Sufentanil sublingual tablet system for the management of postoperative pain following open abdominal surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

Forrest G Ringold, Harold S Minkowitz, Tong Joo Gan, Keith A Aqua, Yu-Kun Chiang, Mark A Evashenk, Pamela P Palmer, Forrest G Ringold, Harold S Minkowitz, Tong Joo Gan, Keith A Aqua, Yu-Kun Chiang, Mark A Evashenk, Pamela P Palmer

Abstract

Background and objectives: This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of a sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) for the management of postoperative pain following open abdominal surgery.

Methods: At 13 hospital sites in the United States, patients following surgery with pain intensity of greater than 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale were randomized to receive SSTS dispensing a 15-μg sufentanil tablet sublingually with a 20-minute lockout or an identical system dispensing a placebo tablet sublingually. Pain intensity scores were recorded at baseline and for up to 72 hours after starting study drug. The primary end point was time-weighted summed pain intensity difference (SPID) over 48 hours. Secondary end points included SPID and total pain relief (TOTPAR) for up to 72 hours and patient and health care provider global assessments of the method of pain control.

Results: Summed pain intensity difference over 48 hours was significantly higher in the SSTS group than in the placebo group (least squares mean [SEM], 105.60 [10.14] vs 55.58 [13.11]; P = 0.001). Mean SPID and TOTPAR scores were significantly higher in the SSTS group at all time points from 1 hour (SPID) or 2 hours (TOTPAR) until 72 hours (P < 0.05). In the SSTS group, patient global assessment and health care provider global assessment ratings of good or excellent were greater than placebo at all time points (P < 0.01). Safety parameters, including adverse events and vital signs, were similar for SSTS and placebo.

Conclusions: These results suggest that SSTS is effective and safe for the management of postoperative pain in patients following open abdominal surgery.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Sufentanil sublingual tablet system with RFID patient thumb tag and security tether attached to the bottom of the controller.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Patient disposition flow diagram. mcg indicates microgram.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Mean (SEM) of (A) pain intensity scores and (B) pain relief scores by evaluation time point (intent-to-treat population).
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Least squares mean (SEM) of PID scores in the first 4 hours after dosing; *P < 0.05; ***P < 0.001.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Kaplan-Meier cumulative event rates for (A) time to termination from the study due to inadequate analgesia and (B) time to take first rescue medication due to inadequate analgesia (intent-to-treat population). Numbers below x axis indicate the number of patients followed at each time point.

References

    1. Ballantyne JC, Carr DB, Chalmers TC, Dear KBG, Angelillo IF, Mosteller F. Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia: meta-analyses of initial randomized control trials. J Clin Anesth. 1993; 5: 182– 193.
    1. Hudcova J, McNicol E, Quah C, Lau J, Carr DB. Patient-controlled opioid analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia for postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 4: CD003348.
    1. Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard C, Hall J. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 3: CD007798.
    1. Panchal SJ, Damaraju CV, Nelson WW, Hewitt DJ, Schein JR. System-related events and analgesic gaps during postoperative pain management with the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system and morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2007; 105: 1437– 1441.
    1. Hicks RW, Sikirica V, Nelson W, Schein JR, Cousins DD. Medication errors involving patient-controlled analgesia. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008; 65: 429– 440.
    1. Meissner B, Nelson W, Hicks R, Sikirica V, Gagne J, Schein J. The rate and costs attributable to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia errors. Hosp Pharm. 2009; 44: 312– 324.
    1. Minkowitz HS, Singla NK, Evashenk MA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of sublingual sufentanil tablets and efficacy and safety in the management of postoperative pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013; 38: 131– 139.
    1. Harding G, Vallow S, Leidy NK, et al. Ease of care with patient controlled analgesia systems: questionnaire development and validation. J Adv Nurs. 2007; 59: 530– 541.
    1. Harding G, Schein JR, Nelson WW, et al. Development and validation of a new instrument to evaluate the ease of use of patient-controlled analgesic modalities for postoperative patients. J Med Econ. 2010; 13: 42– 54.
    1. Bijur PE, Latimer CT, Gallagher EJ. Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 390– 392.
    1. Bernards CM. Clinical implications of physicochemical properties of opioids. In: Stein C. Opioids in Pain Control: Basic and Clinical Aspects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
    1. Scott JC, Cooke JE, Stanski DR. Electroencephalographic quantitation of opioid effect: comparative pharmacodynamics of fentanyl and sufentanil. Anesthesiology. 1991; 74: 34– 42.
    1. Lotsch J, Skarke C, Schmidt H, Grosch S, Geisslinger G. The transfer half-life of morphine-6-glucuronide from plasma to effect site assessed by pupil size measurement in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2001; 95: 1329– 1338.
    1. Melson T, Boyer DL, Minkowitz H, Palmer PP, Royal MA. Sufentanil NanoTab PCA System: results from 2 ease of use studies [International Anesthesia Research Society abstract]. Anesth Analg. 2013; 116 (suppl): S258.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir