A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit

Keith A Candiotti, Tong J. Gan, Christopher Young, Alex Bekker, S. T John Sum-Ping, Richard Kahn, Philip Lebowitz, Jeffrey J. Littman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)550-556
Number of pages7
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
Volume113
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2011

Fingerprint

Artificial Respiration
Intubation
Intensive Care Units
Safety
Propofol
formic acid
Maintenance
fospropofol
Prodrugs
Therapeutics
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Hypotension
Nausea
Pain
Incidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. / Candiotti, Keith A; Gan, Tong J.; Young, Christopher; Bekker, Alex; Sum-Ping, S. T John; Kahn, Richard; Lebowitz, Philip; Littman, Jeffrey J.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 113, No. 3, 01.09.2011, p. 550-556.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Candiotti, Keith A ; Gan, Tong J. ; Young, Christopher ; Bekker, Alex ; Sum-Ping, S. T John ; Kahn, Richard ; Lebowitz, Philip ; Littman, Jeffrey J. / A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. In: Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2011 ; Vol. 113, No. 3. pp. 550-556.
@article{90928c788ebb4716ab4eab798142e22a,
title = "A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74{\%}) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64{\%}) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1{\%}) and nausea (13.2{\%}). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90{\%} of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.",
author = "Candiotti, {Keith A} and Gan, {Tong J.} and Christopher Young and Alex Bekker and Sum-Ping, {S. T John} and Richard Kahn and Philip Lebowitz and Littman, {Jeffrey J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1213/ANE.0b013e31821d7faf",
language = "English",
volume = "113",
pages = "550--556",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit

AU - Candiotti, Keith A

AU - Gan, Tong J.

AU - Young, Christopher

AU - Bekker, Alex

AU - Sum-Ping, S. T John

AU - Kahn, Richard

AU - Lebowitz, Philip

AU - Littman, Jeffrey J.

PY - 2011/9/1

Y1 - 2011/9/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

AB - BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052266525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052266525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31821d7faf

DO - 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31821d7faf

M3 - Article

C2 - 21596879

AN - SCOPUS:80052266525

VL - 113

SP - 550

EP - 556

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 3

ER -