Assessing efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen for perioperative pain control for oocyte retrieval: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of preoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen versus oral (PO) acetaminophen or placebo on postoperative pain scores and the time to discharge in women undergoing oocyte retrieval. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Single academic fertility center. PATIENT(S): Women aged 18-43 years undergoing oocyte retrieval. INTERVENTION(S): Randomization to preoperative 1,000 mg IV acetaminophen and PO placebo (group A), IV placebo and 1,000 mg PO acetaminophen (group B), or IV and PO placebo (group C) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Difference in patient-reported postoperative visual analog scale pain scores from baseline and the time to discharge. RESULT(S): Of the 159 women who completed the study, there were no differences in the mean postoperative pain score differences or the time to discharge. Although not statistically significant, the mean postoperative opioid dose requirement in group A was lower than that in groups B and C (0.24 vs. 0.59 vs. 0.58 mg IV morphine equivalents, respectively) due to fewer women in group A requiring rescue pain medication (8% vs. 19% vs. 15%, respectively). Group A also reported less constipation when compared with groups B and C (19% vs. 33% vs. 40%, respectively). The rates of postoperative nausea were similar, and there were no differences in embryology or early pregnancy outcomes between the study groups. CONCLUSION(S): Preoperative IV acetaminophen for women undergoing oocyte retrieval did not reduce postoperative pain scores or shorten the time to discharge when compared with PO acetaminophen or placebo and, thus, cannot currently be recommended routinely in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03073980.

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated AKI: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI, data on this complication of immunotherapy are sparse. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study of 138 patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI, defined as a ≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or new dialysis requirement directly attributed to an immune checkpoint inhibitor. We also collected data on 276 control patients who received these drugs but did not develop AKI. RESULTS: Lower baseline eGFR, proton pump inhibitor use, and combination immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy were each independently associated with an increased risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI. Median (interquartile range) time from immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation to AKI was 14 (6-37) weeks. Most patients had subnephrotic proteinuria, and approximately half had pyuria. Extrarenal immune-related adverse events occurred in 43% of patients; 69% were concurrently receiving a potential tubulointerstitial nephritis-causing medication. Tubulointerstitial nephritis was the dominant lesion in 93% of the 60 patients biopsied. Most patients (86%) were treated with steroids. Complete, partial, or no kidney recovery occurred in 40%, 45%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Concomitant extrarenal immune-related adverse events were associated with worse renal prognosis, whereas concomitant tubulointerstitial nephritis-causing medications and treatment with steroids were each associated with improved renal prognosis. Failure to achieve kidney recovery after immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI was independently associated with higher mortality. Immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge occurred in 22% of patients, of whom 23% developed recurrent associated AKI. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study identifies insights into the risk factors, clinical features, histopathologic findings, and renal and overall outcomes in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI.