Comparison of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy conducted by pediatric gastroenterologists.

Objectives: The effectiveness and safety of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy were compared. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric patients (≤15 years old) who had undergone bidirectional endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy by pediatric gastroenterologists. Demographic data, indications, sedatives/dosages, clinical outcomes, endoscopic findings, adverse events, and total patient time requirements (total time in which patients stay in our hospital) were compared in the two sedation groups. Results: Ninety-one children (51 boys, 40 girls, mean age 13 years, range 9-15) treated at our hospital were enrolled. Propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or pentazocine was administered to 51 patients (propofol-based sedation group). Midazolam alone or in combination with pentazocine was administered to the other 40 patients (midazolam sedation group). In the propofol group, the following mean doses were used: propofol, 96 mg (range 40-145 mg); midazolam, 4.9 mg (range 3-5 mg); and pentazocine, 7.5 mg. In the midazolam group, the mean doses of midazolam and pentazocine were 6.2 mg (range 4-10 mg) and 15 mg, respectively. All procedures were successfully completed by pediatric gastroenterologists. The total procedure times and endoscopic findings were similar in the two groups, but the median patient time requirement in the propofol group was significantly shorter versus the midazolam group (7.3 h vs. 8.4 h, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusions: Propofol-based sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy was safely and effectively performed by pediatric gastroenterologists, and its patient time requirement was shorter than that for midazolam sedation.

Anesthetic Challenges during Endobronchial Brachytherapy: A Case Report.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. It may present as airway obstruction in a patient with endobronchial masses. Endobronchial brachytherapy (EBBT) has been shown to provide palliative therapy. It is the insertion of a radioactive material near the mass to reduce tumor size, thereby improving airway obstruction. This is the first case of EBBT done in our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. A 53-year-old male, 60 kg, ASA Physical Status 2 for hypertension, smoker, malignancy, and previous pulmonary tuberculosis patient, presented with a cough and dyspnea. An endobronchial mass almost obstructing the right mainstem bronchus was seen on a computed tomography (CT) scan. He was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung and underwent radiotherapy and erlotinib chemotherapy. On repeat CT scan, there was no noted decrease in the size of the mass. EBBT was suggested, and a multi-disciplinary team was formed for the planned procedure. Pulmonology, radiation oncology, and anesthesiology teams were identified, and thorough planning was done prior to the actual procedure. Three fractions of EBBT were done under sedation using midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine infusion. Lidocaine spray and transtracheal block were also performed as adjuncts prior to sedation. The procedure went as planned, and points for improvement were discussed for subsequent fractions. Due to persistent cough and discomfort from the catheter, additional ipratropium nebulization for minimization of secretions, and oral dextromethorphan for cough suppression were incorporated. After each fraction, the patient was monitored post-procedure for any side effects both from the radiotherapy and anesthetic technique. Qualitative reduction in mass size was noted in subsequent fractions. The patient was able to complete 3 fractions and was advised to follow-up after a month. EBBT is an emerging palliative and treatment modality for lung cancer, especially for intraluminal masses. Anesthetic considerations will depend on each case's characteristics such as airway anatomy, patient comfort and capacity, and procedural requirements. Conscious sedation with topical anesthesia is an adequate and appropriate anesthetic option, especially in cases where severe airway obstruction may compromise ventilation if airway reflexes are blunted. A multidisciplinary approach with different services and stakeholders is important for the proper planning, execution, and management of such patients.

Optimizing anesthesia strategies to NSCLC patients in VATS procedures: Insights from drug requirements and patient recovery patterns.

Understanding the intricate relationship between cancer clinicopathological features and anesthetics dosage is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and safety during surgery. This retrospective study investigates this relationship in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). A comprehensive analysis of medical records was undertaken for NSCLC patients who underwent VATS with intravenous compound inhalation general anesthesia. Patients were categorized based on histological, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and epidural anesthesia factors. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the differences between the groups. The results revealed compelling insights. Specifically, patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) undergoing VATS exhibited higher dosages of rocuronium bromide and midazolam during general anesthesia, coupled with a shorter post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay compared to those with squamous cell carcinoma (sqCL). Furthermore, chemotherapy patients undergoing VATS demonstrated diminished requirements for phenylephrine and remifentanil in contrast to their non-chemotherapy counterparts. Similarly, radiotherapy patients undergoing VATS demonstrated a decreased necessity for rocuronium bromide compared to non-radiotherapy patients. Notably, patients who received epidural anesthesia in combination with general anesthesia manifested reduced hydromorphone requirements and prolonged hospital stays compared to those subjected to general anesthesia alone. In conclusion, the findings from this study indicate several important observations in diverse patient groups undergoing VATS. The higher dosages of rocuronium bromide and midazolam in LUAD patients point to potential differences in drug requirements among varying lung cancer types. Additionally, the observed shorter PACU stay in LUAD patients suggests a potentially expedited recovery process. The reduced anesthetic requirements of phenylephrine and remifentanilin chemotherapy patients indicate distinct responses to anesthesia and pain management. Radiotherapy patients requiring lower doses of rocuronium bromide imply a potential impact of prior radiotherapy on muscle relaxation. Finally, the combination of epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia resulted in reduced hydromorphone requirements and longer hospital stays, suggesting the potential benefits of this combined approach in terms of pain management and postoperative recovery. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring anesthesia strategies for specific patient populations to optimize outcomes in VATS procedures.

Total intravenous anesthesia with Ketofol in rabbits: a comparison of the effects of constant rate infusion of midazolam, fentanyl or dexmedetomidine.

BACKGROUND: When inhalant anesthetic equipment is not available or during upper airway surgery, intravenous infusion of one or more drugs are commonly used to induce and/or maintain general anesthesia. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) does not require endotracheal intubation, which may be more difficult to achieve in rabbits. A range of different injectable drug combinations have been used as continuous infusion rate in animals. Recently, a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) has been used for TIVA in both human patients and animals. The purpose of this prospective, blinded, randomized, crossover study was to evaluate anesthetic and cardiopulmonary effects of ketofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in combination with constant rate infusion (CRI) of midazolam, fentanyl or dexmedetomidine in eight New Zealand White rabbits. Following IV induction with ketofol and endotracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with ketofol infusion in combination with CRIs of midazolam (loading dose [LD]: 0.3 mg/kg; CRI: 0.3 mg/kg/hr; KPM), fentanyl (LD: 6 µg/kg; CRI: 6 µg/kg/hr; KPF) or dexmedetomidine (LD: 3 µg/kg; CRI: 3 µg/kg/hr; KPD). Rabbits in the control treatment (KPS) were administered the same volume of saline for LD and CRI. Ketofol infusion rate (initially 0.6 mg kg- 1 minute- 1 [0.3 mg kg- 1 minute- 1 of each drug]) was adjusted to suppress the pedal withdrawal reflex. Ketofol dose and physiologic variables were recorded every 5 min. RESULTS: Ketofol induction doses were 14.9 ± 1.8 (KPM), 15.0 ± 1.9 (KPF), 15.5 ± 2.4 (KPD) and 14.7 ± 3.4 (KPS) mg kg- 1 and did not differ among treatments (p > 0.05). Ketofol infusion rate decreased significantly in rabbits in treatments KPM and KPD as compared with saline. Ketofol maintenance dose in rabbits in treatments KPM (1.0 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min) and KPD (1.0 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min) was significantly lower as compared to KPS (1.3 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min) treatment (p < 0.05). Ketofol maintenance dose did not differ significantly between treatments KPF (1.1 ± 0.3 mg/kg/min) and KPS (1.3 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min). Cardiovascular variables remained at clinically acceptable values but ketofol infusion in combination with fentanyl CRI was associated with severe respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: At the studied doses, CRIs of midazolam and dexmedetomidine, but not fentanyl, produced ketofol-sparing effect in rabbits. Mechanical ventilation should be considered during ketofol anesthesia, particularly when fentanyl CRI is used.

Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures.

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

Enhancing ketamine anesthesia with midazolam and fentanyl for children's ear surgery: a prospective randomized study.

Background: Myringotomy with tympanostomy tube insertion (MTI) is a superficial surgical procedure used to prevent hearing loss in children with serous otitis media. Intravenous anesthesia, often ketamine, is preferred for this procedure because of its ability to induce sedation without compromising airway reflexes. However, ketamine alone may be insufficient and potentially lead to spontaneous movement during surgery. This study evaluated the effectiveness of midazolam and fentanyl as adjuvants to ketamine in reducing spontaneous movement during MTI and enhancing the quality of recovery. Methods: This study involved two groups of 30 patients each: one group received intravenous ketamine (1.5 mg/kg) with an equal volume of normal saline (K group), while the other received a combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and ketamine (0.05 mg/kg, 1 µg/kg, and 1.5 mg/kg, respectively; MFK group). We assessed side effects, intraoperative patient movement, surgeon satisfaction, and emergence agitation scores. Results: The MFK group exhibited significantly lower scores for patient movement (p<0.01) and emergence agitation (p<0.01) and markedly higher surgeon satisfaction scores (p<0.01) than the K group. Conclusion: Administering a midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine combination effectively reduced spontaneous movement during surgery and emergence agitation during recovery without prolonging discharge times in children undergoing MTI.

Continuous Sedation in Palliative Care in Portugal: A Prospective Multicentric Study.

Objective: This study aimed to survey the practice of palliative sedation in Portugal, where data on this subject were lacking. Methods: This was a prospective multicentric study that included all patients admitted to each team that agreed to participate. Patients were followed until death, discharge, or after 3 months of follow-up. Results: The study included 8 teams: 4 as palliative care units (PCU), 1 as a hospital palliative care team (HPCT), 2 as home care (HC), and 1 as HPCT and HC. Of the 361 patients enrolled, 52% were male, the median age was 76 years, and 285 (79%) had cancer. Continuous sedation was undergone by 49 (14%) patients: 26 (53%) were male, and the median age was 76. Most patients, 46 (94%), had an oncological diagnosis. Only in a minority of cases, the family, 16 (33%), or the patient, 5 (10%), participated in the decision to sedate. Delirium was the most frequent symptom leading to sedation. The medication most used was midazolam (65%). In the multivariable analysis, only age and the combined score were independently associated with sedation; patients <76 years and those with higher levels of suffering had a higher probability of being sedated. Conclusions: The practice of continuous palliative sedation in Portugal is within the range reported in other studies. One particularly relevant point was the low participation of patients and their families in the decision-making process. Each team must have a deep discussion on this aspect.

Thoracic spinal anesthesia with intrathecal sedation for lower back surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Spinal anesthesia (SA) is a good alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for spine surgery. Despite that, a few case series concern the use of thoracic spinal anesthesia for short-duration surgical interventions. In search of an alternative approach to GA and a better opioid-free modality, we aimed to investigate the safety, feasibility, and patient satisfaction of thoracic SA for spine surgery. Materials and methods: We analyzed retrospectively a cohort of 24 patients operated on for a degenerative and osteoporotic pathology of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. Data was collected from medical records, including clinical notes, operative and anesthesia records, and patient questionnaires. Results: Twenty-one surgeries for herniated discs, two for degenerative spinal stenosis, and one for multi-level osteoporotic vertebral body fractures were performed under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal sedation. In all cases, we applied 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine and the following adjuvants: midazolam, clonidine or dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone. We boosted the anesthesia with local ropivacaine due to inefficient sensory block in two patients. Nobody in the cohort received intravenous opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or additional sedation intraoperatively. Postoperative painkillers were upon the patient's request. No significant complications were detected. Conclusion: Thoracic spinal anesthesia incorporating adjuvants such as midazolam, clonidine or dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone demonstrates not only efficient conditions for spine surgery, a favorable safety profile, high patient satisfaction, and intrathecal sedation but also effective opioid-free pain management.

Pharmacokinetic study of capivasertib and the CYP3A4 substrate midazolam in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Capivasertib, a potent, selective inhibitor of all three AKT serine/threonine kinase (AKT) isoforms, is being evaluated in phase 3 trials in advanced breast and prostate cancer. This study evaluated the drug-drug interaction risk of capivasertib with the cytochrome P450 3A substrate midazolam in previously treated adults with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients received oral capivasertib 400 mg twice daily (BID) on an intermittent schedule (4 days on/3 days off) starting on day 2 of cycle 1 (29 days) and on day 1 of each 28-day cycle thereafter. In cycle 1 only, patients received oral midazolam (1 mg) on day 1 (alone), and days 8 and 12 (3rd day off and 4th day on capivasertib, respectively). Midazolam pharmacokinetics on days 8 and 12 were analyzed versus day 1. Capivasertib, with or without standard-of-care treatment, was continued in patients deemed likely to benefit. Safety and exploratory efficacy analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Capivasertib-midazolam coadministration increased midazolam exposure (n = 21): geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) AUCinf and Cmax was 1.13 (0.97-1.32) and 1.15 (0.99-1.33) for day 8 versus day 1, and 1.75 (1.50-2.05) and 1.25 (1.08-1.46) for day 12 versus day 1. The capivasertib safety profile was manageable when administered with or without midazolam. Two patients had partial responses to treatment. CONCLUSION: The up to 1.75-fold increase in midazolam exposure indicates capivasertib is a weak CYP3A inhibitor at 400 mg BID on an intermittent schedule. Capivasertib was well tolerated; exploratory efficacy analysis demonstrated evidence of clinical activity in this heavily pre-treated population. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04958226.

Epidural administration of ropivacaine and midazolam is superior to intra-articular administration as postoperative analgesia after isolated arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings autograft: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Reconstructive surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is quite common, previous studies have documented that adequate pain control in the early phases of the postoperative period translates into early mobility and a rapid start of rehabilitation. Therefore, the search for new strategies for postoperative pain control is justified. The aim of this study was to compare intra-articular to the epidural administration of ropivacaine and midazolam as postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft (HA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Double-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 108 consecutive patients aged from 18 to 50 years that had undergone arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with HA. The patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The first group received intraarticular ropivacaine and midazolam. The second group received epidural ropivacaine and midazolam. The need for rescue analgesia, the postoperative pain experienced, side effects and complications of the analgesic drugs were evaluated. RESULTS: The intra-articular group received statistically significantly higher mean doses of rescue analgesia on the first two days (2.8 â€‹± â€‹1.0 vs. 1.3 â€‹± â€‹0.6 in the epidural group; p â€‹= â€‹0.001). Visual Analogue Scale scores at flexion were statistically significantly higher in the intra-articular group over the entire study period. The intra-articular group also reported a statistically significantly lower range-of-motion 87 â€‹± â€‹15 vs. 102 â€‹± â€‹11 in the epidural group (p â€‹= â€‹0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural administration of ropivacaine combined with midazolam in patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with HA was clinically and significantly better relative to rescue analgesia and the intensity of pain in the first 48 postoperative hours when compared to intraarticular administration. There was no difference in terms of adverse effects and complications.

The role of perioperative sedative anesthetics in preventing postoperative delirium: a systematic review and network-meta analysis including 6679 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period. METHODS: The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.

Long-Term Satisfaction of Oral Sedation versus Standard-of-Care Intravenous Sedation for Ocular Surgery.

Purpose: Long-term patient satisfaction may influence patients' perspectives of the quality of care and their relationship with their providers. This is a follow up to a comparative effectiveness study investigating oral to intravenous sedation (OIV study). The OIV study found that oral sedation was noninferior in patient satisfaction to standard intravenous (IV) sedation for anterior segment and vitreoretinal surgeries. This study aims to determine if patient satisfaction with oral sedation remained noninferior long term. Patients and Methods: Patients were re-interviewed using the same satisfaction survey given during the OIV study. Statistical analysis involved t-tests for noninferiority of the long-term mean satisfaction score of oral and IV sedation. We also compared the original mean satisfaction score and the follow-up mean satisfaction score for each type of sedation and for both groups combined. Results: Participants were interviewed at a median of 1225.5 days (range 754-1675 days) from their surgery. The original mean satisfaction score was 5.26 ± 0.79 for the oral treatment group (n = 52) and 5.27 ± 0.64 for the intravenous treatment group (n = 46), demonstrating noninferiority with a difference in mean satisfaction score of 0.015 (p < 0.0001). The follow-up mean satisfaction score was 5.23 ± 0.90 for oral sedation and 5.60 ± 0.61 for IV sedation, with a difference in the mean satisfaction score of 0.371 (p = 0.2071). Satisfaction scores did not differ between the original mean satisfaction score and the follow-up mean satisfaction score for the oral treatment group alone (p = 0.8367), but scores in the intravenous treatment group increased longitudinally (p = 0.0004). Conclusion: In this study, long-term patient satisfaction with oral sedation was not noninferior to satisfaction with IV sedation, unlike our findings with short-term patient satisfaction in our original study. Patient satisfaction also remained unchanged over time for the oral treatment group, but patients in the intravenous treatment group reported higher long-term satisfaction with their anesthesia experience compared to the immediate post-operative period.

Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence. METHODS: Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.

Midostaurin drug interaction profile: a comprehensive assessment of CYP3A, CYP2B6, and CYP2C8 drug substrates, and oral contraceptives in healthy participants.

PURPOSE: Midostaurin, approved for treating FLT-3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia and advanced systemic mastocytosis, is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 to two major metabolites, and may inhibit and/or induce CYP3A, CYP2B6, and CYP2C8. Two studies investigated the impact of midostaurin on CYP substrate drugs and oral contraceptives in healthy participants. METHODS: Using sentinel dosing for participants' safety, the effects of midostaurin at steady state following 25-day (Study 1) or 24-day (Study 2) dosing with 50 mg twice daily were evaluated on CYP substrates, midazolam (CYP3A4), bupropion (CYP2B6), and pioglitazone (CYP2C8) in Study 1; and monophasic oral contraceptives (containing ethinylestradiol [EES] and levonorgestrel [LVG]) in Study 2. RESULTS: In Study 1, midostaurin resulted in a 10% increase in midazolam peak plasma concentrations (Cmax), and 3-4% decrease in total exposures (AUC). Bupropion showed a 55% decrease in Cmax and 48-49% decrease in AUCs. Pioglitazone showed a 10% decrease in Cmax and 6% decrease in AUC. In Study 2, midostaurin resulted in a 26% increase in Cmax and 7-10% increase in AUC of EES; and a 19% increase in Cmax and 29-42% increase in AUC of LVG. Midostaurin 50 mg twice daily for 28 days ensured that steady-state concentrations of midostaurin and the active metabolites were achieved by the time of CYP substrate drugs or oral contraceptive dosing. No safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSION: Midostaurin neither inhibits nor induces CYP3A4 and CYP2C8, and weakly induces CYP2B6. Midostaurin at steady state has no clinically relevant PK interaction on hormonal contraceptives. All treatments were well tolerated.

Effective doses of midazolam oral solution for the prevention of preoperative anxiety in paediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: More than 60% children exhibit anxiety before undergoing an anesthetic-surgical procedure, particularly among pre-school paediatric patients. Oral midazolam can provide procedural sedation for children prior to anesthesia. However, extemporaneous solutions of midazolam are usually prepared from injectable drug solutions, leading to inconsistent efficacy due to variable preparation methods. Xiaoerjing® is the first commercially available oral formulation of midazolam for procedural sedation in children in China. Despite the recommended dosage range of 0.25-0.5 mg/kg, its effective dose is still largely unknown. AIM: To determine the 95% effective dose (ED95) of midazolam oral solution (Xiaoerjing®) for alleviating preoperative anxiety in children prior to mask induction of general anesthesia. DESIGN: The study included 61 children between the ages of 1 and 6 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. The first patient received a single dose of 0.5 mg/kg midazolam oral solution, which was adjusted for subsequent patients using the biased coin design method based on their response to the previous dose. Doses were increased or decreased at the rate of 0.1 mg/kg. An effective response was defined as having a modified Ramsay sedation score ≥3a, separation anxiety score ≤2, and mask acceptance score ≤2 during inhalational anesthesia induction. RESULTS: Fifty-six children were included in the final analysis. Of those, sedation was successful in 50 patients, with a median separation time of 15 (IQR: 25) min. Midazolam oral solution has an ED95 of 0.8254 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.6915-0.8700 mg/kg) for relieving preoperative anxiety in children. No adverse events occurred following drug administration. CONCLUSION: Midazolam oral solution is a safe and effective medication for relieving preoperative anxiety in children. The ED95 of a single oral dose of midazolam oral solution is 0.8254 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.6915-0.8700 mg/kg).

Treatment of agitation in terminally ill patients with intranasal midazolam versus subcutaneous midazolam: study protocol for a randomised controlled open-label monocentric trial (MinTU Study).

BACKGROUND: Intranasal (i.n.) drug application is a widely known and low-invasive route of administration that may be able to achieve rapid symptom control in terminally ill patients. According to the German S3 guideline "Palliative care for patients with incurable cancer", benzodiazepines, such as midazolam, are recommended for the treatment of terminal agitation. To the best of our knowledge there is no evidence for i.n. midazolam in terminally ill patients. We aim to assess the use of i.n. midazolam as an alternative to subcutaneous administration of the drug. METHODS: In this monocentric, randomised, controlled, open-label investigator initiated trial, n = 60 patients treated at the palliative care unit of a University Hospital will be treated with 5 mg midazolam i.n. versus 5 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) midazolam in the control arm when terminal agitation occurs (randomly assigned 1:1). The estimated recruitment period is 18 months. Treatment efficacy is defined as an improvement on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (Palliative Version) (RASS-PAL) and a study specific numeric rating scale (NRS) before and after drug administration. Furthermore, plasma concentration determinations of midazolam will be conducted at t1 = 0 min, t2 = 5 min, and t3 = 20 min using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The primary objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of midazolam i.n. in comparison to midazolam s.c. for the treatment of agitation in terminally ill patients. DISCUSSION: Midazolam i.n. is expected to achieve at least equivalent reduction of terminal agitation compared to s.c. administration. In addition, plasma concentrations of midazolam i.n. are not expected to be lower than those of midazolam s.c. and the dynamics of the plasma concentration with an earlier increase could be beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00026775, registered 07.07.2022, Eudra CT No.: 2021-004789-36.

Efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam for sedation in infant with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a great challenge to sedation for infants with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan, because there is the younger age and no consensus on the type, dosage, and route of drug administration. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam as a sedative option for infants with cleft lip and palate under imaging procedures. METHODS: Infants scheduled for cleft lip and palate repair surgery were randomly assigned to the IND group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg alone) and the INDM group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg combined with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of infants underwent successful computed tomography (CT) scans under intranasal sedation. The secondary outcomes included onset time and duration of sedation, recovery time, Ramsay sedation scale, hemodynamic parameters during sedation, and adverse events. Data analyses involved the unpaired t-test, the repeated-measures analysis of variance test, and the continuity correction χ2 test. RESULTS: One hundred five infants were included in the analysis. The proportion of infants underwent successful CT scans under sedation was significantly greater in the INDM group than in the IND group (47 [95.9%] vs. 45 [80.4%], p = 0.016). Additionally, the INDM group had a shorter onset time and a longer duration of sedation statistically (12 [8.5, 17] min vs. 16 [12, 20] min, p = 0.001; 80 [63.6, 92.5] min vs. 68.5 [38, 89] min, p = 0.014, respectively), and their recovery time was significantly longer (43 [30, 59.5] min vs. 31.5 [20.5, 53.5] min, p = 0.006). The difference in Ramsay sedation scale values 20 min after administration was statistically significant between the groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in changes in heart rate and respiratory rate. CONCLUSION: Intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam resulted in higher sedation success in comparison with sole dexmedetomidine. However, it has a relatively prolonged duration of sedation and recovery time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100049122, Clinical trial first registration date: 21/07/2021.

The MAGIC trial: a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, noninferiority, randomised trial of melatonin versus midazolam in the premedication of anxious children attending for elective surgery under general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Child anxiety before general anaesthesia and surgery is common. Midazolam is a commonly used premedication to address this. Melatonin is an alternative anxiolytic, however trials evaluating its efficacy in children have delivered conflicting results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind randomised trial was performed in 20 UK NHS Trusts. A sample size of 624 was required to declare noninferiority of melatonin. Anxious children, awaiting day case elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomly assigned 1:1 to midazolam or melatonin premedication (0.5 mg kg-1, maximum 20 mg) 30 min before transfer to the operating room. The primary outcome was the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form (mYPAS-SF). Secondary outcomes included safety. Results are presented as n (%) and adjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely (n=110; 55 per group) because of recruitment futility. Participants had a median age of 7 (6-10) yr, and 57 (52%) were female. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form analyses showed adjusted mean differences of 13.1 (3.7-22.4) and 12.9 (3.1-22.6), respectively, in favour of midazolam. The upper 95% confidence interval limits exceeded the predefined margin of 4.3 in both cases, whereas the lower 95% confidence interval excluded zero, indicating that melatonin was inferior to midazolam, with a difference considered to be clinically relevant. No serious adverse events were seen in either arm. CONCLUSION: Melatonin was less effective than midazolam at reducing preoperative anxiety in children, although the early termination of the trial increases the likelihood of bias. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN18296119.

Alcohol spiked with zolpidem and midazolam potentiates inflammation, oxidative stress and organ damage in a mouse model.

PURPOSE: Crime-related spiking of alcoholic drinks with prescription drugs is quite common and has been happening for centuries. This study, therefore, evaluated the effects of oral administration of alcohol spiked with the zolpidem and midazolam potent sedatives on inflammation, oxidative stress and various organ damage in male Swiss albino mice. METHODS: Mice were randomly assigned into six treatment groups; the first group constituted the normal control, the second group received 50 mg/kg body weight of zolpidem only, the third group received 50 mg/kg body weight zolpidem dissolved in 5 g/kg alcohol, the fourth group received 50 mg/kg midazolam only, the fifth group received midazolam (50 mg/kg) dissolved in 5 g/kg alcohol and the sixth group received 5 g/kg alcohol. RESULTS: Alcohol-induced significant reduction in neurological function and altered blood hematological indicators. Such neurological impairment and negative effects on blood were exacerbated in mice administered with spiked alcohol. Additionally, midazolam and zolpidem enhanced alcohol-driven elevation of liver function markers; the serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT), total bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase. Exposure to alcohol and/or spiked alcohol led to significant augmentation of nitric oxide and malonaldehyde, with concomitant depletion of liver glutathione (GSH) levels. Similarly, serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor alpha and interferon-gamma were increased by co-exposure with midazolam or zolpidem. Alcohol-induced hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity were amplified by exposure to alcohol spiked with midazolam/zolpidem. CONCLUSION: Exposure to alcohol spiked with midazolam or zolpidem appears to exacerbate neurological deficits, inflammation, oxidative stress, and organ damage.

Is Higher Docetaxel Clearance in Prostate Cancer Patients Explained by Higher CYP3A? An In Vivo Phenotyping Study with Midazolam.

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) have a lower docetaxel exposure for both intravenous (1.8-fold) and oral administration (2.4-fold) than patients with other solid cancers, which could influence efficacy and toxicity. An altered metabolism by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) due to castration status might explain the observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. In this in vivo phenotyping, pharmacokinetic study, CYP3A activity defined by midazolam clearance (CL) was compared between patients with PCa and male patients with other solid tumors. All patients with solid tumors who did not use CYP3A-modulating drugs were eligible for participation. Patients received 2 mg midazolam orally and 1 mg midazolam intravenously on 2 consecutive days. Plasma concentrations were measured with a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Genotyping was performed for CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. Nine patients were included in each group. Oral midazolam CL was 1.26-fold higher in patients with PCa compared to patients with other solid tumors (geometric mean [coefficient of variation], 94.1 [33.5%] L/h vs 74.4 [39.1%] L/h, respectively; P = .08). Intravenous midazolam CL did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .93). Moreover, the metabolic ratio of midazolam to 1'-hydroxy midazolam did not differ between the 2 groups for both oral administration (P = .67) and intravenous administration (P = .26). CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genotypes did not influence midazolam pharmacokinetics. The observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics between both patient groups therefore appears to be explained neither by a difference in midazolam CL nor by a difference in metabolic conversion rate of midazolam.