Efficacy and safety of nalbuphine for epidural labor analgesia at high altitude: An observational study.

Xining is located at the eastern edge of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, with an average altitude of >7000 feet (>2000 m). Nalbuphine is a kappa-opioid receptor agonist that can provide analgesia with fewer side effects than other opioid analgesics. This study aimed to evaluate pain control, side effects, and neonatal outcomes from combining nalbuphine with sufentanil and ropivacaine in 600 women during epidural anesthesia while giving birth at a high altitude in Xining, China. A total of 600 parturients receiving epidural labor analgesia were randomly divided into 2 groups, each group 300 parturients. The nalbuphine group received nalbuphine, sufentanil, and ropivacain, the control group only received sufentanil and ropivacain. The analgesic effect was evaluated through the Visual Analogue Scale scores. Neonatal outcomes were mainly evaluated through the Apgar Scores. Compared to the control group, the nalbuphine group showed lower Visual Analogue Scale scores at all time points after analgesia (P < .05). In comparison with the control group, parturients in the nalbuphine group showed lower incidence rates of fever at delivery, 24-hour postpartum bleeding, and pruritus (P < .05). However, between the 2 groups, there were no statistically significant differences in the remaining maternal and infant outcomes and neonatal outcomes (P > .05). Moreover, no adverse effects on neonatal outcomes were observed. The findings from this study support findings from previous studies that nalbuphine provided safe epidural analgesia without significant side effects for the mother and infant, and showed both safety and efficacy when used during labor at high altitude.

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.

Nalbuphine-6-glucuronide is a potent analgesic with superior safety profiles by altering binding affinity and selectivity for mu-/kappa-opioid receptors.

Although nalbuphine, a semi-synthetic analgesic compound, is less potent than morphine in terms of alleviating severe pain, our recent findings have revealed that nalbuphine-6-glucuronide (N6G), one of the glucuronide metabolites of nalbuphine, promotes a significantly more robust analgesic effect than its parent drug. Nevertheless, despite these promising observations, the precise mechanisms underlying the analgesic effects of nalbuphine glucuronides have yet to be determined. In this study, we aim to elucidate the mechanisms associated with the analgesic effects of nalbuphine glucuronides. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between the central and peripheral compartments of nalbuphine and its derivatives. The analgesic responses of these compounds were evaluated based on multiple behavioral tests involving thermal and mechanical stimuli. Radioligand binding assays were also performed to determine the binding affinity and selectivity of these compounds for different opioid receptors. The results of these tests consistently confirmed that the heightened analgesic effects of N6G are mediated through its enhanced binding affinity for both mu- and kappa-opioid receptors, even comparable to those of morphine. Notably, N6G exhibited fewer side effects and did not induce sudden death, thereby highlighting its superior safety profile. Additionally, pharmacokinetic studies indicated that N6G could cross the blood-brain barrier when administered peripherally, offering pain relief. Overall, N6G provides great analgesic efficacy and enhanced safety. These findings highlight the potential value of nalbuphine glucuronides, particularly N6G, as promising candidates for the development of novel analgesic drugs.

Effectiveness and safety of prehospital analgesia including nalbuphine and paracetamol by paramedics: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness and safety of prehospital analgesia with nalbuphine and/or paracetamol by paramedics. METHODS: In this retrospective trial, following the implementation of a standard-operating-procedure for pain requiring treatment as defined as a score ≥4 on the 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale for pain, all emergency operations in the district of Gütersloh between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022, with analgesic administration by paramedics in patients ≥18 years were included in the study. Analgesic agents employed by the paramedics included nalbuphine and/or paracetamol, butylscopolamine for abdominal colic, and esketamine in case of failure of the other analgesics. The primary endpoint was the patients' rating of their pain on the Numeric Rating Scale at the end of the operation. Additional covariates included sex, cause of pain, analgesics used, Numeric Rating Scale at beginning and analgesic-associated complications (reduced level of consciousness, hypotension, desaturation, a- or bradypnea). RESULTS: A total of 1931 emergency operations (female: N.=1039 [53.8%]) with pain requiring treatment (non-traumatic cause: N.=1106 [57.3%]; initial Numeric Rating Scale: 8.0±1.4). Analgesics applied were nalbuphine + paracetamol (50.6%), paracetamol (38.7%), butylscopolamine (13.4%), nalbuphine (7.7%), and esketamine (4.9%). Mean pain reduction was 4.3±2.3 (nalbuphine + paracetamol: 5.0±2.1; nalbuphine: 4.7±2.3) and paracetamol: 3.3±2.2, respectively. Factors influencing a change in the Numeric Rating Scale were trauma (regression-coefficient: -0.308, 95% CI: -0.496 - -0.119, P=0.0014 vs. non-trauma; nalbuphine [yes vs. no]: regression-coefficient 0.684, 95% CI 0.0774-1.291, P=0.03; nalbuphine + paracetamol: regression-coefficient 0.763, 95% CI 0.227-1.299, P=0.005). At the end of the operation, 49.7% had a Numeric Rating Scale <4, 34.3% had a Numeric Rating Scale 4-5, and 16.0% had a Numeric Rating Scale ≥6. Factors influencing a Numeric Rating Scale <4 at end of use were trauma vs. non-trauma: odds ratio 0.788, 95% CI 0.649-0.957, P=0.02. The Numeric Rating Scale at beginning reported: odds ratios 0.754, 95% CI 0.700-0.812, P<0.0001. Analgesic-associated complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital analgesia by paramedics with nalbuphine as monotherapy or in combination with paracetamol allows for sufficient analgesia without the occurrence of complications.

Safety and Efficacy of Oral Nalbuphine on Postoperative Pain in Hemorrhoidectomy Patients: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Pivotal Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Severe postoperative pain requiring opioid treatment has been reported in 20% to 40% of hemorrhoidectomy patients. Compared with morphine, nalbuphine offers better hemodynamic stability, a lower risk of respiratory depression, and a lower potential for addiction. Nalbuphine was developed from the intravenous form into an oral form (PHN131) to alleviate moderate-to-severe pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-design trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PHN131 in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either PHN131 soft capsules containing nalbuphine hydrochloride 60 mg or placebo capsules. Intramuscular diclofenac was the rescue analgesic. Pain was measured by the area under the curve of mean Visual Analog Scale pain intensity scores. RESULTS: Visual Analog Scale results in patients receiving PHN131 were significantly lower than placebo group scores through 48 hours postoperatively (149.2±75.52 vs. 179.6±65.97; P =0.0301). According to Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form scores, the impact of pain on quality of life was significantly smaller for the PHN131 group than for the placebo group. Time to the first use of diclofenac postoperatively was significantly longer in the PHN131 group than in the placebo group. The cumulative dosage of diclofenac in the PHN131 group was only around half of that in the placebo group ( P <0.0001). Drug-related adverse events were mild-to-moderate and resolved by the treatment end. No drug-related severe adverse events were observed. DISCUSSION: Our findings demonstrate that PHN131 is effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of moderate-to-severe post hemorrhoidectomy pain and may provide another option for patients to control their pain.

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.

Nalbuphine May Be Superior to Sufentanil in Relieving Postcesarean Uterine Contraction Pain in Multiparas: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Purpose: Postcesarean pain remains a major complaint from puerperium women who have undergone cesarean section, especially uterine contraction induced visceral pain. The optimal opioid for pain relief after cesarean section (CS) is still unclear. The goal of this study was to compare the analgesic effect of Nalbuphine to Sufentanil in patients who underwent CS. Patients and Methods: In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we included patients who received Nalbuphine or Sufentanil Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia (PCIA) after CS between 1 January 2018 and 30 November 2020. Data on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at uterine contraction, at rest, and at movement, analgesic consumption, and side effects were collected. We performed logistic regression to identify predictors of severe uterine contraction pain. Results: A total of 674 patients were identified in the unmatched cohort, and 612 patients in the matched one. Compared to the Sufentanil group, lower VAS-contraction was recorded in the Nalbuphine group in both the unmatched and matched cohorts, the mean difference (MD) on POD1 was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.54, p<0.001) and 0.28 (95% CI: 0.08 to 0.47, p<0.001), respectively, and the MD of POD2 was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.40, P=0.019) and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41, P=0.026), respectively. On POD1 but not POD2, VAS-movement was lower in the Nalbuphine group as compared to the Sufentanil group. No difference was found between VAS-rest on POD1 and POD2 in both unmatched and matched cohorts. Less analgesic consumption, and side effects were recorded in the Nalbuphine group. Logistic regression indicated that multipara and analgesic consumption were risk factors for severe uterine contraction pain. In subgroup analysis, VAS-contraction was meaningfully reduced in the Nalbuphine group compared with the Sufentanil group in multipara patients, but not primiparas. Conclusion: Compared to Sufentanil, Nalbuphine may provide better analgesia on uterine contraction pain. The superior analgesia may only exhibit in multiparas.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of intranasal or intravenous administration of nalbuphine in infants.

OBJECTIVES: Intranasal nalbuphine could be a safe, efficacious and non-invasive alternative to parenteral pain medication in infants. We aimed to assess pharmacokinetics (PK) and tolerability of intranasal and intravenous nalbuphine administration in infants. METHODS: Prospective open-label study including infants 1-3 months of age admitted to the emergency department, receiving nalbuphine for procedural pain management. Patients were alternately allocated to a single nalbuphine dose of 0.05 mg/kg intravenously or 0.1 mg/kg intranasally. Nalbuphine PK samples were collected 15, 30 and 120-180 min after dosing. Area under the concentration time curve (AUC0-Tlast) was calculated by non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and compared by Wilcoxon test. Neonatal Infant Pain Score was assessed during nalbuphine administration and the following interventions: venous access, urinary catheterisation, lumbar puncture. RESULTS: Out of 52 study subjects receiving nalbuphine, 31 were eligible for NCA (11 intravenous, 20 intranasal). Median AUC0-Tlast after 0.05 mg/kg intravenously was 8.7 (IQR: 8.0-18.6) µg×L/hour vs 7.6 (5.4-10.4) µg×L/hour after intranasal administration of 0.1 mg/kg (p=0.091). Maximum serum concentration (Cmax) was observed 30 min after intranasal administration (3.5-5.6 µg/L). During intravenous and intranasal nalbuphine administration, mild to no pain was recorded in 71% and 67% of study subjects, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating intranasal administration of nalbuphine in infants suggesting an intranasal bioavailability close to 50%. Non-invasive intranasal application was well tolerated. Additional studies are warranted to optimise dosing and timing of interventions as Cmax is delayed by half an hour after intranasal administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03059511.

Nalbuphine reduces the incidence of emergence agitation in children undergoing Adenotonsillectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of nalbuphine on emergence agitation (EA) in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The First People's Hospital of Foshan and three other participating institutions in China, from April 2020 to December 2021. PATIENTS: Eight hundred patients, 3-9 years of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I or II, undergoing elective adenotonsillectomy were included. INTERVENTIONS: Nalbuphine (0.1 mg/kg) or saline was administered intravenously. MEASUREMENTS: The incidence of EA; the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale; and the faces, legs, activity, cry, and consolability (FLACC) scales. Extubation time, duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, anesthesia nurses' and parents' satisfaction, and other side effects. MAIN RESULTS: The incidence of EA in the nalbuphine group was lower than that in the saline group 30 min after extubation (10.28% vs. 28.39%, P = 0.000). In addition, the FLACC scores in the nalbuphine group were lower than those in the saline group 30 min after extubation (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the proportion of moderate-to-severe pain cases (FLACC scores >3) was significantly lower in the nalbuphine group than in the saline group (33.58% vs. 60.05%, P = 0.000). Adjusting the imbalance of postoperative pain intensity, the risk of EA was still lower in the nalbuphine group at 0 min (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60; P = 0.000), (OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval), 10 min (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.79; P = 0.01), and 20 min (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.99; P = 0.046) than in the saline group. There were no significant differences in extubation time, duration of PACU stay, nausea and vomiting, or respiratory depression between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine reduced the incidence of EA in children after adenotonsillectomy under general anesthesia, which may be involved in both analgesic and non-analgesic pathways.

Sufentanil Combined with Nalbuphine via Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia After Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Evaluation.

Purpose: This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy, opioid consumption, and safety profile of two patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) regimens (sufentanil combined with nalbuphine vs sufentanil alone) after cesarean section (CS). Patients and Methods: Parturients (n = 1808) received sufentanil combined with nalbuphine (SN group) or sufentanil alone (S group) as PCIA after CS. The primary outcome was the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score with movement (NRS-M) at 24 h after CS. Secondary outcomes were NRS scores at rest (NRS-R) at 24 and 48 h after CS, NRS-M at 48 h after CS, cumulative PCIA bolus times, and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively, which was measured in morphine-equivalent doses. Results: The population comprised 993 and 815 subjects in the SN and S groups, respectively. At 24 and 48 h after CS, the respective NRS-M scores of the SN group (4.62, 3.37) were each significantly lower than those of the S group (5.18, 4.01; P < 0.01 for both). The corresponding NRS-S scores were similarly lower in the SN group (0.96, 0.19) than in the S group (2.05, 0.92; P < 0.01 for both). After adjusting for covariates, the SN group still had lower NRS-M than the S group at 24 h after CS (estimate adjusted = 0.565, P < 0.001). The PCIA bolus times were significantly lower in the SN group than in the S group. The rates of bradycardia and respiratory depression were lower in the SN group than in the S group. However, the rates of dizziness and postoperative hypotension were slightly higher in the SN group, and those of nausea/vomiting were comparable. Conclusion: Compared with sufentanil alone, sufentanil combined with nalbuphine for PCIA provided superior analgesia in parturient women after CS.

Analgesic efficacy and safety of nalbuphine versus morphine for perioperative tumor ablation: a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: The study will compare the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine hydrochloride injection and morphine hydrochloride injection for perioperative analgesia in tumor ablation and the differences between the two groups regarding duration of surgery, average daily dose, patient satisfaction with analgesia, quality of life, and other indicators. Furthermore, it will evaluate the clinical application of nalbuphine and morphine for perioperative analgesia in ablation surgery and provides important reference and guidance for clinical practice. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled study. Patients who were diagnosed by clinicians and required tumor ablation are enrolled and randomized to the experimental groups. In the test group, nalbuphine 80 mg + 0.9% normal saline (72 ml) is set in the patient-controlled analgesia pump, which is connected 15 min before ablation under electrocardiogram monitoring and surgery is performed immediately. The doses are as follows: initial,: 0.15 ml/kg,; background:, 0.5 ml/h,; compression:, 2 ml,; and lockout time:, 15 min. If the numeric rating scale is ≥ 4 points, the drug is administered by compression. The control group receives similar treatment under similar conditions as the test group except morphine (80 mg) is administered instead of nalbuphine (80 mg). The primary endpoints are the effective rate of analgesia and the incidence of adverse reactions (nausea and vomiting, dizziness, itching, constipation, hypoxemia, and urinary retention); the secondary endpoints are pain intensity, satisfaction with analgesia, duration of surgery, postoperative hospital stay, average daily dose, uninterrupted completion rate of surgery without complaints of pain, quality of life assessment, and vital signs. DISCUSSION: This study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first randomized controlled trial of nalbuphine patient-controlled analgesia in ablation surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: U.S. Clinical Trials Network Registration No.: NCT05073744 . Registered on 11 October, 2021.

Comparative Evaluation of the Intravenous Dexmedetomidine and Nalbuphine for Treatment of Post Spinal Shivering-A Randomized Prospective Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shivering is one of the most common complications of spinal anesthesia because of inhibition of the thermoregulatory control. Dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine are the two commonly used drugs for treatment of perioperative shivering, but owing to paucity of their comparative data, we planned this study to compare the efficacy of these two drugs for treatment of post spinal shivering. METHODS: This study was conducted on 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II patients aged from 18 to 60 years who developed post-spinal shivering of grade III or IV during elective surgeries. These patients were randomly allocated into two groups (40 each). In group D, dexmedetomidine 0.50 µg/kg, and in group N, nalbuphine 0.08 mg/kg was given intravenously for treatment of shivering. Data regarding response time, recurrence rate and success rate along with their adverse effects were noted, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: The mean response time was significantly shorter in group D as compared to Group N (1.9 ± 0.6 min and 4.7 ± 1.1 min, respectively; P ＜ 0.001), but the success rate in both groups was 100%. Recurrence of shivering was greater in group N as compared to group D, but this difference was statistically insignificant. Although hypotension and bradycardia were observed more in group D and nausea was observed more in group N, the difference among both the groups was statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine is a better alternative than nalbuphine for treatment of post spinal shivering with quicker response time and comparable side effects.

Effects of multimodal analgesia of flurbiprofen axetil, nalbuphine and patient controlled intravenous analgesia on inflammatory factor levels and stress response in patients after laparoscopic radical gynecological malignancy surgery.

To evaluate the efficacy of multimodal analgesia of flurbiprofen axetil, nalbuphine hydrochloride and patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) on inflammatory factor levels and stress response in patients after laparoscopic radical gynecological malignancy surgery. The data of 100 patients admitted to our hospital from May 2019 to May 2020 for laparoscopic radical gynecological malignancy surgery were retrospectively analyzed and they were assigned (1:1) to either an experimental group or a control group according to the alphabetical order of their initials. The experimental group was given preemptive analgesia with flurbiprofen axetil, postoperative analgesia with nalbuphine hydrochloride, and PCIA and the control group was given conventional analgesic measures. The pain scores at 1h, 6h, 12h, 24h and 48h postoperatively in the experimental group were remarkably lower than those in the control group (P<0.001). The experimental group showed significantly lower inflammatory factor levels, pain mediator levels and stress response indexes in the morning before surgery, 1d, and 2d after surgery than the control group (P<0.001). The multimodal analgesia of flurbiprofen axetil, nalbuphine hydrochloride and PCIA can effectively alleviate the stress response and inflammatory response in patients after radical gynecologic malignancy surgery and the patients' pain perception is reduced with a high safety profile.

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).

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.

Nalbuphine Exhibited a Better Adjuvant Than Dexmedetomidine in Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block in Youths.

OBJECTIVE: Nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine are both used as anesthesia adjuvants for brachial plexus block, but their efficacy and safety in younger patients are not clear. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and side effects of these 2 drugs in young patients undergoing brachial plexus block. METHODS: We recruited 48 young patients aged 18 to 30 years requiring supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups. Patients in group levobupivacaine+nalbuphine received 28 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine and 10 mg of nalbuphine diluted in 2 mL 0.9% saline. Patients in group levobupivacaine+dexmedetomidine (LD) received 28 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine and 0.75 µg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted in 2 mL 0.9% saline. Demographic information, types of fracture, onset time of motor and sensory blocks, duration of block, side effects, and analgesic use were recorded. RESULTS: We found that the 2 groups did not differ significantly in the demographic profile and fracture type. Compared with group LD, group LD had significantly shorter sensory and motor block onset time, longer block duration, less analgesic need, and less side effects. CONCLUSION: In summary, our study suggests that nalbuphine is a better anesthesia adjuvant for supraclavicular brachial plexus block in young patients.

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.