Objective and subjective assessment of hangover during subacute administration of temazepam and nitrazepam to healthy subjects

Fatigue in Aviation: Safety Risks, Preventive Strategies and Pharmacological Interventions

Fatigue poses an important safety risk to civil and military aviation. In addition to decreasing performance in-flight (chronic) fatigue has negative long-term health effects. Possible causes of fatigue include sleep loss, extended time awake, circadian phase irregularities and work load. Despite regulations limiting flight time and enabling optimal rostering, fatigue cannot be prevented completely. Especially in military operations, where limits may be extended due to operational necessities, it is impossible to rely solely on regulations to prevent fatigue. Fatigue management, consisting of preventive strategies and operational countermeasures, such as pre-flight naps and pharmaceuticals that either promote adequate sleep (hypnotics or chronobiotics) or enhance performance (stimulants), may be required to mitigate fatigue in challenging (military) aviation operations. This review describes the pathophysiology, epidemiology and effects of fatigue and its impact on aviation, as well as several aspects of fatigue management and recommendations for future research in this field.

Central effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, captopril. II. Electroencephalogram and body sway

1. Effects of single doses of captopril (12.5, 25 and 50 mg) on the electroencephalogram (EEG) and on body sway were studied in fourteen healthy male subjects. Oxazepam (15 mg), as an active control, and two placebos were included in the study, together with a single dose of atenolol (100 mg). Medication was administered double-blind at 11.00 h, and assessments made before and at 2 and 4 h after drug ingestion. 2. There were no changes in the EEG with captopril. Oxazepam reduced the circadian rise in alpha activity, while atenolol decreased beta power. Delta activity was modified by both oxazepam and atenolol. 3. A reduction in lower frequencies of body sway (0.05-1 Hz) occurred with captopril, while the spectra were unaffected by oxazepam. Atenolol increased (P less than 0.05) activity in the frequency range 0.75-2.75 Hz. 4. These observations suggest that captopril is free of central effects such as sedation that may occur with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists. Reduced body sway with captopril could reflect improved integration of central and peripheral control of posture.

Meptazinol and pentazocine: plasma catecholamines and other effects in healthy volunteers

1. This double-blind, random-order study was designed to compare the clinical effects and the plasma catecholamine responses after i.v. administration of meptazinol at doses 0.7 and 1.4 mg kg-1, pentazocine at doses 0.3 and 0.6 mg kg-1 and saline placebo to six healthy volunteers. 2. Mean arterial pressure was not affected by either drug. Heart rate showed slight drug-related changes. Respiratory rate fell slightly with both drugs, but independently of dose. 3. The critical flicker fusion threshold-test and Maddox wing readings could both clearly differentiate active drugs from placebo. Meptazinol caused more nausea and dysphoria as expressed with visual analogue scales. Both analgesics caused short-lived feelings of euphoria. 4. After pentazocine plasma noradrenaline increased almost two-fold in 10-20 min. The effect of meptazinol was slightly smaller, whereas meptazinol caused a pronounced increase in plasma adrenaline concentrations in two of six subjects. Pentazocine had a smaller, but significant effect on plasma adrenaline. 5. We conclude that the effects of meptazinol in healthy volunteers do not differ markedly from those of pentazocine, although it may cause more nausea and dysphoria. The pronounced increase in plasma adrenaline concentrations in two of six subjects calls for caution in its use in patients with cardiac diseases.

The use of oral benzodiazepines as premedications: the usefulness of temazepam

The primary aim of premedication is to relieve the patient's anxiety/restlessness before anaesthesia and to ensure optimum quantity and quality of sleep on the night preceding surgery. With these objectives in mind, oral benzodiazepines offer a good alternative to traditional parenteral premedicants, especially as the clear anxiolytic and sedative effects of the former are of great clinical value. Oral temazepam has proven to be a valuable premedicant given on the evening before operation and/or the following morning, before surgery. Administered as a sedative in a single 20 mg oral dose the night before surgery, temazepam provided a good night's sleep in 77 percent of gynaecological surgical patients; patients slept for 7.6 hours and had no significant residual effects. As a premedicant, temazepam was as effective as parenteral diazepam or papaveretum. Temazepam's short duration of action facilitates rapid postoperative recovery in children, adults, and in the elderly. Thus, it is indicated especially for short operative procedures when rapid recovery and swift return to fitness are essential.

Pharmacokinetics of temazepam compared with other benzodiazepine hypnotics--some clinical consequences

When the various benzodiazepine hypnotics are studied, large differences are seen with regard to their pharmacokinetic properties and metabolism in man. Some are eliminated from the body at a relatively slow rate (e.g. nitrazepam), others are metabolized rather rapidly (temazepam, triazolam). Some benzodiazepine hypnotics have major active metabolites that are slowly eliminated (flurazepam, quazepam), while others have non-active metabolites (temazepam, lormetazepam). In hypnotic treatment, the duration of drug action should be restricted to the duration of the night, hence a compound with a relatively short elimination half-life may represent a more rational choice. An overview is given of the pharmacokinetics of the currently available benzodiazepine hypnotics with emphasis on temazepam and other hydroxylated benzodiazepines.

Importance of the interaction of midazolam and cimetidine

Six healthy volunteers were given in an open study 15 mg of midazolam orally, and a couple of weeks later the same treatment preceded by 400 mg of cimetidine orally. We followed midazolam serum concentrations and the following pharmacodynamic parameters for five hours: subjective sedation, Maddox wing readings, critical flicker fusion frequency and peak velocity of saccadic eye movements. A statistically significant change was found in Cmax and total AUC between the two sessions. The pharmacodynamic responses differed also clearly from each other suggesting a significant change in midazolam effect even after a single oral dose of cimetidine.

Nitrazepam for periodic movements in sleep (sleep-related myoclonus)

In a follow-up study (mean, approximately six months), nitrazepam was helpful in suppressing periodic movements in sleep (sleep-related myoclonus) and improving disturbed sleep physiology and daytime symptoms of 13 patients (mean age - 53 yr).

A comparison of the soft gelatin capsule and the tablet form of temazepam

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the soft gelatin capsule and tablet form of temazepam were compared. In a single blind study, six healthy volunteers, in the supine position, took either a tablet of temazepam 20 mg or a soft gelatin capsule of temazepam 20 mg. Sixty gynaecological in-patients received either a tablet or a soft gelatin capsule of temazepam 20 mg the night before surgery as premedication. Subjective parameters were assessed in the morning. The soft gelatin capsule yielded clearly higher serum concentrations during the first hour after administration. In the pharmacodynamic parameters there were slight but insignificant differences in favour of the capsule form. As a premedicant the capsule resulted in a significantly (P less than 0.01) shorter delay in the onset of sedative action and to an almost significant (P less than 0.05) delay in falling asleep; also an almost significantly (P less than 0.05) longer action of sleep in comparison with the tablet.

Task-dependent development of cross-tolerance to psychomotor effects of lorazepam in man

Development of cross-tolerance between lorazepam and four other benzodiazepines (BZ) was studied in two trials by measuring objective psychomotor performance and by subjective assessments. In trial I, nitrazepam 10 mg (NZ), temazepam 20 mg (TZ) or placebo were administered to 14 healthy students for 10 consecutive nights. After each pretreatment, psychomotor impairment by the challenge dose of lorazepam 3 mg (LZ) was measured. In trial II, responses to LZ after pretreatment with diazepam 5 mg (DZ) (8 subjects) or alprazolam 0.25 mg (AZ) (10 subjects), both t.i.d., were compared to LZ responses measured after one-month wash-out period. In trial I no cross-tolerance between BZs was found in objective tests, and LZ induced exophoria was even increased. However, the subjects rated LZ to cause less drowsiness after pretreatment with NZ in a situation where the manifestation of cross-tolerance was facilitated by ingestion of caffeine. In trial II a clear but task-dependent development of tolerance to the challenge dose of LZ was documented. One-week pretreatment with DZ reduced subjects responses to LZ. The total serum BZ activity bioassayed by radioreceptor method after intake of LZ was significantly (P less than 0.05) higher after pretreatment with DZ than in the end of wash-out period. Thus a functional cross-tolerance was documented on complex tasks after the subjects have been continuously working under DZ burden.

Psychomotor effects of alprazolam and diazepam during acute and subacute treatment, and during the follow-up phase

Psychomotor effects of alprazolam (AZ) and diazepam (DZ) were compared in a controlled double-blind and cross-over trial in 24 student volunteers, who received, three times daily, placebo for the first 4 days, then an active drug (AZ) 0.25 mg or DZ 5 mg) for 7 days, and again placebo for 3 days. After a 3 week wash-out period the procedure was repeated with the comparative drug. Objective and subjective measurements were made on day 3 (placebo), on days 4 and 10 (active drug) and on days 11, 12 and 13 (follow-up placebo). Baseline levels were measured in the morning, a capsule was taken, and the tests were repeated 2 hours and 8 hours later. Blood samples were taken in the afternoon of day 10 for the bioassay of serum benzodiazepine concentrations. Single doses of both AZ 0.25 mg and DZ 5 mg showed similar degree of impairment in several objective tests. At the end of the 7-day maintenance DZ (15 mg daily) proved significantly more sedative and impaired more psychomotor performance than AZ (0.75 mg daily) did. Improvement of the complex test performances (a learning effect) was counteracted by DZ more than by AZ. No actual development of tolerance was demonstrated after either drug. During the follow-up placebo phase, DZ showed more objective residual effects than AZ. The Maddox wing test (exophoria) showed a significant DZ effect to be still present on the third post-treatment day. However, during the follow-up period subjects reported subjectively more sedation and clumsiness after AZ than after DZ, but this was not associated with impairment of objective skills.