4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Sufentanil Sublingual Tablet System for the Management of Postoperative Pain Following Open Abdominal Surgery : A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Objectives

          This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of a sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) for the management of postoperative pain following open abdominal surgery.

          Methods

          At 13 hospital sites in the United States, patients following surgery with pain intensity of greater than 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale were randomized to receive SSTS dispensing a 15-μg sufentanil tablet sublingually with a 20-minute lockout or an identical system dispensing a placebo tablet sublingually. Pain intensity scores were recorded at baseline and for up to 72 hours after starting study drug. The primary end point was time-weighted summed pain intensity difference (SPID) over 48 hours. Secondary end points included SPID and total pain relief (TOTPAR) for up to 72 hours and patient and health care provider global assessments of the method of pain control.

          Results

          Summed pain intensity difference over 48 hours was significantly higher in the SSTS group than in the placebo group (least squares mean [SEM], 105.60 [10.14] vs 55.58 [13.11]; P = 0.001). Mean SPID and TOTPAR scores were significantly higher in the SSTS group at all time points from 1 hour (SPID) or 2 hours (TOTPAR) until 72 hours ( P < 0.05). In the SSTS group, patient global assessment and health care provider global assessment ratings of good or excellent were greater than placebo at all time points ( P < 0.01). Safety parameters, including adverse events and vital signs, were similar for SSTS and placebo.

          Conclusions

          These results suggest that SSTS is effective and safe for the management of postoperative pain in patients following open abdominal surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department.

          Verbally administered numerical rating scales (NRSs) from 0 to 10 are often used to measure pain, but they have not been validated in the emergency department (ED) setting. The authors wished to assess the comparability of the NRS and visual analog scale (VAS) as measures of acute pain, and to identify the minimum clinically significant difference in pain that could be detected on the NRS. This was a prospective cohort study of a convenience sample of adults presenting with acute pain to an urban ED. Patients verbally rated pain intensity as an integer from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain), and marked a 10-cm horizontal VAS bounded by these descriptors. VAS and NRS data were obtained at presentation, 30 minutes later, and 60 minutes later. At 30 and 60 minutes, patients were asked whether their pain was "much less," "a little less," "about the same," "a little more," or "much more." Differences between consecutive pairs of measurements on the VAS and NRS obtained at 30-minute intervals were calculated for each of the five categories of pain descriptor. The association between VAS and NRS scores was expressed as a correlation coefficient. The VAS scores were regressed on the NRS scores in order to assess the equivalence of the measures. The mean changes associated with descriptors "a little less" or "a little more" were combined to define the minimum clinically significant difference in pain measured on the VAS and NRS. Of 108 patients entered, 103 provided data at 30 minutes and 86 at 60 minutes. NRS scores were strongly correlated to VAS scores at all time periods (r = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.95). The slope of the regression line was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.06) and the y-intercept was -0.34 (95% CI = -0.67 to -0.01). The minimum clinically significant difference in pain was 1.3 (95% CI = 1.0 to 1.5) on the NRS and 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.7) on the VAS. The findings suggest that the verbally administered NRS can be substituted for the VAS in acute pain measurement.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia for postoperative pain.

            Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne found a strong patient preference for PCA over conventional analgesia but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, Walder's review in 2001 did not find a significant differences in pain intensity and pain relief between PCA and conventionally treated groups. To evaluate the efficacy of PCA versus conventional analgesia (such as a nurse administering an analgesic upon a patient's request) for postoperative pain control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1994 to 2004). Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers. RCTs of PCA versus conventional analgesia that employed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome were selected. These trials included RCTs that compared PCA without a continuous background infusion versus conventional parenteral analgesic regimens. Studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain were excluded. Trials were scored using the Oxford Quality Scale. Meta-analyses were performed of outcomes that included analgesic efficacy assessed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay and adverse effects. A sufficient number of the retrieved trials reported these parameters to permit meta-analyses. Fifty-five studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group met inclusion criteria. PCA provided better pain control and greater patient satisfaction than conventional parenteral 'as-needed' analgesia. Patients using PCA consumed higher amounts of opioids than the controls and had a higher incidence of pruritus (itching) but had a similar incidence of other adverse effects. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. This review provides evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to conventional systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Electroencephalographic quantitation of opioid effect: comparative pharmacodynamics of fentanyl and sufentanil.

              The authors compared the pharmacodynamics of sufentanil with those of fentanyl using the electroencephalogram (EEG) as a measure of opioid drug effect. Sixteen patients were given a rapid infusion of sufentanil (18.75 micrograms/min) during EEG recording. To quantitate the opioid-induced slowing of the EEG, the authors analyzed its power spectrum and calculated the spectral edge. An inhibitory sigmoid Emax model of the maximal decrease in spectral edge produced by the opioid related spectral edge values to serum concentrations of sufentanil. The resulting data for the pharmacodynamic parameters of sufentanil were compared with fentanyl parameters that were obtained by reanalysis from an identically conducted, previously published study. The half-time of blood-brain equilibration (T1/2Keo) was not statistically different between sufentanil and fentanyl (6.2 +/- 2.8 vs. 6.6 +/- 1.7 min, mean +/- SD, respectively). The intrinsic potency of sufentanil, as measured by the serum concentration needed to cause half the maximal EEG slowing (IC50), was 12-fold greater (0.68 +/- 0.31 ng/ml) than that of fentanyl (8.1 +/- 2.2 ng/ml). The second part of the study verified the hypothesis that administration of equipotent bolus doses would produce equal onset times. Bolus injections of either 125 micrograms of sufentanil or 1,250 micrograms of fentanyl were given during EEG recording. The time from injection to 50% maximal EEG slowing (T50) was calculated for each patient. The values for T50 for the two groups did not differ. The authors conclude that fentanyl and sufentanil have similar pharmacodynamic profiles, the former being 12 times more potent than the latter.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Reg Anesth Pain Med
                Reg Anesth Pain Med
                AAP
                Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                1098-7339
                1532-8651
                January 2015
                16 December 2014
                : 40
                : 1
                : 22-30
                Affiliations
                [1]From the *Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, Mobile, AL; †Memorial Hermann–Memorial City Medical Center, Houston, TX; ‡Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; §Visions Clinical Research, Boyton Beach, FL; ║Essence Sciences, San Jose, CA; and **AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Redwood City, CA.
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Pamela P. Palmer, MD, PhD, AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Clinical, 351 Galveston Dr, Redwood City, CA 94063 (e-mail: ppalmer@ 123456acelrx.com ).
                Article
                AAP14116 00005
                10.1097/AAP.0000000000000152
                4272222
                25318408
                e0b520ba-49d5-41e1-9559-ea45ec2531aa
                Copyright © 2014 by American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

                History
                : 29 July 2014
                Categories
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article