Impact of pregabalin treatment on pain, pain-related sleep interference and general well-being in patients with neuropathic pain: a non-interventional, multicentre, post-marketing study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Numerous controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain. The objectives of the present study were to assess the impact of pregabalin under real-world conditions on pain, pain-related sleep interference and general well-being, and to assess the tolerability and safety of pregabalin in patients diagnosed with neuropathic pain of central or peripheral origin. METHODS: This was a non-interventional, multicentre study in which pregabalin was administered for 8 weeks, at the therapeutic dosages of 150-600 mg/day, to patients with a diagnosis of neuropathic pain. Pain intensity and pain-related sleep interference were measured using 11-point numerical rating scales, while well-being was assessed by documenting how often emotions associated with anxiety or depression were felt over the past week. Patient and Clinician Global Impression of Change (PGIC and CGIC) were assessed at the final visit. RESULTS: In the 668 patients included in the full analysis set, there were significant (p < 0.0001) reductions in mean pain and pain-related sleep interference scores of 4.16 and 4.02, respectively. Indicators of general well-being showed improvement from baseline to final visit. The majority of patients were rated as 'much improved' (43.7% and 36.7%) or 'very much improved' (24.0% and 26.2%) on CGIC and PGIC scores, respectively. Discontinuation because of lack of efficacy occurred in 0.7% of 691 patients in the safety analysis set while discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 5.1% of this population; 76.4% continued treatment after the study ended. CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in pain and pain-related sleep interference, combined with reductions in feelings of anxiety and depression, suggest that pregabalin under real-world conditions improves the overall health and well-being of patients with neuropathic pain.

Evaluation of an intraoperative algorithm based on near-infrared refracted spectroscopy monitoring, in the intraoperative decision for shunt placement, in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether the use of an intraoperative algorithm based on cerebral oximetry with near-infrared refracted spectroscopy (NIRS) monitoring, could aid in the intraoperative decision for shunt placement, in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled study were included 253 patients who underwent CEA under general anesthesia. They were randomly allocated in Group A (n=83) using NIRS monitoring and the suggested algorithm, Group B (n=84) using NIRS monitoring without the algorithm and Group C (n=86) who served as controls. Shunt placement criterion for Group A and B was 20% drop in ipsilateral regional saturation from the baseline value recorded before surgery. Primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the use of the intraoperative algorithm based on NIRS monitoring, in the intraoperative decision for shunt placement, in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Additionally, we examined whether this might affect the rate of postoperative neurologic deficits. RESULTS: When compared with Group A, Group B and Group C had 3.7 times (99% c.i. 1.5-9.5) and 70.6 times (99% c.i. 15-724.3) respectively, greater likelihood of having a shunt placed. When compared with Group B, Group C had 19.4 times (99% c.i. 4.3-191.2) greater likelihood of having a shunt placed. Regarding the rate of postoperative neurologic deficits no significant difference was found between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a specific algorithm based on NIRS monitoring, in patients undergoing CEA, may aid in the intraoperative decision for shunt placement.

Prophylactic intravenous ondansetron and dolasetron in intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

Pruritus is the most common side effect of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief. Activation of central 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptors is one of its possible mechanisms. The role of 5-HT3 antagonists in the prevention of pruritus has not been clearly established. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic administration of ondansetron and dolasetron for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus. The patients were randomized into 3 groups to receive either 4 mg ondansetron IV (group O, n = 35), 12.5 mg dolasetron IV (group D, n = 35) or 5 mL placebo (group P, n = 35) 30 min before administration of spinal anesthesia with 10 to 17.5 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.25 mg of morphine for urologic, orthopedic, or vascular surgery. Patients were evaluated for incidence and severity of pruritus at arrival to the postanesthesia care unit and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 h postoperatively. The incidence and severity of pruritus was significantly less frequent in the ondansetron and dolasetron groups compared with placebo (34%, 20%, and 66% respectively, P < 0.01). Patients who received 5-HT3 antagonist reported significantly less total severity of pruritus compared with placebo during the first 8 h and the severe pruritus was observed only in patients within P group (P group: 4 of 35; 11%, O or D group: 0 of 35; 0%, P < 0.05). We conclude that the prophylactic use of ondansetron and dolasetron helps to reduce the incidence and severity of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus.