Dataset Information

Management of Sedation and Analgesia in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Long-Acting Naltrexone Therapy for Opioid Use Disorder.

ABSTRACT: The explosion of the opioid epidemic in the United States and across the world has been met with advances in pharmacologic therapy for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Long-acting naltrexone is a promising strategy, but its use has important implications for critical care, as it may interfere with or complicate sedation and analgesia. Currently, there are two available formulations of long-acting naltrexone, which are distinguished by different administration routes and distinct pharmacokinetics. The use of long-acting naltrexone may be identified through a variety of strategies (such as physical examination, laboratory testing, and medical record review), and is key to the safe provision of sedation and analgesia during critical illness. Perioperative experience caring for patients receiving long-acting naltrexone informs management in the intensive care unit. Important lessons include the use of multimodal analgesia strategies and anticipating patients' demonstrating variable sensitivity to opioids. For the critically ill patient, however, there are important distinctions to emphasize, including changes in drug metabolism and medication interactions. By compiling and incorporating the currently available literature, we provide critical care physicians with recommendations for the sedation and analgesia for critically ill patients receiving long-acting naltrexone therapy.

SUBMITTER: Petri CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7640732 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Management of Sedation and Analgesia in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Long-Acting Naltrexone Therapy for Opioid Use Disorder.

Petri Camille R CR Richards Jeremy B JB

Annals of the American Thoracic Society 20201101 11

The explosion of the opioid epidemic in the United States and across the world has been met with advances in pharmacologic therapy for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Long-acting naltrexone is a promising strategy, but its use has important implications for critical care, as it may interfere with or complicate sedation and analgesia. Currently, there are two available formulations of long-acting naltrexone, which are distinguished by different administration routes and distinct pharmacokin ...[more]

PMID: 32866026

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although routine administration of pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Alpha-2 agonists, mainly clonidine and dexmedetomidine, are used as adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agents alongside opioids and benzodiazepines. Clonidine has not been systematically assessed for use in neonatal sedation during ventilation. OBJECTIVES:To assess whether clonidine administered to term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation reduces morbidity and mortality rates. To compare the intervention versus placebo, no treatment, and dexmedetomidine; and to assess the safety of clonidine infusion for potential harms.To perform subgroup analyses according to gestational age; birth weight; administration method (infusion or bolus therapy); dose, duration, and route of clonidine administration; and pharmacologic sedation as a co-intervention. SEARCH METHODS:We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 10, 2017), Embase (1980 to January 10, 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 10, 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:We searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine versus placebo, no treatment, or dexmedetomidine administered to term and preterm newborns receiving mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, duration of respiratory support, sedation scale, duration of hospital stay) and assessed risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). This review considered primary outcomes of all-cause neonatal death, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation in days. MAIN RESULTS:One trial, which included 112 infants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Term newborn infants on mechanical ventilation with the need for continuous analgesia and sedation with fentanyl and midazolam were eligible for enrollment during the first 96 hours of ventilation. Study authors administered clonidine 1 ?g/kg/h or placebo on day 4 after intubation.We found no differences between the two groups in all-cause death during hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 3.98). The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is low owing to imprecision of the estimates (one study; few events). The median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7.1 days (5.7 to 9.1 days) in the clonidine group and 5.8 days (4.9 to 7.9 days) in the placebo group, respectively (P = 0.070). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of stay in the intensive care unit. Sedation scale values (COMFORT) and analgesia scores (Hartwig) during the first 72 hours of infusion of study medication were lower in the clonidine group than in the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:At present, evidence is insufficient to show the efficacy and safety of clonidine for sedation and analgesia in term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

Project description:Background Abolished circadian rhythm is associated with altered cognitive function, delirium, and as a result increased mortality in critically ill patients, especially in those who are mechanically ventilated. The causes are multifactorial, of which changes in circadian rhythmicity may play a role. Melatonin plays a crucial role as part of the circadian and sleep/wake cycle. Whether sedation effects circadian regulation is unknown. Hence, the objective of this study was to evaluate the melatonin concentration in critically ill patients randomized to sedation or non-sedation and to investigate the correlation with delirium. Methods All patients were included and randomized at the intensive care unit at the hospital of southwest Jutland, Denmark. Seventy-nine patients completed the study (41 sedated and 38 non-sedated). S-melatonin was measured 3 times per day, (03.00, 14.00, and 22.00), for 4 consecutive days in total, starting on the second day upon randomization/intubation. The study was conducted as a sub-study to the NON-SEDA study in which one hundred consecutive patients were randomized to sedation or non-sedation with a daily wake-up call (50 in each arm). Primary outcome: melatonin concentration in sedated vs. non-sedated patients (analyzed using linear regression). Secondary outcome: risk of developing delirium or non-medically induced (NMI) coma in sedated vs. non-sedated patients, assessed by CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit) analyzed using logistic regression. Results Melatonin concentration was suppressed in sedated patients compared to the non-sedated. All patients experienced an elevated peak melatonin level early on in the course of their critical illness (p?=?0.01). The risk of delirium or coma (NMI) was significantly lower in the non-sedated group (OR 0.42 CI 0.27; 0.66 p?<?0.0001). No significant relationship between delirium development and suppressed melatonin concentration was established in this study (OR 1.004 p?=?0.29 95% CI 0.997; 1.010). Conclusion Melatonin concentration was suppressed in sedated, critically ill patients, when compared to non-sedated controls and the frequency of delirium was elevated in sedated patients. Trail registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01967680) on October 23, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundThrough many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients.Methods/designThe non-sedation (NONSEDA) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Inclusion criteria are mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 hours.Exclusion criteria are non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2?<?9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position.Experimental intervention is non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation.Control intervention is sedation with a daily wake-up trial.The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes will be: days until death throughout the total observation period; coma- and delirium-free days; highest RIFLE score; days until discharge from the intensive care unit (within 28 days); days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation (within 28 days); and proportion of patients with a major cardiovascular outcome. Explorative outcomes will be: all cause mortality at 28 days after randomisation; days until discharge from the intensive care unit; days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation; days until discharge from the hospital; organ failure.Trial size: we will include 700 participants (2?×?350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%).DiscussionThe trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.Trial registerClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) physicians have extended the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) to deliver and monitor long-term volatile sedation in critically ill patients. There is limited evidence of MAC's reliability in controlling sedation depth in this setting. We hypothesized that sedation depth, measured by the electroencephalography (EEG)-derived Narcotrend-Index (burst-suppression N_Index 0-awake N_Index 100), might drift downward over time despite constant MAC values.MethodsThis prospective single-centre randomized clinical study was conducted at a University Hospital Surgical Intensive Care Unit and included consecutive, postoperative ICU patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive uninterrupted inhalational sedation with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. The end-expiratory concentration of the anaesthetics and the EEG-derived index were measured continuously in time-stamped pairs. Sedation depth was also monitored using Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (RASS). The paired t-test and linear models (bootstrapped or multilevel) have been employed to analyze MAC, N_Index and RASS across the three groups.ResultsThirty patients were recruited (female/male: 10/20, age 64 ± 11, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II 30 ± 10). In the first 24 h, 21.208 pairs of data points (N_Index and MAC) were recorded. The median MAC of 0.58 ± 0.06 remained stable over the sedation time in all three groups. The t-test indicated in the isoflurane and sevoflurane groups a significant drop in RASS and EEG-derived N_Index in the first versus last two sedation hours. We applied a multilevel linear model on the entire longitudinal data, nested per patient, which produced the formula N_Index = 43 - 0.7·h (R2 = 0.76), showing a strong negative correlation between sedation's duration and the N_Index. Bootstrapped linear models applied for each sedation group produced: N_Index of 43-0.9, 45-0.8, and 43-0.4·h for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, respectively. The regression coefficient for desflurane was almost half of those for isoflurane and sevoflurane, indicating a less pronounced time-effect in this group.ConclusionsMaintaining constant MAC does not guarantee stable sedation depth. Thus, the patients necessitate frequent clinical assessments or, when unfeasible, continuous EEG monitoring. The differences across different volatile anaesthetics regarding their time-dependent negative drift requires further exploration.Trial registrationNCT03860129.

Project description:AIMS:To review systematically the published literature on extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol® ), marketed as a once-per-month injection product to treat opioid use disorder. We addressed the following questions: (1) how successful is induction on XR-NTX; (2) what are adherence rates to XR-NTX; and (3) does XR-NTX decrease opioid use? Factors associated with these outcomes as well as overdose rates were examined. METHODS:We searched PubMed and used Google Scholar for forward citation searches of peer-reviewed papers from January 2006 to June 2017. Studies that included individuals seeking treatment for opioid use disorder who were offered XR-NTX were included. RESULTS:We identified and included 34 studies. Pooled estimates showed that XR-NTX induction success was lower in studies that included individuals that required opioid detoxification [62.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 54.5-70.0%] compared with studies that included individuals already detoxified from opioids (85.0%, 95% CI = 78.0-90.1%); 44.2% (95% CI = 33.1-55.9%) of individuals took all scheduled injections of XR-NTX, which were usually six or fewer. Adherence was higher in prospective investigational studies (i.e. studies conducted in a research context according to a study protocol) compared to retrospective studies of medical records taken from routine care (6-month rates: 46.7%, 95% CI = 34.5-59.2% versus 10.5%, 95% CI = 4.6-22.4%, respectively). Compared with referral to treatment, XR-NTX reduced opioid use in adults under criminal justice supervision and when administered to inmates before release. XR-NTX reduced opioid use compared with placebo in Russian adults, but this effect was confounded by differential retention between study groups. XR-NTX showed similar efficacy to buprenorphine when randomization occurred after detoxification, but was inferior to buprenorphine when randomization occurred prior to detoxification. CONCLUSIONS:Many individuals intending to start extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) do not and most who do start XR-NTX discontinue treatment prematurely, two factors that limit its clinical utility significantly. XR-NTX appears to decrease opioid use but there are few experimental demonstrations of this effect.

Dataset Information

Management of Sedation and Analgesia in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Long-Acting Naltrexone Therapy for Opioid Use Disorder.

Publications

Management of Sedation and Analgesia in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Long-Acting Naltrexone Therapy for Opioid Use Disorder.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets