OFIRMEV: an old drug becomes new again

Rectal versus intravenous administration of acetaminophen; Clinical investigation of plasma level, analgesic, and antipyretic effects on 6-month to 6-year-old children in Zabol city, Iran

OBJECTIVES

Acetaminophen is the most widely antipyretic analgesic medicine used in adults and children worldwide. Rectal acetaminophen is widely used in children who resist or cannot take oral medications. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of rectal and IV acetaminophen in children with fever and mild to moderate pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Total 60 children aged six months to 6 years, with fever and pain, that were treated with rectal or intravenous acetaminophen were selected and assigned in two groups. The IV group received 10mg/kg paracetamol as an IV infusion, and the rectal group received a 15mg/kg dose immediately after admission. Pain score was calculated using the FLACC method, and the axillary temperature was recorded at baseline and then 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6hours after drug administration. Blood samples were collected at baseline and then at 30min-intervals for the first 90minutes.

RESULTS

The trend of changes in mean pain score at different time intervals was significantly different between the two groups. Body temperature decrease was more prominent in the IV group. The plasma concentration increased in both groups significantly with time. This increase was sharper in the IV group, just in the first 60minutes after drug administration.

CONCLUSIONS

IV acetaminophen has more rapid onset of action, while rectal dosage form control fever and pain for longer duration. Considering its favorable effects with ease of administration and lower cost, rectal acetaminophen can be a reasonable option in selected patients with pain or fever.

Is P&T Ready to Add Rapid Cycle Analytics to Formulary?

Purpose: The intent of this article is to evaluate a novel approach, using rapid cycle analytics and real world evidence, to optimize and improve the medication evaluation process to help the formulary decision making process, while reducing time for clinicians. Summary: The Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee within each health system is responsible for evaluating medication requests for formulary addition. Members of the pharmacy staff prepare the drug monograph or a medication use evaluation (MUE) and allocate precious clinical resources to review patient charts to assess efficacy and value. We explored a novel approach to evaluate the value of our intravenous acetaminophen (IV APAP) formulary admittance. This new methodology, called rapid cycle analytics, can assist hospitals in meeting and/or exceeding the minimum criteria of formulary maintenance as defined by the Joint Commission Standards. In this particular study, we assessed the effectiveness of IV APAP in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. We assessed the correlation to same-stay opioid utilization, average length of inpatient stay and post anesthesia care unit (PACU) time. Conclusion: We were able to explore and improve our organization's approach in evaluating medications by partnering with an external analytics expert to help organize and normalize our data in a more robust, yet time efficient manner. Additionally, we were able to use a significantly larger external data set as a point of reference. Being able to perform this detailed analytical exercise for thousands of encounters internally and using a data warehouse of over 130 million patients as a point of reference in a short time has improved the depth of our assessment, as well as reducing valuable clinical resources allocated to MUEs to allow for more direct patient care. This clinically real-world and data-rich analytics model is the necessary foundation for using Artificial or Augmented Intelligence (AI) to make real-time formulary and drug selection decisions.

Current State of Analgesia and Sedation in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Critically ill pediatric patients often require complex medical procedures as well as invasive testing and monitoring which tend to be painful and anxiety-provoking, necessitating the provision of analgesia and sedation to reduce stress response. Achieving the optimal combination of adequate analgesia and appropriate sedation can be quite challenging in a patient population with a wide spectrum of ages, sizes, and developmental stages. The added complexities of critical illness in the pediatric population such as evolving pathophysiology, impaired organ function, as well as altered pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics must be considered. Undersedation leaves patients at risk of physical and psychological stress which may have significant long term consequences. Oversedation, on the other hand, leaves the patient at risk of needing prolonged respiratory, specifically mechanical ventilator, support, prolonged ICU stay and hospital admission, and higher risk of untoward effects of analgosedative agents. Both undersedation and oversedation put critically ill pediatric patients at high risk of developing PICU-acquired complications (PACs) like delirium, withdrawal syndrome, neuromuscular atrophy and weakness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and poor rehabilitation. Optimal analgesia and sedation is dependent on continuous patient assessment with appropriately validated tools that help guide the titration of analgosedative agents to effect. Bundled interventions that emphasize minimizing benzodiazepines, screening for delirium frequently, avoiding physical and chemical restraints thereby allowing for greater mobility, and promoting adequate and proper sleep will disrupt the PICU culture of immobility and reduce the incidence of PACs.

Analgesia in acute ischemic chest pain

Analgesics, particularly opioids, have been routinely used in the emergency treatment of ischemic chest pain for a long time. In the past two decades; however, several studies have raised the possibility of the harmful effects of opioid administration. In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) changed the guidelines regarding the use of opioids from class IC to class IIb for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. And in 2015, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines incidentally noted the side effects of opioids. In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, both ESC and AHA/ACCF still recommend the use of opioids. Given the need for adequate pain relief in ischemic chest pain in the emergency setting, it is necessary to understand the adverse effects of analgesia, while still providing sufficiently potent options for analgesia. The primary purpose of this review is to quantify the effects of analgesics commonly used in the prehospital and emergency department in patients with ischemic chest pain.

Pain management in obstetrics and gynecology

The problem of acute postoperative pain is present throughout the lifetime of surgery and, unfortunately, does not lose its relevance today. Inadequate pain control in the postoperative period leads to negative consequences. Multimodal analgesia is currently the method of choice for postoperative anesthesia. The basis is the prescription of paracetamol (Infulgan®) in combination or without NSAIDs with the addition of methods of regional analgesia and, in case of insufficient effect, the use of opioid analgesics lies in the basisi of this method. Choosing one or another scheme of multimodal analgesia is determined, above all, is due to the invasiveness of the surgical intervention performed.

Discharge Criteria, Impact of the Patient and the Procedure: What the Oral Surgeon Should Know

This article is a concise review of discharge criteria following sedation or anesthesia relevant to the oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Topics covered include a general overview of the need for objective discharge criteria, a review of standardized criteria, and a brief discussion on specific anesthetic, patient, and surgical factors that can impact the safety of the immediate postoperative recovery and postdischarge periods.

Intravenous acetaminophen analgesia after cardiac surgery: A randomized, blinded, controlled superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Pain after cardiac surgery traditionally has been controlled by intravenous opioids and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. An intravenous analgesic with fewer adverse effects is needed. Therefore, we tested the primary hypothesis that intravenous acetaminophen is more effective than placebo for pain management, which was defined a priori as superior on either pain intensity score and/or opioid consumption and not worse on either.

METHODS

In this single-center, double-blind trial, 147 patients having cardiac surgery via median sternotomy were randomized to receive either 1 g of intravenous acetaminophen (73 patients) every 6 hours for 24 hours or comparable placebo (74 patients) starting in the operating room after sternal closure. Cumulative opioid consumption (in morphine equivalents) and pain intensity scores (on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) were measured at 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours after surgery. We estimated ratio of mean opioid consumption by using multivariable linear regression (noninferiority delta = 1.15) and pain score difference by using repeated measures regression (noninferiority delta = 1).

RESULTS

Acetaminophen was superior to placebo on mean pain intensity scores and noninferior on opioid consumption, with estimated difference in mean pain (95% confidence interval) of -0.90 (-1.39, -0.42), P < .001 (superior), and estimated ratio of means in opioid consumption (90% confidence interval) of 0.89 (0.73-1.10), P = .28 (noninferior; not superior).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous acetaminophen reduced pain after cardiac surgery, but not opioid consumption. Intravenous acetaminophen can be an effective analgesic adjunct in patients recovering from median sternotomy.

The Use of Intravenous Acetaminophen for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

Acetaminophen (APAP) is a mainstay for pain management worldwide. The intravenous (IV) formulation has been widely used in Europe for more than 20 years in adults and children. In the United States, IV APAP obtained full approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2010. There is emerging literature to suggest the use of IV APAP for pain reduction in the emergency department (ED). This evidence-based review examines the evidence pertaining to the use of IV APAP for acute pain control in the ED.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that described or evaluated the use of IV APAP for acute pain in the ED were included. Duplicate articles, unpublished reports, abstracts, review articles, and non-English literature were excluded. The primary outcome of interest in this review was the difference in pain score between IV APAP and active comparator or placebo from baseline to a cutoff time specified in the original trials. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of adverse events and reduction in the amount of adjuvant analgesics consumed by patients who received IV APAP. Methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with various methodologic flaws, which enrolled a total of 1,472 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The level of evidence for the individual trials ranged from very low to moderate. In three of the 14 trials, a significant reduction in pain scores was observed in patients who received IV APAP. The first trial found a significant reduction in mean pain scores when IV APAP was compared to IV morphine at 30 minutes after drug administration (4.7 ± 2.3 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2). In the second trial, patients who received IV APAP reported of lower pain scores (31.7 ± 18 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.2 to 25.2 mm) compared to those who received IV morphine (48.3 ± 14.1 mm, 95% CI = 8.2 to 25.2 mm), 15 minutes after drug administration. A third trial found a significant reduction (p = 0.005) in the mean pain scores when IV APAP was compared to intramuscular piroxicam at 90 minutes after drug administration. In the remaining eight trials, pain scores were not statistically different when IV APAP was compared to other pain medications. The incidence of side effects associated with IV APAP was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Fourteen RCTs with various methodologic flaws provided limited evidence to support the use of IV APAP as the primary analgesic for acute pain control in patients who present to the ED.