Drug interactions with intravenous and local anaesthetics

Chemotherapy and anaesthetic drugs: too little is known

A growing number of patients undergo surgical procedures with general anaesthesia soon after receiving chemotherapy; occasionally such treatment can be given during surgery. Therefore, it is worthwhile and prudent to consider the pharmacological interactions between anticancer and anaesthetic drugs. We review published data on the pharmacological interactions between antineoplastic and anaesthetic drugs, despite the fact that this specific topic is poorly represented in published work. This low coverage seems to be due more to a lack of knowledge and understanding rather than an absence of interactions between the two drug types. Since the number of individuals receiving chemotherapy in the perioperative period is rising, patients who might have potentially dangerous and unwanted effects are also due to increase in number. Thus, we should be vigilant in the careful surveillance of these interactions as well as broaden our knowledge of in-vivo and in-vitro findings and investigations. Classic cytostatic compounds and modern drugs should be extensively studied, and new anticancer therapies closely interacting with immunological responses need to be better understood, since their clinical effectiveness might be modified by anaesthetics that are currently used. More frequently, tumours are being managed in a multimodal integrated approach with medical, surgical, and radiotherapeutic aspects.

Interrupting drug therapy in the perioperative period

Millions of patients undergo surgery each year and an increasing proportion of these patients are consuming therapeutic drugs. Drug therapy is often withheld in the immediate perioperative period and after major surgery, in particular, there is often a prolonged period of fasting. This may lead to withdrawal effects including recurrence or worsening of patients' disease symptomatology. These effects will occur during a period of physiological and pathophysiological stresses and render patients more vulnerable to drug withdrawal phenomena. Thus, patients may be exposed to greater and sometimes unnecessary risks in the perioperative period. There are relatively few studies that have investigated this problem. The ones that have, however, confirm that drug abstinence in the perioperative period is a relatively common phenomenon and one study has demonstrated an association between duration of drug abstinence and adverse outcomes. The pathophysiological effects of major surgery on gastrointestinal function, neuro-humoral and cytokine adaptive responses to surgical stress are under-appreciated. These responses can reduce the effectiveness of oral administration and exacerbate co-existing disease processes. These problems are compounded by a fragmented approach to perioperative drug therapy with no one group of healthcare professionals assuming responsibility for this aspect of care. This may in part be a consequence of the complexities of rationalising drug therapy in the perioperative period together with the lack of readily available and evidence based information strategies for individual drugs or drug classes. An additional problem relates to the formulations, inherent pharmacokinetics and limited routes of administration of many prescribed drugs. These can prevent a 'seamless' transition from preoperative to postoperative management. Consumers, health professionals, pharmaceutical companies and drug regulatory agencies must all play a part in rectifying this problem. There remains a need for further research to clarify the effects of abstinence on patient outcomes and also to identify optimum strategies to avoid unwanted drug abstinence.

Drug interactions during anesthesia. General principles

Anesthesia for most procedures in small animal practice involves administration of more than one drug. In addition, many patients concurrently receive a number of other drugs related to their surgical condition or disease. The probability of a drug interaction increases exponentially with the number of drugs a patient receives; therefore, the potential for drug interactions may be greater in anesthesia than for any other area of medicine. This article describes potentially harmful drug interactions that may occur in the anesthetic setting.

Review and comparison of advanced-generation macrolides clarithromycin and dirithromycin

We reviewed English-language clinical studies, abstracts, and review articles identified from MEDLINE searches from January 1966-August 1998, and bibliographies of identified articles to compare advanced-generation macrolides dirithromycin and clarithromycin and their use for respiratory tract infections. Both agents have superior adverse effect profiles compared with erythromycin, the original macrolide. Both have broad antibacterial coverage, but clarithromycin usually has a lower MIC90 to susceptible organisms than dirithromycin; for most isolates this difference is not clinically significant. Clarithromycin has better in vitro coverage of Haemophilus influenzae, but this activity varies with formation of its bioactive metabolite, 14-hydroxyclarithromycin. Neither agent is ideal for H. influenzae eradication. The agents differ markedly in terms of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, metabolism, and cost, and thus with respect to drug interaction profiles and dosages. Dirithromycin's drug interaction profile is markedly better than clarithromycin's. Clarithromycin is dosed twice/day; dirithromycin's pharmacokinetics allow once/day dosing. Dirithromycin is less expensive with regard to both cost/day and cost/treatment regimen. Clarithromycin has been studied and approved for administration to children. In adults with respiratory tract infections who are receiving drugs that would interact with clarithromycin, and in those with renal dysfunction with or without coexisting hepatic dysfunction, dirithromycin appears to be superior in terms of safety and equivalent to clarithromycin in terms of efficacy.

[Does flumazenil correct disorders of intracardiac conduction induced by accidental intravenous injection of bupivacaine?]

The authors report the case of a patient who experienced intracardiac conduction disturbances from accidental intravenous injection of bupivacaine, which were reversed by an intravenous injection of flumazenil. Flumazenil could act either in displacing bupivacaine from its binding site, or by an interaction involving the GABAergic system, unless a specific interaction between flumazenil and bupivacaine does exist. In case of experimental confirmation of this feature, flumazenil could be proposed as a new therapeutic tool for bupivacaine-induced cardiotoxicity.

Drug management in skin surgery

Lidocaine (lignocaine) 1% with epinephrine (adrenaline) 1:200,000 (maximum dose 40mL) is the agent of choice in skin surgery. It can be used at all sites except the fingers, toes and penis, where epinephrine should be avoided. Epinephrine-induced vasoconstriction delays local anaesthetic clearance, thus prolonging its effect and, by reducing peak blood lidocaine concentrations, enables a higher maximum dose to be used. Adding epinephrine, however, introduces the possibility of a drug interaction with tricyclic antidepressants and nonselective beta-blockers. Also, injection pain is greater because of the acidic sodium metabisulphite that has to be added to prevent epinephrine oxidation. Injection pain can be reduced by buffering the solution using sodium bicarbonate. There are no drug interactions that prevent the use of plain lidocaine: injection pain is least with 0.5% solutions. Injection of large volumes of very dilute lidocaine solutions (tumescent anaesthesia) enables higher maximum doses of lidocaine to be tolerated and large areas to be anaesthetised by infiltration. Amethocaine gel is a faster acting and more effective topical anaesthetic compared with eutectic lidocaine-prilocaine cream, but is a topical sensitiser. In high risk patients, prophylactic antibiotics should be given to prevent bacterial endocarditis when operating on infected lesions and on potentially colonised crusted lesions in high-risk patients (i.e. those with prosthetic heart valves). Wound infections following surgery on infected skin lesions can be prevented by the prophylactic use of mupirocin ointment. Aspirin-induced inhibition of platelet adhesion results in bleeding complications in approximately 15% of skin surgery patients receiving aspirin. Patients whose bleeding time is > 8 minutes are particularly at risk, and aspirin should be stopped at least 7 days prior to surgery in these patients. Aspirin can be continued in other patients without serious bleeding complications.

Macrolide antibacterials. Drug interactions of clinical significance

Macrolide antibiotics can interact adversely with commonly used drugs, usually by altering metabolism due to complex formation and inhibition of cytochrome P-450 IIIA4 (CYP3A4) in the liver and enterocytes. In addition, pharmacokinetic drug interactions with macrolides can result from their antibiotic effect on microorganisms of the enteric flora, and through enhanced gastric emptying due to a motilin-like effect. Macrolides may be classified into 3 different groups according to their affinity for CYP3A4, and thus their propensity to cause pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Troleandomycin, erythromycin and its prodrugs decrease drug metabolism and may produce drug interactions (group 1). Others, including clarithromycin, flurithromycin, midecamycin, midecamycin acetate (miocamycin; ponsinomycin), josamycin and roxithromycin (group 2) rarely cause interactions. Azithromycin, dirithromycin, rikamycin and spiramycin (group 3) do not inactivate CYP3A4 and do not engender these adverse effects. Drug interactions with carbamazepine, cyclosporin, terfenadine, astemizole and theophylline represent the most frequently encountered interactions with macrolide antibiotics. If the combination of a macrolide and one of these compounds cannot be avoided, serum concentrations of concurrently administered drugs should be monitored and patients observed for signs of toxicity. Rare interactions and those of dubious clinical importance are those with alfentanil and sufentanil, antacids and cimetidine, oral anticoagulants, bromocriptine, clozapine, oral contraceptive steroids, digoxin, disopyramide, ergot alkaloids, felodipine, glibenclamide (glyburide), levodopa/carbidopa, lovastatin, methylprednisolone, phenazone (antipyrine), phenytoin, rifabutin and rifampicin (rifampin), triazolam and midazolam, valproic acid (sodium valproate) and zidovudine.