.5 min; P < .001) was significantly greater for both doses of lemborexant therapy compared with zolpidem therapy measured using polysomnography. Six participants (4 in the zolpidem group and 2 in the lemborexant 5 mg group) reported serious adverse events; none were treatment-related. Other adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. In this randomized clinical trial, lemborexant therapy significantly improved both sleep onset and sleep maintenance, including in the second half of the night, compared with both placebo and zolpidem measured objectively using polysomnography. Lemborexant therapy was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02783729; EudraCT identifier: 2015-001463-39.

In this single-center trial involving term infants with in utero opioid exposure, the use of sublingual buprenorphine resulted in a shorter duration of treatment and length of hospital stay than the use of oral morphine. The neonatal abstinence syndrome is defined as the occurrence of signs and symptoms of neonatal withdrawal after in utero drug exposure. 1 Among drug exposures, opioids cause severe symptoms, including autonomic instability, tremor, irritability, poor feeding, and loose stool. Measures that improve symptom control include minimization of stimulation, rooming in, 2 breast-feeding, 3 and frequent calorically dense feedings. Approximately two thirds of infants with this condition do not have a response to behavioral approaches and ultimately require pharmacologic therapy for control of symptoms. 4 The administration of an opioid at an appropriate dose for symptom control with subsequent weaning has been identified as an . . .

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome is characterized by damage to the lung caused by various insults, including ventilation itself, and tidal hyperinflation can lead to ventilator induced lung injury (VILI). We investigated the effects of a low tidal volume ( V T ) strategy ( V T  ≈ 3 ml/kg/predicted body weight [PBW]) using pumpless extracorporeal lung assist in established ARDS. Methods Seventy-nine patients were enrolled after a ‘stabilization period’ (24 h with optimized therapy and high PEEP). They were randomly assigned to receive a low V T ventilation (≈3 ml/kg) combined with extracorporeal CO 2 elimination, or to a ARDSNet strategy (≈6 ml/kg) without the extracorporeal device. The primary outcome was the 28-days and 60-days ventilator-free days (VFD). Secondary outcome parameters were respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, analgesic/sedation use, complications and hospital mortality. Results Ventilation with very low V T ’s was easy to implement with extracorporeal CO 2 -removal. VFD’s within 60 days were not different between the study group (33.2 ± 20) and the control group (29.2 ± 21, p  = 0.469), but in more hypoxemic patients (PaO 2 /FIO 2 ≤150) a post hoc analysis demonstrated significant improved VFD-60 in study patients (40.9 ± 12.8) compared to control (28.2 ± 16.4, p  = 0.033). The mortality rate was low (16.5 %) and did not differ between groups. Conclusions The use of very low V T combined with extracorporeal CO 2 removal has the potential to further reduce VILI compared with a ‘normal’ lung protective management. Whether this strategy will improve survival in ARDS patients remains to be determined (Clinical trials NCT 00538928).

Background Current sedatives have different side effects in long-term sedation. The sequential use of midazolam and dexmedetomidine for prolonged sedation may have distinct advantages. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the sequential use of midazolam and either dexmedetomidine or propofol, and the use of midazolam alone in selected critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Methods This single-center, randomized controlled study was conducted in medical and surgical ICUs in a tertiary, academic medical center. Patients enrolled in this study were critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving midazolam, with anticipated mechanical ventilation for ≥ 72 h. They passed the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) safety screen, underwent a 30-min-SBT without indication for extubation and continued to require sedation. Patients were randomized into group M-D (midazolam was switched to dexmedetomidine), group M-P (midazolam was switched to propofol), and group M (sedation with midazolam alone), and sedatives were titrated to achieve the targeted sedation range (RASS − 2 to 0). Results Total 252 patients were enrolled. Patients in group M-D had an earlier recovery, faster extubation, and more percentage of time at the target sedation level than those in group M-P and group M (all P  < 0.001). They also experienced less weaning time (25.0 h vs. 49.0 h; HR1.47, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.06; P  = 0.025), and a lower incidence of delirium (19.5% vs. 43.8%, P  = 0.002) than patients in group M. Recovery ( P  < 0.001), extubation ( P  < 0.001), and weaning time ( P  = 0.048) in group M-P were shorter than in group M, while the acquisition cost of sedative drug was more expensive than other groups (both P  < 0.001). There was no significant difference in adverse events among these groups (all P  > 0.05). Conclusions The sequential use of midazolam and dexmedetomidine was an effective and safe sedation strategy for long-term sedation and could provide clinically relevant benefits for selected critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Trial registration NCT02528513 . Registered August 19, 2015.