A Study of AQUAVAN® Injection in the Presence of Pre-Medication in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgical Procedures
A Phase III, Randomized, Open-label Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of AQUAVAN® Injection Versus Midazolam HCl for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgical Procedures
1 other identifier
interventional
168
0 countries
N/A
Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AQUAVAN® Injection when used for mild-to-moderate sedation in patients undergoing minor surgical procedures.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for phase_3
Started Oct 2004
Shorter than P25 for phase_3
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
October 1, 2004
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
March 1, 2005
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
September 13, 2005
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
September 21, 2005
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
June 19, 2012
CompletedJanuary 9, 2015
July 1, 2014
September 13, 2005
March 1, 2012
December 22, 2014
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Successful Sedation of Subjects, Defined for a Subject as Having 3 Consecutive Scores ≤ 4 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale and Completing the Procedure w/o Alternative Sedative Medications/w/o Manual/Mechanical Ventilation
The Modified OAA/S (MOAA/S) scale is based on a validated, 6-point rating scale. Scores are not combined. Score 5 (alert) -- responds readily to name spoken in normal tone Score 4 -- Lethargic response to name spoken in normal tone Score 3 -- Responds only after name is called loudly and/or repeatedly Score 2 -- Responds only after mild prodding or shaking Score 1 -- Responds only after painful trapezius squeeze Score 0 -- Does not respond to painful trapezius squeeze
Sedation success was assessed at 2 minute intervals until the end of the procedure
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Time to Fully Alert From the End of the Procedure
At 2-minute intervals from the end of the procedure until the subject met the criteria for Fully Alert status
Interventions
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Patient provided signed/dated Informed Consent and HIPAA Authorization after receiving a full explanation of the extent and nature of the study.
- Patient was at least 18 years of age at the time of screening. (Prior to Amendment 1, dated 03 February 2005, this criterion restricted enrollment to patients who were ≥18 and ≤65 years of age. To ensure that safe dosing levels were administered to patients \>65 years of age, AQUAVAN and midazolam dosing levels were reduced when compared with patients between 18 and 65 years of age, inclusive. The majority of patients were enrolled prior to 03 February 2005.)
- Female patient must have been surgically sterile, postmenopausal, or not pregnant or lactating, and must have been using an acceptable method of birth control for at least 1 month prior to dosing, with a negative urine pregnancy test result at screening and predosing periods.
- Patient met the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System of I to III.
- Patient may have been an inpatient or outpatient scheduled to undergo a single minor surgical and/or therapeutic procedure.
You may not qualify if:
- Patient had a history of allergic reaction or hypersensitivity to any anesthetic agent, narcotic, or benzodiazepine.
- Patient did not meet nils per os (NPO) status per ASA Guideline or institution's guideline.
- Patient had condition(s) that, in the opinion of the Investigator, could interfere with appropriate airway management.
- Patient had participated in an investigational drug study within 1 month prior to study start.
- Patient had a history of mental or visual impairment that would not permit successful measurement of cognitive evaluations.
- Patient was unwilling to adhere to pre- and postprocedural instructions.
- The use of fentanyl or midazolam was contraindicated for the patient.
- Patient had experienced multiple concurrent injuries or trauma.
- Patient was scheduled to undergo multiple same-day procedures (eg, bunionectomies on both feet).
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Eisai Inc.lead
- PPD Development, LPcollaborator
- Covancecollaborator
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Limitations and Caveats
Analysis of results from a previous fospropofol study (3000-0410) completed during the enrollment of this study indicated that the dosing regimen needed to be re-evaluated. The study was prematurely terminated after 168 subjects were randomized.
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Eisai Medical Services
- Organization
- Eisai Inc
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
James Jones, MD, PharmD
Eisai Inc.
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restrictive Agreement
- No
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 3
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- INDUSTRY
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
September 13, 2005
First Posted
September 21, 2005
Study Start
October 1, 2004
Study Completion
March 1, 2005
Last Updated
January 9, 2015
Results First Posted
June 19, 2012
Record last verified: 2014-07