ライフサイエンスコーパス: lorazepam

1 ent (valproic acid, fluoxetine, risperidone, lorazepam).

2 ly infused sedation (propofol, midazolam, or lorazepam).

3 e more severe agitation, and be treated with lorazepam.

4 in patients receiving continuous infusion of lorazepam.

5 iled to rise while the patient was receiving lorazepam.

6 a except while the patient was not receiving lorazepam.

7 ctate and osmolality closely correlated with lorazepam.

8 ected midazolam requirement after initiating lorazepam.

9 dazolam administration as a result of adding lorazepam.

10 ravenous midazolam to enterally administered lorazepam.

11 ion subscale, ADLs, or in less use of rescue lorazepam.

12 ients; 140 randomized to diazepam and 133 to lorazepam.

13 ma (63% vs 92%; P < .001) than sedation with lorazepam.

14 d tolerance to the anticonvulsant effects of lorazepam.

15 Maintenance doses of lorazepam 0.02+/-0.01 mg/kg/hr, midazolam 0.04+/-0.03 mg

16 boluses and infusion rates were as follows: lorazepam 0.05 mg/kg, then 0.007 mg/kg/hr; midazolam 0.0

17 followed by phenytoin (18 mg per kilogram), lorazepam (0.1 mg per kilogram), phenobarbital (15 mg pe

18 s received a single oral dose of placebo and lorazepam (0.5 and 1.0 mg) 1 week apart.

19 Lorazepam (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) or MK-801 (0.1-0.3 mg/kg) trea

20 single-dose placebo or 0.25 mg or 1.0 mg of lorazepam 1 hour prior to an MRI session.

21 sions and then alternately administered i.v. lorazepam (1 mg) or scopolamine (0.4 mg) in a double-bli

22 -9.2), 600 mg/day of pregabalin (-10.3), and lorazepam (-12.0) were significantly greater than the de

23 er patient day (mean +/- SD) were $48+/-$76 (lorazepam), $182+/-$98 (midazolam), and $273+/-$200 (pro

24 stered: ketamine (.41 mg/kg or .71 mg/kg) or lorazepam 2 mg, counterbalanced into three orderings in

25 study, volunteers were given either placebo, lorazepam (2 mg orally), or scopolamine (0.4 mg, i.v.).

26 A single oral dose of the benzodiazepine lorazepam (2 mg) or the voltage-gated Na+ and Ca2+ chann

27 izures received intravenous diazepam (5 mg), lorazepam (2 mg), or placebo.

28 Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n =

29 eoxyglucose (FDG): before placebo and before lorazepam (30 microg/kg).

30 ucose (FDG) twice: before placebo and before lorazepam (30 micrograms/kg).

31 of dosage changes per day was 7.8+/-4.3 for lorazepam, 4.4+/-2.9 for midazolam, and 5.6+/-6.0 for pr

32 Fewer patients given lorazepam (59%, N=40 of 68) completed the trial than did

33 ncy department in more patients treated with lorazepam (59.1 percent) or diazepam (42.6 percent) than

34 ceive pregabalin (150 mg/day or 600 mg/day), lorazepam (6 mg/day), or placebo.

35 Of the 205 patients enrolled, 66 received lorazepam, 68 received diazepam, and 71 received placebo

36 e received >/=24 hrs of continuously infused lorazepam (7% vs. 15%, p = .037) and midazolam (30% vs.

37 -methyl-d-aspartate receptor blocker) and by lorazepam [a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A recep

38 y measuring the brain metabolic responses to lorazepam, a drug that facilitates GABA neurotransmissio

39 Lorazepam, a GABA(A) receptor agonist, blocked this incr

40 Compared with the active control lorazepam, a single ketamine infusion (.41 mg/kg) led to

41 lation (16.0% given diazepam and 17.6% given lorazepam; absolute risk difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -9.9%

42 d to examine the interactions of ibuprofen/S-lorazepam acetate, S-oxazepam hemisuccinate/R-oxazepam h

43 placebo administration and the second after lorazepam administration (30 micrograms/kg).

44 in comparison subjects, the measures during lorazepam administration were equivalent for both groups

45 These age-related changes were abolished by lorazepam administration.

46 ning during a 5-hour period after placebo or lorazepam administration.

47 Lorazepam alone appears to be ineffective and associated

48 Lorazepam and amygdala lesions reduced loss adaptation i

49 Additionally, greater amounts of lorazepam and fentanyl were administered to patients wit

50 educed loss adaptation in this measure under lorazepam and in patients with amygdala lesions.

51 Sedation and anxiolysis with lorazepam and midazolam in critically ill patients is sa

52 most frequently with propofol compared with lorazepam and midazolam, at 31%, 18%, and 16% of the ass

53 Both lorazepam and MK-801 treatment conditions resulted in en

54 eated withdrawals to evaluate the ability of lorazepam and MK-801 treatments to antagonize behavioral

55 unctional MRI (fMRI) to study the effects of lorazepam and scopolamine on a face-name associative enc

56 evaluate the relationship between high-dose lorazepam and serum propylene glycol concentrations.

57 f midazolam administration before initiating lorazepam and the projected midazolam requirement after

58 nstitute Withdrawal Assessment protocol with lorazepam and were randomized to dexmedetomidine 1.2 mug

59 uscular midazolam and 14.4% with intravenous lorazepam) and recurrence of seizures (11.4% and 10.6%,

60 fol group), and other agents like midazolam, lorazepam, and pentobarbital were used in the other ten

61 The data suggest that lorazepam appears to be a cost-effective choice for seda

62 68, here we identify the benzodiazepine drug lorazepam as a non-selective GPR68 positive allosteric m

63 uggest a lack of benefit with routine use of lorazepam as sedative premedication in patients undergoi

64 More than 55% administered haloperidol and lorazepam at daily doses of < or =10 mg, but some used >

65 ll generally decreasing with higher doses of lorazepam at up to 2.5 hours.

66 PPI in low PPI gaters, whereas modafinil and lorazepam attenuated PPI in both groups.

67 gh not identical, differences in response to lorazepam between the two evaluations.

68 haloperidol by 66% of the respondents, with lorazepam by 12%, and with atypical antipsychotics by <5

69 lar midazolam was noninferior to intravenous lorazepam by a margin of 10 percentage points.

70 Patients were randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration or propof

71 Lorazepam can be used for long-term sedation in more sta

72 adverse events associated with propofol and lorazepam can help us develop strategies to avoid them.

73 nteers received a 2-mg bolus loading dose of lorazepam, coincident with the start of a 2 microg/kg/hr

74 The actual cost of midazolam and lorazepam combined was $47,867, resulting in a cost savi

75 eral anesthesia, sedative premedication with lorazepam compared with placebo or no premedication did

76 Oversedation occurred most often with lorazepam, compared with midazolam and propofol, at 14%,

77 ic electroencephalographic effect vs. plasma lorazepam concentration demonstrated counterclockwise hy

78 Plasma lorazepam concentrations and electroencephalographic act

79 Despite significantly higher plasma lorazepam concentrations in comparison subjects than in

80 plus-infusion scheme rapidly produced plasma lorazepam concentrations that were close to those predic

81 The mean daily dosing of fentanyl and lorazepam decreased after the intervention.

82 Lorazepam did not affect the BOLD-fMRI signal in the pri

83 Premedication with lorazepam did not improve the EVAN-G mean global index f

84 onvulsive status epilepticus, treatment with lorazepam did not result in improved efficacy or safety

85 Cumulative lorazepam dose (mg/kg) and the rate of infusion (mg.kg(-

86 Additionally, greater cumulative lorazepam dose (p = 0.012), and higher cumulative fentan

87 in transitioning therapy was to titrate the lorazepam dose and reduce midazolam administration while

88 concentration correlated with the cumulative lorazepam dose the patient received.

89 usion; b) to assess the relationship between lorazepam dose, serum propylene glycol concentrations, a

90 Lorazepam effects were the largest in the thalamus (22.2

91 e converted to their respective fentanyl and lorazepam equivalent units based on potency and bioavail

92 yl equivalents, as well as higher mean daily lorazepam equivalents (p = .049) compared with patients

93 drawal maintains symptom control and reduces lorazepam exposure in the short term, but not long term,

94 ly other psychoactive medication allowed was lorazepam for agitation.

95 atients were sedated with dexmedetomidine or lorazepam for as many as 120 hours.

96 amuscular midazolam with that of intravenous lorazepam for children and adults in status epilepticus

97 t least as safe and effective as intravenous lorazepam for prehospital seizure cessation.

98 e respiratory failure and required high-dose lorazepam for sedation.

99 effects of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and lorazepam for the treatment of the symptoms of delirium

100 dings do not support the preferential use of lorazepam for this condition.

101 l group compared with the intermittent bolus lorazepam group (5.8 vs. 8.4, p = .04).

102 in the EVAN-G mean global index between the lorazepam group (68 [95% CI, 65-72]; n = 87) and the no

103 and in 282 of 445 (63.4%) in the intravenous-lorazepam group (absolute difference, 10 percentage poin

104 hospital, as compared with 29 percent of the lorazepam group (odds ratio for admission, 2.1; 95 perce

105 dexmedetomidine group was 17% vs 27% in the lorazepam group (P = .18) and cost of care was similar b

106 the dexmedetomidine group vs 188 days in the lorazepam group (P = .48).

107 cent confidence interval, 0.8 to 4.4) in the lorazepam group as compared with the diazepam group and

108 us epilepticus by the time of arrival in the lorazepam group as compared with the placebo group was 4

109 patients in the placebo group and one in the lorazepam group were transported to an emergency departm

110 t was administered were 10.6 percent for the lorazepam group, 10.3 percent for the diazepam group, an

111 as 17 minutes (95% CI, 14-20 minutes) in the lorazepam group, 12 minutes (95% CI, 11-13 minutes) for

112 In the lorazepam group, 3 of 100 patients (3 percent) had a sec

113 diazepam group and 97 of 133 (72.9%) in the lorazepam group, with an absolute efficacy difference of

114 lam group and 4.8 minutes in the intravenous-lorazepam group, with corresponding median times from ac

115 in the symptoms of delirium was found in the lorazepam group.

116 th either intermittent intravenous injection lorazepam (group A, n = 50) or continuous intravenous in

117 se effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in th

118 The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescu

119 , 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + h

120 regivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + h

121 Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly grea

122 All patients receiving lorazepam, however, developed treatment-limiting adverse

123 ted included propofol, fentanyl, metoprolol, lorazepam, hydralazine, and furosemide.

124 randomly assigned to receive either 2 mg of lorazepam in 2 ml of normal saline or 4 ml of normal sal

125 nalysis demonstrated that propofol dominated lorazepam in 91% of simulations and, on average, was bot

126 68 homology models were refined to recognize lorazepam in a putative allosteric site.

127 Comparison of propofol to midazolam and lorazepam in adult ICU patients.

128 The enhanced sensitivity to lorazepam in cocaine-abusing subjects suggests disruptio

129 ravenous midazolam to enterally administered lorazepam in critically ill children who require long-te

130 h compared sedation with dexmedetomidine vs. lorazepam in mechanically ventilated patients.

131 ficantly while the patient was not receiving lorazepam in response to hypercarbia and failed to rise

132 The intense sleepiness induced by lorazepam in some of the abusers, despite their signific

133 zepine receptor full agonists, midazolam and lorazepam, in rhesus monkeys trained to self-administer

134 Although the overall pattern of lorazepam-induced activation depicted by SPM was reprodu

135 parison subjects, and it was correlated with lorazepam-induced changes in thalamic metabolism.

136 n subjects than in cocaine-abusing subjects, lorazepam-induced decrements in whole brain metabolism w

137 Lorazepam-induced sleepiness in cocaine-abusing subjects

138 y was collected at 48 hrs into the high-dose lorazepam infusion and daily thereafter.

139 significant correlation between duration of lorazepam infusion and serum propylene glycol concentrat

140 ly ill adults receiving continuous high-dose lorazepam infusion for > or =48 hrs.

141 entrations may be predicted by the high-dose lorazepam infusion rate and osmol gap.

142 A significant correlation between high-dose lorazepam infusion rate and serum propylene glycol conce

143 h-dose lorazepam received and mean high-dose lorazepam infusion rate were 8.1 mg/kg (range, 5.1-11.7)

144 Lorazepam infusion rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.33 mg.kg.h

145 1).hr(-1)) were monitored from initiation of lorazepam infusion until 24 hrs after discontinuation of

146 d (p = .015), whereas the median duration of lorazepam infusion was 2 days for the observation period

147 intensive care patients receiving continuous lorazepam infusion, and propylene glycol concentration c

148 ions were drawn at 48 hrs into the high-dose lorazepam infusion, and the presence of propylene glycol

149 4 hrs after discontinuation of the high-dose lorazepam infusion.

150 fell, as expected, on discontinuation of the lorazepam infusion.

151 arbonate, PaCO2, and pH were measured during lorazepam infusion.

152 t the targeted level of sedation than with a lorazepam infusion.

153 ulation associated with continuous high-dose lorazepam infusion; b) to assess the relationship betwee

154 either 0.2 mg/kg of diazepam or 0.1 mg/kg of lorazepam intravenously, with half this dose repeated at

155 Since lorazepam is a drug with well established anxiety reduci

156 Lorazepam is a more cost-effective choice for long-term

157 Treatment with intravenous lorazepam is associated with a significant reduction in

158 Lorazepam is currently recommended for sustained sedatio

159 Lorazepam is likely to be a better therapy than diazepam

160 t generalized convulsive status epilepticus, lorazepam is more effective than phenytoin.

161 Although lorazepam is no more efficacious than phenobarbital or d

162 e more effective or safer than diazepam, but lorazepam is not Food and Drug Administration approved f

163 savings, if all study patients had received lorazepam, is $14,208 compared with $8,808 if all receiv

164 age-related significant difference in plasma lorazepam levels.

165 Subjects received intravenous lorazepam (LRZ; 0.01 mg/kg) or saline in a single-blinde

166 rgic mechanisms, we studied the influence of lorazepam (LZ) (a GABA(A) receptor agonist) relative to

167 ntiating effects of the benzodiazepine (BDZ) lorazepam (LZM) on GABA-gated Cl- current, assessed usin

168 ly potentiating effect of the benzodiazepine lorazepam (LZM) on GABAA-gated Cl- current.

169 2,250 propofol-midazolam and 1,054 propofol-lorazepam matched patients.

170 Some studies suggest that lorazepam may be more effective or safer than diazepam,

171 Lorazepam may be the sedative of choice in critically il

172 produce pharmacodynamic sensitivity, such as lorazepam, may allow more careful prescribing and dosing

173 ion goal compared with patients sedated with lorazepam (median percentage of days, 80% vs 67%; P = .0

174 s were randomized by block design to receive lorazepam, midazolam, or propofol.

175 Lorazepam, modafinil, and valproate did not influence P5

176 and appropriate sedation was maintained with lorazepam monotherapy.

177 tested the effect of a single dose (1 mg) of lorazepam (n = 59).

178 eridol (N = 11), chlorpromazine (N = 13), or lorazepam (N = 6).

179 ons; the most commonly administered drug was lorazepam (n = 71), followed by morphine (n = 39).

180 odels showed that treatment with intravenous lorazepam (n=107) in the accident and emergency departme

181 zole and risperidone (n=28), amisulpride and lorazepam (n=30), or modafinil and valproate (n=30), and

182 f 354 participants each to receive 2.5 mg of lorazepam, no premedication, or placebo.

183 res and for metabolic changes in response to lorazepam on a test-retest design.

184 ory, measuring the effects of citalopram and lorazepam on the defensive behavior of 30 healthy adult

185 ted withdrawal, mice previously treated with lorazepam or MK-801 for earlier withdrawals exhibited re

186 With the administration of either lorazepam or scopolamine, significant decreases were obs

187 ss benzodiazepine tolerance in aged animals, lorazepam or vehicle was administered chronically to mal

188 d ethanol withdrawals with a benzodiazepine (lorazepam) or an NMDA receptor antagonist (MK-801) may h

189 stabilization period taking either diazepam, lorazepam, or alprazolam, patients were treated for 4 we

190 (median 18.5 days for propofol vs. 10.2 for lorazepam, p = .06).

191 ifferences in secondary outcomes except that lorazepam patients were more likely to be sedated (66.9%

192 elay in effect onset, continuous infusion of lorazepam, preceded by a bolus loading dose, produces a

193 ined included benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam), propofol, and dexmedetomidine.

194 ation; anxiolysis; critical care; midazolam; lorazepam; propofol; benzodiazepines; intensive care uni

195 The vehicle of lorazepam, propylene glycol, can cause hyperlactatemia a

196 ion dosages 8 hours prior to assessment (eg, lorazepam: r = - 0.31, P<.001), successful extubation (P

197 The mean cumulative high-dose lorazepam received and mean high-dose lorazepam infusion

198 t correlation between the cumulative dose of lorazepam received and propylene glycol concentration at

199 Correlation between the cumulative dose of lorazepam received and the propylene glycol concentratio

200 for sedation is much larger than the dose of lorazepam required for sedation, and midazolam is theref

201 The difference in 24-hour lorazepam requirements after versus before study drug wa

202 The 7-day cumulative lorazepam requirements were not statistically different

203 Lorazepam significantly and consistently decreased both

204 Lorazepam significantly attenuated the BOLD-fMRI signal

205 sed to measure rodent defense and found that lorazepam significantly reduced the intensity of defensi

206 all number of patients had been treated with lorazepam, the authors became sufficiently concerned wit

207 setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone

208 ated patients as compared with midazolam- or lorazepam-treated patients (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% confid

209 P < 0.001) when compared with midazolam- and lorazepam-treated patients, respectively.

210 cantly (p<.05) reduced beginning on day 1 of lorazepam treatment.

211 s: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam vers

212 = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1).

213 To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for p

214 whether continuous propofol or intermittent lorazepam was associated with greater value when combine

215 The oral formulation of lorazepam was convenient to use, inexpensive, and effect

216 for the repeated evaluation, the response to lorazepam was highly reproducible.

217 y, age-related sensitivity to the effects of lorazepam was not demonstrated in the present study.

218 Lorazepam was significantly superior to phenytoin in a p

219 In this group, lorazepam was successful in 64.9 percent of those assign

220 reatment with amantadine, bromocriptine, and lorazepam was unsuccessful.

221 Mean kinetic values for lorazepam were as follows: volume of distribution, 126 L

222 Difference images between baseline and lorazepam were compared for the first and second evaluat

223 t adverse events reported for pregabalin and lorazepam were somnolence and dizziness.

224 Actual expenditures for both midazolam and lorazepam were subtracted from the projected midazolam c

225 x or hippocampus following administration of lorazepam when compared to vehicle-treated animals in an

226 r ventilator days compared with intermittent lorazepam when sedatives are interrupted daily.

227 Propofol has superior value compared with lorazepam when used for sedation among the critically il

228 ed a pharmacological approach and found that lorazepam (which enhances GABA(A) receptor function by a

229 animals demonstrated behavioral tolerance to lorazepam, while the aged animals showed a similar trend

230 randomized, double-blind study, we compared lorazepam with placebo for the prevention of recurrent s

231 und a time-related, dose-dependent effect of lorazepam, with long-term recall generally decreasing wi