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.

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).

Different Doses of Nalbuphine Combined with Dexmedetomidine in Laparoscopic Oophorocystectomy.

BACKGROUND The goal of this study was to investigate different doses of nalbuphine combined with dexmedetomidine in the postoperative treatment of laparoscopic oophorocystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective single-blinded randomized controlled study included 219 patients with benign ovarian cysts who received laparoscopic oophorocystectomy from March 2017 to October 2019. Patients were randomized into 4 groups: low (0.5 mg/kg), middle (1.0 mg/kg), and high (1.5 mg/kg) doses of nalbuphine combined with dexmedetomidine (4 µg/kg) (LND, MND, and HND groups, respectively) and a control group with sufentanil (2.5 µg/kg), with different patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump (PCIA) strategies. Rest and active visual analog scale (VAS) scores measured postoperative pain, and Ramsay scores were used to measure sedation. RESULTS The HND group showed the lowest rest and cough VAS scores at 2 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h after surgery, the lowest PCIA pressing time within 48 h after surgery, and the highest Ramsay scores at 2 h, 8 h, 24 h and 48 h after surgery. Rest and cough VAS scores decreased with higher nalbuphine doses in a dose-dependent manner. One day after surgery, IL-1ß and IL-6 levels increased in all groups, with the lowest levels of IL-1ß and IL-6 in the HND group. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in the HND group compared with the LND and MND groups. There were no significant differences in complications among groups. CONCLUSIONS Combined nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine improved postoperative pain and sedative conditions, reduced inflammation in a nalbuphine dose-dependent manner, and might facilitate patient recovery.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of nalbuphine with single injection and patient-controlled analgesia mimic method in healthy Chinese volunteers.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Nalbuphine is a mu (µ) receptor partial antagonist/kappa (κ) receptor agonist analgesic and can be administered as a single injection or using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in the clinical setting. However, differences in the pharmacokinetics of the two administration methods are unclear. Here, a clinical trial was performed to compare the pharmacokinetic characteristics and superiority of nalbuphine with a single-injection or PCA-mimic method to provide a reference for the selection of an appropriate administration method. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals were divided into two groups and injected with 10 mg nalbuphine intravenously using a single-injection or a PCA-mimic method (2 mg once for five times with a 30-min interval). Blood samples were collected, and safety was investigated. The liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was adopted to determine the concentration of nalbuphine in plasma. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The maximum concentration (Cmax ) and area under concentration-time curve (AUC0-t ) values of nalbuphine in the single-injection and PCA groups were as follows: Cmax , 81.3 ± 24.7 and 39.8 ± 6.4 ng/ml, respectively; moreover, AUC0-t , 110.3 ± 19.5 and 128.3 ± 23.0 h ng/ml, respectively. The effective analgesic concentration durations (EACDs) for the two administration methods were 1.39 ± 0.64 and 1.96 ± 0.91 h, respectively. Nalbuphine was well tolerated, and improvements were observed in the PCA group. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Compared with those in the single-injection group, the AUC0-t and EACDs in the PCA group were similar, whereas Cmax was decreased significantly. Therefore, the PCA method was more suitable for the clinical application of nalbuphine injection owing to the superiority of lower concentration fluctuation and the improved safety profile.

Nelarabine as salvage therapy and bridge to allogeneic stem cell transplant in 118 adult patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. A CAMPUS ALL study.

The outcome of relapsed or refractory (R/R) T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (T-ALL/T-LBL) in adults is poor, with less than 20% of patients surviving at 5 years. Nelarabine is the only drug specifically approved for R/R T-ALL/T-LBL, but the information to support its use is based on limited available data. The aim of this observational phase four study was to provide recent additional data on the efficacy and safety of nelarabine in adults with R/R T-ALL/T-LBL and to evaluate the feasibility and outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (SCT) after salvage with nelarabine therapy. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Additional endpoints were safety, SCT rate and post-SCT OS. Between May 2007 and November 2018, 118 patients received nelarabine salvage therapy at 27 Italian hematology sites. The median age was 37 years (range 18-74 years), 73% were male, 77 had a diagnosis of T-ALL and 41 of T-LBL, and 65/118 (55%) had received more than two lines of therapy. The median number of nelarabine cycles was two (range 1-4); 43/118 (36%) patients had complete remission (CR), 16 had partial remission (14%) and 59 (50%) were refractory, with an ORR of 50%. The probability of OS, from the first dose of nelarabine, was 37% at 1 year with a median survival of 8 months. The OS at 1 year was significantly better for the 47 patients (40%) who underwent SCT after nelarabine salvage therapy (58% vs 22%, log-rank P < .001). The probability of OS at 2 and 5 years from SCT was 46% and 38%, respectively. Seventy-five patients (64%) experienced one or more drug-related adverse events (AE). Grade III-IV neurologic toxicities were observed in 9/118 (8%) of cases and thrombocytopenia or/and neutropenia (grade III-IV) were reported in 41% and 43% of cases, respectively. In conclusion, this is one of the largest cohorts of adult patients with R/R T-ALL/T-LBL treated in real life with nelarabine. Taking into account the poor prognosis of this patient population, nelarabine represents an effective option with an ORR of 50% and a CR rate of 36%. In addition, 40% of cases following nelarabine salvage therapy could undergo SCT with an expected OS at 2 and 5 years of 46% and 38%, respectively. The safety profile of nelarabine was acceptable with only 8% of cases showing grade III-IV neurological AE.

Pain management after ambulatory surgery: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded parallel controlled trial comparing nalbuphine and tramadol.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain in ambulatory surgery is a multifactorial issue affecting patient satisfaction, time of discharge, and rehospitalization. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine for the treatment of postoperative pain after ambulatory surgery, relative to tramadol. METHODS: This multi-center, randomized, double blind, and controlled study was conducted at 10 centers. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 492 ambulatory surgery patients were recruited. These patients had moderate to severe pain after ambulatory surgery, with a visual analogue scale (VAS) score > 3 cm. They were randomly divided into an experimental (n = 248) or control (n = 244) group and treated for analgesia with 0.2 mg/kg of nalbuphine or 2 mg/kg of tramadol, respectively. VAS scores, adverse events, and vital signs of the patients were recorded before administration (baseline; T1); and 30 min (T2), 2 h (T3), 4 h (T4), and 6 h (T5) after administration of analgesia. A decrease in pain intensity of more than 25% compared with the baseline was used as an indicator of analgesic efficacy. The experimental and control groups were compared with regard to this indicator of efficacy at each timepoint. RESULTS: The VAS scores of the experimental and control groups were statistically comparable at timepoints T1-T4. At T5, the VAS scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than that of the control. The pain intensity was significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control at T2 and T3. Adverse events and vital signs were similar for the two groups at each timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine can provide effective and safe pain relief in patients after ambulatory surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registration number is ChiCTR-IOR-16010032 , the date of registration was 2016-11-28.

Total intravenous anesthesia in domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) with propofol alone or in combination with methadone, nalbuphine or fentanyl for ulna osteotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the propofol infusion rate and cardiopulmonary effects during total intravenous anesthesia with propofol alone and propofol combined with methadone, fentanyl or nalbuphine in domestic chickens undergoing ulna osteotomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, experiment trial. ANIMALS: A total of 59 healthy Hissex Brown chickens weighing 1.5 ± 0.2 kg. METHODS: Anesthesia was induced with propofol (9 mg kg-1) administered intravenously (IV) and maintained with propofol (1.2 mg kg-1 minute-1) for 30 minutes. Birds were intubated and supplemented with 100% oxygen through a nonrebreathing circuit under spontaneous ventilation. Thereafter, each animal was randomly assigned to one of four groups: group P, no treatment; group PM, methadone (6 mg kg-1) intramuscularly (IM); group PN, nalbuphine IM (12.5 mg kg-1); and group PF, fentanyl IV (30 µg kg-1 loading dose, 30 µg kg-1 hour-1 constant rate infusion). During the osteotomy surgery, the propofol infusion rate was adjusted to avoid movement of birds and provide adequate anesthesia. Pulse rate, invasive blood pressure, respiratory frequency, end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (Pe'CO2) and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. RESULTS: Data were available from 58 chickens. The mean ± standard deviation propofol infusion rate (mg kg-1 minute-1) for the duration of anesthesia was: group P, 0.81 ± 0.15; group PM, 0.66 ± 0.11; group PN, 0.60 ± 0.14; and group PF, 0.80 ± 0.07. Significant differences were P versus PM (p = 0.042), P versus PN (p = 0.002) and PF versus PN (p = 0.004). Pulse rate, blood pressure and SpO2 remained acceptable for anesthetized birds with minor differences among groups. Values of Pe'CO2 >60 mmHg (8 kPa) were observed in all groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Methadone and nalbuphine, but not fentanyl, decreased the propofol infusion rate required for anesthesia maintenance, but resulted in no obvious benefit in physiological variables.

Nalbuphine Reduces Opioid-Associated Urinary Retention in Pediatric Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of nalbuphine administration on urine output in critically ill children with opioid-associated urinary retention. DESIGN: Institutional review board approved, single center, retrospective medical chart review. SETTING: Large medical-surgical PICU within a free-standing, tertiary care children's hospital. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to the PICU between October 1, 2014, and February 29, 2016, who received IV nalbuphine after meeting criteria for opioid-associated oliguria (defined as urine output below 1 mL/kg/hr and received at least one dose of opioid therapy within the preceding 12 hr). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen patients who received 21 doses of nalbuphine were analyzed. The median age and weight of patients were 6 years (interquartile range, 3-11.5 yr) and 18 kg (interquartile range, 12-35 kg), respectively. Two distinct dosing strategies became evident, specifically 0.05 mg/kg (n = 11 doses) and 0.1 mg/kg (n = 10 doses). Urine output increased significantly from baseline (median, 0 mL/kg/hr; interquartile range, 0-0.53 mL/kg/hr) to 6 hours post nalbuphine administration (median, 1.48 mL/kg/hr; interquartile range, 0-2 mL/kg/hr; p = 0.0002). Patients who received 0.1 mg/kg/dose had a greater urine output response compared with those who received 0.05 mg/kg/dose. Five patients (29%) had a catheter inserted into their bladder after administration of nalbuphine. Pain scores (grouped 6 hr before and after nalbuphine administration and single pain scores documented immediately before and after nalbuphine administration) were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine administration, at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg, improved urine output in a cohort of children with opioid-associated urinary retention. Pain control did not appear influenced by the provision of nalbuphine. Additional studies are needed to determine the influence of nalbuphine on urinary catheter insertion rates and catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

Effect of three doses of nalbuphine on reversal of sedation and cardiopulmonary effects of morphine-acepromazine in healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of three doses of nalbuphine in reversing sedative and cardiopulmonary effects of morphine-acepromazine in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized experimental trial. ANIMALS: A group of eight healthy Beagle dogs, aged 5-6 years and weighing 12.5 ± 2.1 kg. METHODS: Dogs were administered morphine (0.5 mg kg-1) and acepromazine (0.05 mg kg-1) intravenously (IV). After 20 minutes, dogs were administered one of four treatments IV: saline (control); or nalbuphine (0.3 mg kg-1; treatment N0.3), (0.6 mg kg-1; treatment N0.6) or (1.0 mg kg-1; treatment N1.0), in random order separated by 1 week. Sedation was scored using a numeric descriptive scale (NDS) and simple numerical scale (SNS). Heart rate, systolic arterial pressure (SAP), respiratory rate (fR) and rectal temperature (RT) were recorded before (BL), 20 minutes after morphine-acepromazine (T0), then 10 (T10), 30, 60 and 90 minutes after saline or nalbuphine. Arterial blood gases were measured at BL, T0 and T10. Values were compared with BL, T0 and among treatments using anova (p < 0.05) and the Bonferroni correction (p < 0.008). RESULTS: NDS for N0.6 and SNS for N0.6 and N1.0 at T30, and both scores for all nalbuphine treatments at T60-T90 were lower compared with T0 (p < 0.05). Sedation scores were not different among nalbuphine treatments. SNS scores were lower than control at T10 for N0.3 and N0.6 (p < 0.05). SAP and fR were lower than BL for all treatments at some time points (p < 0.05). RT was higher than control at T60 in the nalbuphine treatments (p < 0.001). PaO2 was lower in N0.3 at T0 compared with BL (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All nalbuphine doses decreased the degree of sedation, without differences among them. Administration of nalbuphine resulted in minimal changes in measured cardiopulmonary variables.

The effects of lidocaine-prilocaine cream on responses to intravenous catheter placement in cats sedated with dexmedetomidine and either methadone or nalbuphine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the reaction to cephalic intravenous (IV) catheter placement with or without lidocaine-prilocaine cream in cats sedated with dexmedetomidine and methadone or nalbuphine. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blind study. ANIMALS: A group of 24 female mixed breed cats. METHODS: Cats were randomly allocated to one of the two sedation protocols: dexmedetomidine (0.01 mg kg-1) and methadone (0.3 mg kg-1; DEXMET) or dexmedetomidine (0.01 mg kg-1) and nalbuphine (0.3 mg kg-1; DEXNALB). Sedation was scored 30 minutes later using a visual analog scale. Subsequently, a 2 × 3.5 cm area of the antebrachium over the cephalic vein was clipped, and half the cats within each protocol were randomly assigned for topical lidocaine-prilocaine cream (treatment), whereas no cream was applied to other cats (control). After 20 minutes, an attempt was made to place a 24 gauge catheter into the cephalic vein and the reaction of the cats to this procedure was scored using a numeric scale 0-3. Sedation and catheterization reaction scores were compared between sedation protocols and whether cats were administered lidocaine-prilocaine cream or not using the Friedman test followed by the Bonferroni procedure. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Sedation scores were not different between sedation protocols or between treatment and control cats within each protocol. All cats administered lidocaine-prilocaine cream showed no reaction to IV catheter placement. Among the control cats, no response was observed in one cat in DEXNALB. Catheterization reaction score was lower in the treatment cats in both the sedation protocols when compared with their respective controls. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lidocaine-prilocaine cream applied for 20 minutes abolished the reaction to catheterization in cats sedated with dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine or methadone. Facilitation of IV catheter placement occurred within 20 minutes of lidocaine-prilocaine application.

Prophylactic Nalbuphine to Prevent Neuraxial Opioid-Induced Pruritus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic nalbuphine in preventing neuraxial opioid-induced pruritus. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Following the PRISMA statement, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. FINDINGS: A total of 17 trials consisting of 1,052 patients were evaluated. Compared to placebo, there is low quality of evidence that nalbuphine was effective in reducing the incidence of pruritus in all patient population (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.83; P = .0004) and obstetrics (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.98; P = .03). We also found moderate quality of evidence that nalbuphine lowered pruritus in non-obstetrics, the number of rescue pruritus therapy and severity of pruritus episodes. However, nalbuphine did not cause sedation and affect pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic nalbuphine decreased the incidence and severity of pruritus without adverse effects on sedation and analgesic effect of opioids.

Comparison of the sedative effects of nalbuphine and butorphanol, alone or in combination with acepromazine in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare sedation and effects on heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and respiratory rate (fR) of nalbuphine and butorphanol, alone or combined with acepromazine in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized experimental trial. ANIMALS: Eight healthy Beagle dogs, aged (mean ± standard deviation) 3.4 ± 0.5 years and weighing 11.0 ± 1.3 kg. METHODS: Each dog was treated four times: physiological saline (1 mL) combined with nalbuphine (0.5 mg kg-1; SAL-NAL) or butorphanol (0.15 mg kg-1; SAL-BUT), and acepromazine (0.05 mg kg-1) combined with nalbuphine (0.5 mg kg-1; ACP-NAL) or butorphanol (0.15 mg kg-1; ACP-BUT), intravenously (IV). The degree of sedation, assessed by a numeric descriptive scale (NDS) and simple numerical scale (SNS), HR, MAP, fR and rectal temperature (RT), were recorded before and 20 minutes after administration of saline or acepromazine, then 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after nalbuphine or butorphanol. Values were compared with baseline and among treatments. RESULTS: Mild sedation was recorded for SAL-NAL and SAL-BUT, and moderate sedation for ACP-NAL and ACP-BUT. NDS and SNS scores were higher for SAL-BUT and ACP-BUT at some time points when compared with SAL-NAL and ACP-NAL, respectively (p < 0.001). HR was lower in ACP-NAL than in ACP-BUT at 120 minutes and fR was lower in SAL-BUT than in SAL-NAL at 30 and 120 minutes (p < 0.05). RT was lower in SAL-BUT (37.5 ± 0.5 °C) compared with SAL-NAL (38.0 ± 0.5 °C) at 60-120 minutes (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Butorphanol promoted a higher sedative effect than nalbuphine when alone and combined with acepromazine. IV administration of nalbuphine or butorphanol, with or without acepromazine, at the doses studied, resulted in minimal decreases in MAP, HR, fR and RT.

Nalbuphine as an adjuvant to 0.25% levobupivacaine in ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block provided prolonged sensory block and similar motor block durations (RCT).

PURPOSE: Prolonged postoperative analgesia with early motor recovery for early rehabilitation is a challenge in regional block. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of adding 20 mg nalbuphine to 25 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block. METHODS: One hundred thirty-five (135) patients scheduled for hand and forearm surgeries with supraclavicular block were randomly allocated into three equal groups. Group L received 25 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine + 1 ml normal saline; group H received 25 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine + 1 ml normal saline; and group N received 25 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine + 1 ml (20 mg) nalbuphine. Onset time and duration of sensory and motor block, and time to first analgesic dose were recorded. RESULTS: Sensory block onset was comparable between the three groups. Motor block onset in group L and group N was comparable (13.16 ± 3.07 and 13.84 ± 3.05 min, respectively) and was shorter than that in group H (15.71 ± 2 0.91 min). Sensory block duration in group L and group N was comparable (522.22 ± 69.57 and 533.78 ± 66.03 min, respectively) and was longer than that in group H (342.67 ± 92.80 min). Motor block duration in group N and group H was comparable (272.00 ± 59.45 and 249.78 ± 66.01 min, respectively) and was shorter than that in group L (334.67 ± 57.90 min). Time to first analgesic dose was significantly longer in group N (649.78 ± 114.76 min) than that of group L and group H (575.56 ± 96.85 and 375.56 ± 84.49 min, respectively) and longer in group L when compared to group H. CONCLUSIONS: Adding 20 mg nalbuphine to 25 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine in supraclavicular block provided prolonged duration of sensory block with similar duration of motor block.

Dual κ-agonist/µ-antagonist opioid receptor modulation reduces levodopa-induced dyskinesia and corrects dysregulated striatal changes in the nonhuman primate model of Parkinson disease.

OBJECTIVE: Effective medical management of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) remains an unmet need for patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Changes in opioid transmission in the basal ganglia associated with LID suggest a therapeutic opportunity. Here we determined the impact of modulating both mu and kappa opioid receptor signaling using the mixed agonist/antagonist analgesic nalbuphine in reducing LID and its molecular markers in the nonhuman primate model. METHODS: 1-Methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine-treated macaques with advanced parkinsonism and reproducible LID received a range of nalbuphine doses or saline subcutaneously as: (1) monotherapy, (2) acute coadministration with levodopa, and (3) chronic coadministration for 1 month. Animals were assessed by blinded examiners for motor disability and LID severity using standardized rating scales. Plasma levodopa levels were determined with and without nalbuphine, and postmortem brain samples were subjected to Western blot analyses. RESULTS: Nalbuphine reduced LID in a dose-dependent manner by 48% (p < 0.001) without compromising the anti-PD effect of levodopa or changing plasma levodopa levels. There was no tolerance to the anti-LID effect of nalbuphine given chronically. Nalbuphine coadministered with levodopa was well tolerated and did not cause sedation. Nalbuphine monotherapy had no effect on motor disability. Striatal tissue analyses showed that nalbuphine cotherapy blocks several molecular correlates of LID, including overexpression of ΔFosB, prodynorphin, dynorphin A, cyclin-dependent kinase 5, and increased phosphorylation of DARPP-32 at threonine-34. INTERPRETATION: Nalbuphine reverses the molecular milieu in the striatum associated with LID and is a safe and effective anti-LID agent in the primate model of PD. These findings support repurposing this analgesic for the treatment of LID.

Effect of induced acute mild arterial hypertension on postoperative analgesic requirements after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy: a randomized double blinded study.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of inducing acute hypertension during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy on postoperative nalbuphine analgesic requirements. Methods: The total dose of nalbuphine used in the hypertension group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p <0.001). The VAS score was significantly lower in the hypertension group on arrival to PACU and during the period between 1 and 6 hours postoperatively. Results: The total dose of nalbuphine used in the hypertension group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p <0.001). The VAS score was significantly lower in the hypertension group on arrival to PACU and during the period between 1 and 6 hours postoperatively. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that pharmacologically induced mild acute intraoperative hypertension significantly reduces postoperative nalbuphine consumption and pain scores following laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. Trial registration in Pan African Clinical Trial Registry: identification number for the registry is PACTR201508001247179.

Pharmacokinetics of nalbuphine hydrochloride extended release tablets in hemodialysis patients with exploratory effect on pruritus.

BACKGROUND: Uremic pruritus is a common and deleterious condition among hemodialysis (HD) patients. Central gating of µ/κ opiate circuitry plays an important role in mediating and countering pruritogenic sensation. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the mixed µ-antagonist/κ-agonist nalbuphine, administered orally as nalbuphine HCl extended release (ER) tablets in HD patients, and explore its effect on pruritus. METHODS: In this open-label multiple escalating dose study, 15 HD patients with pruritus and 9 matched healthy subjects were enrolled. Nalbuphine HCl ER dose was escalated from 30 mg QD to 240 mg BID over 15 days. A full PK profile was obtained under dialysis and non-dialysis conditions as a function of dose. Clearance during dialysis was determined by sampling dialysate and arterial/venous blood during dialysis. Pruritus severity was assessed twice daily using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Safety monitoring included extensive monitoring of EKG, blood pressure, and pulse oximetry. RESULTS: In HD patients, nalbuphine concentration peaked within 4-9 hours and attained steady state within 2-3 days, with no significant accumulation. Mean half-life was 14.2 hours, mean Cmax and AUCtau ranged between 13 and 83 ng/mL and 118 and 761 ng∙h/mL, respectively, with exposure increasing in a nearly dose-proportional fashion. Exposure in HD patients was about 2-fold higher than in healthy subjects. There was no meaningful difference between exposure on dialysis and non-dialysis days with 1% or less of the dose removed by dialysis. Nalbuphine suppressed itch in a dose-dependent manner, reducing mean VAS score from 4.0 to 1.2 at 180 mg and 0.4 at 240 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine HCl ER tablets can be safely administered to HD patients without dose adjustment up to 240 mg BID and may hold promise in treating uremic pruritus.

Commonly used excipients modulate UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2b7 activity to improve nalbuphine oral bioavailability in humans.

PURPOSE: Nalbuphine (NAL) is a potent opioid analgesic, but can only be administered by injection. The major aim of this study was to develop an oral NAL formulation employing known excipients as UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7 (UGT2B7) inhibitors to improve its oral bioavailability. METHODS: Twenty commonly used pharmaceutical excipients were screened in vitro by using liver microsomes to identify inhibitors of UGT2B7, the major NAL metabolic enzyme. Tween 20 and PEG 400 were potent UGT2B7 inhibitors and both were co-administered (Tween-PEG) with NAL to rats and humans for pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic analyses. RESULTS: In animal studies, oral Tween-PEG (4 mg/kg of each) significantly increased the area under the plasma NAL concentration-time curve (AUC) and the maximal plasma concentration (Cmax) by 4- and 5-fold, respectively. The results of the pharmacodynamic analysis were in agreement with those of the pharmacokinetic analysis, and showed that Tween-PEG significantly enhanced the analgesic effects of orally administered NAL. In humans, oral Tween-PEG (240 mg of each) also increased NAL Cmax 2.5-fold, and AUC by 1.6-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Tween-PEG successfully improved oral NAL bioavailability and could formulate a useful oral dosage form for patient's convenience.

[Nalbuphine in pediatric anesthesia]. / Nalbuphin in der Kinderanästhesie.

Efficient and safe pediatric perioperative pain therapy in the context of a multimodal pain therapy concept requires a slight to moderate opioid analgesic. Nalbuphine is a nearly ideal opioid for this purpose due to its unique pharmacological properties as a µ-receptor antagonist/κ-receptor agonist and a high safety profile. Nalbuphine is used clinically primarily in postoperative pain therapy administered as a bolus, continuous infusion and patient-controlled analgesia. Furthermore, it is administered in different regimens for pediatric diagnostic and interventional sedation.

Breast Milk Excretion of Dinalbuphine Sebacate Injection Administered After Cesarean Section.

Ensuring the safety of analgesics during lactation is crucial for women of childbearing potential. Available data regarding the transfer of nalbuphine for postoperative acute pain via breast milk are limited to the postmarketing experience. This lactation study aimed to assess nalbuphine and dinalbuphine sebacate concentrations in breast milk from lactating women with postoperative pain treated with dinalbuphine sebacate extended-release injection (150 mg dinalbuphine sebacate/2 mL Naldebain). Breast milk was collected throughout the 5-day posthospitalization interval from 20 mothers injected with one dose of extended-release dinalbuphine sebacate intramuscularly. Maternal safety was assessed during the study period. Nalbuphine was detectable in 71% of milk samples collected from all mothers, whereas dinalbuphine sebacate was undetectable or below the quantitation limit (0.1 ng/mL). The mean nalbuphine concentration in milk was approximately 10.55 ng/mL, with the peak concentration reaching up to 12.7 ng/mL. The mean relative infant dose was 0.39% (coefficient of variation, 65%). The mean pain intensity at rest was reduced to mild pain from Day 2 morning to discharge. Overall, the maternal safety profile was tolerable. The breast milk of women who receive one dose of dinalbuphine sebacate injection postpartum contains low nalbuphine concentration. In addition, dinalbuphine sebacate injection potentially reduces maternal pain intensity during the first postpartum week and offers low toxicity risk among breastfed infants.