Medical Intensive Care Unit, Farhat Hached University Hospital, 4000, Sousse, Tunisia.
Research Laboratory N° LR12SP09, Heart Failure Farhat Hached University Hospital, 4000, Sousse, Tunisia.
Pan Afr Med J. 2020 Dec 15;37:346. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2020.37.346.24986. eCollection 2020.
use of generic drugs is common. However, there is still concern among patients and physicians that brand name drugs are more efficient. The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and tolerance between two forms of cisatracurium: brand name versus generic name.
it´s a crossover, randomized, double-blind physiological trial. Patients admitted for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure with PaO2/FIO2 < 200mmHg despite optimized ventilation and sedation thus requiring non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), were enrolled. Patients received consecutively, in a random order, cisatracurium brand name (Nimbex®) and generic (Cisatrex®) over two-hour period separated by one-hour washout period. Neuromuscular function was monitored by a calibrated train-of-four (TOF) stimulation device. Paralysis time delay to reach TOF of 2/4, recovery kinetics and tolerance were monitored. The number needed to demonstrate a significant difference in time delays to reach a TOF of 2/4 between the two forms of cisatracurium was estimated at 22 patients.
twenty-two patients were included. Eight (36.4%) had acute respiratory distress syndrome; 8(36.4%), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 3(13.6%), status asthmaticus. Median [IQR] SAPS II at admission, 28.5 [22, 41]. PaO2/FIO2, 121 [81, 156] mmHg. Paralysis time delays were respectively, 80 [50, 112] vs. 87 [65, 115] minutes, in Nimbex® group and Cisatrex® group; (p=0.579). Within the recovery period, the between two-studied drugs´ difference in TOF was at 0.25±0.96; p=0.64. There were no significant hemodynamic differences.
the present study revealed no significant differences in efficacy nor in tolerance between cisatracurium brand name Nimbex® and generic name Cisatrex® in hypoxemic ventilated patients.
使用仿制药是很常见的。然而,患者和医生仍然担心品牌药物更有效。本研究的目的是比较顺阿曲库铵两种制剂(品牌名和商品名)的疗效和耐受性。
这是一项交叉、随机、双盲的生理试验。我们招募了因低氧性急性呼吸衰竭而入院的患者,这些患者在优化通气和镇静后,仍存在 PaO2/FIO2<200mmHg,需要使用非去极化神经肌肉阻滞剂(NMBAs)。患者连续接受两种制剂(顺阿曲库铵品牌名 Nimbex®和商品名 Cisatrex®),每种制剂持续 2 小时,间隔 1 小时冲洗期。使用校准的四串刺激(TOF)设备监测神经肌肉功能。监测到达 TOF 2/4 的潜伏期、恢复动力学和耐受性。估计需要 22 名患者来证明两种顺阿曲库铵制剂到达 TOF 2/4 的潜伏期有显著差异。
共纳入 22 名患者。8 名(36.4%)患有急性呼吸窘迫综合征;8 名(36.4%)患有慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重,3 名(13.6%)患有哮喘持续状态。入院时 SAPS II 中位数[IQR]为 28.5[22,41]。PaO2/FIO2 为 121[81,156]mmHg。Nimbex®组和 Cisatrex®组的肌松时间延迟分别为 80[50,112]分钟和 87[65,115]分钟(p=0.579)。在恢复期间,两种研究药物的 TOF 差值为 0.25±0.96,p=0.64。无明显的血流动力学差异。
本研究表明,在低氧通气患者中,顺阿曲库铵品牌名 Nimbex®和商品名 Cisatrex®在疗效和耐受性方面没有显著差异。