The pharmacodynamics of midazolam and its main metabolite alpha-hydroxymidazolam were characterized in individual subjects by use of saccadic eye movement and electroencephalographic (EEG) effect measurements. Eight healthy volunteers received 0.1 mg/kg midazolam intravenously in 15 minutes, 0.15 mg/kg alpha-hydroxymidazolam intravenously in 15 minutes, 7.5 mg midazolam orally and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, four-way crossover experiment. Plasma concentrations of midazolam, alpha-hydroxymidazolam and 4-hydroxymidazolam were measured by gas chromatography. The amplitudes in the 11.5 to 30 Hz (beta) frequency band were used as EEG effect measure. The concentration-effect relationships were quantified by the sigmoid maximum effect model. The median effective concentrations of midazolam and alpha-hydroxymidazolam were (mean +/- SE) 77 +/- 15 and 98 +/- 17 ng/ml, respectively, for the EEG effect measure. For peak saccadic velocity the values were 40 +/- 7 ng/ml for midazolam and 49 +/- 10 ng/ml for alpha-hydroxymidazolam. The maximum effect values were similar for both compounds. The effects observed after oral administration of midazolam could not be predicted accurately by an additive and competitive interaction model. It seems that alpha-hydroxymidazolam is highly potent with respect to the measured effects and contributes significantly to those effects of midazolam after oral administration.

The effects of single oral doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg temazepam were evaluated with the adaptive tracking test, analysis of smooth‐pursuit and saccadic eye movements, and visual analog lines in a placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, crossover experiment with 12 healthy volunteers. Pharmacodynamic testing was performed until 10 hours and pharmacokinetics were evaluated until 24 hours. Temazepam, 20 mg, caused effects in all tests, with peak effects occurring at 30 minutes. The 10 mg dose caused effects on saccadic eye movements and subjective scores of alertness, whereas 5 mg temazepam was detected only by analysis of saccadic eye movements. Linear relationships between plasma concentrations and effects were found in nine subjects for saccadic peak velocity and eight subjects for subjective scores of alertness. The results of this study demonstrate manifest differences in the sensitivities of performance tests and stress the importance of validation of methods when effects of drugs on human performance are studied. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1991) 50, 172–180; doi:

Various methods are used to quantify sedative drug effects, but it is unknown how these surrogate measures relate to clinically relevant sleepiness. This study assessed the sensitivity of different surrogates of sedation to clinically relevant sleepiness induced by sleep deprivation. Nine healthy volunteers completed a balanced three-way cross-over study with 1-week wash-out periods. Adaptive tracking, smooth-pursuit and saccadic eye movements, body sway, digit symbol substitution (DSST), visual analogue scales (VAS) and electroencephalograms (EEG) were evaluated on three occasions: (1) during the day after normal sleep, (2) during wakefulness at night; and (3) during the day after a night of sleep deprivation. VAS of alertness showed a gradual decline at night and a constant average reduction of 38 percent [95% Confidence intervals (CI), 28-47%] during the day after sleep deprivation. Average mood scores diminished by 14 percent (95%, CI 2-24%) during the day after sleep deprivation. Adaptive tracking, saccadic eye movements and body sway tended to deteriorate at night, but overall this was not statistically significant. After a night of sleep deprivation, adaptive tracking decreased by 21 percent (95% CI, 11-30%), saccadic eye movements decreased by 9-10 percent (95% CI, 5-13%/6-15%) and body sway increased by 37 percent (95% CI, 5-79%). In contrast, EEG beta2-amplitudes declined significantly at night by 18 percent (95% CI, 6-29%), without changes during the day after sleep deprivation. Smooth pursuit, DSST and other EEG-amplitudes remained unchanged. These results emphasize that reductions in adaptive tracking, saccadic peak velocity and body sway caused by sedative drugs really reflect sedation. They also provide a level of clinical significance for these surrogates of sedation. EEG parameters and smooth pursuit were unaffected by sleep deprivation, so drug-induced changes in these measures may not reflect sedation in a stricter sense. The motivation and alertness necessary for DSST may overcome mild sedation.

1Interaction between alcohol and bretazenil (a benzodiazepine partial agonist in animals) was studied with diazepam as a comparator in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo controlled six‐way cross over experiment in 12 healthy volunteers, aged 19−26 years. 2Bretazenil (0.5 mg), diazepam (10 mg) and matching placebos were given as single oral doses after intravenous infusion of alcohol to a steady target‐blood concentration of 0.5 g l−1 or a control infusion of 5% w/v glucose at 1 week intervals. 3CNS effects were evaluated between 0 and 3.5 h after drug administration by smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements, adaptive tracking, body sway, digit symbol substitution test and visual analogue scales. 4Compared with placebo all treatments caused significant decrements in performance. Overall, the following sequence was found for the magnitude of treatment effects: bretazenil+alcohol>diazepam+alcohol≥bretazenil> diazepam>alcohol>placebo. 5There were no consistent indications for synergistic, supra‐additive pharmacodynamic interactions between alcohol and bretazenil or diazepam. 6Bretazenil with or without alcohol, and diazepam+alcohol had marked effects. Because subjects were often too sedated to perform the adaptive tracking test and the eye movement tests adequately, ceiling effects may have affected the outcome of these tests. 7No significant pharmacokinetic interactions were found. 8Contrary to the results in animals, there were no indications for a dissociation of the sedative and anxiolytic effects of bretazenil in man.

Pharmacodynamic interactions of low doses of diazepam and alcohol were investigated in a double blind, randomised, 2 x 2 factorial, cross-over study in eight healthy volunteers. Alcohol or glucose 5% were administered intravenously at rates calculated to maintain breath alcohol levels of 0.5 g/l from 1.5 to 5.5 h after starting the alcohol infusion. Diazepam 5 mg or placebo were administered orally at 1.5 h. Evaluation of pharmacodynamic interactions was performed for the average results of tests performed at 2, 3.5 and 5 h. Plasma concentrations of (desmethyl-) diazepam and breath alcohol levels were measured for pharmacokinetic analysis. Breath alcohol reached pseudo steady state levels of 0.38 g/l (range: 0.24-0.57) after alcohol alone and 0.37 g/l (range: 0.27-0.52) in combination with diazepam. Alcohol effects were demonstrated for latency of saccadic eye movements, smooth pursuit eye movements and subjective drug effects. Diazepam impaired smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements, adaptive tracking, digit symbol substitution and body sway. The effects of combined alcohol and diazepam were mostly additive without significant synergistic interactions. However, in two subjects large supra-additive effects occurred at 3.5 h following alcohol+diazepam, which were not explained by increased drug levels. The design and methods used in this study proved advantageous in evaluating low dose pharmacodynamic interactions. Despite the absence of significant synergistic interactions, unanticipated impairment of performance may occur in susceptible individuals when taking combined low doses of alcohol and diazepam.

Saccadic eye movements were analyzed after single oral doses of 20 mg temazepam and placebo in a randomized, double‐blind crossover study in eight healthy volunteers. For an optimal evaluation of concentration‐effect relationships, 18 blood samples and 43 effect measures were obtained over 33½ hours. After placebo, saccadic peak velocity decreased within the first hour, with average values remaining 6.2% to 12.1% below baseline up to 15 hours after intake. After temazepam, significant changes in peak velocity occurred for 5 hours, with maximum decreases averaging 29.2% (95% confidence interval, 10.0 to 37.2). The apparent duration of effects ranged from 3 to 9 hours in individual subjects. Linear concentration‐effect relationships were demonstrated for peak velocity, with individual slopes ranging from −0.11 to −0.46 deg/sec · (ng/ml)−1 (average r = −0.82, all p < 0.01). Differences in protein binding of temazepam did not account for the approximate fourfold variability in individual sensitivities to temazepam. By increasing the frequency of measurements, the accuracy of pharmacodynamic evaluations was clearly enhanced in this study. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1992) 52, 402–408; doi:

AimsThe central effects of benzodiazepines may be attenuated after chronic use by changes in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics or both. This attenuation may be influenced by the dosing pattern and the characteristics of the user population. The objectives of this study were to evaluate drug sensitivity in long-term users of temazepam and lorazepam in a clinical population. Methods The sensitivity to benzodiazepine effects in chronic users (1-20 years) of lorazepam (n=14) or temazepam (n=13) was evaluated in comparison with age and sex matched controls. Drug sensitivity was evaluated by plasma concentration in relation to saccadic eye movement parameters, postural stability and visual analogue scales. Results Pharmacokinetics of lorazepam and temazepam did not differ between patients and control subjects. Chronic users of lorazepam showed clear evidence of reduced sensitivity, indicated by lack of any pharmacodynamic difference between patients and controls at baseline, when drug concentrations were similar to the peak values attained in the control subjects after administration of 1-2.5 mg of lorazepam. In addition, there was a two-to four fold reduction in the slopes of concentration-effect plots for measures of saccadic eye movements and body sway (all; P≤0.01). By contrast, sensitivity in chronic users of temazepam was not different from controls. The difference between the temazepam and the lorazepam group appears to be associated with a more continuous drug exposure in the latter, due to the longer half-life and a more frequent intake of lorazepam. This pattern of use may be partly related to the more anxious personality traits that were observed in the chronic users of lorazepam. Conclusions Chronic users of lorazepam show evidence of tolerance to sedative effects in comparison with healthy controls. Tolerance does not occur in chronic users of temazepam. The difference may be related to pharmacological properties, in addition to different patterns of use, associated with psychological factors.

No abstract