Timothy Melson

A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron versus droperidol as antiemetics for elective outpatient surgical procedures

Two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies enrolled 2061 adult surgical outpatients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) to compare IV ondansetron 4 mg with droperidol 0.625 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg for the prevention of PONV. The antiemetic drugs or placebo were administered IV 20 min before the induction of anesthesia with a barbiturate compound, followed by maintenance with N2 O/isoflurane/enflurane. Nausea, emetic episodes, adverse events, and patient satisfaction were analyzed for the 0 to 2 h and 0 to 24 h postoperative periods. In the 0 to 2 h postoperative period, there was a complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetic) in 46% of subjects given placebo (P < 0.05 versus antiemetic groups), in 62% given ondansetron, in 63% given droperidol 0.625 mg, and in 69% given droperidol 1.25 mg (P < 0.05 versus ondansetron). In the 0 to 24-h postoperative period, there were no significant differences in complete response between the ondansetron and droperidol 0.625 or 1.25 mg groups; all groups remained superior to placebo. The proportion of patients without nausea during the 0 to 24 h postoperative period was greater in the antiemetic groups compared with the placebo group; however, droperidol 1.25 mg was more effective than ondansetron 4 mg or droperidol 0.625 mg (43% vs 29% or 29%, respectively). Headache incidence was higher in the ondansetron group compared with either droperidol group. Patient satisfaction scores did not differ significantly among antiemetic treatment groups, although all were superior to placebo. In conclusion, all antiemetic treatment regimens were superior to placebo for the prevention of PONV in the immediate postoperative period; however, droperidol 1.25 mg was more efficacious than ondansetron during the early recovery period (0-2 h). There were no significant differences between ondansetron and either droperidol dose for emesis prevention during the 0 to 24 h postoperative period. Implications: More than 2000 patients at high risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting were given either placebo, ondansetron 4 mg, or droperidol 0.625 mg or 1.25 mg IV before the administration of general anesthesia. After surgery, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, medication side effects, and patient satisfaction were evaluated for 24 h. Droperidol 0.625 or 1.25 mg IV compared favorably with ondansetron 4 mg IV for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery. (Anesth Analg 1998;86:731-8)

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the NK1 antagonist, aprepitant, versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0–24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0–24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0–48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.

An iontophoretic fentanyl patient-activated analgesic delivery system for postoperative pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

An iontophoretic fentanyl HCl patient-activated transdermal system (fentanyl HCl PATS) is under development for the treatment of acute postoperative pain. The fentanyl HCl PATS is a needle-free, credit card-sized, preprogrammed system that is applied to the patients upper outer arm or chest. The fentanyl HCl PATS was demonstrated to be superior to placebo in a previous trial; however, the randomization scheme used and the lack of control of entry pain level may have contributed to the lack of robust findings. We compared the fentanyl HCl PATS with placebo for acute postoperative pain management in a larger trial that addressed the limitations of the previous study. Adult patients admitted to the postanesthesia care unit after major surgery were titrated to comfort with opioids and randomized 1:1 to receive the fentanyl HCl PATS 40 &mgr;g or placebo for 24 hours. Supplemental IV fentanyl was available to patients upon request in both treatment groups for the first 3 hours after enrollment. The primary efficacy end-point was the percentage of patients who discontinued participation in the study because of inadequate analgesia. Pain intensity scores, patient global assessments (PGA), and investigator global assessments (IGA) were collected. Four-hundred-eighty-four patients (PATS, n = 244; placebo, n = 240) were enrolled. Fewer patients receiving the fentanyl HCl PATS discontinued because of inadequate analgesia compared with placebo (28.7% versus 60.0%; P < 0.0001). Mean last pain intensity scores were 3.5 and 5.4 for the fentanyl HCl PATS and placebo groups, respectively. Patients (73.4%, PGA) and investigators (72.1%, IGA) considered the fentanyl HCl PATS a good or excellent method of pain control. Treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups. This study demonstrated the superiority of the iontophoretic fentanyl HCl PATS over placebo for acute postoperative pain management.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Three Different Doses of Palonosetron Versus Placebo for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND: In this randomized, double-blind study we assessed the efficacy and safety of three different doses of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron, compared with placebo, on the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for 72 h postsurgery. METHODS: Five hundred seventy-four patients undergoing either outpatient abdominal or gynecological laparoscopic surgery were stratified according to gender, history of PONV or motion sickness, and nonsmoking status. Patients with ≥2 PONV risk factors were eligible and randomized to receive one of three doses of IV palonosetron (0.025 mg, 0.050 mg, or 0.075 mg) or placebo immediately prior to induction of anesthesia. Co-primary efficacy end-points included complete response (CR: no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the 0 to 24 h and 24 to 72 h postoperative time intervals. RESULTS: A dose-response trend in the proportion of patients with a CR was observed with increasing doses of palonosetron in the first 24 hrs. CR rates for placebo and palonosetron 0.075 mg were 26% and 43%, respectively, for the 0 to 24 h postoperative interval (P = 0.004), and 41% and 49%, respectively, for the 24 to 72 h interval (P = 0.188). Compared with placebo, palonosetron 0.075 mg was associated with a significant downward shift toward less intense nausea (P = 0.042) and with significant reduction in the impact of PONV on patient functioning (P = 0.004) during the 0 to 24 h interval. CONCLUSIONS: A single 0.075-mg IV dose of palonosetron significantly increased the CR rate (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) from 0 to 24 h, decreased nausea severity and patients experienced significantly less interference in their postoperative function due to PONV.

Intravenous dolasetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery

The newer 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) antagonists are sometimes considered for routine prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of three single intravenous (IV) doses of dolasetron mesylate salt (12.5, 25, or 50 mg) for the prevention of PONV in 635 females undergoing outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Antiemetic efficacy was evaluated over a 24-h postoperative period by recording the number and timing of emetic episodes; effects on nausea were evaluated by a visual analog scale (VAS). The proportion of complete responders (no emetic episodes and no escape medication in 24 h) was significantly higher with each dolasetron mesylate dose (> 50% for each dose; P <or=to 0.0003) than with placebo (30.6%). Fewer patients given dolasetron required or requested escape antiemetic medication compared with placebo (P < 0.0003). Dolasetron-treated patients had significantly (P < 0.0357) lower median postdose maximum nausea VAS scores compared with placebo-treated patients. Patient satisfaction with dolasetron was high and, overall, was significantly (P = 0.0131) greater than that with placebo. Dolasetron was an effective and well tolerated preventive treatment for PONV resulting from laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. (Anesth Analg 1997;84:325-30)

Sufentanil Sublingual Tablet System vs. Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Morphine for Postoperative Pain Control: A Randomized, Active-Comparator Trial

Problems with intravenous patient‐controlled analgesia (IV PCA) are well known, including invasive route of delivery and pump programming errors. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with a novel sublingual sufentanil PCA system (sufentanil sublingual tablet system 15 mcg with a 20‐minute lockout interval; SSTS) to IV PCA morphine sulfate 1 mg with a 6‐minute lockout interval (IV PCA MS) for the management of acute postoperative pain.

Analgesic efficacy and safety of a novel injectable formulation of diclofenac compared with intravenous ketorolac and placebo after orthopedic surgery: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, multiple-dose trial.

Objectives:A novel injectable formulation of diclofenac, Dyloject, utilizes hydroxypropyl-&bgr;-cyclodextrin (HP&bgr;CD) as a solubilizing agent, allowing dosing as a small-volume intravenous bolus for postoperative pain. In this test of the efficacy and safety of HP&bgr;CD diclofenac, we hypothesized that HP&bgr;CD diclofenac would relieve moderate and severe pain after orthopedic surgery. Patients and Methods:Adults 18 to 85 years old with moderate and severe pain within 6 hours after surgery were randomized to HP&bgr;CD diclofenac, ketorolac tromethamine, or placebo, and stratified by risk cohort. The HP&bgr;CD diclofenac non–high-risk cohort dose was 37.5 mg, the high-risk cohort received 18.75 mg, and patients ≥95 kg received 50 mg. The ketorolac dose was 30 mg in the non–high-risk and high-weight cohorts and 15 mg in the high-risk cohort. Rescue intravenous morphine was given for pain as needed. Efficacy was measured by the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID). Results:Mean SPID scores of 277 patients were significantly better with HP&bgr;CD diclofenac and ketorolac than with placebo (P<0.0001), across all risk cohorts (P<0.05). HP&bgr;CD diclofenac was associated with better SPID scores, faster onset of analgesia, and significantly lower opioid requirement (P<0.008) than ketorolac. In patients more than or equal to 65 years, HP&bgr;CD diclofenac was associated with significantly better analgesic efficacy (P=0.05), and lower opioid requirement versus ketorolac. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar across groups. Discussion:HP&bgr;CD diclofenac is safe and efficacious for acute moderate and severe pain after orthopedic surgery and significantly spares morphine use.

Liposome Bupivacaine Femoral Nerve Block for Postsurgical Analgesia after Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background:The authors evaluated the efficacy of liposome bupivacaine in a femoral nerve block (FNB) after total knee arthroplasty. Methods:Part 1: subjects received FNB with 20 ml liposome bupivacaine (67, 133, or 266 mg) or placebo. Part 2: subjects were randomized to FNB with liposome bupivacaine 266 mg or placebo. The primary outcome measure was area under the curve of the numeric rating scale score for pain intensity at rest through 72 h (AUC NRS-R0–72) with imputed scores after rescue medication. Results:In part 1, FNB with liposome bupivacaine 266 mg (n = 24) resulted in analgesia similar to that obtained with 133 mg and was chosen for part 2. In part 2, least-squares mean (standard error) AUC NRS-R0–72 was lower with liposome bupivacaine 266 mg (n = 92) than with placebo (n = 91; 419 [17] vs. 516 [17]; P < 0.0001). This outcome remained unchanged in a post hoc analysis without score imputation (221 [12] vs. 282 [12]; P = 0.0005). Least-squares mean AUC NRS-R with imputed scores was lower with liposome bupivacaine during each 24-h interval (0 to 24, 24 to 48, and 48 to 72 h) after surgery; AUC NRS-R without imputed scores was lower during the 0- to 24-h and 24- to 48-h intervals. The liposome bupivacaine group had lower mean total opioid use (76 vs. 103 mg morphine; P = 0.0016). Pain was sufficiently severe to require second-step rescue with opioids via intravenously administered patient-controlled analgesia in 92% of liposome bupivacaine patients and 81% of placebo patients. With patient-controlled analgesia and other forms of rescue analgesia, mean NRS scores with activity were moderate in both liposome bupivacaine and placebo groups throughout the part 2 study period. Incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups (part 1: 90 vs. 96%; part 2: 96 vs. 96%, respectively). Conclusion:FNB with liposome bupivacaine (266 mg) resulted in modestly lower pain scores and reduced opioid requirements after surgery, with an adverse event profile similar to placebo.

Safety of a Novel Parenteral Formulation of Diclofenac after Major Orthopedic or Abdominal/Pelvic Surgery in a Population Including Anticoagulated, Elderly or Renally Insufficient Patients: An Open-Label, Multiday, Repeated Dose Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE Decisions to use or avoid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postsurgical pain are often influenced by concerns about bleeding and renal adverse effects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of a novel parenteral NSAID, hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) diclofenac, in a large postsurgical patient population, with particular focus on bleeding and renal effects. METHODS This was a large open-label study in adult patients with acute moderate-to-severe pain following major surgery. Patients received ≥2 days of continuous treatment with HPβCD diclofenac, administered as a small-volume bolus injection every 6 hours. Few exclusion criteria were applied in order to reflect surgical patient populations commonly managed in clinical practice. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. The incidences of bleeding- and renal-related AEs were examined in patient subpopulations with known risk factors for NSAID-induced complications: advanced age, pre-existing renal insufficiency, concomitant anticoagulant use, prolonged exposure, elevated dosage, and major surgeries. RESULTS Of the total 971 patients studied, 38% were ≥65 years old (12% >75 years), 62% received concomitant anticoagulants, and 6% had pre-existing renal insufficiency. HPβCD diclofenac was well tolerated by the patient population. AE rates are presented by risk factor to enable clinicians to better describe renal- or bleeding-related AEs. CONCLUSIONS In addition to its previously demonstrated efficacy, this study provides evidence of HPβCD diclofenacs safety in a large postsurgical population including anticoagulated, elderly or renally insufficient patients. Because study exclusion criteria were minimal, these findings may be broadly generalizable to populations commonly treated in clinical practice.

Intravenous Amisulpride for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Two Concurrent, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trials

Background: Two essentially identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III studies evaluated the efficacy of intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 antagonist, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients. Methods: Adult inpatients undergoing elective surgery during general anesthesia and having at least two of the four Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting were enrolled at 9 U.S. and 10 European sites. A single 5-mg dose of amisulpride or matching placebo was given at induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting/retching and no use of antiemetic rescue medication in the 24-h postoperative period. Nausea incidence was a secondary endpoint. Results: Across the two studies, 689 patients were randomized and dosed with study medication, of whom 626 were evaluable per protocol. In the U.S. study, 46.9% (95% CI, 39.0 to 54.9) of patients achieved complete response in the amisulpride group compared to 33.8% (95% CI, 26.2 to 42.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.026). In the European study, complete response rates were 57.4% (95% CI, 49.2 to 65.3) for amisulpride and 46.6% (95% CI, 38.8 to 54.6) for placebo (P = 0.070). Nausea occurred less often in patients who received amisulpride than those who received placebo. There was no clinically significant difference in the safety profile of amisulpride and placebo; in particular, there were no differences in terms of QT prolongation, extrapyramidal side effects, or sedation. Conclusions: One of the two trials demonstrated superiority, while pooling both in a post hoc change to the plan of analysis supported the hypothesis that amisulpride was safe and superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a population of adult inpatients at moderate to high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.