Comparison of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for the induction of deep sedation during gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures: A multi-centre, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled phase 3 clinical trial

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.

PATIENTS

Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

Effects of ciprofol infusion on hemodynamics during induction and maintenance of anesthesia and on postoperative recovery in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Ciprofol, a new candidate drug, is effective and safe for the maintenance of anesthesia in non-cardiothoracic and non-neurological elective surgery. However, few studies have been conducted on general anesthesia using ciprofol in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy. Therefore, this study aims to observe the effects of ciprofol on hemodynamics and on postoperative recovery in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomized controlled trial will include 136 patients aged 18-65 years undergoing elective thoracoscopic lobectomy between April 2023 and December 2024. The participants will be randomly assigned to the propofol or ciprofol group. The primary outcome to be assessed is the hemodynamic fluctuation during the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The secondary outcomes involve quality of anesthesia induction and quality of recovery from anesthesia. The former includes TLOC (time to loss of consciousness), the use of vasoactive agents, the incidence of injection pain, body movement, muscle twitching and coughing during induction of anesthesia. The latter includes TROC (time to recovery of consciousness), post anesthesia care unit (PACU) time, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative agitation, intraoperative awareness and quality of recovery (QoR) score.

DISCUSSION

A number of clinical trials have confirmed that ciprofol, as a new sedative-hypnotic agent, has advantages of better tolerance, higher sedation satisfaction score, and lower incidence of adverse reactions, especially in reducing the incidence of injection pain. But considering that ciprofol was recently developed, limited data are available regarding its use for general anesthesia. This study aims to investigate the effects of ciprofol on hemodynamics and on postoperative recovery of patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy. The results of this study may provide evidence for the safe application of ciprofol, a new choice of general anesthetic for thoracic surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05664386).

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in sedating patients in the operating room and outside the operating room: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

As a new type of intravenous anesthetic, ciprofol has the advantages of fast onset of action, fast recovery and high clearance rate. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol versus traditional propofol for anesthesia and sedation in and out of the operating room.

METHODS

We searched the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from January 2021 to December 2023. All clinical studies comparing the sedative effects of propofol and ciprofol, both inside and outside the operating room, were included in our trial. The main outcome measures were induction time and incidence of injection-site pain. Data are merged using risk ratio and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023447747).

RESULTS

A total of 15 randomized, controlled trials involving 2002 patients were included in this study. Compared with propofol, ciprofol has a longer induction time in the operating room but a shorter induction time in non-operating room settings. Ciprofol can effectively reduce the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression both inside and outside the operating room. In addition, the risk of drug-related hypotension induced with ciprofol in the operating room is lower, but the awakening time is also longer. Meta-regression analysis showed that neither age nor BMI were potential sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot, egger and begg tests showed no significant publication bias. Sensitivity analyzes indicate that our results are robust and reliable.

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol has absolute advantages in reducing the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression, both in and outside operating room. Intraoperative use of ciprofol reduces the risk of drug-related hypotension and may also reduce the risk of intraoperative physical movements. However, ciprofol may have longer induction and awakening time than propofol.

ED50 of ciprofol combined with sufentanil for fiberoptic bronchoscopy of different patient populations with pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a promising sedative. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) of different genders and ages when combined with 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil, and to evaluate its efficacy and safety, providing a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practice.

METHODS

PTB patients who underwent bronchoscopy examination and treatment at The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou between May 2023 and June 2023 were selected and divided into four groups using a stratified random method. All patients received intravenous injection of 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil followed by injection of the test dose of ciprofol according to Dixon's up-and-down method. The initial dose of ciprofol in all four groups was 0.4 mg/kg, with an adjacent ratio of 1:1.1. The next patient received a 10% increase in the dose of ciprofol if the previous patient in the same group experienced positive reactions such as choking cough, frowning, and body movements during the endoscopy. Otherwise, it was judged as a negative reaction, and the next patient received a 10% decrease in the dose of ciprofol. The transition from a positive reaction to a negative reaction was defined as a turning point, and the study of the group was terminated when seven turning points occurred. Hemodynamic parameters, oxygen saturation and adverse reactions were recorded at different time points in all groups. The Probit regression analysis method was used to calculate the ED50 of ciprofol in the four groups and compare between the groups.

RESULTS

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil for bronchoscopy in the four groups were 0.465 mg/kg, 0.433 mg/kg, 0.420 mg/kg and 0.396 mg/kg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of ciprofol used for fiberoptic bronchoscopy varied among PTB patients of different genders and ages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300071508, Registered on 17 May 2023.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT)

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2.

RESULTS

Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol.

SUMMARY

Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.

Effect of propofol and ciprofol on the euphoric reaction in patients with painless gastroscopy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

Objective

To explore the effects of propofol and ciprofol on patient euphoric reactions during sedation in patients undergoing gastroscopy and to investigate potential factors that may influence euphoric reactions in patients.

Methods

A total of 217 patients were randomly divided into two groups: the propofol group (P group, n = 109) and the ciprofol group (C group, n = 108). The patients in the P group were given 2 mg/kg propofol, and those in the C group were given 0.5 mg/kg ciprofol. The patients were assessed using the Addiction Research Center Inventory-Chinese Version (ARCI-CV) to measure euphoric reactions at three time points: preexamination, 30 min after awakening, and 1 week after examination. Anxiety, depression, and sleep status were evaluated using appropriate scales at admission and 1 week after the examination. The dream rate, sedative effects, vital sign dynamics, and adverse reactions were documented during the sedation process.

Results

After 30 min of awakening, the P group and C group showed no statistically significant differences in the mean morphine-benzedrine group (MBG) score (8.84 vs. 9.09, P > 0.05), dream rate (42.2 % vs. 40.7 %, P > 0.05), or MBG score one week after the examination (7.04 vs. 7.05, P > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed that sex, dream status, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score, and examination time had notable impacts on the MBG-30 min score. No statistically significant differences were observed in sedative effects, anxiety, depression, or sleep status between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and severe hypotension was significantly lower in the C group (P < 0.05), and hemodynamics and SpO2 were more stable during sedation (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference between propofol and ciprofol in terms of euphoria experienced by patients after sedation in patients undergoing gastroscopy. Ciprofol has demonstrated addictive potential similar to that of propofol, warranting careful attention to its addictive potential during clinical application.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.

METHODS

This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.

Ciprofol as compared to propofol for sedation and general anesthesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.

RESULTS

The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.

Comparison of the Efficacy of HSK3486 and Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled, Phase 3 Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic associated with hypotension, respiratory depression, and injection-site pain. HSK3486 injectable emulsion (ciprofol) is a 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative with fast onset and quick, stable recovery. Previous studies support HSK3486 as an effective, safe anesthetic with substantially less injection-site pain than propofol. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful general anesthesia induction.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-five participants were enrolled in HSK3486-304, a multicenter, randomized (2:1), double-blind, propofol-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating HSK3486 for general anesthesia induction in adults undergoing elective surgery with tracheal intubation. The primary endpoint was successful anesthesia induction, defined as 1 or less on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of participants with injection-site pain on the Numerical Rating Scale of 1 or greater and a composite endpoint, including the proportion of participants successfully induced while maintaining the desired anesthetic depth and without substantial cardiac and respiratory events. Safety endpoints included adverse events, abnormal vital signs, and injection-site pain.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-one participants (HSK3486, n = 168; propofol, n = 83) were included in the analyses. General anesthesia was successfully induced in 97.0% versus 97.6% of participants with HSK3486 and propofol, respectively. The difference in success rate was -0.57% (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.2%); the noninferiority boundary of -8% was not crossed. Thirty participants (18.0%) had injection-site pain with HSK3486 versus 64 (77.1%) with propofol (P < 0.0001). Eighty-one participants (48.2%) with HSK3486 versus 42 (50.6%) with propofol (P = 0.8780) satisfied the composite endpoint. When injection-site pain was excluded, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events related to study drug was 17.9% for HSK3486 and 14.5% for propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

The study met its primary objective and endpoint, demonstrating noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful anesthetic induction. Substantially less injection-site pain was associated with HSK3486 than with propofol.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Comparison of ciprofol-alfentanil and propofol-alfentanil sedation during bidirectional endoscopy: A prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although propofol is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation, cardiopulmonary adverse events remain common. Ciprofol is a new intravenous anaesthetic agent demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic stability.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the benefits of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy) to reduce adverse events and improve post-endoscopic recovery.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients scheduled to undergo bidirectional endoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: ciprofol combined with alfentanil or propofol combined with alfentanil. All patients received 7 µg/kg alfentanil intravenously before the study drugs were administered. The propofol group received a bolus of 1.2 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) propofol intravenously, whereas the ciprofol group received a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) ciprofol intravenously. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with cardiopulmonary adverse events (i.e., any one of the airway obstruction, apnoea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia or arrhythmias).

RESULTS

Compared with propofol, ciprofol reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events by 43.51 % (34.4% vs. 60.9 %, P <0.001), mitigated respiratory adverse events by 54.74 % (17.2% vs. 38.0 %, P = 0.002) overall and by 59.05 % (12.9% vs. 31.5 %, P = 0.002) during the induction period.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can significantly decrease respiratory depression events and provides a better sedative efficacy than propofol with higher recovery quality and satisfaction.

Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol Combined With Sufentanil for Inhibiting the Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Placement Reaction in Elderly Patients

Objective

Ciprofol is a new sedative anesthetic drug that can be used for gastrointestinal endoscopy and induction of general anesthesia, but the appropriate dosage for use in elderly patients has not been determined. Sufentanil is a commonly used opioid in clinical practice, and this study was designed to induce anesthesia in elderly patients using sufentanil in combination with ciprofol. However, the optimal dosage of ciprofol when it is co-administered with sufentanil has not yet been established. This study was designed to find the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of ciprofol for intravenous anesthesia when combined with sufentanil.

Methods

We studied 57 patients who were scheduled to undergo a diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. According to age, it was divided into two groups: 65∼74 years old (group A) and over 75 years old (group B). Using the modified Dixon sequence test method, intravenous bolus of 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil was given 3 min before ciprofol is administered, the initial dose of ciprofol was 0.4 mg/kg, the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was placed after reaching the depth of sedation, and vital signs and adverse events were recorded at each perioperative time point (T0-T7).

Results

In the group A, when combined with 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil, the ED50 of ciprofol to inhibiting responses to insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was 0.23 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.09∼0.30 mg/kg; in the group B, the ED50 was 0.18 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.13∼0.22 mg/kg.

Conclusion

The ED50 of ciprofol in combination with sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: 0.23 mg/kg in group A and 0.18 mg/kg in group B.

The Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared to Dexmedetomidine for Awake Tracheal Intubation by Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Background

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that has the potential to be an alternative for procedural sedation due to its rapid sedation and recovery, no accumulation effect, stable hemodynamics, minimal respiratory depression, anterograde amnesia effect, and specific antagonist. Here, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam with dexmedetomidine for awake tracheal intubation by flexible bronchoscopy (ATI-FB).

Methods

Ninety patients scheduled for ATI-FB were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of 30 cases: dexmedetomidine 0.6 µg/kg + sufentanil (group DS), remimazolam 0.073 mg/kg + sufentanil (group R1S), or remimazolam 0.093 mg/kg + sufentanil (group R2S). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes were MOAA/S scores, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, intubation conditions, intubation time, tracheal intubation amnesia, and adverse events.

Results

The success rates of sedation in groups R2S and DS were higher than that in group R1S (93.3%, 86.7%, respectively, vs 58.6%; P = 0.002), and intubation conditions were better than those in group R1S (P < 0.05). Group R2S had shorter intubation times than groups R1S and DS (P = 0.003), and a higher incidence of tracheal intubation amnesia than group DS (P = 0.006). No patient in the three groups developed hypoxemia or hypotension, and there were no significant differences in oligopnea, PetCO2, or bradycardia (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

In conclusion, both DS and R2S had higher success rates of sedation, better intubation conditions, and minor respiratory depression, but R2S, with its shorter intubation time, higher incidence of anterograde amnesia, and ability to be antagonized by specific antagonists, may be a good alternative sedation regimen for patients undergoing ATI-FB.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.

Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and exposure-response analysis of ciprofol in the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective surgery: A prospective dose optimization study

AIM

This study aimed to establish a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model to explore the optimal maintenance dose and appropriate starting time of maintenance dose after induction of ciprofol and investigate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for general anesthesia induction and maintenance in patients undergoing elective surgery.

METHOD

A total of 334 subjects with 3092 concentration measurements from nine clinical trials and 115 subjects with 5640 bispectral index (BIS) measurements from two clinical trials were used in the population PK-PD analysis. Exposure-response relationships for both efficacy endpoints (duration of anesthesia successful induction, time to recovery from anesthesia, time to respiratory recovery, and time from discontinuation to the 1st/3rd consecutive Aldrete score ≥ 9) and safety variables (hypotension, bradycardia, and injection site pain) were evaluated based on the data gathered from 115 subjects in two clinical trials.

RESULT

Ciprofol pharmacokinetics (PK) were adequately described by a three-compartment model with first-order elimination from the central compartment and redistribution from the deep and shallow peripheral compartments. An inhibitory sigmoidal Emax model best described the relationship between ciprofol effect-site concentrations and BIS measurements. Body weight, age, sex, blood sampling site, and study type (short-term infusion vs long-term infusion) were identified as statistically significant covariates on the PK of ciprofol. No covariates were found to have a significant effect on the pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters. The PK-PD simulation results showed that the optimal maintenance dose was 0.8 mg/kg/h and the appropriate time to start the maintenance dose was 4-5 mins after the induction dose of ciprofol. Within the exposure range of this study, no meaningful correlations between ciprofol exposures and efficacy or safety endpoints were observed.

CONCLUSION

A population PK-PD model was successfully developed to describe the ciprofol PK and BIS changes. Efficacy was consistent across the exposure range with a well-tolerated safety profile indicating no maintenance dose adjustment is required for patients undergoing elective surgery.

Cytochrome P450 2B6 and UDP-Glucuronosyltransferase Enzyme-Mediated Clearance of Ciprofol (HSK3486) in Humans: The Role of Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metabolism

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous agent for general anesthesia. In humans, HSK3486 mainly undergoes glucuronidation to form M4 [fraction of clearance (fCL): 62.6%], followed by the formation of monohydroxylated metabolites that further undergo glucuronidation and sulfation to produce M5-1, M5-2, M5-3, and M3 (summed fCL: 35.2%). However, the complete metabolic pathways of HSK3486 in humans remain unclear. In this study, by comparison with chemically synthesized reference standards, three monohydroxylated metabolites [M7-1, 4-hydroxylation with an unbound intrinsic clearance (CLint,u) of 2211 μl/min/mg; M7-2, ω-hydroxylation with a CLint,u of 600 μl/min/mg; and M7-3, (ω-1)-hydroxylation with a CLint,u of 78.4 μl/min/mg] were identified in human liver microsomes, and CYP2B6 primarily catalyzed their formation. In humans, M7-1 was shown to undergo glucuronidation at the 4-position and 1-position by multiple UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) to produce M5-1 and M5-3, respectively, or was metabolized to M3 by cytosolic sulfotransferases. M7-2 was glucuronidated at the ω position by UGT1A9, 2B4, and 2B7 to form M5-2. UGT1A9 predominantly catalyzed the glucuronidation of HSK3486 (M4). The CLint,u values for M4 formation in human liver and kidney microsomes were 1028 and 3407 μl/min/mg, respectively. In vitro to in vivo extrapolation analysis suggested that renal glucuronidation contributed approximately 31.4% of the combined clearance. In addition to HSK3486 glucuronidation (M4), 4-hydroxylation (M7-1) was identified as another crucial oxidative metabolic pathway (fCL: 34.5%). Further attention should be paid to the impact of CYP2B6- and UGT1A9-mediated drug interactions and gene polymorphisms on the exposure and efficacy of HSK3486. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This research elucidates the major oxidative metabolic pathways of HSK3486 (the formation of three monohydroxylated metabolites: M7-1, M7-2, M7-3) as well as definitive structures and formation pathways of these monohydroxylated metabolites and their glucuronides or sulfate in humans. This research also identifies major metabolizing enzymes responsible for the glucuronidation (UGT1A9) and oxidation (CYP2B6) of HSK3486 and characterizes the mechanism of extrahepatic metabolism. The above information is helpful in guiding the safe use of HSK3486 in the clinic.

Dreaming during gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol, ciprofol, or remimazolam anesthesia: study protocol for a parallel-design double-blind, single-center trial

BACKGROUND

Dreaming sometimes occurs during sedation. It has been reported that factors such as different anesthetics, depth of anesthesia, age, sex, and preoperative psychological state may affect dreams. Ciprofol and remimazolam are novel choices for painless endoscopy. Herein, we aimed to investigate dreaming during gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol, ciprofol, and remimazolam anesthesia respectively.

METHODS

This is a prospective, parallel-design double-blind, single-center clinical trial. Three hundred and sixty subjects undergoing elective painless gastroscopy, colonoscopy, or gastroenteroscopy will be enrolled. Eligible subjects will undergo propofol-, ciprofol-, or remimazolam-induced anesthesia to finish the examination. Interviews about the modified Brice questionnaire will be conducted in the recovery room. Incidence of dreaming is set as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include type of dreams, improvement of sleep quality, evaluation of patients, incidence of insufficient anesthesia, and intraoperative awareness. Safety outcomes are the incidences of hypotension and hypoxia during examination and adverse events during recovery.

DISCUSSION

This study may observe different incidences of dreaming and diverse types of dreams, which might lead to different evaluations to the anesthesia procedure. Based on the coming results, anesthesiologists can make a better medication plan for patients who are going to undergo painless diagnosis and treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on May 18, 2023 (registration number ChiCTR2300071565).

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) for procedural sedation and anesthesia induction in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer adverse events. We summarized all available evidence and analyzed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol during procedural sedation and anesthesia induction.

Methods

An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Science Direct, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and the VIP Chinese Journal Service platform was conducted from inception of databases to March 1, 2023. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used separately for binary categorical and continuous variables. We performed trial sequential analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to judge the certainty of evidence.

Results

Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 2441 patients were included in this study. Ciprofol showed similar advantages to propofol in terms of induction success rate (RR = 1, 95 % CI = 0.99, 1.01, moderate certainty) and induction time (MD = 3.31, 95 % CI = -0.34, 6.95, low certainty), but did not increase the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95 % CI = 0.78, 1.00, very low certainty), such as bradycardia (RR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.77, 1.21, high certainty), hypoxia (RR = 0.79, 95 % CI = 0.46, 1.37, p = 0.40, moderate certainty) and other adverse events. Although it may be associated with a longer time to be fully alert (MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = 0.32, 2.12, very low certainty), ciprofol significantly reduced injection pain (RR = 0.15, 95 % CI 0.09, 0.24, low certainty) and may have reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.63, 0.94, low certainty) and respiratory depression (RR = 0.29, 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.56, moderate certainty).

Conclusion

Ciprofol and propofol had similar effects on most outcomes. While the time to full alertness may be prolonged, injection pain was significantly reduced, and hypotension and respiratory depression may be reduced compared with propofol. We believe that ciprofol is an effective alternative to intravenous anesthetic agents.

Comparison of anesthetic effects of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing ERCP: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTS

Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are often old and poor in physical fitness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the anesthetic effect of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

In this clinical trial, 137 patients, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into three groups. Group A were given 0.15 μg/kg/min of alfentanil in maintenance stage, Group B were given 0.25 μg/kg/min and Group C were given 0.35 μg/kg/min. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) of the patients at each time point including the entry into the operation room (T0), at the beginning of surgery(T1), 10 min after surgery(T2), 20 min after surgery(T3), 30 min after surgery(T4),endoscopy withdrawal (T5) were recorded. Adverse events(including respiratory depression, body movement and hypoxemia),the dosage of ciprofol, the time of operation time and awakening were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with Group A, MAP and HR in Group B and Group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with group B, MAP and HR in group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with Group A and Group C,the number of adverse reactions of Group B was decreased(P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in surgical time among the three groups(P > 0.05),but a statistically significant difference in recovery time (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The adverse events of alfentanil 0.25μg/kg/min combined with ciprofol were low, and the anesthetic effect was the best.

A preclinical study on online monitoring of exhaled ciprofol concentration by the ultraviolet time-of-flight spectrometer and prediction of anesthesia depth in beagles

BACKGROUND

Exhaled air has been demonstrated as a reliable medium for monitoring propofol concentration. However, online monitoring of exhaled ciprofol have not been reported.

METHODS

Thirty-six beagles undergoing mechanical ventilation were divided into 6 groups, including bolus injection of low (Group BL, n = 6), medium (Group BM, n = 6), and high dose of ciprofol (Group BH, n = 6) groups; as well as 1 h continuous infusion of low (Group IL, n = 6), medium (Group IM, n = 6), and high dose of ciprofol (Group IH, n = 6) groups. The ciprofol concentration in exhaled air (CE) was determined by the ultraviolet time-of-flight mass spectrometer (UV-TOFMS). The correlations of CE and plasma concentration (Cp), CE and the bispectral index (BIS) were explored. Additionally, the pharmacokinetics (PK) models of CE and Cp, the pharmacodynamics (PD) models of CE and BIS were also established.

RESULTS

Online monitoring of exhaled ciprofol can be achieved with the UV-TOFMS instrument. The CE of ciprofol in beagles was found at parts per billion by volume (ppbv) level. The linear correlation of CE and Cp was weak in bolus injection groups (R2 = 0.01) nonetheless moderate in continuous infusion groups (R2 = 0.53). The i.v. bolus PK model of CE and Cp can be fitted with the non-compartment models. Additionally, the the PD models of CE and BIS can be well fitted with the inhibitory sigmoid Emax model with the estimate values of IC50 = 0.05 ± 0.01 ppbv, γ = 4.74 ± 1.51, E0 = 81.40 ± 3.75, Imax = 16.35 ± 4.27 in bolus injection groups; and IC50 = 0.05 ± 0.01 ppbv, γ = 6.92 ± 1.30, E0 = 83.08 ± 1.62, Imax = 12.58 ± 1.65 in continuous infusion groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Online monitoring of exhaled ciprofol concentration in beagles can be achieved with the UV-TOFMS instrument. Good correlations can be observed between exhaled ciprofol concentration and its cerebral effects reflected by the BIS value, demonstrating the potential of exhaled ciprofol monitoring for titrating depth of anesthesia in future clinical setting.

Drug-drug interaction of ciprofol injectable emulsion with mefenamic acid capsules in healthy subjects

AIMS

To investigate the drug-drug interaction (DDI) of ciprofol injectable emulsion and mefenamic acid capsules in healthy subjects.

METHODS

Twenty healthy subjects were enrolled in this single-centre, open-label, two-period DDI study. Ciprofol (0.4 mg kg-1 ) was administered as a single dose on days 1 and 5. A 500-mg oral loading dose of mefenamic acid was given on day 4 followed by a 250-mg maintenance dose every 6 h (a total of eight doses). Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analyses were collected. Depth of anaesthesia was monitored using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale and Bispectral Index scores (BISs).

RESULTS

Compared with administration of ciprofol alone, administration with mefenamic acid showed no significant difference in exposure. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and their 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ), area under the plasma concentration-time curve calculated from 0 to the last measurement point (AUC0-last ) and AUC to infinity (AUC0-inf ) were 91.6% (86.5-96.9%), 103.3% (100.3-106.4%) and 107.0% (101.2-113.2%), respectively. The MOAA/S and BIS curves for the two treatment periods essentially coincided, indicating that the anaesthesia effect of ciprofol was not affected by mefenamic acid. Seven subjects (35%) reported eight adverse events (AEs) when ciprorol was administered alone and 12 subjects (60%) reported 18 AEs when ciprofol was administered in combination with mefenamic acid. All AEs were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Mefenamic acid, a UGT1A9 inhibitor, had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ciprofol in healthy subjects. Ciprofol was safe and well tolerated when administered with mefenamic acid.

Drug-drug interaction study of ciprofol and sodium divalproex: Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety in healthy Chinese subjects

Ciprofol (also known as HSK3486) is a promising intravenous anesthetic candidate derived from propofol and independently developed by Haisco Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (Chengdu, China). Compared with propofol, ciprofol has the potential to reduce the dose required and the associated risks. Ciprofol is extensively metabolized in vivo, and its interaction with other concurrently administered drugs during clinical application is worthy of attention. Therefore, an open-label, two-stage sequential study was performed in healthy subjects who received either a single administration of ciprofol injection or ciprofol injection after oral administration of sodium divalproex. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of sodium divalproex on ciprofol with respect to pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, thus providing a basis for the rational clinical use of ciprofol and sodium divalproex.

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Sedation in ICU Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol for sedating patients in ICUs who required mechanical ventilation (MV).

DESIGN

A multicenter, single-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial.

SETTING

Twenty-one centers across China from December 2020 to June 2021.

PATIENTS

A total of 135 ICU patients 18 to 80 years old with endotracheal intubation and undergoing MV, who were expected to require sedation for 6-24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

One hundred thirty-five ICU patients were randomly allocated into ciprofol ( n = 90) and propofol ( n = 45) groups in a 2:1 ratio. Ciprofol or propofol were IV infused at loading doses of 0.1 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, over 4 minutes ± 30 seconds depending on the physical condition of each patient. Ciprofol or propofol were then immediately administered at an initial maintenance dose of 0.3 mg/kg/hr or 1.5 mg/kg/hr, to achieve the target sedation range of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (+1 to -2). Besides, continuous IV remifentanil analgesia was administered (loading dose: 0.5-1 μg/kg, maintenance dose: 0.02-0.15 μg/kg/min).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 135 patients enrolled, 129 completed the study. The primary endpoint-sedation success rates of ciprofol and propofol groups were 97.7% versus 97.8% in the full analysis set (FAS) and were both 100% in per-protocol set (PPS). The noninferiority margin was set as 8% and confirmed with a lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the inter-group difference of -5.98% and -4.32% in the FAS and PPS groups. Patients who received ciprofol had a longer recovery time ( p = 0.003), but there were no differences in the remaining secondary endpoints (all p > 0.05). The occurrence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or drug-related TEAEs were not significantly different between the groups (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol was well tolerated, with a noninferior sedation profile to propofol in Chinese ICU patients undergoing MV for a period of 6-24 hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation

Background: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Results: Twelve RCTs (sedation: n = 6, anesthetic induction, n = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I2 = 0%, 1,106 patients, p = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I2 = 97%, 1,594 patients, p = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, p = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, p = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, p = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, p = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, p = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, p = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, p = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, p = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, p < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).

Calibration and validation of ultraviolet time-of-flight mass spectrometry for online measurement of exhaled ciprofol

Ciprofol (HSK 3486, C14H20O), a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative similar to propofol, is a new type of intravenous general anaesthetic. We found that the exhaled ciprofol concentration could be measured online by ultraviolet time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UV-TOFMS), which could be used to predict the plasma concentration and anaesthetic effects of ciprofol. In this study, we present the calibration method and validation results of UV-TOFMS for the quantification of ciprofol gas. Using a self-developed gas generator to prepare different concentrations of ciprofol calibration gas, we found a linear correlation between the concentration and intensity of ciprofol from 0 parts per trillion by level (pptv) to 485.85 pptv (R2 = 0.9987). The limit of quantification was 48.59 pptv and the limit of detection was 7.83 pptv. The imprecision was 12.44% at 97.17 pptv and was 8.96% at 485.85 pptv. The carry-over duration was 120 seconds. In addition, we performed a continuous infusion of ciprofol in beagles, measured the exhaled concentration of ciprofol by UV-TOFMS, determined the plasma concentration by high-performance liquid chromatography, and monitored the anaesthetic effects as reflected by the bispectral index value. The results showed that the exhaled and plasma concentrations of ciprofol were linearly correlated. The exhaled ciprofol concentration correlated well with the anaesthetic effect. The study showed that we could use UV-TOFMS to provide a continuous measurement of gaseous ciprofol concentration at 20 second intervals.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for long-term sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICUs: a prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled protocol

Introduction: Critically ill patients who receive mechanical ventilation after endotracheal intubation commonly experience discomfort and pressure. The major sedative drugs that are currently used in clinical practice present with many complications, such as hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression. Ciprofol (HSK3486), which is a newly developed structural analog of propofol, is a short-acting gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonist, and its mechanism of action is sedation or anesthesia by enhancing GABA-mediated chloride influx. The high efficacy of ciprofol for short-term sedation is comparable to that of propofol, and it has a relatively low incidence of adverse effects and high level of safety, which has been confirmed by multiple clinical studies. However, few studies have examined its safety and efficacy for long-term sedation. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: A prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized, propofol-controlled, non-inferiority trial is proposed. The study will enroll 112 mechanically ventilated patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital affiliated with Tongji University based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study, and randomly assign them to a group sedated with either ciprofol or propofol. The primary outcome is the percentage of time spent under target sedation, and secondary outcomes include drug dose, number of cases requiring additional dextrometropine, incidence of systolic blood pressure <80 or >180 mmHg, incidence of diastolic blood pressure <50 or >100 mmHg, incidence of heart rate <50 beats per minute (bpm) or >120 bpm, inflammatory indicators, blood lipid levels, liver and kidney functions, nutritional indicators, ventilator-free days within the 7-day period after enrollment, 28-day mortality, ICU stay duration, and hospitalization costs. Discussion: We hypothesize that the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients will not be inferior to that of propofol. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry identifier ChiCTR2200066951.

The Effect of Different Doses of Ciprofol in Patients with Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ciprofol is currently used for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and anesthesia induction. However, whether it is superior to propofol and its optimal dose remains unknown.

Methods

A total of 149 patients, 63 males and 86 females, aged 18-80 years, BMI 18-28 kg/m², ASA I-III, were divided randomly into four groups: propofol group (group P, n = 44), ciprofol 0.2mg/kg group (group C2, n = 38), ciprofol 0.3mg/kg group (group C3, n = 36) and ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg group (group C4, n = 31). Groups C2, C3 and C4 had injected IV with ciprofol 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mg/kg, respectively. Group P had injected IV with propofol 1.5mg/kg. The time for disappearance of the eyelash reflex, gastrointestinal endoscopy time, recovery time, and the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score at awakening (T₁), 15 minutes after awakening (T₂) and 30 minutes after awakening (T₃) were recorded.

Results

Compared with group P, the time to fall asleep was significantly shortened, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting and injection pain was significantly lower in groups C2, C3 and C4 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in recovery time and recovery quality between each group (P > 0.05). Compared with group P and C4, the incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression was significantly lower in groups C2 and C3 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The appropriate dose of ciprofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is more advantageous than propofol in hemodynamics and respiratory stability, with less injection pain and nausea and vomiting, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is being increasingly practised in the clinical field. The management and choice of sedation are important during the endoscopy procedure to reduce patient discomfort and facilitate high disease detection rates. Ciprofol is principally an agonist of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor; it comprises the active ingredient HSK3486, which is similar to the currently used intravenous anaesthetic propofol in clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ciprofol and propofol will be conducted to assess their efficacy and safety during endoscopy. Before starting the study, we describe the specific protocol of this systematic review.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols 2015. The following databases will be searched: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database and a clinical trial registry. The database search strategy will adopt a combination of subject words and free words. Randomised controlled trials related to ciprofol use for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy will also be included. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers will independently screen the articles and extracted data. Following the qualitative evaluation of each study, analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis involves no individual patient data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This will be the first meta-analysis to assess the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and provide evidence to clinicians for decision-making. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-review journals related to this field.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022370047.

Clinical effect of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients: A randomized, controlled trial

Ciprofol is a newly developed intravenous anesthetic agent with improved pharmacokinetic properties. Compared to propofol, ciprofol exhibits stronger binding to the GABAA receptor and elicits a greater enhancement of GABAA receptor-mediated neuronal currents in vitro. The aims of the present clinical trials were to examine the safety and efficacy of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. A total of 105 elderly patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive one of three sedation regimens: (1) the C1 group (0.2 mg/kg ciprofol), (2) the C2 group (0.3 mg/kg ciprofol), (3) the C3 group (0.4 mg/kg ciprofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of various adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and injection pain. The secondary outcomes of efficacy were the success rate of general anesthesia induction, the time to anesthesia induction, and the frequency of remedial sedation was recorded in each group. Adverse events occurred in 13 patients (37%) in group C1, 8 patients (22%) in group C2, and 24 patients (68%) in group C3. Compared with group C2, the total incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in group C1 and group C3 (p < .001).The success rate of general anesthesia induction in the three groups was 100%. Compared with group C1, the frequency of remedial sedation was significantly lower in group C2 and group C3. The outcomes demonstrated that ciprofol at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg has good safety and efficacy in the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. Overall, ciprofol is a new and viable option for the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing elective surgery.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor.

AIM

To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery, and to assess its safety.

METHOD

A total of 109 patients undergoing selective non-emergency, non-cardiothoracic or non-neurosurgical surgery requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were enrolled. Ten patients per group were assigned to ciprofol-0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg, and propofol-2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively to receive an intravenous bolus dose. An additional 20 patients were enrolled in the ciprofol-0.3, 0.5 or propofol-2.0 mg/kg groups. The primary outcome was the success rate of induction defined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤ 1 after the initial bolus dose. The secondary outcomes included the time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 1, the time to loss of the eyelash reflex, the incidences and severity of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

The success rates were 100% for all 5 groups. The mean time to MOAA/S ≤ 1 and the time to loss of the eyelash reflex were not different among the 5 groups, regardless of whether a top-up dose was needed. There were no significant differences in the incidences and severity of AEs in the dose ranges investigated of ciprofol vs. propofol.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of a single bolus dose of ciprofol-0.5 mg/kg for the general anesthesia induction in selective surgery patients was comparable to that of propofol-2.0 mg/kg.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03698617, retrospectively registered.

Study on the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol in anesthesia in gynecological day surgery: a randomized double-blind controlled study

BACKGROUD

ciprofol is a new type of intravenous anesthetic, which is a tautomer of propofol, with the characteristics of less injection pain, less respiratory depression and higher potency, but little clinical experience. The aim of this study was to observe the efficacy and safety of the application of ciprofol in ambulatory surgery anesthesia in gynecology.

METHODS

128 patients were selected to undergo gynecological day surgery under general anesthesia, and the patients were randomly divided into the ciprofol group and the propofol group, with 64 cases in each group. During anesthesia induction, the ciprofol group was infused at a time limit of 0.5 mg/kg for one minute, and the propofol group was infused at a time limit of 2 mg/kg for 1 min. The overall incidence of adverse events was the primary outcome for this study, while secondary outcomes included the success rate of anesthesia induction, the time of loss of consciousness, the time of awakening,top-up dose and frequency of use of rescue drugs.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared with the propofol group (56.2% vs. 92.2%,P < 0.05). The success rate of anesthesia induction of ciprofol and propofol group was 100.0%. The time of loss of consciousness of the ciprofol group was longer than that of the propofol group (1.6 ± 0.4 min vs. 1.4 ± 0.2 min, P < 0.05). The time of awakening was not statistically significant (5.4 ± 2.8 min vs. 4.6 ± 1.6 min, P > 0.05). The number of drug additions and resuscitation drugs used were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol, ciprofol had a similar anesthetic effect in gynecological ambulatory surgery, and the incidence of adverse events in the ciprofol group was lower.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Ciprofol: A Novel Alternative to Propofol in Clinical Intravenous Anesthesia?

Ciprofol is a novel compound that was independently developed in China. According to the Chinese product instructions approved by the China National Medical Products Administration and the information of official website, indications for ciprofol include sedation and anesthesia during the surgical/procedure of nontracheal intubation, induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, and sedation during intensive care. Ciprofol is a short-acting intravenous sedative based on the structural modification of propofol. Ciprofol has high efficacy, good selectivity, and fewer adverse reactions, indicating good clinical application potential. A series of clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate the sedative effect of ciprofol in various procedures and settings, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy, fiber-optic bronchoscopy, general anesthesia in elective surgeries, and mechanical ventilation in intensive care units. This review summarizes the chemical structure, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetic properties of ciprofol. We also assessed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol by synthesizing the relevant clinical trial data.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil during fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

Objective: Ciprofol is a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative that has improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with propofol. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil for patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Methods: Overall, 92 patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial and were equally divided into two groups (n = 46 each). Fentanyl (50 μg) was given 2 min before the intravenous infusion of 0.3 mg/kg of ciprofol or 1.2 mg/kg of propofol over a time period of 30 s. During anesthesia maintenance, 0.05-0.2 μg/kg/min of remifentanil combined with one-third to one-fourth of the initial dose of ciprofol or propofol was repeated at 2-min intervals, as required, to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale score <3. The primary outcome was the successful rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Secondary outcomes included demographic characteristics, time metrics, hemodynamics, coughing severity, intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, utilization of study drug doses, number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs) used, satisfaction scores of both patients and the endoscopist, occurrence of intraoperative awareness, patients' willing to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and occurrence and severity of adverse events. Results: The successful completion rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was 91.30% (42 of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.80%-99.80%) in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and 89.13% (41 of 46; 95% CI: 79.80%-98.50%) in the propofol-remifentanil group. Though the clinically acceptable intubating condition was improved in the ciprofol-remifentanil group, this difference has no clinical statistical difference (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted between the two groups with respect to time metrics, consumption of fentanyl and remifentanil, or number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs). Patients' willingness to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy and the satisfaction of both patients and endoscopist were significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). Compared with patients in the propofol-remifentanil group, patients in the ciprofol-remifentanil group had more stable hemodynamics. The lowest oxygen saturation was significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). The numbers of patients who experienced pain on injection in the ciprofol-remifentanil group was significantly lower than the number in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.01). Severity of coughing, clinically acceptable severity of coughing, incidence of intraoperative awareness, and other adverse events were all similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Only four patients experienced grade 2 adverse events (severe hypotension in one patient in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and three patients in the propofol-remifentanil group; p > 0.05); they were treated with noradrenaline. Conclusion: Ciprofol-remifentanil was non-inferior to propofol-remifentanil with regard to successful sedation for flexible bronchoscopy, when used with pre-intravenous administration of 50 μg of fentanyl. At the same time, patients' willingness to repeat flexible bronchoscopy and the satisfactions were all significantly improved.