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.

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.

Ciprofol ameliorates ECS-induced learning and memory impairment by modulating aerobic glycolysis in the hippocampus of depressive-like rats

Electroconvulsive shock (ECS) is utilized to treat depression but may cause learning/memory impairments, which may be ameliorated by anesthetics through the modulation of hippocampal synaptic plasticity. Given that synaptic plasticity is governed by aerobic glycolysis, it remains unclear whether anesthetics modulate aerobic glycolysis to enhance learning and memory function. Depression-like behavior in rats was induced by chronic mild unpredictable stress (CUMS), with anhedonia assessed via sucrose preference test (SPT). Depressive-like behaviors and spatial learning/memory were assessed with forced swim test (FST), open field test (OFT), and Morris water maze (MWM) test. Changes in aerobic glycolysis and synaptic plasticity in the hippocampal region of depressive-like rats post-ECS were documented using immunofluorescence analysis, Western blot, Lactate Assay Kit and transmission electron microscopy. Both the OFT and FST indicated that ECS was effective in alleviating depressive-like behaviors. The MWM test demonstrated that anesthetics were capable of attenuating ECS-induced learning and memory deficits. Immunofluorescence analysis, Western blot, Lactate Assay Kit and transmission electron microscopy revealed that the decline in learning and memory abilities in ECS-induced depressive-like rats was correlated with decreased aerobic glycolysis, and that the additional use of ciprofol or propofol ameliorated these alterations. Adding the glycolysis inhibitor 2-DG diminished the ameliorative effects of the anesthetic. No significant difference was observed between ciprofol and propofol in enhancing aerobic glycolysis in astrocytes and synaptic plasticity after ECS. These findings may contribute to understanding the mechanisms by which anesthetic drugs modulate learning and memory impairment after ECS in depressive-like behavior rats.

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.

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.

Ciprofol is primarily glucuronidated by UGT1A9 and predicted not to cause drug-drug interactions with typical substrates of CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP2C19

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent. Its major glucuronide metabolite, M4, is found in plasma and urine. However, the specific isoforms of UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) that metabolize ciprofol to M4 remain unknown. This study systematically characterized UGTs that contribute to the formation of M4 using human liver microsomes (HLM), human intestinal microsomes (HIM), and human recombinant UGTs. The inhibitory potential of ciprofol and M4 against major human UGTs and cytochrome P450 enzymes (P450s) was also explored. In vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) simulations were performed to predict potential in vivo drug-drug interactions (DDIs) caused by ciprofol. Glucuronidation of ciprofol followed Michaelis-Menten kinetics in both HLM and HIM with apparent Km values of 345 and 412 μM, Vmax values of 2214 and 444 nmol min-1·mg protein-1, respectively. The in vitro intrinsic clearances (CLint = Vmax/Km) for ciprofol glucuronidation by HLM and HIM were 6.4 and 1.1 μL min-1·mg protein-1, respectively. Human recombinant UGT studies revealed that UGT1A9 is the predominant isoform mediating M4 formation, followed by UGT1A7, with UGT1A8 playing a minor role. Ciprofol competitively inhibited CYP1A2 (Ki = 12 μM) and CYP2B6 (Ki = 4.7 μM), and noncompetitively inhibited CYP2C19 (Ki = 29 μM). No time-dependent inhibition by ciprofol was noted for CYP1A2, CYP2B6, or CYP2C19. In contrast, M4 showed limited or no inhibitory effects against selected P450s. Neither ciprofol nor M4 inhibited UGTs significantly. Initial IVIVE suggested potential ciprofol-mediated inhibition of CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP2C19 inhibition in vivo. However, PBPK simulations showed no significant effect on phenacetin, bupropion, and S-mephenytoin exposure or peak plasma concentration. Our findings are pertinent for future DDI studies of ciprofol as either a perpetrator or victim drug.

Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic. Studies have shown that it features a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery time, slight inhibition of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices.

METHODS

We included 25 patients aged 18-64 years of either sex who underwent gastroscopy under intravenous general anesthesia, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18-28 kg/m2, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon's up-and-down method with an initial dose of 0.30 mg/kg and an increment of 0.02 mg/kg. Ciprofol was administered after intravenous injection of 7 µg/kg of alfentanil, and 2 min later a gastroscope was inserted. When the insertion response of one participant was positive (including body movement, coughing, and eye opening), an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. A Probit model was used to calculate the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with alfentanil. Patients' recovery time, discharge time, vital signs and occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Patients' recovery time and discharge time were 11.04 ± 1.49 min and 9.64 ± 2.38 min, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 12%.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727).

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.

Nrf2 attenuates oxidative stress to mediate the protective effect of ciprofol against cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury

Neuroinflammation and oxidative stress damage are involved in the pathogenesis of cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury (CIRI). Ferroptosis emerged as a new player in the regulation of lipid peroxidation processes. This study aimed at exploring the potential involvement of ciprofol on ferroptosis-associated CIRI and subsequent neurological deficits in the mouse model of transient cerebral ischemia and reperfusion. Cerebral ischemia was built in male C57BL/6 J wild-type (WT) and Nrf2-knockout (Nrf2 KO) mice in the manner of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) followed by reperfusion. Ciprofol improved autonomic behavior, alleviated reactive oxygen species output and ferroptosis-induced neuronal death by nucleus transportation of NFE2 like BZIP transcription factor 2 (Nrf2) and the promotion of heme oxygenase 1 (Ho-1), solute carrier family 7 member 11 (SLC7A11/xCT), and glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4). Additionally, ciprofol improved neurological scores and reduced infarct volume, brain water content, and necrotic neurons. Cerebral blood flow in MCAO-treated mice was also improved. Furthermore, absence of Nrf2 abrogated the neuroprotective actions of ciprofol on antioxidant capacity and sensitized neurons to oxidative stress damage. In vitro, the primary-cultured cortical neurons from mice were pre-treated with oxygen-glucose deprivation/reperfusion (OGD/R), followed by ciprofol administration. Ciprofol effectively reversed OGD/R-induced ferroptosis and accelerated transcription of GPX4 and xCT. In conclusion, we investigated the ciprofol-induced inhibition effect of ferroptosis-sheltered neurons from lipid preoxidation in the pathogenesis of CIRI via Nrf2-xCT-GPX4 signaling pathway.

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.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia in non-operating room settings

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, provides rapid recovery in patients undergoing colonoscopy. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in comparison with propofol for sedation or anesthesia in non-operating room settings including endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

We recruited 207 patients scheduled for an endoscopic procedure from October 2021 to December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized into three groups according to the dose during induction (n = 69 each): 1) ciprofol 6 mg/kg/h, 2) ciprofol 8 mg/kg/h, or 3) propofol 40 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol or propofol was administered throughout the procedure.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation or anesthesia for the procedures. Secondary outcomes included induction time, endoscope insertion time, recovery time, discharge time, incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs), neurological and inflammatory outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

The procedure success rates in the three groups were 100%. The induction time in the 6 (3.3 ± 1.0 min) and 8 mg/kg/h (2.9 ± 0.6 min) ciprofol groups was longer than that in the propofol group (2.5 ± 0.6 min) only in patients undergoing FB (p = 0.004). The time for patients to be fully alert and discharged from the post-anesthesia care unit was comparable across the three groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of drug-related AEs in the propofol and 6 and 8 mg/kg/h ciprofol groups was 84.1%, 76.8%, and 79.7%. No pain on injection was reported by ciprofol groups. Neurological outcomes and inflammatory responses were comparable among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol induced a level of sedation or anesthesia equivalent to that induced by propofol in non-operating room settings except for a prolonged induction time in patients undergoing FB. Ciprofol had a safety profile similar to that of propofol. No pain on injection was reported by ciprofol.

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.

Anesthesia with ciprofol in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: A case report

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel agent for intravenous general anesthesia. In February 2022, it was approved by the National Medical Products Administration for general anesthesia induction and maintenance. It has the advantages of fast onset, fast elimination, stable circulation, and few adverse reactions. However, the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass have not been reported. Here we describe a case where ciprofol was successfully used for anesthesia in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

CASE SUMMARY

A 72-year-old man (height 176 cm; weight 70 kg) was diagnosed with coronary atherosclerotic cardiomyopathy requiring coronary artery bypass grafting and left ventricular aneurysmectomy. Ciprofol was administered for induction (0.4 mg/kg) and maintenance (0.6-1.0 mg/kg/h) of general anesthesia. During the entire operation, the bispectral index, hemodynamics, and blood oxygen saturation were maintained at normal levels. The patient recovered well after surgery, with no serious adverse events related to ciprofol.

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol is safe and effective for anesthesia in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol use for the induction of general anesthesia in patients undergoing gynecological surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background

Ciprofol is a recently developed, short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist sedative that is more potent than propofol, but there have been few clinical studies of this agent to date. Here, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ciprofol use for the induction of general anesthesia in individuals undergoing gynecological surgery.

Methods

Women between the ages of 18 and 60 years (ASA physical status 1 or 2) who were scheduled to undergo elective gynecological surgery under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to two equally sized groups in which anesthesia induction was performed using either ciprofol or propofol. General anesthesia induction success rates were the primary outcome for this study, while secondary outcomes included changes in BIS during the 10 min following the first administration of the study drug, the duration of successful induction, and adverse event incidence.

Results

A total of 120 women were included in the study. A 100% rate of successful induction was achieved in both the ciprofol and propofol groups, with no significant differences between these groups with respect to the duration of successful induction (34.8 ± 15.5 s vs 35.4 ± 9.5 s, P = 0.832), the time to the disappearance of the eyelash reflex (33.7 ± 10.6 s vs 34.0 ± 6.5 s, P = 0.860), or tracheal intubation (58.2 ± 31.1 s vs 53.9 ± 25.4 s, P = 0.448). Adverse event rates, including intubation responses, were significantly lower in the ciprofol group as compared to the propofol group(20% vs 48.33%, P = 0.0019). Ciprofol was associated with reduced injection pain relative to propofol (16.7% vs 58.3%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Ciprofol exhibits comparable efficacy to that of propofol when used for the induction of general anesthesia in individuals undergoing gynecological surgery and is associated with fewer adverse events.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01782-7.

Sedation Effects Produced by a Ciprofol Initial Infusion or Bolus Dose Followed by Continuous Maintenance Infusion in Healthy Subjects: A Phase 1 Trial

Introduction

The effects of continuous infusions of ciprofol on its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and safety profiles in healthy Chinese subjects were evaluated.

Methods

In this open-label, randomized, two-way cross-over study, subjects received initial doses of continuous ciprofol/propofol as an infusion for 30 min in part 1 (n = 8) and a bolus dose in part 2 (n = 8) followed by maintenance infusions for a total of 4 h in part 1 and 12 h in part 2. Each subject participated in both parts with a washout time of at least 40 h.

Results

The safety and tolerability parameters of ciprofol were similar to those of propofol, and all treatment-emergent adverse events were mild. The incidences of injection pain and respiratory depression in subjects given ciprofol were lower than those receiving propofol. The pharmacokinetic parameters C_max, t_max, t_1/2, λz and MRT for ciprofol and propofol were similar, while CL, V_d and V_ss were statistically significantly different. Pharmacodynamic parameters including the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and bispectral index profiles of ciprofol were similar to those of propofol.

Conclusion

Ciprofol has potential for clinical application for continuous intravenous infusion to maintain sedation for 12 h with the same safety, tolerability and efficacy as propofol.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01914-4.

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Sedation in ICU Patients with Mechanical Ventilation: A Clinical Trial Study Protocol

INTRODUCTION

From previous studies of pharmacodynamic data in mice, rats, beagle dogs and mini pigs, frequently in direct comparison to induction doses of propofol, ciprofol produced a rapid onset of anesthesia/sedation.

METHODS

A phase 1 study suggested potential clinical advantages of ciprofol as a sedation/anesthetic agent, with no evidence of drug-related toxicity. However, the sedation effects and safety of ciprofol in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with mechanical ventilation should be further confirmed in a phase 3 study with a larger cohort of patients. During a phase 3, non-inferiority, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, propofol controlled trial, Chinese ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and requiring endotracheal intubation will be sedated for 6-24 h after randomization. Considering a success rate for ICU sedation of 99% for ciprofol and the positive control drug propofol, a total sample size of 120 subjects with mechanical ventilation will be required to achieve 80% power to determine non-inferiority with a margin of 8%. Finally, taking into account 10% losses, 135 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned to ciprofol (90 cases) and propofol (45 cases) groups in a 2:1 ratio. The primary outcome will be the success rate of sedation satisfied by the following conditions: the time within the range of Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (+ 1 ~ - 2) must account for ≥ 70% of the study drug administration time and without other rescue treatments. Secondary outcomes will include the average time to reach the sedation goal, study drug usage, rescue medication given per unit weight, extubation time, recovery time to full consciousness and nursing scores. Safety endpoints will include adverse events (AEs), drug related AEs and serious AEs.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The results of this study will provide crucial information on the use of ciprofol for sedation of patients in ICUs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04620031.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy: Phase IIa and IIb multi-center clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Ciprofol is a new intravenous anesthetic agent similar to propofol that has the pharmacodynamic characteristics of a rapid rate of onset and recovery in pre-clinical experiments. The aims of the present clinical trials were to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol emulsion for sedation or general anesthesia during colonoscopy and to define optimal doses for a subsequent phase III clinical trial.

METHODS

A phase IIa multi-center, open-label, non-randomized, positive control, dose-escalating study was performed to determine a recommended phase IIb dose (RP2D) of ciprofol to induce sedation or anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Phase IIb was also a multi-center clinical trial, but the patients were randomized into 3 groups at a ratio of 1:1:1. It was a double-blinded, propofol controlled study that administered ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg (n = 31) and 0.5 mg/kg (n = 32) or propofol at 2.0 mg/kg (n = 31), with the aim of establishing the optimal dose of ciprofol. The primary endpoint was the colonoscopy success rate. Secondary endpoints were the duration of colonoscope insertion, recovery time, number of top-up doses needed, and the total dose of ciprofol or propofol required to maintain adequate sedation or anesthesia. In addition, we evaluated the satisfaction of sedation/anesthesia from the endoscopists, anesthetists and patients' points of view. Safety was assessed according to the incidence of AEs including serious AEs and drug related AEs and the assessment of vital signs, a 12-lead ECG and laboratory tests.

RESULTS

In the phase IIa trial, the colonoscopy success rates in the 0.2-0.5 mg/kg ciprofol and propofol 2.0 mg/kg groups were 100% and all doses were safe and well tolerated. Ciprofol doses of 0.4 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg are recommended for subsequent IIb phases. In the phase IIb trial, a 100% success rate was reconfirmed in all the dosage groups. The mean time of colonoscope insertion in the ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg, ciprofol 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 2.0 mg/kg groups were 1.9, 1.5 and 1.5 min, the mean recovery times from colonoscope withdrawal were 6.1, 5.1, and 4.3 min, and the times to discharge were 11.8, 11.2 and 10.6 min, respectively. The satisfaction ratings of anesthetists in the ciprofol 0.5 mg/kg group (9.5 ± 0.8) were higher than in the ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg (9.2 ± 1.0) and propofol 2.0 mg/kg (9.2 ± 0.9) groups. The incidence of sedation and anesthesia-related AEs was highest in the propofol 2.0 mg/kg group (25.8%), followed by the ciprofol 0.5 mg/kg group (21.9%), and was least in the ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg group (16.1%) (P = 0.750).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol was safe and well tolerated at doses ranging from 0.1 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg. Ciprofol 0.4-0.5 mg/kg induced equivalent sedation/anesthesia and had a similar safety profile to propofol 2.0 mg/kg during colonoscopy without producing serious AEs.