Search

Background: The new local anesthetic IQB-9302 is an amide derivative bearing a cyclopropyl group, with remarkable long duration of action and relative low toxicity. In trying to characterize further its safety profile, the current study compared the hemodynamic effects of different concentrations of bupivacaine and IQB-9302 with saline. Methods: Two groups of eight anesthetized Sprague–Dawley rats were given 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, and 10 mg/kg of intravenous (i.v.) IQB-9302 or bupivacaine at 20-min intervals; control animals received saline only. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were monitored during the following 20 min. Results: Both bupivacaine and IQB-9302 reduced heart rate: for bupivacaine, −73.8 beats per min (bpm) (SD: 103.8) and −132.5 bpm (SD: 140.7) at 1 and 3 mg/kg, respectively; for IQB-9302, the reduction amounted to −40.8 bpm (SD: 14.2) and −113.5 bpm (SD: 94.2) at 1 and 3 mg/kg, respectively (baseline range, 318.7–438.2 bpm). The two drugs also produced a comparable increase in the mean arterial blood pressure; bupivacaine increased it by 8.7 mmHg (SD: 6.6) and 12.6 mmHg (SD: 15.4) at 1 and 3 mg/kg, respectively, and IQB-9302, 18.7 mmHg (SD: 21.1) and 20.7 mmHg (SD: 20.5) at 1 and 3 mg/kg, respectively (baseline range, 47.4–134.1 mmHg). All rats treated with 10 mg/kg of either drug died after a drop in heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure. Conclusion: IQB-9302 had hemodynamic effects similar to those of bupivacaine in anesthetized rats. The clinical relevance of these effects warrants further investigation.

This study was undertaken to assess the bioequivalence between a new formulation of propofol 2% and the commercially available product Diprivan. Secondary objectives were to compare the times to onset of and emergence from hypnosis, the hemodynamic effects, and the safety profiles. Twelve healthy male volunteers were included in a randomized crossover study. Subjects were administered a 2-mg/kg single bolus injection of each formulation separated by a 7- to 10-day washout period. Plasma propofol was determined by reversed-phase liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Eleven subjects completed the study, and both formulations were considered bioequivalent. There were no serious or severe adverse events. The concentration-time profiles of all the subjects could adequately be described using a three-compartment model. The mean times to cessation of counting out loud (17 vs. 18 s) and to eye opening (245 vs. 244 s) were not statistically different between treatment groups. Moreover, they seem to show some degree of pharmacodynamic bioequivalence, although a higher number of subjects are necessary to unequivocally demonstrate it.