A phase Ib, dose-finding study of multiple doses of remimazolam (CNS 7056) in volunteers undergoing colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: We performed the first multiple dose study of remimazolam designed to assess both the feasibility of maintaining suitable sedation during colonoscopy and reversing the sedative effects of remimazolam with flumazenil. METHODS: Healthy volunteers received fentanyl followed by remimazolam for sedation during colonoscopy. Three dose groups of 15 volunteers each received remimazolam in increasing initial doses, plus top-up doses to maintain sedation for a 30-minute period. In a separate double-blind crossover part of the trial, 6 volunteers were sedated with a single high dose of remimazolam, followed by flumazenil or placebo to reverse the sedation. RESULTS: Successful sedation that was adequate for colonoscopy was achieved in >70% of subjects. After the procedure, subjects rapidly recovered to fully alert, with a median of <10 minutes overall. Failures were due to the inability to sedate or adverse events, with 1 subject failing due to hypotension (arterial blood pressure 80/40) and low SpO2 (<90%). There were no serious adverse events reported, and no events that were unexpected with the combination of a benzodiazepine and fentanyl. The study also showed that sedation was rapidly reversible (1.0 minutes flumazenil vs 10.5 minutes placebo) without resedation. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam has the attributes of a sedative drug, with success rates comparable with recent studies of other drugs. Remimazolam provided adequate sedation in 33 of 44 subjects undergoing colonoscopy, and its sedative effects were easily reversed with flumazenil.

A placebo- and midazolam-controlled phase I single ascending-dose study evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of remimazolam (CNS 7056): Part I. Safety, efficacy, and basic pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: A new benzodiazepine, remimazolam, metabolized by tissue esterases to an inactive compound, CNS 7054, has been developed to permit a fast onset, a short and more predictable duration of sedative action, and a more rapid recovery profile than with currently available benzodiazepines. We report on the safety and efficacy of the first human study. METHODS: A phase I, single-center, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, randomized, single-dose escalation study was conducted. Up to 10 cohorts of healthy subjects were scheduled to receive a single 1-minute IV infusion of remimazolam, midazolam, or placebo. In the 10 possible cohorts, remimazolam doses were from 0.01 to 0.35 mg/kg. In cohorts 1 to 3, 6 subjects received remimazolam and 1 placebo. From cohort 4 onward, an additional 3 subjects in each cohort received midazolam (0.075 mg/kg). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were measured. A stop criterion of loss of consciousness for >5 minutes in >50% of subjects was predefined. RESULTS: The stop criterion was reached in cohort 9 (0.30 mg/kg remimazolam) so that 81 subjects were enrolled. Remimazolam was well tolerated in all dose cohorts, and no serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. Three AEs of mild (Spo(2) 85%-88%) hemoglobin desaturation (2 in the remimazolam groups and 1 in the midazolam group) resolved spontaneously, and 1 AE of moderate hemoglobin desaturation (Spo(2) 75%) resolved with a chin lift in the highest remimazolam dose group. No supplemental oxygen or manual ventilation was required. Vital signs remained stable throughout, although there was an increase in heart rate 2 minutes postdose for both remimazolam and midazolam. There were no reports of hypo- or hypertension. The pharmacokinetic behavior of remimazolam was linear and its systemic clearance approximately 3 times that of midazolam. Clearance was essentially independent of body weight. A rapid onset and dose-dependent sedation was observed after administration of remimazolam at 0.05 mg/kg and higher. Remimazolam (0.075 to 0.20 mg/kg) induced peak sedation levels similar to or higher than those achieved with midazolam (0.075 mg/kg). Median recovery times after approximately equieffective doses of remimazolam (0.10 and 0.15 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.075 mg/kg) were 10 and 40 minutes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam provided sedation with rapid onset and offset, and was well tolerated. There was no supplemental oxygen or ventilation required. On the basis of these data, further studies on the potential utility of remimazolam for sedation/anesthesia are warranted.

Case Series in the Utility of Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in Microvascular Decompression.

BACKGROUND: The utility of arterial lines in microvascular decompression (MVD) is not well described. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and costs of arterial lines compared with noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring in MVDs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing MVD from 2012 to 2020. Patients were grouped by procedure date from 2012 to 2014 and 2015 to 2020, reflecting our institution's decreasing trend in arterial line placement around 2014 to 2015. Patient features, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative complications were collected for all cases. Statistical differences were evaluated using chi-squared analyses and t-tests. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-eight patients underwent MVDs, with 204 between 2012 and 2014 and 654 between 2015 and 2020. Over time, the frequency of arterial line placement decreased from 64.2% to 30.1%, P < .001. Arterial lines involved 11 additional minutes of preincision time, P < .001. Patients with arterial lines required both increased doses and costs of vasoactive medications intraoperatively. Patients receiving arterial lines demonstrated no significant differences in complications compared with patients with NIBP monitoring. On average, patients with arterial lines incurred $802 increased costs per case compared with NIBP monitoring. CONCLUSION: NIBP monitoring in MVDs provides neurologically and hemodynamically safe outcomes compared with invasive blood pressure monitoring. For patients without significant cardiopulmonary risk factors, NIBP monitoring may be a cost-effective alternative in MVDs.