Population Pharmacodynamics of Propofol and Sevoflurane in Healthy Volunteers Using a Clinical Score and the Patient State Index: A Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: The population pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane with or without opioids were compared using the endpoints no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, tolerance to tetanic stimulus, and two versions of a processed electroencephalographic measure, the Patient State Index (Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2). METHODS: This is a reanalysis of previously published data. Volunteers received four anesthesia sessions, each with different drug combinations of propofol or sevoflurane, with or without remifentanil. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was used to study the relationship between drug concentrations, clinical endpoints, and Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2. RESULTS: The C50 values for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation for propofol (µg · ml) and sevoflurane (vol %; relative standard error [%]) were 1.62 (7.00)/0.64 (4.20), 1.85 (6.20)/0.90 (5.00), and 2.82 (15.5)/0.91 (10.0), respectively. The C50 values for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 were 1.63 µg · ml (3.7) and 1.22 vol % (3.1) for propofol and sevoflurane. Only for sevoflurane was a significant difference found in the pharmacodynamic model for Patient State Index-2 compared with Patient State Index-1. The pharmacodynamic models for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 as a predictor for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tetanic stimulation were indistinguishable, with Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane of 46.7 (5.1)/68 (3.0), 41.5 (4.1)/59.2 (3.6), and 29.5 (12.9)/61.1 (8.1), respectively. Post hoc C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were perfectly correlated (correlation coefficient = 1) for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout. Post hoc C50 and Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane for tolerance to tetanic stimulation were independent within an individual (correlation coefficient = 0). CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane were described on both population and individual levels using a clinical score and the Patient State Index. Patient State Index-2 has an improved performance at higher sevoflurane concentrations, and the relationship to probability of responsiveness depends on the drug used but is unaffected for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2.

Pharmacodynamic Interaction of Remifentanil and Dexmedetomidine on Depth of Sedation and Tolerance of Laryngoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with modest analgesic efficacy, whereas remifentanil is an opioid analgesic with modest sedative potency. Synergy is often observed when sedative-hypnotics are combined with opioid analgesics in anesthetic practice. A three-phase crossover trial was conducted to study the pharmacodynamic interaction between remifentanil and dexmedetomidine. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, 30 age- and sex- stratified healthy volunteers were studied. The subjects received consecutive stepwise increasing target-controlled infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and remifentanil with a fixed dexmedetomidine background concentration. Drug effects were measured using binary (yes or no) endpoints: no response to calling the subject by name, tolerance of shaking the patient while shouting the name ("shake and shout"), tolerance of deep trapezius squeeze, and tolerance of laryngoscopy. The drug effect was measured using the electroencephalogram-derived "Patient State Index." Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling related the administered dexmedetomidine and remifentanil concentration to these observed effects. RESULTS: The binary endpoints were correlated with dexmedetomidine concentrations, with increasing concentrations required for increasing stimulus intensity. Estimated model parameters for the dexmedetomidine EC50 were 2.1 [90% CI, 1.6 to 2.8], 9.2 [6.8 to 13], 24 [16 to 35], and 35 [23 to 56] ng/ml, respectively. Age was inversely correlated with dexmedetomidine EC50 for all four stimuli. Adding remifentanil did not increase the probability of tolerance of any of the stimuli. The cerebral drug effect as measured by the Patient State Index was best described by the Hierarchical interaction model with an estimated dexmedetomidine EC50 of 0.49 [0.20 to 0.99] ng/ml and remifentanil EC50 of 1.6 [0.87 to 2.7] ng/ml. CONCLUSIONS: Low dexmedetomidine concentrations (EC50 of 0.49 ng/ml) are required to induce sedation as measured by the Patient State Index. Sensitivity to dexmedetomidine increases with age. Despite falling asleep, the majority of subjects remained arousable by calling the subject's name, "shake and shout," or a trapezius squeeze, even when reaching supraclinical concentrations. Adding remifentanil does not alter the likelihood of response to graded stimuli.