Effects of Sugammadex and Neostigmine on Renal Biomarkers

Unraveling the molecular dynamics of sugammadex-rocuronium complexation: A blueprint for cyclodextrin drug design

Sugammadex, marketed as Bridion™, is an approved cyclodextrin (CD) based drug for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing surgery. Sugammadex forms an inclusion complex with the neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) rocuronium, allowing rapid reversal of muscle paralysis. In silico methods have been developed for studying CD inclusion complexes, aimed at accurately predicting their structural, energetic, dynamic, and kinetic properties, as well as binding constants. Here, a computational study aimed at characterizing the sugammadex-rocuronium system from the perspective of docking calculations, free molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and biased metadynamics simulations with potential of mean force (PMF) calculations is presented. The aim is to provide detailed information about this system, as well as to use it as a model system for validation of the methods. This method predicts results in line with experimental evidence for both the optimal structure and the quantitative value for the binding constant. Interestingly, there is a less profound preference for the orientation than might be assumed based on electrostatic interactions, suggesting that both orientations may exist in solution. These results show that this technology can efficiently analyze CD inclusion complexes and could be used to facilitate the development and optimization of novel applications for CDs.

Choice of neuromuscular block reversal agent to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications

The definition of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) is inconsistent in literature; however, PPCs include pulmonary abnormalities that adversely affect patient outcomes, such as respiratory failure, atelectasis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, and exacerbation of underlying lung conditions. Furthermore, although the incidence of PPCs varies according to its definition, surgery type, and patient population, they can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, duration of hospitalization, and medical costs; thus, efforts to identify and reduce the risk factors are important to improve patient outcomes. Among the risk factors for PPCs, residual neuromuscular block is a representative and preventable anesthesia-related risk factor that is affected by the choice of the reversal agent. However, it is not clear whether the chosen reversal agent, i.e., sugammadex, reduces PPCs better when compared to anticholinesterases. Additionally, the effects of the reversal agents on PPCs in high-risk patients, such as elderly patients, pediatric patients, those with end-stage renal disease, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, or those undergoing specific surgeries, are diverse. To reduce the PPCs associated with the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, it is important to confirm complete reversal of the neuromuscular block under neuromuscular monitoring. Additionally, efforts to reduce the incidence of PPCs through interdisciplinary communication are required.

Impact on grafted kidney function of rocuronium-sugammadex vs cisatracurium-neostigmine strategy for neuromuscular block management. An Italian single-center, 2014-2017 retrospective cohort case-control study

Background

The impact of sugammadex in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing kidney transplantation is still far from being defined. The aim of the study is to compare sugammadex to neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium- and cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block (NMB), respectively, in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.

Methods

A single-center, 2014-2017 retrospective cohort case-control study was performed. A total of 350 patients undergoing kidney transplantation, equally divided between a sugammadex group (175 patients) and a neostigmine group (175 patients), were considered. Postoperative kidney function, evaluated by monitoring of serum creatinine and urea and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), was the endpoint. Other endpoints were anesthetic and surgical times, post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, postoperative intensive care unit admission, and recurrent NMB or complications.

Results

No significant differences in patient or, with the exception of drugs involved in NMB management, anesthetic, and surgical characteristics, were observed between the two groups. Serum creatinine (median [interquartile range]: 596.0 [478.0-749.0] vs 639.0 [527.7-870.0] μmol/L, p = 0.0128) and serum urea (14.9 [10.8-21.6] vs 17.1 [13.1-22.0] mmol/L, p = 0.0486) were lower, while eGFR (8.0 [6.0-11.0] vs 8.0 [6.0-10.0], p = 0.0473) was higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group after surgery. The sugammadex group showed significantly lower incidence of postoperative severe hypoxemia (0.6% vs 6.3%, p = 0.006), shorter PACU stay (70 [60-90] min vs 90 [60-105] min, p < 0.001), and reduced ICU admissions (0.6% vs 8.0%, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to cisatracurium-neostigmine, the rocuronium-sugammadex strategy for reversal of NMB showed a better recovery profile in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.

Effects of Sugammadex Plus Rocuronium vs Neostigmine Plus Cisatracurium During Renal Transplantation on Graft Function: A Retrospective, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Rocuronium can be used in patients with severe renal failure (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min), but the duration of muscle relaxation is longer and results in an increased risk of postoperative residual neuromuscular block. Rocuronium can be antagonized by sugammadex, but the elimination of the complex they make (rocuronium-sugammadex complex) varies according to the renal function. Two case reports/series have reported the use of rocuronium-sugammadex complex during renal transplantation. A recently published retrospective study showed no differences in postoperative creatinine levels in patients receiving kidney transplantation. This retrospective case-control study aims to investigate the effects of rocuronium-sugammadex, used during renal transplantation, on transplanted kidney function.

METHODS

We analyzed 113 medical records of patients undergoing kidney transplantation from January 2015 to December 2018. Forty-seven medical records were excluded because they did not report the administration of one of the following drugs during the transplantation: rocuronium, sugammadex, cisatracurium, neostigmine. The demographics of patients and donors were collected along with the following data: blood urea and creatinine, serum and urinary electrolytes, and diuresis. Marginal, single, or double kidney transplantations; Karpinski scores; and histologic evaluations of transplanted kidney were collected.

RESULTS

We included data from 66 medical reports from January 2015 to December 2018. Blood creatinine levels at 6, 12, and 24 hours were significantly lower in the rocuronium + sugammadex group than in the cisatracurium + neostigmine group (creatinine 6 hours P = .05, creatinine 12 hours P = .038, creatinine 24 hours P = .049). Blood urea levels for 24 hours after transplantation were significantly lower in the rocuronium + sugammadex group than in the cisatracurium + neostigmine group (urea 0 hours P = .025, urea 6 hours P = .011, urea 12 hours P = .03, urea 24 hours P = .011). We found no statistically significant differences in blood sodium, blood potassium, blood calcium, diuresis, urinary sodium, or urinary potassium levels before and after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective case-control study, the use of rocuronium and sugammadex during renal transplant surgery did not affect relevant kidney recovery outcomes in the first week after transplantation.

Sugammadex for Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade in a Patient With Renal Failure

Residual neuromuscular blockade following the use of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can lead to postoperative respiratory complications, including oxygen desaturation, atelectasis, and pneumonia. Sugammadex rapidly reverses steroidal NMBAs by encapsulating them in a highly stable water-soluble complex. This NMBA-sugammadex complex then undergoes renal elimination. In patients with renal insufficiency or failure, concern has been expressed regarding the elimination of the NMBA-sugammadex complex. We present a 19-year-old patient with renal failure who received sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. The use of sugammadex in patients with renal dysfunction is discussed and safety concerns are reviewed.

Profile of sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in the elderly: current perspectives

The number of elderly patients is increasing worldwide. This will have a significant impact on the practice of anesthesia in future decades. Anesthesiologists must provide care for an increasing number of elderly patients, who have an elevated risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Complications related to postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade, such as muscle weakness, airway obstruction, hypoxemia, atelectasis, pneumonia, and acute respiratory failure, are more frequent in older than in younger patients. Therefore, neuromuscular blockade in the elderly should be carefully monitored and completely reversed before awakening patients at the end of anesthesia. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are traditionally used for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Although the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade is reduced by reversal with neostigmine, it continues to complicate the postoperative course. Sugammadex represents an innovative approach to reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced by aminosteroid neuromuscular-blocking agents, particularly rocuronium, with useful applications in clinical practice. However, aging is associated with certain changes in the pharmacokinetics of sugammadex, and to date there has been no thorough evaluation of the use of sugammadex in elderly patients. The aim of this review was to perform an analysis of the use of sugammadex in older adults based on the current literature. Major issues surrounding the physiologic and pharmacologic effects of aging in elderly patients and how these may impact the routine use of sugammadex in elderly patients are discussed.

Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults

BACKGROUND

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as neostigmine, have traditionally been used for reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. However, these drugs have significant limitations, such as indirect mechanisms of reversal, limited and unpredictable efficacy, and undesirable autonomic responses. Sugammadex is a selective relaxant-binding agent specifically developed for rapid reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium. Its potential clinical benefits include fast and predictable reversal of any degree of block, increased patient safety, reduced incidence of residual block on recovery, and more efficient use of healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade caused by non-depolarizing neuromuscular agents in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 2 May 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), Embase (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), and the clinical trials registries www.controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and www.centerwatch.com. We re-ran the search on 10 May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We included adults, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV, who received non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents for an elective in-patient or day-case surgical procedure. We included all trials comparing sugammadex versus neostigmine that reported recovery times or adverse events. We included any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine and any time point of study drug administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify trials for eligibility, examined articles for eligibility, abstracted data, assessed the articles, and excluded obviously irrelevant reports. We resolved disagreements by discussion between review authors and further disagreements through consultation with the last review author. We assessed risk of bias in 10 methodological domains using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and examined risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. We used the principles of the GRADE approach to prepare an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. For our primary outcomes (recovery times to train-of-four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9), we presented data as mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and for our secondary outcomes (risk of adverse events and risk of serious adverse events), we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies (4206 participants) in this updated review, 38 of which were new studies. Twelve trials were eligible for meta-analysis of primary outcomes (n = 949), 28 trials were eligible for meta-analysis of secondary outcomes (n = 2298), and 10 trials (n = 1647) were ineligible for meta-analysis.We compared sugammadex 2 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Sugammadex 2 mg/kg was 10.22 minutes (6.6 times) faster then neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (1.96 vs 12.87 minutes) in reversing NMB from the second twitch (T2) to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 10.22 minutes, 95% CI 8.48 to 11.96; I2 = 84%; 10 studies, n = 835; GRADE: moderate quality).We compared sugammadex 4 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced deep NMB. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was 45.78 minutes (16.8 times) faster then neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (2.9 vs 48.8 minutes) in reversing NMB from post-tetanic count (PTC) 1 to 5 to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 45.78 minutes, 95% CI 39.41 to 52.15; I2 = 0%; two studies, n = 114; GRADE: low quality).For our secondary outcomes, we compared sugammadex, any dose, and neostigmine, any dose, looking at risk of adverse and serious adverse events. We found significantly fewer composite adverse events in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; I2 = 40%; 28 studies, n = 2298; GRADE: moderate quality). Risk of adverse events was 28% in the neostigmine group and 16% in the sugammadex group, resulting in a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8. When looking at specific adverse events, we noted significantly less risk of bradycardia (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; I2= 0%; 11 studies, n = 1218; NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 389; NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality) and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, n = 1474; NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) in the sugammadex group when compared with the neostigmine group. Finally, we found no significant differences between sugammadex and neostigmine regarding risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.25; I2= 0%; 10 studies, n = 959; GRADE: low quality).Application of trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicates superiority of sugammadex for outcomes such as recovery time from T2 to TOFR > 0.9, adverse events, and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Review results suggest that in comparison with neostigmine, sugammadex can more rapidly reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block regardless of the depth of the block. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg is 10.22 minutes (˜ 6.6 times) faster in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade (T2) than neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (GRADE: moderate quality), and sugammadex 4 mg/kg is 45.78 minutes (˜ 16.8 times) faster in reversing deep neuromuscular blockade (PTC 1 to 5) than neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (GRADE: low quality). With an NNTB of 8 to avoid an adverse event, sugammadex appears to have a better safety profile than neostigmine. Patients receiving sugammadex had 40% fewer adverse events compared with those given neostigmine. Specifically, risks of bradycardia (RR 0.16, NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), PONV (RR 0.52, NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality), and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) were reduced. Both sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with serious adverse events in less than 1% of patients, and data showed no differences in risk of serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.54; GRADE: low quality).

Current Biochemical Monitoring and Risk Management of Immunosuppressive Therapy after Transplantation

Immunosuppressive drugs play a crucial role in the inhibition of immune reaction and prevention of graft rejection aswell as in the pharmacotherapy of autoimmune disorders. Effective immunosuppression should provide an adequate safety profile and improve treatment outcomes and the patients' quality of life. High-risk transplant recipients may be identified, but a definitive prediction model has still not been recognized. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for immunosuppressive drugs is an essential, but at the same time insufficient tool due to low predictability of drug exposition and marked pharmacokinetic variability. Parallel therapeutic, biochemical and clinical monitoring may successfully optimize and individualize therapy for transplanted recipients, providing optimal medical outcomes. Modern pharmacotherapy management should include new biomarkers with better sensitivity and specificity that can identify early cell damage. The aim of this study was to point out the importance of finding new biomarkers that would enable early detection of adverse drug events and cell damage in organ transplant recipients. We wanted to confirm the importance of routine biochemical monitoring in improving the safety of immunosuppressive treatment.