Dataset Information

Analgesic efficacy of intravenous nefopam after spine surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Background : The incidence of moderate to severe pain is high among patients undergoing spinal surgery. Nefopam can be used as an adjuvant analgesic postoperatively after spine surgery. The study aimed to assess the analgesic efficacy and side effects of nefopam on 24-hour postoperative morphine consumption after spine surgery. Methods : The study is a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. A total of 96 patients were randomized into 4 treatment groups, 24 each. In group 1, patients received normal saline before surgical incision and before the end of surgery. In group 2, patients received 30 mg nefopam before surgical incision and normal saline before the end of surgery. In group 3, patients received normal saline before surgical incision and 30 mg of nefopam before the end of surgery. In group 4, patients received 30 mg of nefopam in both timings. Patient-controlled analgesia morphine was used for the postoperative period. Outcomes were to determine 24-hour morphine consumption and incidence of side effects. Results : Of 96 patients enrolled, 21 in placebo-placebo, 22 in nefopam-placebo, 22 in placebo-nefopam and 21 in nefopam-nefopam groups completed the study. Analysis of the Kruskal-Wallis test shows no significant difference in 24-hour postoperative morphine consumption between four groups, which were 18 [IQR 13.5-29], 20 [IQR 11-28.3], 17 [IQR 11.5-28.5], 13 [IQR 8.5-18.5] mg., respectively (p = 0.223). Incidence of side effects, including tachycardia, sedation, sweating and nausea/ vomiting, did not differ. Conclusions : Adding perioperative nefopam to opioid analgesic does not improve analgesic efficacy in patients who underwent spine surgery. Registration : Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR20171115001; registered on 15 November 2017.

SUBMITTER: Eiamcharoenwit J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7477643 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeA hallmark of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to pulmonary vascular hyperpermeability. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib reversed pulmonary capillary leak in preclinical studies and improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We investigated the effect of intravenous (IV) imatinib on pulmonary edema in COVID-19 ARDS.MethodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Invasively ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS were randomized to 200 mg IV imatinib or placebo twice daily for a maximum of seven days. The primary outcome was the change in extravascular lung water index (∆EVLWi) between days 1 and 4. Secondary outcomes included safety, duration of invasive ventilation, ventilator-free days (VFD) and 28-day mortality. Posthoc analyses were performed in previously identified biological subphenotypes.Results66 patients were randomized to imatinib (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33). There was no difference in ∆EVLWi between the groups (0.19 ml/kg, 95% CI - 3.16 to 2.77, p = 0.89). Imatinib treatment did not affect duration of invasive ventilation (p = 0.29), VFD (p = 0.29) or 28-day mortality (p = 0.79). IV imatinib was well-tolerated and appeared safe. In a subgroup of patients characterized by high IL-6, TNFR1 and SP-D levels (n = 20), imatinib significantly decreased EVLWi per treatment day (- 1.17 ml/kg, 95% CI - 1.87 to - 0.44).ConclusionsIV imatinib did not reduce pulmonary edema or improve clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. While this trial does not support the use of imatinib in the general COVID-19 ARDS population, imatinib reduced pulmonary edema in a subgroup of patients, underscoring the potential value of predictive enrichment in ARDS trials. Trial registration NCT04794088 , registered 11 March 2021. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number: 2020-005447-23).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In spite of advances in understanding and technology, postoperative pain remains poorly treated for a significant number of patients. In colorectal surgery, the need for developing novel analgesics is especially important. Patients after bowel surgery are assessed for rapid return of bowel function and opioids worsen ileus, nausea and constipation. We describe a prospective, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial testing the hypothesis that a novel analgesic drug, VVZ -149, is safe and effective in improving pain compared with providing opioid analgesia alone among adults undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Based on sample size calculations for primary outcome, we plan to enrol 120 participants. Adult patients without significant medical comorbidities or ongoing opioid use and who are undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery will be enrolled. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either VVZ-149 with intravenous (IV) hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or the control intervention (IV PCA alone) in the postoperative period. The primary outcome is the Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 8?hours (SPID-8 postdose). Participants receive VVZ-149 for 8?hours postoperatively to the primary study end point, after which they continue to be assessed for up to 24?hours. We measure opioid consumption, record pain intensity and pain relief, and evaluate the number of rescue doses and requests for opioid. To assess safety, we record sedation, nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression, laboratory tests and ECG readings after study drug administration. We evaluate for possible confounders of analgesic response, such as anxiety, depression and catastrophising behaviours. The study will also collect blood sample data and evaluate for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval of the study protocol has been obtained from Institutional Review Boards at the participating institutions. Trial results will be disseminated through scientific conference presentations and by publication in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02489526; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain and depression often co-occur, and pain may exacerbate depression in people with dementia.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of analgesic treatment for depression in nursing home patients with advanced dementia and clinically significant depressive symptoms.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 47 nursing homes, including 162 nursing home patients aged ≥ 60 years with dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination ≤ 20) and depression (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia ≥ 8). Patients were randomised to receive active analgesic treatment (paracetamol or buprenorphine transdermal system) or identical placebo for 13 weeks. The main outcome measure was the change in depression (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia) from baseline to 13 weeks, assessed using linear mixed models with fixed effects for time, intervention and their interaction in the models. Secondary outcomes were to assess whether any change in depression was secondary to change in pain (Mobilisation-Observation-Behaviour-Intensity-Dementia-2 Pain Scale) and adverse events.ResultsThe mean depression change was - 0.66 (95% confidence interval - 2.27 to 0.94) in the active group (n = 80) and - 3.30 (- 4.68 to -1.92) in the placebo group (n = 82). The estimated treatment effect was 2.64 (0.55-4.72, p = 0.013), indicating that analgesic treatment had no effect on depressive symptoms from baseline to 13 weeks while placebo appeared to ameliorate depressive symptoms. There was no significant reduction in pain in the active treatment group (paracetamol and buprenorphine combined) vs. placebo; however, a subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in pain for paracetamol vs. placebo [by - 1.11 (- 2.16 to - 0.06, p = 0.037)] from week 6 to 13 without a change in depression. Buprenorphine did not have significant effects on depression [3.04 (- 0.11 to 6.19), p = 0.059] or pain [0.47 (- 0.77 to 1.71), p = 0.456] from 0 to 13 weeks. Thirty-five patients were withdrawn from the study because of adverse reactions, deterioration or death: 25 (31.3%) during active treatment [23 (52.3%) who received buprenorphine], and ten (12.2%) in the placebo group. The most frequently occurring adverse events were psychiatric (17 adverse reactions) and neurological (14 adverse reactions).ConclusionAnalgesic treatment did not reduce depression while placebo appeared to improve depressive symptoms significantly by comparison, possibly owing to the adverse effects of active buprenorphine. The risk of adverse events warrants caution when prescribing buprenorphine for people with advanced dementia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02267057 (registered 7 July, 2014) and Norwegian Medicines Agency EudraCT 2013-002226-23.

Dataset Information

Analgesic efficacy of intravenous nefopam after spine surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets