4.1 In Mechanically Ventilated Patients in anIntensive Care Setting
The therapeutic efficacy of intravenous dexmedetomidine as a short-term sedative for post-surgical patients in an intensive care setting has been evaluated in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational studies (n > 350).[41,46,47] Data from one study[46,47] are available from medical reviews released by the US FDA. Supplementary data from these studies have been procured from the US manufacturer’s prescribing information.[7]
Eligible patients (aged 17–88[41] or ≥18[47] years) were enrolled if they were scheduled for a surgical procedure that was expected to require a minimum of 6 hours of post-surgical assisted ventilation. Among other criteria, patients were excluded or discontinued if they required the utilization of neuromuscular blocks or epidural or spinal analgesia,[41,47] or had received midazolam for anaesthesia maintenance.[47] Four types of surgical procedures were performed: cardiac, head and neck, laparotomy and other.[41,47]
Where reported,[41] patients remained on the ventilator for a minimum of 6 hours following entry into the intensive care unit (ICU). Commencement of the study medication occurred as soon as possible following ICU entry, but within a maximum of 1 hour; it was continued through weaning and extubation, and for a minimum of 6 hours post-extubation, with a total treatment duration of <24 hours.[41,46,47] The requirement (and utilization) of sedatives beyond this timepoint was not reported. Where described,[47] the mean total infusion duration of dexmedetomidine and placebo was 16.6 and 15.7 hours.
Patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine (n = 203[41] and 178[7]) or placebo (n = 198[41] and 175[7]), with the infusion rate adjusted to achieve and/or maintain a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of ≥3. The RSS has scores ranging from 1 (patient anxious, agitated or restless) to 6 (asleep, no response).[41] In patients in whom sedation could not be maintained despite receiving the maximum infusion rate (0.7 μ/kg/hour), intravenous propofol[41] or intravenous midazolam[46] was administered. Details of the various treatment regimens are shown in table III. Following extubation, the infusion rate was adjusted to achieve a RSS of ≥2.[41,47]
There were no restrictions on intraoperative drug utilization;[41] patients requiring sedation from the operating theatre to the ICU (prior to the commencement of the study medication) were permitted to receive intravenous propofol 0.2 mg/kg[41] or intravenous midazolam (dose not reported).[47]
The primary or co-primary efficacy endpoints were the total dose of rescue sedation (intravenous propofol[41] and intravenous midazolam[46,47]) required to achieve and/or maintain a RSS score of ≥3 during the assisted ventilation period,[41,46,47] and the percentage of patients who achieved a RSS of ≥3 during the assisted ventilation period without the utilization of additional rescue medication.[7,46,47]
Incremental doses of intravenous morphine 2 mg, repeated as necessary, were administered to those patients experiencing pain throughout the study,[41,46,47] with paracetamol (acetaminophen) administered, when clinically necessary, following extubation.[46] The requirement for analgesia was determined individually by either direct communication with the patient or by the indirect assessment of pain symptoms (e.g. excessive movement, hypertension, sweating or tachycardia).[41,46]
Data are reported for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population.[41,47]
Intravenous dexmedetomidine was effective as a short-term sedative for post-surgical patients, with a significantly lower mean total dose of rescue sedation (intravenous propofol[41] or intravenous midazolam[46,47]) required to achieve and/or maintain a RSS score of ≥3 during the assisted ventilation period (primary or co-primary efficacy endpoint) following dexmedetomidine than placebo therapy (table III). Moreover, a significantly (p < 0.001) higher percentage of dexmedetomidine than placebo recipients acquired and/or maintained a RSS score of ≥3 without rescue sedation with intravenous propofol[41] or intravenous midazolam (co-primary efficacy endpoint)[7,46,47] [table III].
The mean rate of rescue sedation with intravenous propofol required to achieve and/or maintain a RSS score of ≥3 during the assisted ventilation period was significantly lower following dexmedetomidine than placebo therapy (table III).[41] Moreover, where stated, the mean total dose[41] and mean rate[41,47] of rescue sedation with intravenous propofol[41] or intravenous midazolam[47] required during the study medication administration period was significantly lower following dexmedetomidine than placebo therapy (table III).
In the larger study, patients receiving dexmedetomidine or placebo were sedated during the assisted ventilation period to a mean RSS score of 3.4 and 3.1; 3% and 7% of patients in the respective treatment groups had a RSS score of 1 at least once.[41] Although a statistically significant difference (p-value not reported) in the mean RSS score was observed between patients receiving dexmedetomidine and those receiving placebo during the study medication administration period of the smaller study (3.6 vs 3.3), this difference was deemed not clinically important.[47]
Sedation with dexmedetomidine was also effective in terms of the total dose of morphine administered and the Patient Management Index (PMI) score.[41,46,47] Dexmedetomidine recipients required significantly (p < 0.05) less additional pain medication (morphine) [assessed as mean total dose] than placebo recipients during the assisted ventilation period and the period from extubation to the end of the administration of the study medication.[41,46,47] There was no statistically significant between-group difference in the total dose of morphine (assessed as mean rate) required during the study medication administration period for those patients who did not receive intravenous midazolam.[47] However, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) between-group difference in the total dose of morphine (assessed as mean rate) required during the study medication administration period was observed among those patients who received up to 4 mg of intravenous midazolam during the assisted ventilation period.[47]
Mean PMI scores were significantly (p < 0.05) lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine than in those receiving placebo, with lower scores corresponding to greater apparent calm, ease of communication (i.e. easier to arouse to answer questions or respond to neurological tests) and overall manageability of care, and greater tolerance of the endotracheal tube, the ventilator and the ICU.[41,46,47]
According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, no significant differences between dexmedetomidine and placebo were predicted in either the median duration of weaning from the ventilator or the median time to extubation.[41,46,47]
At the end of their stay in the ICU, 36% and 31% of patients receiving dexmedetomidine and placebo in the larger study were completely comfortable during the sedation period, with 23% and 34% of patients remembering pain, 33% and 37% remembering discomfort from the endotracheal tube, 36% and 46% remembering people, and 23% and 34% remembering noise.[41] The ICU experience was not remembered by 31% of dexmedetomidine recipients and 25% of placebo recipients.[41] The overall experience was rated as ‘better than expected’ by 61% of dexmedetomidine and 52% of placebo recipients in the smaller study, from assessable patient numbers of 170 and 164.[47]
4.2 During Procedural Sedation
The therapeutic efficacy of intravenous dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative for patients undergoing AFOI[42] or in non-intubated patients undergoing a variety of diagnostic or surgical procedures requiring MAC[43] has been assessed in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre studies (n > 100). These data are supplemented with information from the US prescribing information.[7]
Eligible adult (aged ≥18 years) patients were enrolled if they were scheduled for an elective AFOI due to an anticipated difficult airway prior to a surgical or diagnostic procedure[7,42] or elective surgeries and procedures (expected to last at least 30 minutes) performed in an operating room or a procedure room and requiring a local anaesthetic block with MAC and an anaesthesiologist in attendance.[43] Patients in both studies had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of I–IV.[42,43] In the AFOI study, patients were stratified according to the Mallampati classification (Class I–III vs Class IV) and the ASA classification (Class I–III vs Class IV) to ensure balanced treatment allocation based on airway difficulty and the patient’s physical status.[42]
Among other criteria, patients who received general anaesthesia within 7 days of study entry,[43] α2-adrenergic receptor agonists and antagonists within 14 days of the scheduled surgery/procedure,[42,43] or an oral[42] or intravenous[42,43] opioid within 1 hour or an oral[43] or intramuscular[42,43] opioid within 4 hours of the commencement of the study drug were excluded.
Patients undergoing AFOI were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 50) to achieve a RSS score of ≥2.[42] Administration of the study medication commenced 15 minutes prior to airway topicalization (for AFOI) and continued throughout intubation, with glycopyrrolate 0.1 mg administered prior to dexmedetomidine or placebo infusion.[42] Following the achievement of airway anaesthesia with lidocaine and confirmation of a suppressed gag reflex, AFOI was performed.[42] The study medication was discontinued upon completion of the AFOI, with general anaesthesia then induced and the scheduled procedure/surgery completed.[42] The mean duration of dexmedetomidine and placebo infusion was 37.7 and 41.5 minutes.[42]
Non-intubated patients undergoing a variety of diagnostic or surgical procedures requiring MAC were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg loading dose, n = 134; 1.0 μg/kg loading dose, n = 129) or placebo (n = 63), with the infusion rate adjusted to achieve an Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S; scale of 1 [deep sleep] to 5 [alert])[48] score of ≤4.[43] All patients received a local anaesthetic block prior to the surgery/procedure (at least 15 minutes following commencement of the infusion and when an OAA/S score of ≤4 was observed).[43] Intravenous fentanyl 25 μg boluses, repeated as necessary, were administered to those patients expressing a pain score (scale 0–10; 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain) of ≥3 during the infusion and ≥4 in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) or to those in whom the investigator determined the presence of pain when verbal communication was not possible.[43] The study medication was discontinued when the patient left the operating room; patients remained in the post-operative unit for at least 1 hour following discontinuation.[43] The mean duration of study medication infusion was 97.0, 102.3 and 105.6 minutes in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg, 1.0 μg/kg and placebo groups, respectively.[43]
In both studies, intravenous midazolam was administered to those patients in whom sedation could not be maintained.[42,43] Details of the various treatment regimens are shown in table IV.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients requiring rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam to achieve and/or maintain a RSS score of ≥2 throughout the study medication infusion period in the AFOI study[42] and the percentage of patients not requiring rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam to achieve and/or maintain an OAA/S score of ≤4 in the MAC study.[43]
Data are reported for the modified ITT population (all randomized patients who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement).[42,43] Statistical analysis adjusted for surgery/procedure type (arteriovenous fistula, vascular stent or hernia surgery, breast biopsies, excision of lesions and plastic surgery, ophthalmic or orthopaedic procedures).[43]
Intravenous dexmedetomidine was effective as a primary sedative in adult patients undergoing AFOI[42] or a variety of diagnostic or surgical procedures requiring MAC.[43] In the AFOI study,[42] significantly fewer dexmedetomidine than placebo recipients required rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam to achieve and/or maintain a RSS score of ≥2 during AFOI (table IV). In the MAC study,[43] rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam was not required to achieve and/or maintain an OAA/S score of ≤4 during MAC by significantly more dexmedetomidine than placebo recipients (table IV). Of the two placebo recipients that did not require rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam in the MAC study, both underwent cataract surgery.[43]
According to a prespecified subanalysis of the AFOI study, significantly fewer dexmedetomidine than placebo recipients with Mallampati Class IV airways required rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam during AFOI (33.3% [4/12] vs 91.7% [11/12]; p < 0.001).[42] Moreover, in a prespecified subanalysis of the MAC study, significant (p-values not reported) between-group differences for both dexmedetomidine treatment groups versus placebo in the percentage of patients not requiring rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam during MAC were observed across all surgical subtypes, with the exception of the breast biopsies, excision of lesions and plastic surgery subgroup in which there was no significant difference between the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg loading dose treatment group and placebo.[43]
In terms of the secondary efficacy endpoints detailed in table IV (including the mean total dose of midazolam,[42,43] the percentage of patients requiring further sedation [in addition to dexmedetomidine or placebo and midazolam][42,43] and/or the time from the start of the study medication to the administration of midazolam[43]), primary sedation with intravenous dexmedetomidine was effective in adult patients, with generally significant between-group differences observed in favour of dexmedetomidine over placebo.[42,43] In the MAC study, significantly (p < 0.001) fewer dexmedetomidine 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg loading dose recipients than placebo recipients required rescue fentanyl (for pain) [59.0% and 42.6% vs 88.9%]; in addition, the mean total dose of fentanyl required was significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg loading dose treatment groups than in the placebo group (8.48 and 83.6 vs 144.4 μg).[43]
Furthermore, prespecified subanalyses demonstrated significant differences favouring dexmedetomidine over placebo in the mean total dose of rescue sedation with intravenous midazolam required during AFOI in patients with Mallampati IV airways (p < 0.005)[42] or during MAC across the surgical subtypes (p-value not reported)[43] or in the mean dose of rescue fentanyl required during MAC across the surgical subtypes (p < 0.005).[43]
In the AFOI study, dexmedetomidine recipients had lower mean RSS scores, assessed 15 minutes following initiation of the study medication and prior to topicalization, than placebo recipients (2.1 vs 1.7; p = 0.001).[42]
No significant difference in the median time to recovery and readiness for discharge from the PACU was observed between the dexmedetomidine 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg loading dose treatment groups and the placebo group in the MAC study (29.0 and 25.0 vs 14.0 minutes).[43] There was also no significant difference between the dexmedetomidine and placebo treatment groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.[43] Significantly (p < 0.05) more placebo than dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg loading dose recipients required additional pain medication in the PACU.[43]
Across the two studies, there were no significant differences observed between the dexmedetomidine and placebo treatment groups in the anaesthesiologists’ assessment of ease of intubation,[42] haemodynamic stability,[42,43] patient cooperation[42,43] and respiratory stability;[43] however, in the MAC study, the ease of maintenance of sedation visual analogue scale scores were significantly (p < 0.001) lower for both dexmedetomidine treatment groups versus placebo (2.8 and 2.2 vs 4.4 cm).[43]
Following surgery in the MAC study, patients in the dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg loading dose treatment group had significantly lower mean anxiety scores (assessed utilizing the Anxiety Assessment Scale with scores ranging from 0 [no anxiety] to 10 [extreme anxiety]) than those in the placebo group (1.0 vs 1.9; p = 0.007).[43]
Twenty-four hours following discontinuation, significantly (p ≤ 0.001) more patients in both the dexmedetomidine 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg loading dose treatment groups than the placebo group in the MAC study were satisfied with their sedation according to the Iowa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale (a 6-point scale with scores ranging from −3 to +3) [2.0 and 2.0 vs 1.4].[43] The majority of patients in the AFOI study did not recall feeling pain during intubation and were satisfied with their sedation (no quantitative data or statistical analysis reported).[42] In the same study, 60.8% of dexmedetomidine recipients and 57.4% of placebo recipients remembered placement of the fibre-optic scope.[42]