ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: It is often difficult to alleviate foot pain associated with critical limb ischemia (CLI) using common analgesics. Neuraxial block is contraindicated in anticoagulant therapy. This study was designed to determine the response to subcutaneous injection of lidocaine around the network of peripheral nerves around the ankle in patients with CLI pain on anticoagulants and antiplatelets. METHODS: Sixteen patients with CLI pain in the foot were enrolled in this double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. Patients were randomized to receive either 2% lidocaine or saline via catheters inserted into the subcutaneous area around the ankle. After recurrence of pain, the patients were crossed over to receive the alternative treatment. Pain was assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) before and 15 min after injection. Patients used a descriptive scale to grade pain control and were asked to determine the duration of analgesia in each arm of the study. RESULTS: No serious complications including protracted bleeding occurred. Lidocaine significantly decreased the NRS on movement from 10 (6, 10) [median (range)] to 2 (0, 10) (p < .001), and the differences in the Δ change in NRS between lidocaine and placebo were significant (p = .009). Of the 16 patients, 14 patients were very satisfied after lidocaine but only one described the same after saline. The effect of lidocaine and placebo lasted 11 (0, 28) and 1 (0, 22) h, respectively. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous injection of lidocaine around the ischemic ankle affectively alleviated pain in patients with CLI without serious adverse effects under anticoagulant therapy.
ABSTRACT
AIM: Patients with cancer often experience nausea and vomiting (N/V), but may have difficulty using olanzapine (OLZ), a common antiemetic. Asenapine (ASE) is a multi-acting receptor-targeted antipsychotic like OLZ, although there is little evidence that ASE serves as an antiemetic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ASE compared to those of OLZ for the treatment of N/V in patients with cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who received 5 mg ASE, 5 mg OLZ, or 2.5 mg OLZ for 2 days. Daily worst N/V was rated on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (very much). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a response, defined as any reduction in N/V score. A complete response (CR) was defined as a score reduction to 0. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with CR and adverse events. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2023, 212 patients were enrolled to receive treatment: 5 mg ASE (n = 34), 5 mg OLZ (n = 102), or 2.5 mg OLZ (n = 76). No significant differences in response rates (52.9% vs. 58.8% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.671) or secondary endpoints were observed between the groups. Patients receiving ASE were more likely to experience oral hypoesthesia (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that ASE may be effective for N/V. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.
