Dose-response relationships of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone as adjuvants to peripheral nerve blocks: a systematic review and model-based network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Superiority of perineural over intravenous dexamethasone at extending nerve block analgesia has been suggested but without considering the dose-response relationships for each route of administration. METHODS: Randomised control studies that evaluated intravenous or perineural dexamethasone as an adjuvant to unilateral peripheral nerve blocks in adults were searched up to October 2023 in MEDLINE, Central, Google Scholar, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool was used. A maximum effect (Emax) model-based network meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the dose-response relationships of dexamethasone. RESULTS: A total of 118 studies were selected (9284 patients; 35 with intravenous dexamethasone; 106 with perineural dexamethasone; dose range 1-16 mg). Studies with unclear or high risk of bias overestimated the effect of dexamethasone. Bias-corrected estimates indicated a maximum fold increase in analgesia duration of 1.7 (95% credible interval (CrI) 1.4-1.9) with dexamethasone, with no difference between perineural and intravenous routes. Trial simulations indicated that 4 mg of perineural dexamethasone increased the mean duration of analgesia for long-acting local anaesthetics from 11.1 h (95% CrI 9.4-13.1) to 16.5 h (95% CrI 14.0-19.3) and halved the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A similar magnitude of effect was observed with 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: Used as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve block, intravenous dexamethasone can be as effective as perineural dexamethasone in prolonging analgesic duration, but is less potent, hence requiring higher doses. The evidence is limited because of the observational nature of the dose-response relationships and the quality of the included studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42020141689.

Predicting the dose of vancomycin in ICU patients receiving different types of RRT therapy: a model-based meta-analytic approach.

AIM: Previous pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have proposed various dosing regimens for vancomycin in intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT), but all are restricted to specific RRT modalities. To be useful in practice, a population PK model would need to predict vancomycin clearance during any RRT modality. Development of such a model is feasible using meta-analysis of published summarized estimates of vancomycin PK parameters. Our aims were: (i) to develop and validate a population PK model for vancomycin that takes into account any RRT modalities, and (ii) to predict vancomycin dosing for RRT patients in ICU. METHODS: Vancomycin pharmacokinetics were assumed to be two-compartmental, total body clearance being the sum of non-RRT clearance and RRT-induced clearance. Drug disposition and non-RRT clearance parameters were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published parameter estimates. The relationship between RRT-induced clearance and RRT flowrate settings was assessed using a model-based meta-analysis. Prediction performances of the PK model were assessed using external data. RESULTS: The meta-analyses of disposition parameters, non-RRT clearance and RRT-induced clearance included 11, 6 and 38 studies (84 RRT clearance measurements) respectively. The model performed well in predicting external individual PK data. Individual vancomycin concentrations during RRT were accurately predicted using Bayesian estimation based solely on pre-RRT measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The PK model allowed accurate prediction of the vancomycin pharmacokinetics during RRT in ICU patients. Based on the model of RRT-induced clearance, an appropriate adjustment of the vancomycin dosing regimen could be proposed for any kind of flowrate settings.

Is tranexamic acid exposure related to blood loss in hip arthroplasty? A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic study.

AIMS: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent, decreasing blood loss in hip arthroplasty. The present study investigated the relationship between TXA exposure markers, including the time above the in vitro threshold reported for inhibition of fibrinolysis (10 mg l-1 ), and perioperative blood loss. METHODS: Data were obtained from a prospective, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized superiority study in hip arthroplasty. Patients received a preoperative intravenous bolus of TXA 1 g followed by a continuous infusion of either TXA 1 g or placebo over 8 h. A population pharmacokinetic study was conducted to quantify TXA exposure. RESULTS: In total, 827 TXA plasma concentrations were measured in 166 patients. A two-compartment model fitted the data best, total body weight determining interpatient variability in the central volume of distribution. Creatinine clearance accounted for interpatient variability in clearance. At the end of surgery, all patients had TXA concentrations above the therapeutic target of 10 mg l-1 . The model-estimated time during which the TXA concentration was above 10 mg l-1 ranged from 3.3 h to 16.3 h. No relationship was found between blood loss and either the time during which the TXA concentration exceeded 10 mg l-1 or the other exposure markers tested (maximum plasma concentration, area under the concentration-time curve). CONCLUSION: In hip arthroplasty, TXA plasma concentrations were maintained above 10 mg l-1 during surgery and for a minimum of 3 h with a preoperative TXA dose of 1 g. Keeping TXA concentrations above this threshold up to 16 h conferred no advantage with regard to blood loss.

Intravenous Tranexamic Acid Bolus plus Infusion Is Not More Effective than a Single Bolus in Primary Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative administration of the antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid reduces bleeding in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. Increased fibrinolytic activity is maintained throughout the first day postoperation. The objective of the study was to determine whether additional perioperative administration of tranexamic acid would further reduce blood loss. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized, superiority study was conducted in 168 patients undergoing unilateral primary hip arthroplasty. Patients received a preoperative intravenous bolus of 1 g of tranexamic acid followed by a continuous infusion of either tranexamic acid 1 g (bolus-plus-infusion group) or placebo (bolus group) for 8 h. The primary outcome was calculated perioperative blood loss up to day 5. Erythrocyte transfusion was implemented according to a restrictive transfusion trigger strategy. RESULTS: The mean perioperative blood loss was 919 ± 338 ml in the bolus-plus-infusion group (84 patients analyzed) and 888 ± 366 ml in the bolus group (83 patients analyzed); mean difference, 30 ml (95% CI, -77 to 137; P = 0.58). Within 6 weeks postsurgery, three patients in each group (3.6%) underwent erythrocyte transfusion and two patients in the bolus group experienced distal deep-vein thrombosis. A meta-analysis combining data from this study with those of five other trials showed no incremental efficacy of additional perioperative administration of tranexamic acid. CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative bolus of tranexamic acid, associated with a restrictive transfusion trigger strategy, resulted in low erythrocyte transfusion rates in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. Supplementary perioperative administration of tranexamic acid did not achieve any further reduction in blood loss.

Dabigatran: rational dose individualisation and monitoring guidance is needed.

Dabigatran is the first oral anticoagulant to be introduced in New Zealand without prescribing restrictions for over 50 years. Not surprisingly, the drug has created a great deal of interest amongst health care providers as well as the general public and media. There seems to be a general feeling that warfarin, with its requisite dose adjustments and INR monitoring, is an outdated drug and should be shelved in favour of this novel agent. The assumption is that the newer drug must be better and safer as well as easier to use. Much of the literature associated with dabigatran encourages this view, stressing that dabigatran is a 'game changer' with the advantage of fixed dosing for most patients and no anticoagulation monitoring. In this paper we question whether dabigatran can really live up to these expectations. We suggest that the safe and effective prescribing of dabigatran, like all anticoagulants used in therapeutic doses, will most likely require dose individualisation and selective monitoring. This requirement should not be viewed as a failure for dabigatran but rather as a success for rational therapeutics.