Efficacy and safety of adamgammadex for reversing rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular blockade: A multicenter, randomized, phase IIb study.

The rapid reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is important but remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adamgammadex versus sugammadex in reversing deep rocuronium-induced NMB. This multicenter, randomized, phase IIb study included 80 patients aged 18-64 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1-2, undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia with rocuronium. Patients were randomized to the adamgammadex 7, 8, and 9 mg/kg group or the sugammadex 4 mg/kg group. The primary efficacy variable was the time to recovery of train-of-four ratio (TOFr) to 0.9. The secondary efficacy variables were the time to recovery of TOFr to 0.7, antagonistic success rate of the recovery of TOFr to 0.9 within 5 min, and incidence rate of recurarization within 30 min after drug administration. The explorative efficacy variable was the time to recovery of the corrected TOFr to 0.9 (actual/baseline TOF ratio). Adamgammadex 7, 8, and 9 mg/kg and sugammadex 4 mg/kg groups did not significantly differ in all efficacy variables. Importantly, adamgammadex 9 mg/kg permitted reversal within a geometric mean of 2.9 min. According to the safety profile, adamgammadex achieved good tolerance and low incidence of drug-related adverse events compared with the 4 mg/kg sugammadex. Adamgammadex 7, 8, and 9 mg/kg facilitated rapid reversal of deep rocuronium-induced NMB and had good tolerance and low incidence of drug-related adverse events. Therefore, adamgammadex is a potential and promising alternative to sugammadex.

Phase III clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of adamgammadex with sugammadex for reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary clinical trials of adamgammadex, a new cyclodextrin-based selective reversal agent, have demonstrated its efficacy in reversing neuromuscular block by rocuronium. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, positive-controlled, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of adamgammadex and sugammadex. We randomised 310 subjects to receive adamgammadex (4 mg kg-1) or sugammadex (2 mg kg-1) at reappearance of the second twitch of the train-of-four (TOF), and standard safety data were collected. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients with TOF ratio ≥0.9 within 5 min was 98.7% in the adamgammadex group vs 100% in the sugammadex group, with a point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.3% (-4.6%, +1.3%); the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%. For the key secondary outcome, the median (inter quartile range) time from the start of administration of adamgammadex or sugammadex to recovery of TOF ratio to 0.9 was 2.25 (1.75, 2.75) min and 1.75 (1.50, 2.00) min, respectively. The difference was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.50); the upper limit was lower than the non-inferiority margin of 5 min. In addition, there were no inferior results observed in secondary outcomes. Adamgammadex had a lower incidence of adverse drug reactions compared with sugammadex (anaphylactic reaction, recurarisation, decreased heart rate, and laryngospasm; P=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Adamgammadex was non-inferior to sugammadex with a possible lower incidence of adverse drug reactions compared with sugammadex. Adamgammadex may have a potential advantage in terms of its overall risk-benefit profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000039525. Registered October 30, 2020. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=56825.