The SFP research priority setting process

Gabapentin as an adjunct for pain management during dilation and evacuation: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of preoperative gabapentin among patients undergoing dilation and evacuation (D&E) with moderate sedation.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial among patients undergoing same-day D&E at 14 to 19 weeks gestation under moderate sedation. We randomized participants 1:1 to gabapentin 600 mg or placebo after cervical preparation at least 1 hour prior to D&E. We assessed pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after the procedure. The primary outcome was postoperative recall of maximum procedural pain with a 13-mm a priori threshold for clinical significance. We standardized initial fentanyl and midazolam dosing. We assessed satisfaction with pain control, nausea, and vomiting via Likert scales and anxiety using a validated instrument.

RESULTS

We enrolled 126 participants and randomized 61 to gabapentin and 65 to placebo, with study medication administered a mean of 211 (SD 64) minutes preoperatively. Recall of maximum pain was 41 mm for gabapentin and 49 mm for placebo (p = 0.24). Gabapentin resulted in reduced pain during uterine aspiration (56 vs 71 mm, p= 0.003) compared to placebo, but not for any other time points. The gabapentin group had higher satisfaction (78% vs 65% very or somewhat satisfied, p= 0.01). Median fentanyl dose was lower in the gabapentin group (75 vs 100 mcg, p = 0.005). Midazolam dose, nausea, vomiting, and anxiety did not differ between groups. No serious adverse events occurred in the gabapentin group. Sedation reversal was not required.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of gabapentin to moderate sedation during D&E did not result in lower maximum recalled procedural pain. Gabapentin resulted in reduced intra-operative pain during uterine aspiration and increased satisfaction with pain control.

IMPLICATIONS

Gabapentin reduces intraoperative pain and improves satisfaction with pain management when administered prior to second-trimester surgical abortion and may be considered as an adjunct to intravenous sedation. Moderate sedation may impair assessment and recall of pain. Additional research is needed to identify the most effective pain management regimens for D&E.

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders.

METHODS

A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

Gabapentin as an adjunct to paracervical block for perioperative pain management for first-trimester uterine aspiration: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain management approaches during uterine aspiration vary, which include local anesthetic, oral analgesics, moderate sedation, deep sedation, or a combination of approaches. For local anesthetic approaches specifically, we continue to have suboptimal pain control. Gabapentin as an adjunct to pain management has proven to be beneficial in gynecologic surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of gabapentin on perioperative pain during surgical management of first-trimester abortion or early pregnancy loss with uterine aspiration under local anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that adding gabapentin to local anesthesia will reduce perioperative and postoperative pain associated with uterine aspiration. Secondary outcomes included tolerability of gabapentin and postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting, and anxiety.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin 600 mg given 1 to 2 hours preoperatively among subjects receiving a first-trimester uterine aspiration under paracervical block in an outpatient ambulatory surgery center. There were 111 subjects randomized. The primary outcome was pain at time of uterine aspiration as measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included pain at other perioperative time points. To assess changes in pain measures, an intention to treat mixed effects model was fit with treatment groups (gabapentin vs control) as a between-subjects factor and time point as a within-subjects factor plus their interaction term. Because of a non-normal distribution of pain scores, the area under the curve was calculated for secondary outcomes with comparison of groups utilizing Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Among the 111 randomized, most subjects were Black or African American (69.4%), mean age was 26 years (±5.5), and mean gestational age was 61.3 days (standard deviation, 14.10). Mean pain scores at time of uterine aspiration were 66.77 (gabapentin) vs 71.06 (placebo), with a mean difference of -3.38 (P=.51). There were no significant changes in pain score preoperatively or intraoperatively. Subjects who received gabapentin had significantly lower levels of pain at 10 minutes after surgery (mean difference [standard error (SE)]=-13.0 [-5.0]; P=.01) and 30 minutes after surgery (mean difference [SE]=-10.8 [-5.1]; P=.03) compared with subjects who received placebo. Median nausea scores and incidence of emesis pre- and postoperatively did not differ between groups. Similarly, anxiety scores did not differ between groups, before or after the procedure. At 10 and 30 minutes after the procedure, most participants reported no side effects or mild side effects, and this did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative gabapentin did not reduce pain during uterine aspiration. However, it did reduce postoperative pain, which may prove to be a desired attribute of its use, particularly in cases where postoperative pain may be a greater challenge.