Inhibitory Effect of Light on Growth-Supporting Properties of Eosin Methylene Blue Agar

R. L. Girolami,J. Stamm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.31.1.141-142.1976

1976-01-01

Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract:Exposure of eosin methylene blue agar to visible light can alter the ability of that medium to support microbial growth. Proteus species were most sensitive to the photodynamic action.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction of general anaesthesia or sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abdallah Saeed,Mariam Elewidi,Ahmad Nawlo,Amr Elzahaby,Asmaa Khaled,Abdalla Othman,Mohamed Abuelazm,Basel Abdelazeem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_104_24

Abstract:Background and aims: Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures. Methods: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; P = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; P < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.
Twenty-first century international lawmaking for alcohol control.

Allyn L. Taylor,Ibadat Dhillon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12063

2013-03-01

Addiction

Abstract:
The characteristics of binding of human recombinant interferon-gamma to its receptor on human monocytes and human monocyte-like cell lines.

D. Finbloom,D. Hoover,L. Wahl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.135.1.300

1985-07-01

Abstract:Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) induces many effector functions in macrophages, presumably through binding to cell surface receptors. Such receptors have been documented in murine macrophages. This report demonstrates that IFN-gamma interacts with a specific receptor on human monocytes and monocyte-like cell lines, U937 and HL60. Recombinant IFN-gamma (rIFN-gamma) was radioiodinated by using Bolton-Hunter reagent to high specific activity. 125I-rIFN-gamma bound in a specific and saturable manner. Saturation of binding sites occurred at 10(-9) M (300 U/ml); there were 4000 specific binding sites per cell for both monocytes and the cell lines. Purified lymphocyte-derived IFN-gamma as well as rIFN-gamma competed for binding sites with 125I-rIFN-gamma. There was no inhibition of binding of the 125I-rIFN-gamma by rIFN-alpha or rIFN-beta. The forward rate constant, k1, at 4 degrees C was about 8 X 10(5) M-1 sec-1 for each cell type studied. In the presence of excess ligand, the dissociation rate constant, k-1, was about 2 X 10(-4) sec-1. The Ka calculated from these constants (4 X 10(9) M-1) agreed closely with that calculated from experiments performed at equilibrium (8 X 10(9) M-1). Because the dissociation of rIFN-gamma from cells was enhanced in the presence of ligand, interactions between binding sites of a negative cooperative type could be operative. These studies demonstrate that rIFN-gamma binds in a specific and saturable manner and with high affinity to a receptor on human monocytes as well as monocyte-like cell lines.
Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT)

Syed Muhammad Muneeb Akhtar,Areeba Fareed,Mirha Ali,Muhammad Sohaib Khan,Abraish Ali,Munazza Mumtaz,Robert Kirchoff,Muhammad Sohaib Asghar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111425

IF: 9.375

2024-02-29

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract: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.

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

Jiaxuan Wen,Chen Liu,Xueying Ding,Zimeng Tian,Wenyu Jiang,Xiuhong Wei,Xin Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22634

IF: 3.776

2023-11-26

Heliyon

Abstract: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.
Identification of testis specific calcineurin beta subunit isoform by a monoclonal antibody and detection of a specific six amino acid sequence.

H. Nishio,H. Matsui,S. Etoh,L. J. Moia,M. Tokuda,T. Itano,O. Hatase

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-291X(05)80108-1

1992-01-15

Abstract:
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures: a phase III multicenter randomized trial

Jing Xu,Mengchang Yang,Yuan Zeng,Xiao-Hua Zou,Jing-Hua Ren,Zhongyuan Xia,Hai-Hui Xie,Yong-Hao Yu,Ming-Jun Xu,Wei Chen,Dong-Xin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1360508

IF: 3.9

2024-04-23

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Objective Ciprofol (also known as cipepofol and HSK3486), is a compound similar to propofol in chemical structure and hypnotic effect. Herein we evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures. Methods This phase III multicenter randomized trial with a non-inferiority design was conducted in nine tertiary hospitals. We enrolled 135 women aged 18–65 years who were scheduled for ambulatory gynecological procedures. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (0.4 mg/kg for induction and 0.2 mg/kg for maintenance) or propofol (2.0 mg/kg for induction and 1.0 mg/kg for maintenance) sedation in a 2:1 ratio. Patients and investigators for data collection and outcome assessment were blinded to study group assignments. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation, defined as completion of procedure without remedial anesthetics. The non-inferiority margin was set at −8%. Secondary outcomes included time to successful induction, time to full awake, time to meet discharge criteria, and satisfaction with sedation assessed by patients and doctors. We also monitored occurrence of adverse events and injection pain. Results A total of 135 patients were enrolled; 134 patients (90 patients received ciprofol sedation and 44 patients propofol sedation) were included in final intention-to-treat analysis. The success rates were both 100% in the two groups (rate difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, −4.1 to 8.0%), i.e., ciprofol was non-inferior to propofol. When compared with propofol sedation, patients given ciprofol required more time to reach successful induction (median difference [MD], 2 s; 95% CI, 1 to 7; p < 0.001), and required more time to reach full awake (MD, 2.3 min; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1; p < 0.001) and discharge criteria (MD, 2.3 min; 95% CI, 1.5 to 3.2; p < 0.001). Fewer patients in the ciprofol group were dissatisfied with sedation (relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.77; p = 0.024). Patients given ciprofol sedation had lower incidences of treat-emergent adverse events (34.4% [31/90] vs. 79.5% [35/44]; p < 0.001) and injection pain (6.7% [6/90] vs. 61.4% [27/44]; p < 0.001). Conclusion Ciprofol for sedation in ambulatory gynecological procedures was non-inferior to propofol, with less adverse events and injection pain. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04958746.

medicine, general & internal
The efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Jikai Liu,Aonan Hong,Jinfang Zeng,Xiao Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02721-4

IF: 2.376

2024-10-11

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Ciprofol is a new intravenous anesthetic with a similar chemical structure to propofol. We aimed to compare the incidence of adverse actions like injection pain and time indexes of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy. We also compared anesthetists' satisfaction during the procedure.

anesthesiology
Maternal Stress During Pregnancy and Offspring Depression.

A. Sourander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.06.003

2016-08-01

Abstract:
Single-Artery Human Ear Graft Procurement: A Simplified Approach

J. Duisit,Hadrien Amiel,D. Debluts,L. Maistriaux,A. Gerdom,A. Bol,P. Gianello,C. Behets,B. Lengelé

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003591

2017-09-01

Abstract:Summary: In the field of experimental facial vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation, a human auricular subunit model, pedicled on both superficial temporal and posterior auricular arteries, was described. Clinical cases of extensive auricular replantation, however, suggested that a single artery could perfuse the entire flap. In this study, variants of this single-pedicle approach have been studied, aiming to develop a more versatile replantation technique, in which the question of venous drainage has also been addressed. For arterial perfusion study, the authors harvested 11 auricular grafts, either on a single superficial temporal artery pedicle (n = 3) or a double superficial temporal and posterior auricular artery pedicle (n = 8). The authors then proceeded to selective barium injections, in the superficial temporal, posterior auricular, or both superficial temporal and posterior auricular arteries. Arteriograms were acquired with a micro–computed tomographic scan and analyzed on three-dimensionally reconstructed images. Venous drainage was investigated in eight hemifaces, carefully dissected after latex injection. Observations showed a homogenous perfusion of the whole auricle in all arterial graft variants. Venous drainage was highly variable, with either a dominant superficial temporal vein (37.5 percent), dominant posterior auricular vein (12.5 percent), or co-dominant trunks (50 percent). The authors demonstrated that auricular subunit vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation can be performed on a single artery, relying on the dynamic intraauricular anastomoses between superficial temporal artery and posterior auricular branches. Potentially, this vascular versatility is prone to simplify the subunit harvest and allows various strategies for pedicle selection. Venous drainage, however, remains inconstant and thus the major issue when considering auricular transplantation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.
The sensitivity index, a calculation to improve the choice of antibacterial therapy.

D. Elad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/JAC/27.2.250

1991-02-01

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Abstract:
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for ERCP anesthesia in older patients: A single-center randomized controlled clinical study

Guopeng Ding,Li Wang,Wantong Zhao,Yugang Diao,Dandan Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111609

2024-09-16

Abstract:Study objectives: Ciprofol is a novel agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor, exhibiting better cardiovascular stability and rapid recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older patients. Design: A single-center, randomized, parallel controlled clinical study. Setting: General Hospital of Northern Theater Command. Patients: We recruited 284 patients and intended to conduct ERCP from November 2021 to June 2022. Interventions: Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 142 each): ciprofol group (anesthesia induction 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 0.8-1.2 mg/kg/h) and propofol group (anesthesia induction 1.5-2.0 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 4-12 mg/kg/h). Measurements: The primary outcome was sedation success rate, defined as the proportion of patients with successful anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes encompassed the time of successful induction, the time of complete recovery, the time of leaving the room and the incidence rate of adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension and injection pain). Main results: The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100 %. The 95 % CI of the difference of sedation success rate was (- 2.63 %, 2.63 %), and the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority limit of -8 %.The time of successful sedation induction in ciprofol group (38.4 ± 6.5 s) was longer than that in propofol group (30.6 ± 6.2 s, p < 0.05).The time of complete recovery in ciprofol group (12.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than that in propofol group (16.9 ± 5.0 min, p < 0.05). The time of leaving the room in ciprofol group (21.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than those in propofol group (25.9 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain in ciprofol group (2 %) was lower than that in the propofol group (25 %, p < 0.05). Other outcomes didn't show statistical differences. Conclusions: Compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited a comparable level of sedation in older patients undergoing ERCP, and recovery was safe and rapid with less injection pain. Trial registration: www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR2100053386, Registration date November 20, 2021).
Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for the Induction of Anesthesia in Adult Patients: a Multicenter Phase 2a Clinical Trial

Qianmei Zhu,Zhen Luo,Xia Wang,Dongxin Wang,Jun Li,Xinchuan Wei,Jun Tang,Shanglong Yao,Wen Ouyang,Wensheng Zhang,Yunxia Zuo,Xiao Wang,Jin Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x

IF: 2.305

2023-01-01

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

Abstract: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.
Effects of Ciprofol for the Induction of General Anesthesia in Patients Scheduled for Elective Surgery Compared to Propofol: a Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative Study

X. Wang,J. Liu,Y-X Zuo,Q-M Zhu,X-C Wei,X-H Zou,A-L Luo,F-X Zhang,Y-L Li,H. Zheng,H. Li,S. Wang,D-X Wang,Q-L Guo,C-M Liu,Y-T Wang,Z-Q Zhu,G-Y Wang,Y-Q Ai,M-J Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202203_28228

2022-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Ciprofol is a newly developed intravenous sedative-hypnotic drug. The objective of the study was to prove whether ciprofol was non-inferior to propofol for the successful induction of general anesthesia. The ideal post-induction sedation level was assessed by comparing patients’ clinical symptoms and their hemodynamic effects in responding to noxious stimuli, mostly tracheal intubation and bispectral index (BIS) alterations following ciprofol/propofol administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multi-center, randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial, selective surgery patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg (n = 88) or propofol 2.0 mg/kg (n = 88) groups. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with successful anesthesia inductions. Secondary endpoints included the times to successful induction of general anesthesia and loss of the eyelash reflex, changes in BIS, as well as safety indicators. RESULTS: The anesthesia induction success rates for both ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg groups were 100.0%, with a 95% CI lower success limit of -4.18% difference between the two groups, indicating that ciprofol was non-inferior to propofol. For secondary outcomes, the average time to successful anesthesia and loss of the eyelash reflex were 0.91 min and 0.80 min for ciprofol and 0.80 min and 0.71 min for propofol, respectively. The pattern of BIS changes with ciprofol was similar to propofol and stable during the anesthesia maintenance period. Safety was comparable with 88.6% TEAEs in the ciprofol group compared to 95.5% in the propofol group. The incidence of injection pain was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to the propofol group (6.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05). In addition, the patients treated with ciprofol had a lesser increase in blood pressure and heart rate, and fewer cases with BIS > 60 within 15 min of intravenous administration, which indicated that ciprofol may provide a better ideal sedation level during the post-induction period under an equivalent dosing regimen to propofol. CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol for patients undergoing selective surgery is a new option for the induction of general anesthesia.
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy: Phase IIa and IIb multi-center clinical trials

Yi Teng,Mengchan Ou,Xiao Wang,Wensheng Zhang,Xiao Liu,Yong Liang,Kuixiang Li,Yaping Wang,Wen Ouyang,Hao Weng,Jun Li,Shanglong Yao,Jinhai Meng,Wangning Shangguan,Yunxia Zuo,Tao Zhu,Bin Liu,Jin Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2021.105904

IF: 5.112

2021-09-01

European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p><strong>:</strong> 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.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p><strong>:</strong> 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.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p><strong>:</strong> 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%) (<em>P</em> = 0.750).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p><strong>:</strong> 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.</p>

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

Dilireba Ainiwaer,Wanwei Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02479-9

IF: 2.376

2024-03-08

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract: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.

anesthesiology
Antitumor effect of tumor necrosis factor against various primarily cultured human cancer cells.

N. Watanabe,Y. Niitsu,H. Neda,H. Sone,N. Yamauchi,T. Umetsu,I. Urushizaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20772/CANCERSCI1985.76.11_1115

1985-11-01

Abstract:The antitumor activity of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) against various primarily cultured human cancer cells (32 cases) was investigated by the 51Cr cytotoxic release assay and the tumor stem cell assay. Over 50% sensitivity (the ratio to the cytotoxicity in L929 cells) was noted in 4 of 14 cases of gastric cancer (28.6%), 7 of 9 cases of leukemic cells (77.8%), and 1 case each of pancreatic carcinoma and ovarian cancer. Scarcely any sensitivity, however, was observed in 1 case of acute promyelocytic leukemia or in some of the gastric cancer cases. No correlation was observed between the histological type of the cancer and TNF sensitivity. The above results seem to confirm that TNF has significant antitumor activity against human cancer cells.
[Plasmacytoma and support therapy with calcitonin].

Z. Adam

Abstract:The author describes the excellent effect of two-years therapy of a female patient suffering from multiple myeloma, using the calcitonin preparation Miacalcic Sandoz. During the two and a half year follow up of the patient only a small progression of the bone affection occurred. The patient who on account of pain was treated with opiates was unable to walk unaided, now walks does not take analgesics.
Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for Sedation/Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy: A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Controlled Trial

Haiyan Lan,Weifeng Shan,Yini Wu,Qiaomin Xu,Xiaoli Dong,Peiyi Mei,Gongchen Duan,Minji You,Linfei Jin,Jimin Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S414243

2023-06-11

Abstract:Haiyan Lan, Weifeng Shan, Yini Wu, Qiaomin Xu, Xiaoli Dong, Peiyi Mei, Gongchen Duan, Minji You, Linfei Jin, Jimin Wu Department of Anesthesiology, Lishui City People's Hospital, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Lishui, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Jimin Wu, Department of Anesthesiology, Lishui City People's Hospital, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, No. 15, Dazhong Street, Lishui, Zhejiang Province, 323000, People's Republic of China, Email Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. Methods: A total of 149 patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to a ciprofol (Group C) or propofol group (Group P). All cases received intravenous sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg for analgesic preconditioning. Group C received an induction dose of ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 0.6– 1.2 mg/kg/h to maintain BIS value between 40– 60. In Group P, propofol was started at 2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0– 6.0 mg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the successful rate of hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes included the change of hemodynamic, respiratory adverse events, injection pain, body movement, recovery time, anesthetist's satisfaction, time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Results: The success rate of hysteroscopy in each group was 100%. After drug administration, the incidence of hypotension in Group C was much lower than that in Group P ( P < 0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events in Group C (4.0%) was much lower than that in Group P (31.1%) ( P < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and body movement in Group C was significantly lower than that in Group P ( P < 0.05). The mean eyelash reflex disappearance time was less than 3 minutes in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in awakening times, anesthetist's satisfaction and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No serious adverse events occurred in any patients. Conclusion: Ciprofol proved to be a safer alternative to propofol for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. In comparison to propofol, ciprofol does not cause injection pain, exerts less impact on hemodynamics, and results in less respiratory depression. Keywords: ciprofol, propofol, sedation, anesthesia, hysteroscopy Hysteroscopy is the most common procedure in minimally invasive gynecological techniques for the diagnosis and treatment of endometrial and other intrauterine diseases. 1 Despite the short duration of surgery, the intense pain associated with cervical dilation and endometrial curettage is excruciating, 2–4 and patients' fear and anxiety about pain require anesthetic intervention in most cases. 5,6 General anesthesia, paracervical block, and local anesthesia can be used for hysteroscopy. 7 Among these techniques, propofol combined with opioid intravenous anesthesia is used most commonly for hysteroscopic surgery. 8 This approach provides good sedation and analgesic effects for patients and also greatly reduces patients' anxiety and improves their comfort. Propofol has a rapid onset of action and short duration, and is associated with complete awakening and high patient comfort, making it suitable for outpatient surgery; 9,10 therefore, propofol has become the first choice for hysteroscopic procedures. However, propofol also has disadvantages, such as marked hemodynamic effects, respiratory depression, and painful intravenous administration. 11 Therefore, identification of the ideal sedative drug in hysteroscopic surgery remains crucial. Ciprofol (HSK 3486) is a novel 2,6 disubstituted phenol derivative that binds more tightly to the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor compared with propofol. 12 A Phase I study involving healthy Chinese participants showed that 0.4–0.9 mg/kg of ciprofol was well tolerated, with rapid onset of action and fast recovery. 13 The results of a Phase II clinical trial that investigated the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in colonoscopy showed that ciprofol was administered at a dose of only one-quarter to one-fifth that of propofol. Additionally, ciprofol had minimal residual effects and did not cause significant pain at the injection site. 14 Another trial of ciprofol in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) determined the sedative effects and safety of ciprofol for this patient group. 15 The current trial was designed to confirm the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol during hysteroscopy, in the hope of providing a new safe and effective sedative drug for hysterosco -Abstract Truncated-

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, medicinal
The Effect of Different Doses of Ciprofol in Patients with Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Lini Chen,Yongguo Xie,Xueke Du,Weiyong Qin,Lifu Huang,Junmin Dai,Ke Qin,Jianfeng Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S414166

2023-06-12

Abstract:Lini Chen, &ast Yongguo Xie, &ast Xueke Du, Weiyong Qin, Lifu Huang, Junmin Dai, Ke Qin, &ast Jianfeng Huang &ast Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Ke Qin; Jianfeng Huang, Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530007, People's Republic of China, Tel/Fax +8613878103578 ; +8613978896039, Email ; 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/m 2 , 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 (T 1 ), 15 minutes after awakening (T 2 ) and 30 minutes after awakening (T 3 ) 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). 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. Keywords: ciprofol, propofol, painless gastrointestinal endoscopy With the rapid development of medicine and the promotion of comfort medicine, painless gastrointestinal endoscopy has been widely used in clinics. As one of the most commonly used drugs for sedation, propofol has pharmacokinetic properties such as fast onset and rapid elimination. In painless gastrointestinal endoscopies, it is however limited by their high incidence of hypotension, respiratory depression, and injection pain. The latest 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative, ciprofol, was independently developed in China and is currently used for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and anesthesia induction. 1 Although ciprofol has a similar sedative effect as propofol, it has a clear absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion processes, a low incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression, and a high level of safety. 2 Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare different doses of ciprofol and propofol used in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in order to determine the appropriate dose of ciprofol, improve the sedation mode of painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, reduce the incidence of related complications, and provide reference for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. It was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi medical University (KY-2022-0502). It was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2200063410). Signed, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from the patients and their families before the operation. The study was a prospective, randomized, single-blind study conducted on 160 patients who underwent elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, and was aged 18–80 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 18–28 kg/m 2 and an American Society of Anesthesiology physical status (ASA PS) of I–III. Patients were excluded according to the following criteria: patients with mental and nervous system diseases, heart failure, respiratory failure, long-term use of sedatives or antidepressants, pregnant or lactating women, and unable to communicate or cooperate. Patients were withdrawn from the study according to the following criteria: endoscopic operation fails, gastroscopy combined with colonoscopy examination, change to tracheal intubati -Abstract Truncated-

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, medicinal

Inhibitory Effect of Light on Growth-Supporting Properties of Eosin Methylene Blue Agar

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction of general anaesthesia or sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Twenty-first century international lawmaking for alcohol control.

The characteristics of binding of human recombinant interferon-gamma to its receptor on human monocytes and human monocyte-like cell lines.

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

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

Identification of testis specific calcineurin beta subunit isoform by a monoclonal antibody and detection of a specific six amino acid sequence.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures: a phase III multicenter randomized trial

The efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Maternal Stress During Pregnancy and Offspring Depression.

Single-Artery Human Ear Graft Procurement: A Simplified Approach

The sensitivity index, a calculation to improve the choice of antibacterial therapy.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for ERCP anesthesia in older patients: A single-center randomized controlled clinical study

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for the Induction of Anesthesia in Adult Patients: a Multicenter Phase 2a Clinical Trial

Effects of Ciprofol for the Induction of General Anesthesia in Patients Scheduled for Elective Surgery Compared to Propofol: a Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative Study

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

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

Antitumor effect of tumor necrosis factor against various primarily cultured human cancer cells.

[Plasmacytoma and support therapy with calcitonin].

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for Sedation/Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy: A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Controlled Trial

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