A randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine nasal spray and injectable solution in patients after orthopaedic interventions and traumatological procedures.

AIMS: Our previous 3-period crossover study in healthy volunteers comparing the pharmacokinetics of nalbuphine nasal spray Apain with parenteral nalbuphine solution demonstrated high bioavailability of the nasal spray and close similarity of pharmacokinetic profiles after intranasal and intramuscular administration, especially within 30 min postdose. The aim of the present study was a noninferiority assessment of nalbuphine nasal spray vs. intramuscular injection for pain relief in postoperative patients. METHODS: Ninety orthopaedic and traumatology patients were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized study of the effectiveness and tolerance of a single 10.5 mg dose of nalbuphine nasal spray vs. 10 mg intramuscular injection. The summed pain intensity difference (SPID0-6) calculated using visual analogue scale scores was the primary study endpoint. RESULTS: Of 90 subjects enrolled, the per-protocol efficacy population comprised 79 patients; 6 patients in the reference group and 5 patients in the test group were excluded due to remedication. The mean values of study endpoints with 95% confidence interval were as follows in reference and test groups, respectively: SPID0-6 = 228.08 (205.73-250.43) vs. 248.73 9 (225.83-271.63), time to pain relief onset = 0.28 h (0.25-0.31) vs. 0.27 h (0.25-0.29), duration of analgesia = 5.55 h (5.17-5.93) vs. 5.51 h (5.10-5.92), area under the curve = 119.30 (91.17-147.43) vs. 99.81 (74.52-107.10). No statistically significant differences were revealed. CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine nasal spray Apain has been proven to be a safe, noninvasive alternative to intramuscular nalbuphine to relieve severe postoperative pain. Designed for self-administration and dose-adjusting, the noncontrolled opioid analgesic nalbuphine spray can be used for patient-controlled analgesia in out-of-hospital, field and home settings.

Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve block compared with IV opioids in hip injuries: A randomised controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of USG-guided PENG (Peri capsular nerve group) block with Intravenous Nalbuphine hydrochloride (IVN) in patients with hip fracture coming to the emergency department (ED). The purpose was also to monitor the adverse effects and rescue analgesic requirements in both treatment modalities. METHODS: The study was an open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing PENG block versus IVN in treating patients with femoral head and neck fractures, as well as pubic rami fracture of the hip (HF). The participants in the PENG group received a USG-guided PENG block by injection of 25 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine, whereas the IVN group received 0.15 mg/kg of nalbuphine. An emergency physician with expertise in ultrasound-guided nerve blocks performed the PENG blocks. The primary outcome was to measure the improvement of the NRS (Numerical rating scale) score at 30 min in both static position (Patient-chosen position for the best comfort) and dynamic position (15-degree passive affected lower limb elevation). Secondary outcomes were to measure static and dynamic NRS pain scores at 2 h, 4 h, and 6 h after intervention in both groups. The requirement for rescue analgesia, adverse events and any block-related complications were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients with HF were included in the final analysis. The static and dynamic NRS score was significantly lower in the PENG group compared to the IVN group at 30 min, 2 h, 4 h, and 6 h post-intervention. In the PENG group, the static NRS score was improved by 5.73 ± 1.17, while In the IVN group, the static NRS score was just improved by 2.13 ± 0.97 at 30 min. In the same duration, the Dynamic NRS score in the PENG group was improved by 6.13 ± 1.38, while In the IVN group, it improved just by 2.43 ± 1.28. Rescue analgesia was required in 50.0% of patients in the IVN group but none in the PENG group. Further, no block-related complications or adverse events were observed in the patients of the PENG group. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that the ultrasound-guided PENG block has a better analgesic effect and has fewer adverse events than IV opioids in patients with HF.

Effect of two different doses of nalbuphine for postoperative analgesia in children with cleft palate: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cleft palate repair surgery may result in severe pain in the immediate postoperative period. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of different doses of nalbuphine for postoperative analgesia in children with cleft palate. METHODS: From November 2019 to June 2021, 90 children (45 males and 45 females, age 9-20 months old, ASA class I-II) were selected for palatoplasty. They were randomly divided into three groups: the control group (Group C), the N1 group (postoperative analgesia with 0.05 mg/kg/h nalbuphine) and the N2 group (postoperative analgesia with 0.075 mg/kg/h nalbuphine). Each group had 30 cases. Nalbuphine was not continuously infused in Group C but was continuously infused in Groups N1 and N2 at rates of 0.05 mg/kg/h and 0.075 mg/kg/h, respectively, for 24 h for postoperative analgesia. The FLACC analgesia score and Ramsay Sedation score were recorded at 10 min (T1), 30 min (T2), 2 h (T3), 12 h (T4) and 24 h (T5) after the operation. Adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting and respiratory depression were observed and recorded. RESULTS: Compared with those in Group C, the FLACC scores in the N1 and N2 groups decreased significantly at T1-T5 (p < 0.05); the Ramsay Sedation score in the N1 group was significantly higher at T3 and T4 (p < 0.05), and that in the N2 group was significantly higher at T1-T5 (p < 0.05). Compared with that in the N1 group, the FLACC score in the N2 group was not significantly different, and the Ramsay Sedation score increased significantly at T5 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using 0.05 mg/kg/h Nalbuphine continuously for 24 h for postoperative analgesia in children with cleft palate has a better effect and fewer adverse reactions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ChiCTR1900027385 (11/11/2019).

Regional analgesia using ultrasound-guided intermediate cervical plexus block versus cervical erector spinae block for anterior cervical spine surgery: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional analgesia techniques are crucial for pain management after cervical spine surgeries. Anesthesiologists strive to select the most effective and least hazardous regional analgesia technique for the cervical region. Our hypothesis is that an intermediate cervical plexus (IC) block can provide adequate postoperative analgesia compared to a cervical erector spinae (ES) block in patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind prospective trial, 58 patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups prior to the administration of general anesthesia. Patients in the IC group (n = 29) underwent ultrasound-guided bilateral intermediate cervical plexus block with 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% administered to each side. The ES group (n = 29) underwent ultrasound-guided bilateral cervical erector spinae plane blocks with 15 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine administered to each side at the C6 level. The primary outcome was to record the time to the first call for rescue analgesia (nalbuphine), and the secondary outcomes were to measure the performance time, the onset of the sensory block, the intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative pain intensity using VAS, the postoperative total nalbuphine consumption, and postoperative complications such as nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and bradycardia. RESULTS: The performance and onset of sensory block times were significantly shorter in the IC group compared to the ES group. The time to first call for nalbuphine was significantly shorter in the IC group (7.31 ± 1.34 h) compared to the ES group (11.10 ± 1.82 h). The mean postoperative VAS scores were comparable between the two groups at the measured time points, except at 8 h, where it was significantly higher in the IC group, and at 12 h, where it was significantly higher in the ES group. The total nalbuphine consumption was significantly higher in the IC group (33.1 ± 10.13 mg) compared to the ES group (22.76 ± 8.62 mg). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery, the intermediate cervical plexus block does not provide better postoperative regional analgesia compared to the cervical erector spinae block. Performance time and onset time were shorter in the IC group, whereas nalbuphine consumption was lower in the ES group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov. (NCT05577559, and the date of registration: 13-10-2022).

Optimal Post-Operative Nalbuphine Dose Regimen: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Background and Objectives: Optimal opioid analgesia is an excellent analgesia that does not present unexpected adverse effects. Nalbuphine, acting on the opioid receptor as a partial mu antagonist and kappa agonist, is considered a suitable option for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, we aim to investigate the appropriate dosage of nalbuphine for post-operative pain management in patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly categorized into low, medium, and high nalbuphine groups. In each group, a patient control device for post-operative pain control was programed with a low (0.05 mg/kg), medium (0.10 mg/kg), or high (0.20 mg/kg) nalbuphine dose as a loading dose and each bolus dose with a lockout interval of 7 min and without background infusion. Primary and secondary outcomes included the post-operative pain scale and nalbuphine consumption, and episodes of post-operative opioid-related adverse events and satisfactory scores. Results: The low-dosage group presented a higher initial self-reported pain score in comparison to the other two groups for the two hours post-op (p = 0.039) but presented lower nalbuphine consumption than the other two groups for four hours post-op (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference in the analysis of the satisfactory score and adverse events. Conclusions: An appropriate administration of nalbuphine could be 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg at the initial four hours; this formula could be modified to a lower dosage (0.05 mg/kg) in the post-operative management of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Co-Administration of nalbuphine to improve morphine tolerance in mice with bone cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) agonists are known for having opposite and/or different effects compared with Mu-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists. This study is aimed at clarifying the analgesic effect and tolerance of nalbuphine combined with morphine, and quantifying the mRNA and protein expression of spinal MOR and KOR in a mouse bone cancer pain (BCP) model treated with nalbuphine and morphine. METHOD: BCP model was prepared in C3H/HeNCrlVr Mice by implanting the sarcoma cells into the intramedullary space of the femur. The paw withdrawal thermal latency (PWL) measured by thermal radiometer was used to assess thermal hyperalgesia. PWL testing was performed after implantation and drug administration according to the protocol. Hematoxylin-eosin staining in the spinal cord and x-ray in the femoral intramedullary canal was detected. Real-time PCR and western blot analysis played a role in detecting spinal MOR and KOR expression changes. RESULTS: In tumor-implanted mice, the spinal MOR and KOR protein and mRNA expression was down-regulated when compared to that in sham-implanted mice (p < 0.05). Morphine therapy can lead to a decrease in spinal µ receptor expression. Similarly, the nalbuphine therapy can lead to a decrease in the expression of κ receptor protein and mRNA at the spinal cord level (p < 0.05). Morphine, nalbuphine, or nalbuphine co-administration with morphine all can extend the paw withdrawal thermal latency (PWL) to radiant thermal stimulation in tumor-implanted mice (p < 0.05). Compared with the morphine treatment group, nalbuphine co-administration with morphine delayed the reduction of PWL value again (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: BCP itself may induce down-regulation of the spinal MOR and KOR expression. A low dose of nalbuphine co-administration with morphine led to the delayed emergence of morphine tolerance. The part of the mechanism may be due to the regulation of spinal opioid receptors expression.

Nalbuphine attenuates morphine-induced scratching by inhibiting PKCß-dependent microglial activation and p38 phosphorylation in male mice.

Morphine-induced scratching (MIS) is a common adverse effect associated with the use of morphine as analgesia after surgery. However, the treatment of MIS is less than satisfactory due to its unclear mechanism, which needs to be enunciated. We found that intrathecal (i.t.) injections of morphine significantly enhanced scratching behavior in C57BL/6J male mice as well as increased the expressions of protein kinase C ß (PKCß), phosphorylated p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK), and ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1 (Iba1) within spinal cord dorsal horn. Conversely, using the kappa opioid receptor antagonist nalbuphine significantly attenuated scratching behavior, reduced PKCß expression and p38 phosphorylation, and decreased spinal dorsal horn microglial activation, while PKCδ and KOR expression elevated. Spinal PKCß silencing mitigated MIS and microglial activation. Still, knockdown of PKCδ reversed the inhibitory effect of nalbuphine on MIS and microglial activation, indicating that PKCδ is indispensable for the antipruritic effects of nalbuphine. In contrast, PKCß is crucial for inducing microglial activation in MIS in male mice. Our findings show a distinct itch cascade of morphine, PKCß/p38MAPK, and microglial activation, but an anti-MIS pathway of nalbuphine, PKCδ/KOR, and neuron activation.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of nalbuphine nasal spray and solution for injection in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: Nalbuphine is a synthetic opioid with comparable analgesic activity to morphine but with a better safety profile. Nalbuphine is only available in injectable form due to low oral bioavailability. Nasal nalbuphine spray provides advantages in drug safety, avoids hepatic first-pass metabolism, is non-invasive and is convenient for patient-controlled analgesia by self-administration. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the newly developed nalbuphine nasal spray in comparison with a solution for injections. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy Caucasian volunteers were enrolled in this randomized, open-label, cross-over study. Subjects were administered one of the drugs: nasal spray 7.0 mg/dose, nalbuphine hydrochloride solution for injection 10 mg/dose intravenously (IV) or intramuscularly (IM). High-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to determine nalbuphine concentrations. RESULTS: A comparison of PK profiles for IV, IM and intranasal (IN) routes of nalbuphine administration revealed a close similarity of absorption phases for nasal spray and IM injection. Differences between the mean Tmax and dose-adjusted Cmax values for nasal spray and IM injection were statistically insignificant. The median values of the elimination rate constants and the terminal elimination half-life following IV, IM and IN nalbuphine administration were similar. The mean absolute bioavailability of the nasal spray equalled 65.04%. CONCLUSIONS: The similarity of PK parameters of IM-injected nalbuphine solution and the nasal spray allows us to assume the latter is a feasible alternative to intramuscular nalbuphine injections appropriate for self-administration and field environments for managing moderate and severe pain of various aetiologies.

A population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model evaluating efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release in patients with prurigo nodularis.

AIMS: Population pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) models were used to describe the exposure-response (E-R) relationship between nalbuphine exposure and two widely used rating scales for itch: the Numerical Rating Scale for the subject's 'average'; itch experience (NRS-AV) and the Worst Itch (WI-NRS), with 24-h recall. Simulations based on the model E-R relationship were used to support dose selection for Phase 3 clinical trials and were evaluated with a target of reducing the 7-day average of the 24-h WI-NRS by at least 30% from baseline in most of the analysis population. METHODS: Data from two clinical trials (NCT02373215: 9 healthy subjects; NCT02174419: 62 subjects with PN), in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) with moderate to severe itch who received treatment with either of two doses of nalbuphine extended release (ER) or placebo, were used for the analysis. A two-compartment PK model with serial zero and first-order oral absorption was used to describe drug exposure. A maximum effect ( E max ) model with a placebo effect was used to model the itch response endpoints (NRS-AV, WI-NRS). RESULTS: The PK-PD model predicted the exposure-related reduction in both NRS-AV and WI-NRS over time with approximately 63% and 27% of E max , respectively. Exposures associated with 80% of E max were achieved in about 78% of the patients at 162 mg, twice daily (BID), compared to 35% at 81 mg BID. CONCLUSION: Simulated dose response indicated that 108 and 162 mg BID doses result in the highest proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% reduction in NRS-AV and WI-NRS, respectively.

Effect of nalbuphine plus ropivacaine on vaginal labor in epidural analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Various approaches using epidural analgesia have been employed for relieving labor pain and promoting spontaneous delivery. We aimed to evaluate the effect of nalbuphine and ropivacaine versus fentanyl and ropivacaine on the duration of delivery in parturients. METHODS: Clinical data of 160 full-term primiparous women who received either nalbuphine or fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine infusion for epidural labor analgesia in our hospital from December 2020 to May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The participants were divided into two groups based on anesthesia methods: nalbuphine group (NR group, n = 78) received 0.2 mg/mL nalbuphine combined with 0.1% ropivacaine hydrochloride for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and fentanyl group (FR group, n = 82) received 2 ug/mL fentanyl citrate and 0.1% ropivacaine hydrochloride for PCEA. Both groups received an epidural blockade for labor analgesia at lumbar 2-3 interspace. The duration of the first, second, and third stages of labor, the onset of analgesia, and time before delivery (T0), 15 min of analgesia (T1), 30 min of analgesia (T2), full opening of the uterine opening (T3),exerts force during childbirth(T4), heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), blood saturation (SpO2), visual analogue pain scale (VAS) score, Ramsay sedation score, and modified Bromage score, and 5 min were recorded at 2 h postpartum (T5). The neonatal Apgar score, neonatal behavioral neurological assessment (NBNA) score, maternal nausea, vomiting, and itchy skin were recorded. RESULTS: Compared with the FR group, the first stage of labor duration (p < 0.05) and total duration of labor (p < 0.05) were shortened and the onset of analgesia (p < 0.05) was increased in the NR group. NR group had lower incidence of urinary retention than FR group (p < 0.05). The maternal and neonatal investigational parameters and scores had no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine combined with ropivacaine in epidural block labor has a faster onset of analgesia and has a lower incidence of urinary retention than fentanyl combined with ropivacaine, and nalbuphine shortens the duration of the first and total stages of labor. Both nalbuphine and fentanyl can reduce pain during labor, have little effect on maternal hemodynamics, and have no significant effect on neonatal Apgar or NBNA scores.

Epidural nalbuphine versus dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to bupivacaine in lower limb orthopedic surgeries for postoperative analgesia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Administration of adjuvant drugs epidurally in combination with local anesthetics offers new dimensions in the management of postoperative pain. This study aimed to compare the addition of either nalbuphine or dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. METHODS: This prospective randomized double-blind study included 69 patients scheduled for lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Anesthesia was started with 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% intrathecally, and then an epidural bolus dose of 12 ml (10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine with 2 ml normal saline in group C, 2 ml (10 mg) nalbuphine in group N or dexmedetomidine 2 ml (100 µg) in group D was administered when sensory regression to T10. Postoperatively, when visual analogue scale (VAS) was ≥ 3, an epidural top-up dose of 8 ml (6 ml 0.25% bupivacaine plus 2 ml normal saline in group C, 2 ml (2 mg) nalbuphine in group N or 20 µg dexmedetomidine (2 ml) in group D was given. The primary outcome was to evaluate the duration of postoperative analgesia and secondary outcomes were any side effects and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The onset of epidural analgesia was 17.83 ± 2.53 versus 13.39 ± 1.27 versus 12.17 ± 1.27 min in groups C, N and D, respectively (p value < 0.001). The mean duration of analgesia was 241.3 ± 14.24 versus 318.38 ± 22.54 versus 365.87 ± 18.01 min in groups C, N and D, respectively (p value < 0.001). The mean sedation score was less in group C than group N and D (P < 0.001). The patient satisfaction score showed the lowest degree of satisfaction in group C (p value < 0.001). Top-up doses consumed and total analgesic requirements were lower in groups N and D than in group C. There was a statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding VAS over time (p value < 0.001), intraoperative bradycardia (p value 0.029), and shivering (p value 0.029). CONCLUSION: The addition of either nalbuphine or dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine was effective for postoperative analgesia in terms of onset, duration, and patient satisfaction with the superiority of dexmedetomidine over nalbuphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Approval from the research ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University was obtained with the reference number (ZU-IRB#:7045-15-8-2021) and it was registered under clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05041270) on registration date 13/09/2021.

Effect of Multimodal Preemptive Analgesia of Flurbiprofen Axetil, Nalbuphine, and Retrobulbar Block on Postoperative Pain and Enhanced Recovery in Patients Undergoing Oculoplastic Day Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of either flurbiprofen axetil or nalbuphine combined with retrobulbar block (RB) before surgery on postoperative pain control and enhanced recovery in day-care patients undergoing orbital implantation. METHODS: A total of 45 patients undergoing orbital implantation with general anesthesia were randomly divided into three groups: flurbiprofen axetil (1 mg/kg) combined with RB (group F), nalbuphine (0.1 mg/kg) combined with RB (group N), and placebo as normal saline with RB (group C). The primary outcome was the average pain score (numeric rating scale: 0-10) within the first 24 hours. Other outcomes including the peak pain score, paracetamol requirement, quality of recovery (QoR)-15, and adverse effects (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: The average and peak pain scores within 24 hours after surgery in group F were significantly lower than in other groups ( p < 0.0167). Compared with group C, the NRS scores were significantly decreased at 2 and 4 hours in group F, and 2 hours in group N after surgery ( p < 0.0167), but without significant differences at other measured time points. The time to first paracetamol oral intake displayed a significant difference among the three groups ( p < 0.0167). CONCLUSION: Preemptive use of flurbiprofen axetil 1 mg/kg combined with RB is an optimal choice for multimodal analgesia for day-care patients undergoing orbital implantation in terms of efficient acute pain control, without impeding patient-enhanced recovery.

Application of analgesics in emergency services in Germany: a survey of the medical directors.

ABSTRAC: BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute pain is an essential element of pre-hospital care for injured and critically ill patients. Clinical studies indicate the need for improvement in the prehospital analgesia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the current situation in out of hospital pain management in Germany regarding the substances, indications, dosage and the delegation of the use of analgesics to emergency medical service (EMS) staff. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A standardized survey of the medical directors of the emergency services (MDES) in Germany was carried out using an online questionnaire. The anonymous results were evaluated using the statistical software SPSS (Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney-U test). RESULTS: Seventy-seven MDES responsible for 989 rescue stations and 397 EMS- physician bases in 15 federal states took part in this survey. Morphine (98.7%), Fentanyl (85.7%), Piritramide (61%), Sufentanil (18.2%) and Nalbuphine (14,3%) are provided as opioid analgesics. The non-opioid analgesics (NOA) including Ketamine/Esketamine (98,7%), Metamizole (88.3%), Paracetamol (66,2%), Ibuprofen (24,7%) and COX-2-inhibitors (7,8%) are most commonly available. The antispasmodic Butylscopolamine is available (81,8%) to most rescue stations. Fentanyl is the most commonly provided opioid analgesic for treatment of a traumatic pain (70.1%) and back pain (46.8%), Morphine for visceral colic-like (33.8%) and non-colic pain (53.2%). In cases of acute coronary syndrome is Morphine (85.7%) the leading analgesic substance. Among the non-opioid analgesics is Ketamine/Esketamine (90.9%) most frequently provided to treat traumatic pain, Metamizole for visceral colic-like (70.1%) and non-colic (68.6%) as well as back pain (41.6%). Butylscopolamine is the second most frequently provided medication after Metamizole for "visceral colic-like pain" (55.8%). EMS staff (with or without a request for presence of the EMS physician on site) are permitted to use the following: Morphine (16.9%), Piritramide (13.0%) and Nalbuphine (10.4%), and of NOAs for (Es)Ketamine (74.1%), Paracetamol (53.3%) and Metamizole (35.1%). The dosages of the most important and commonly provided analgesic substances permitted to independent treatment by the paramedics are often below the recommended range for adults (RDE). The majority of medical directors (78.4%) of the emergency services consider the independent application of analgesics by paramedics sensible. The reason for the relatively rare authorization of opioids for use by paramedics is mainly due to legal (in)certainty (53.2%). CONCLUSION: Effective analgesics are available for EMS staff in Germany, the approach to improvement lies in the area of application. For this purpose, the adaptations of the legal framework as well as the creation of a guideline for prehospital analgesia are useful.

The comparison of the analgesic efficacy of continuous paravertebral block alone compared with continuous paravertebral and intercostal nerve block for thoracotomy in adults: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of two analgesic interventions, continuous paravertebral (PVB) nerve block alone with continuous paravertebral and intercostal nerve block (PVB/ICB) in patients undergoing thoracotomy. METHODS: A total of 70 patients undergoing thoracotomy were randomly enrolled in either continuous paravertebral nerve block (PVB) group or in continuous paravertebral and intercostal nerve block (PVB/ICB) group and received corresponding blocks. Analgesic efficacy measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, hemodynamic effects, total narcotic consumption, sedation score, patient's length of stay in hospital and patient's satisfaction with the analgesic technique were recorded. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The mean VAS pain score was not statistically significant in both groups at 24 h. The mean pulse rate and blood pressures were comparable in both groups for the first 24 h. Nalbuphine consumption was significantly higher in PVB group as compared to PVB/ICB group at 1 h (p = 0.01), 6 h (p = 0.03) and 12 h (p = 0.009) and 24 h (p = 0.03). The mean total nalbuphine consumption in the PVB group was higher (28.29 mg vs. 22.63 mg) and statistically significant then PVB/ICB group (p = 0.03). The total tramadol consumption as a rescue analgesic was higher in the PVB group (131.42 mg) as compared to PVB/ICB group (120 mg) after 24 h but not statistically significant (p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Continuous paravertebral nerve block with intercostal nerve block provides effective post-operative pain relief after thoracotomy with reduced narcotic consumption compared to continuous paravertebral nerve block alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT04715880.

A meta-analysis showing the quantitative evidence base of perineural nalbuphine for wound pain from upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery.

The adjuvant effectiveness of nalbuphine in context of brachial plexus block (BPB) in patients undergoing upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery has remained uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the analgesic benefit of mixing nalbuphine into local anaesthetics in BPB for wound pain from upper-limb trauma surgery. Primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Seventeen trials (1104 patients) were analysed. Patients receiving nalbuphine have an increased weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% confidence interval of the duration of analgesia by 186.91 minutes (133.67 to 240.16) (P < 0.001). Compared to placebo, nalbuphine shorten the onset time of sensory and motor block by WMD of 2.59 (1.27 to 3.92) and 3.06 minutes (1.65 to 4.48) (P < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, nalbuphine prolonged the durations of sensory and motor block (P < 0.001). Qualitative and quantitative synthesis revealed no differences with regard to the outcomes related to side-effects. There is moderate-quality evidence that the addition of nalbuphine to local anaesthetics for BPB in patients undergoing upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery significantly prolongs the duration of analgesia, while preserving a similar safety-profile compared with local anaesthetics alone. However, these benefits should be further weighed against nalbuphine-related neurological safety in future studies.

Comparison of propofol-nalbuphine and propofol-fentanyl sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been increasingly used to treat patients with biliary/pancreatic duct obstruction or stricture outside the operating room. Effective and safe sedation techniques are needed because of painful stimuli and the long duration of the ERCP procedure.Nalbuphine has been shown to cause less respiratory depression during sedation than similar cases without nalbuphine. This study compared the effects of propofol-nalbuphine (PN) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation in patients undergoing ERCP. METHODS: Four hundred patients scheduled for ERCP procedures were divided into two groups: the PF group (receiving PF sedation,n = 199) and the PN group (receiving PN sedation,n = 201). Vital signs, adverse events during surgery, patient movement scores, pain scores, and adverse events one day post-ERCP were recorded. RESULTS: Stable haemodynamics were observed in both groups.Compared to the PF group, the PN group showed significantly decreased respiratory depression (P < 0.0001) and surgical interruptions (P = 0.048).Nalbuphine decreased patient movement by reducing pain from ERCP. CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine, instead of fentanyl, precipitated less respiratory depression while permitting adequate/equivalent sedation for ERCP and therefore provides more efficient and safer sedation. Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR1800016018, Registered 7 May 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27085.

Efficacy and safety of oral nalbuphine extended release in prurigo nodularis: results of a phase 2 randomized controlled trial with an open-label extension phase.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of prurigo nodularis (PN) is challenging and new treatment options are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two oral doses of the kappa opioid agonist and mu opioid antagonist nalbuphine extended release (NAL-ER) tablets in a phase 2, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label, 50-week extension phase. METHODS: Subjects with moderate-to-severe PN were randomized to NAL-ER 81 mg (NAL-ER81) or 162 mg (NAL-ER162) tablets twice-daily or placebo for 8 weeks of stable dosing following a 2-week titration period. Subjects completing Week 10 with a Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS) score ≥5 at the time of rollover (or during the observation period) were eligible for open-label treatment. RESULTS: Of 63 randomized subjects, 62 were treated and comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (MITT), 50 completed 10 weeks of treatment. In the MITT analysis, 8 subjects (44.4%) treated with NAL-ER162 (P = 0.32) and 6 (27.3%) treated with NAL-ER81 (P = 0.78) achieved ≥30% reduction from baseline in 7-day WI-NRS at Week 10 (primary efficacy endpoint) vs. 8 (36.4%) in the placebo group. Itch reduction was significant among 8/12 (66.7%) subjects completing Week 10 treated with NAL-ER162 vs. placebo (8/20, 40.0%; P = 0.03). Additionally, 6 subjects (33.3%) treated with NAL-ER162 and 3 (13.6%) treated with NAL-ER81 achieved ≥50% reduction from baseline in 7-day WI-NRS at Week 10 (coprimary endpoint). Extended open-label treatment was associated with further improvements in itch reduction and favourable changes in PN lesion activity as assessed by Prurigo Activity Score. Adverse events occurred predominantly during dose titration and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The safety profile did not change with extended open-label treatment. CONCLUSION: In adult subjects with PN, oral treatment with NAL-ER 162 mg twice daily provided measurable anti-pruritic efficacy in subjects completing ≥10 weeks of treatment and was well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02174419).

Pain management of nalbuphine and sufentanil in patients admitted intensive care unit of different ages.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve treatment outcomes and reduce the burden on doctors and nurses. This study aims to report the clinical analgesic and sedative effects of nalbuphine and sufentanil on ICU patients. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 87 critically ill patients who received nalbuphine or sufentanil infusion in the ICU, including demographic data, diagnosis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). The primary outcomes of this study were CPOT and RASS scores. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and SpO2. The adverse events recorded during pain management, such as hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia, were also collected and analyzed. RESULTS: None of the patients in both groups experienced episode of hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia. However, age-stratified analyses showed that nalbuphine has a better analgesic effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05). In contrast, sufentanil showed a better analgesic effect than nalbuphine for patients aged > 60 ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, nalbuphine has a significantly better sedative effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ICU patients of different age groups may be suitable for different analgesics. For patients under the age of 60, nalbuphine has better analgesia and sedation than sufentanil, and does not cause respiratory depression and drastic hemodynamic changes.

Simultaneous Quantification of Opioids in Blood and Urine by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer with Modified Dispersive Solid-Phase Extraction Technique.

Common methodologies such as liquid-liquid extraction and solid-phase extraction are applied for the extraction of opioids from biological specimens i.e., blood and urine. Techniques including LC-MS/LC-MSMS, GC-MS, etc. are used for qualitative or quantitative determination of opioids. The goal of the present work is to design a green, economic, rugged, and simple extraction technique for famous opioids in human blood and urine and their simultaneous quantification by GC-MS equipped with an inert plus electron impact (EI) ionization source at SIM mode to produce reproducible and efficient results. Morphine, codeine, 6-acetylmorphine, nalbuphine, tramadol and dextromethorphan were selected as target opioids. Anhydrous Epsom salt was applied for dSPE of opioids from blood and urine into acetonitrile extraction solvent with the addition of sodium phosphate buffer (pH 6) and n-hexane was added to remove non-polar interfering species from samples. BSTFA was used as a derivatizing agent for GC-MS. Following method validation, the LOD/LLOQ and ULOQ were determined for morphine, codeine, nal-buphine, tramadol, and dextromethorphan at 10 ng/mL and 1500 ng/mL, respectively, while the LOD/LLOQ and ULOQ were determined for 6-acetylmorphine at 5 ng/mL and 150 ng/mL, respectively. This method was applied to real blood and urine samples of opioid abusers and the results were found to be reproducible with true quantification.

The use of topical nalbuphine in different concentrations to control pain after photorefractive keratectomy.

PURPOSE: This is a randomized controlled study aiming to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two different concentrations of topical nalbuphine hydrochloride, when used to relieve pain in the first days following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). METHODS: This is a prospective double blinded randomized clinical trial that included 189 patients who had PRK for correction of low and moderate refractive errors. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups according to the eye drops given to relieve pain in the first three postoperative days; the first group received topical nalbuphine with a concentration of 2 mg/ml (Group A = 64 patients), the second group received topical nalbuphine in a concentration of 1 mg/ml (Group B = 69 patients) and the third group received topical artificial tears only (Group C = 56 patients).The patients were asked to rate their pain daily using a numeric rating scale and to record the number of drops instillation times/day. The time needed for complete epithelial healing, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and spherical equivalent after three months were recorded in each group. RESULTS: In the first three days, there was a statistically significant difference in pain score among the three groups with lower values in the two topical nalbuphine groups when compared with the control group receiving artificial tears. Moreover, the higher concentration group showed significantly lower pain score and less number of drops used /day in comparison with the lower concentration group.There were no statistically significant differences in epithelial healing time, BCVA and spherical equivalent after three months among the three groups. CONCLUSION: The use of topical nalbuphine is effective in relieving pain in the first few days following PRK and this pain relief is not associated with any compromise regarding epithelial healing nor refractive outcome. The pain control with 2 mg/ml concentration is significantly higher than that with 1 mg/ml concentration of nalbuphine. Trial registration numberISRCTN21394752 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN21394752 The trial is retrospectively registered in ISRCTN registry at March 08, 2021.