Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, which like midazolam, results in sedation, anxiolysis, and amnesia through its agonistic effects on the gamma-amino butyric acid A receptor. As opposed to midazolam, its unique metabolism is via tissue esterases, which results in a rapid elimination with a limited context sensitive half-life and prompt dissipation of its effect when administration is discontinued. Remimazolam received FDA approval for use in adults in 2020. In preliminary and initial clinical trials, its efficacy and safety has been suggested in the adult population, both as a primary agent for procedural sedation or as an adjunct to general anesthesia. There are limited data regarding the use of remimazolam in infants and children and its use in this population remains off label as it does not hold FDA-approval in pediatric-aged patients. This narrative outlines the pharmacologic properties of this unique medication, reviews previous published reports of its role in pediatric-aged patients, and discusses dosing parameters and clinical use in this population.

Background and Objectives: Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, is used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia due to its rapid onset and short duration of action. However, remimazolam-induced anaphylaxis (RIA) is a rare but severe complication. This study aimed to analyze RIA characteristics, focusing on cardiovascular collapse, and provide guidelines for safe remimazolam use. Methods: This study conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Research articles retrieved from PubMed on 26 May 2023, using the keywords \'remimazolam AND anaphylaxis\' were evaluated based on the inclusion criteria of being written in English and aligning with the World Allergy Organization criteria for anaphylaxis, while studies not meeting these criteria were excluded. All published articles up to the search date were included without any date restrictions. The review analyzed factors such as age, sex, type of anesthesia, remimazolam dose (bolus/continuous), allergic symptoms and sign, epinephrine use, serum tryptase levels, and skin prick tests. Results: Among eleven cases, the mean age was 55.6 ± 19.6 years, with 81.8% male. Hypotension (81.8%) was the most common symptom, followed by bradycardia (54.5%) and desaturation (36.4%). Two patients experienced cardiac arrest. Serum tryptase levels confirmed anaphylaxis in ten cases. Epinephrine was the primary treatment, with intravenous doses ranging from 0.1 mg to 0.3 mg. Conclusions: Vigilance is crucial when administering remimazolam, adhering to recommended dosages, and promptly treating RIA with epinephrine. Further research is needed to understand the risk factors and refine the management strategies. Guidelines for safe remimazolam use are proposed.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is a recently developed, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine that is used as a general anesthetic. Some cases of remimazolam anaphylaxis have been reported, but its characteristics are not fully understood. We present an interesting case report and review of the literature to better understand remimazolam anaphylaxis.
METHODS: A 75-year-old man scheduled for robot-assisted gastrectomy was administered remimazolam for the induction of general anesthesia. After intubation, low end-expiratory CO2, high airway pressure and concurrent circulatory collapse were observed. Bronchoscopy revealed marked tracheal and bronchial edema, which we diagnosed as anaphylaxis. The patient suffered cardiac arrest after bronchoscopy but recovered immediately with intravenous adrenaline administration and chest compressions. We performed skin prick tests for the drugs used during induction except for remimazolam, considering the high risk of systemic adverse reactions to remimazolam. We diagnosed remimazolam anaphylaxis because the skin prick test results for the other drugs used during anesthesia were negative, and these drugs could have been used without allergic reactions during the subsequent surgery. Furthermore, this patient had experienced severe anaphylactic-like reactions when he underwent cardiac surgery a year earlier, in which midazolam had been used, but it was not thought to be the allergen at that time. Based on these findings, cross-reactivity to remimazolam and midazolam was suspected. However, the patient had previously received another benzodiazepine, brotizolam, to which he was not allergic, suggesting that cross-reactivity of remimazolam may vary among benzodiazepines. In this article, we reviewed the 11 cases of remimazolam anaphylaxis that have been described in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam is an ultrashort-acting sedative; however, it can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. In addition, its cross-reactivity with other benzodiazepines is not fully understood. To increase the safety of this drug, further research and more experience in its use are needed.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the existing literature on the relationship between hypnotics and dementia, considering both potential link and inconclusive or lack of association.
METHODS: Data from studies that investigate the association between hypnotic medications and dementia were reviewed. Studies included both cohort studies and systematic reviews, participants with various type of dementia and hypnotics including benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-drugs (ZDs).
RESULTS: The existing literatures presents conflicting evidence regarding the association between hypnotics, including BZDs and ZDs, and the risk of dementia. Some studies suggest a potential link between prolonged use of hypnotics and an increased risk of dementia. However, other studies indicate inconclusive or lacking evidence regarding this association. Factors such as study design, sample characteristics, and control of confounding variables contribute to the variability in findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between hypnotics and dementia remains complex and controversial. While some studies suggest a potential association, others find inconclusive or conflicting evidence. Future research should focus on addressing methodological limitations, considering classifying dementia subtypes, and try to adjust medication lag time.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, shows promise as an alternative to traditional sedatives and hypnotic agents in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia. While preliminary research indicates potential advantages over conventional agents, such as faster onset, predictable duration, and improved safety profile, the extent and quality of existing evidence remain unclear. This scoping review aims to investigate the current clinical role of remimazolam and provide a broad and comprehensive overview.
METHODS: The proposed review will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted across major peer-reviewed databases and grey literature will be sought. All studies involving individuals undergoing procedural sedation or general anaesthesia with remimazolam will be eligible. Data extraction will encompass trial and participant characteristics, intervention details, reported outcomes, comparative efficacy versus midazolam and propofol, patient and operator experience and economic costs.
RESULTS: We will provide a descriptive summary supplemented by statistics, figures and tables where applicable.
CONCLUSIONS: The outlined scoping review aims to assess the clinical use of remimazolam in procedural sedation and as the hypnotic component of general anaesthesia. The review will map the current body of evidence of remimazolam and identify knowledge gaps, contributing to understanding its clinical implications and guiding future research efforts in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

The prevalence of dementia among the elderly is high, and it is the leading cause of death globally. However, the relationship between benzodiazepine use and dementia risk has produced inconsistent results, necessitating an updated review of the evidence. To address this, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses to summarize the available evidence on the association between benzodiazepine use and dementia risk and evaluate its credibility. We systematically evaluated the meta-analyses of observational studies that examined the connection between benzodiazepine use and dementia risk. For each meta-analysis, we collected the overall effect size, heterogeneity, risk of bias, and year of the most recent article and graded the evidence based on pre-specified criteria. We also used AMSTAR, a measurement tool to evaluate systematic reviews, to assess the methodological quality of each study. Our review included five meta-analyses encompassing 30 studies, and the effect size of the association between benzodiazepine use and dementia risk ranged from 1.38 to 1.78. Nonetheless, the evidence supporting this relationship was weak, and the methodological quality of the studies included was low. In conclusion, our findings revealed limited evidence of a link between benzodiazepine use and dementia risk, and more research is required to determine a causal connection. Physicians should only prescribe benzodiazepine for appropriate indications.

BACKGROUND: Consolidated and reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions for deprescribing benzodiazepines in older outpatients is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated and summarized the impact of pharmacist interventions on benzodiazepine deprescribing among older outpatients.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted until August 2022 in PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. The review included randomized controlled trials that assessed the impact of pharmacist interventions on deprescribing benzodiazepine in older outpatients. Two independent investigators conducted the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effect models in the RStudio software.
RESULTS: A total of 893 records were identified. Five studies, including 3,879 patients, met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. All five studies used health education as an intervention strategy, and three also conducted medication reviews. There was no evidence of the pharmacist\'s authority to modify prescriptions during benzodiazepine deprescribing. One study was classified as having a low risk of bias, whereas the other had some concerns or a high risk of bias. Three studies were included in the meta-analysis and a significant impact of pharmacist interventions on benzodiazepines deprescribing rates in older outpatients was observed (RR = 2.75 [95%CI 1.29; 5.89]; p = 0.04; I2 = 69%; low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists may contribute to deprescribing benzodiazepines in older outpatients. Further studies are needed to increase the reliability of these findings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022358563.

Benzodiazepines, due to their anxiolytic properties, are prescribed to reduce anxiety and insomnia. They might have hypotensive effect via potentiation of the inhibitory effect of gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) in the central nervous system and vasodilatory properties. However, studies comparing the effect of benzodiazepines in lowering blood pressure (BP) are equivocal. This systematic review and meta-analysis was planned to assess the efficacy of benzodiazepines in reducing blood pressure in short term among hypertensive patients.
Various trials and retrospective analysis conducted previously have reported that benzodiazepines cause short- as well as long-term BP reduction in patients with increased anxiety with hypertension. On the other hand, several studies investigating the efficacy of benzodiazepines in patients with hypertension have reported inconclusive results. The primary question about the effect of benzodiazepines in lowering BP remains unanswered. In this meta-analysis of seven studies, benzodiazepines were found comparable to standard drugs in reducing systolic and diastolic BP in patients having hypertension. Although, the mean difference in systolic BP with benzodiazepines and placebo was statistically not significant, the difference can be considered as clinically meaningful. The current review offers preliminary evidence that benzodiazepines may have antihypertensive properties and may be used as add-on antihypertensive in a subset of patients in short term. The existing data are encouraging, but more clinical trials and mechanistic research are required to ascertain the long-term benefits.

The drug combination referred to as \'benzo dope\' has become prevalent in recent years, with an increasing number of fentanyl-related deaths reporting the concomitant presence of one or more benzodiazepine drug, such as etizolam, flualprazolam and flubromazepam. The central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects of these benzodiazepine drugs can exacerbate respiratory and CNS depressant effects resulting from the use/misuse of potent opioids such as fentanyl. This combined and enhanced drug-induced toxicity can pose a significant threat to life. Over a three-year period (2020-2022), the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada issued 2812 case reports with fentanyl detected; of these cases, approximately 45% (1261) were positive for at least one benzodiazepine drug. This study presents concentrations of both fentanyl and benzodiazepine drugs in post mortem blood collected from a visualized, ligated femoral vein. The study demonstrates that the blood concentration of fentanyl in benzo-dope case reports is considerably higher than in cases where no benzodiazepine drug was detected.The median concentration of fentanyl in femoral blood for cases that also contained a benzodiazepine drug was 12.4 ng/mL (2020), 11.9 ng/mL (2021) and 14.0 ng/mL (2022). The median concentration of fentanyl in femoral blood for cases that did not contain a benzodiazepine drug was 8.5 ng/mL (2020), 7.0 ng/mL (2021) and 7.2 ng/mL (2022). The percent differences between the groups were similar with those observed from quantitative analysis of drug powders from unrelated police seizures in Alberta, Canada, suggesting the observed differences in blood fentanyl concentration may be due to the use of a drug substance with a higher concentration of fentanyl.Furthermore, the reported concentration of the benzodiazepine drug(s) is low, such that the role/contribution, if any, that this drug may have played in the decedents\' death should be questioned and carefully considered by the certifying medical examiner/coroner.