Aims
Benzodiazepines have been used as safe anxiolytic drugs for decades and some authors have suggested they could be an alternative for morphine for treating acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema ...(ACPE). We compared the efficacy and safety of midazolam and morphine in patients with ACPE.
Methods and results
A randomized, multicentre, open‐label, blinded endpoint clinical trial was performed in seven Spanish emergency departments (EDs). Patients >18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnoea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at ED arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine. Efficacy was assessed by in‐hospital all‐cause mortality (primary endpoint). Safety was assessed through serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, and the composite endpoint included 30‐day mortality and SAE. Analyses were made on an intention‐to‐treat basis. The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis by the safety monitoring committee. At that time, 111 patients had been randomized: 55 to midazolam and 56 to morphine. There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint (in‐hospital mortality for midazolam vs. morphine 12.7% vs. 17.9%; risk ratioRR 0.71, 95% confidence interval CI 0.29–1.74; p = 0.60). SAE were less common with midazolam versus morphine (18.2% vs. 42.9%; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22–0.80; p = 0.007), as were the composite endpoint (23.6% vs. 44.6%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.92; p = 0.03).
Conclusion
Although the number of patients was too small to draw final conclusions and there were no significant differences in mortality between midazolam and morphine, a significantly higher rate of SAEs was found in the morphine group.
There were no significant differences in mortality between morphine and midazolam but the rate of serious adverse events was significantly higher in the morphine group, although the number of patients was too small to draw final conclusions.
The MIMO clinical trial showed that patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. Atrial ...fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in heart failure and affects patient's outcome.
The primary endpoint of this substudy is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. The first secondary endpoint is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events or death at 30 days in the midazolam arm. The second secondary objective of this substudy is to analyze whether AF modified the reduced risk of midazolam against morphine on the total number of serious adverse events per patient.
We conducted a secondary analysis of the MIMO trial. Patients more than 18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at emergency department arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine.
In this post hoc analysis, we calculated the relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events in patients with and without AF. Calculating the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel interaction test, we evaluated if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine.
One hundred eleven patients (median = 78.9 years; IQR, 72.3-83.7; women, 52.2%) were randomized in the MIMO trial, 55 to receive midazolam and 56 to morphine. All randomized patients received the assigned drug and there were no losses to follow-up. Forty-four patients (39.6%) had AF. In the AF group, the RR for the incidence of serious adverse events in the midazolam versus morphine arm was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.14-1.3). In the group without AF, the RR was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.21-1). The presence of AF did not modify the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared with morphine ( P for interaction = 0.88).
This post hoc analysis of the MIMO trial suggests that the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam group compared to morphine is similar in patients with and without AF.
Biofilm formation by the pathobiont Haemophilus influenzae is associated with human nasopharynx colonization, otitis media in children, and chronic respiratory infections in adults suffering from ...chronic respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). β-lactam and quinolone antibiotics are commonly used to treat these infections. However, considering the resistance of biofilm-resident bacteria to antibiotic-mediated killing, the use of antibiotics may be insufficient and require being replaced or complemented with novel strategies. Moreover, unlike the standard minimal inhibitory concentration assay used to assess antibacterial activity against planktonic cells, standardization of methods to evaluate anti-biofilm drug activity is limited. In this work, we detail a panel of protocols for systematic analysis of drug antimicrobial effect on bacterial biofilms, customized to evaluate drug effects against H. influenzae biofilms. Testing of two cinnamaldehyde analogs, (E)-trans-2-nonenal and (E)-3-decen-2-one, demonstrated their effectiveness in both H. influenzae inhibition of biofilm formation and eradication or preformed biofilms. Assay complementarity allowed quantifying the dynamics and extent of the inhibitory effects, also observed for ampicillin resistant clinical strains forming biofilms refractory to this antibiotic. Moreover, cinnamaldehyde analog encapsulation into poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) polymeric nanoparticles allowed drug vehiculization while maintaining efficacy. Overall, we demonstrate the usefulness of cinnamaldehyde analogs against H. influenzae biofilms, present a test panel that can be easily adapted to a wide range of pathogens and drugs, and highlight the benefits of drug nanoencapsulation towards safe controlled release.
