Liposome bupivacaine (EXPAREL®) for extended pain relief in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at a single institution with a fast-track discharge protocol: an IMPROVE Phase IV health economics trial

Multivesicular liposome: A lipid-based drug delivery system for efficient drug delivery

The advancement of delivery tools for therapeutic agents has brought several novel formulations with increased drug loading, sustained release, targeted delivery, and prolonged efficacy. Amongst the several novel delivery approaches, multivesicular liposome has gained potential interest because this delivery system possesses the above advantages. In addition, this multivesicular liposomal delivery prevents degradation of the entrapped drug within the physiological environment while administered. The special structure of the vesicles allowed successful entrapment of hydrophobic and hydrophilic therapeutic agents, including proteins and peptides. Furthermore, this novel formulation could maintain the desired drug concentration in the plasma for a prolonged period, which helps to reduce the dosing frequencies, improve bioavailability, and safety. This tool could also provide stability of the formulation, and finally gaining patient compliance. Several multivesicular liposomes received approval for clinical research, while others are at different stages of laboratory research. In this review, we have focused on the preparation of multivesicular liposomes along with their application in different ailments for the improvement of the performance of the entrapped drug. Moreover, the challenges of delivering multivesicular vesicles have also been emphasized. Overall, it could be inferred that multivesicular liposomal delivery is a novel platform of advanced drug delivery with improved efficacy and safety.

Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting significant pain. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained-release analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 13 January 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, ISI Web of Science and reference lists of retrieved articles. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials in people aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery, at any surgical site, were included if they compared liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site with placebo or other type of analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed data analysis using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5.3. We planned to perform a meta-analysis and produce a 'Summary of findings' table for each comparison however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer. As such we have produced two 'Summary of findings' tables in a narrative format. Where possible we assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (10 reports, 1377 participants) that met inclusion criteria. Four Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trials, designed to evaluate and demonstrate efficacy and safety, presented pooled data that we could not use. Of the remaining five parallel-arm studies (965 participants), two were placebo controlled and three used bupivacaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic infiltration as a control. Using the Cochrane tool, we judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; however, two studies were at high risk of selective reporting bias and four studies were at high risk of bias due to size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm).Three studies (551 participants) reported the primary outcome cumulative pain intensity over 72 hours following surgery. Compared to placebo, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a lower cumulative pain score between the end of the operation (0 hours) and 72 hours (one study, very low quality). Compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, two studies showed no difference for this outcome (very low quality evidence), however due to differences in the surgical population and surgical procedure (breast augmentation versus knee arthroplasty) we did not perform a meta-analysis.No serious adverse events were reported to be associated with the use of liposomal bupivacaine and none of the five studies reported withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events (moderate quality evidence).One study reported a lower mean pain score at 12 hours associated with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, but not at 24, 48 or 72 hours postoperatively (very low quality evidence).Two studies (382 participants) reported a longer time to first postoperative opioid dose compared to placebo (low quality evidence).Two studies (325 participants) reported the total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 72 hours: one study reported a lower cumulative opioid consumption for liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo (very low quality evidence); one study reported no difference compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (very low quality evidence).Three studies (492 participants) reported the percentage of participants not requiring postoperative opioids over initial 72 hours following surgery. One of the two studies comparing liposomal bupivacaine to placebo demonstrated a higher number of participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine did not require postoperative opioids (very low quality evidence). The other two studies, one versus placebo and one versus bupivacaine hydrochloride, found no difference in opioid requirement (very low quality evidence). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 92%) we did not pool the results.All the included studies reported adverse events within 30 days of surgery, with nausea, constipation and vomiting being the most common. Of the five parallel-arm studies, none performed or reported health economic assessments or patient-reported outcomes other than pain.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The major limitation was the sparseness of data for outcomes of interest. In addition, a number of studies had a high risk of bias resulting in further downgrading.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.

No Difference in Early Analgesia Between Liposomal Bupivacaine Injection and Intrathecal Morphine After TKA

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics have been a standard modality for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but are also associated with increased risk of nausea, pruritus, vomiting, respiratory depression, prolonged ileus, and cognitive dysfunction. There is still a need for a method of anesthesia that can deliver effective long-term postoperative pain relief without incurring the high cost and health burden of opioids and nerve blocks.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is liposomal bupivacaine-based periarticular injection (PAI) more effective than morphine-based spinal anesthesia or ropivacaine-based PAI in controlling postoperative pain after TKA? (2) Do patients treated with liposomal bupivacaine-based PAI experience fewer opioid-related adverse events compared with patients treated with morphine-based spinal anesthesia or ropivacaine-based PAI in controlling postoperative pain after TKA?

METHODS

This multicenter, blind trial randomized 119 patients undergoing TKA with spinal anesthesia to receive spinal anesthesia plus periarticular injection with liposomal bupivacaine (40 patients), spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine plus intrathecal morphine (41 patients) but no liposomal bupivacaine injection, or spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine (38 patients) and no liposomal bupivacaine injection. The two groups that did not receive periarticular liposomal bupivacaine did receive periarticular injection with ropivacaine, and all three groups had ketorolac (30 mg) plus epinephrine (1:1000) in the periarticular injections. Patients in all three groups received identical perioperative multimodal analgesic and antiemetic drugs. All patients were analyzed in the group to which they were randomized and no patients were lost to followup. The primary study endpoints were visual analog score (VAS) for pain and narcotic use during postoperative day 1. Secondary endpoints included side effects associated with narcotic administration during the hospital stay.

RESULTS

Mean VAS pain in the liposomal bupivacaine PAI group was lower than that for the ropivacaine PAI group at 6 hours (1.8 ± 2.1 versus 3.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.005, mean difference: 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-2.5) and 12 hours (1.5 ± 2.0 versus 3.3 ± 2.4, p < 0.001, mean difference: 1.8, 95% CI, 0.8-2.8) after surgery. The morphine spinal group had lower pain compared with the liposomal bupivacaine PAI group at 6 hours (0.9 ± 1.8 versus 1.8 ± 2.1, p = 0.035, mean difference: 1.0, 95% CI, 0.1-1.8), but there was no difference at 12 hours (0.8 ± 1.5 versus 1.5 ± 2.0, p = 0.086, mean difference: 0.7, 95% CI, -0.1 to 1.5). The magnitude of the differences at 6 and 12 hours are near the lower end of minimal clinically important differences reported in the literature, and thus the improvement shown in this study may only represent a small clinical improvement. Both the liposomal bupivacaine group (13% [five of 40]) and the ropivacaine group (5% [two of 38]) had fewer incidents of itching (pruritus) than the spinal morphine group (38% [15 of 41]) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective multicenter three-arm blind randomized controlled trial showed potentially improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours in the liposomal bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine groups compared with the ropivacaine group at the cost of much higher incidences of pruritus (itching) in the intrathecal morphine group. Based on these results, we prefer the use of PAI with liposomal bupivacaine as an alternative to spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine as a result of similar postoperative pain control and the potential for reducing adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Long-acting liposomal bupivacaine decreases inpatient narcotic requirements in men undergoing penile prosthesis implantation

OBJECTIVE

A new extended-release bupivacaine suspension bupivacaine (ERSB) delivers 3 days of local anesthetic and has been shown to reduce pain and narcotic usage in some patient groups but this issue is largely unstudied in urologic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a single-surgeon retrospective chart review of the patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Pain scores and standardized morphine equivalent (ME) dose data were collected during 23 hour- observation period. Subjects who received ERSB were compared with those who received standard bupivacaine or no local anesthesia.

RESULTS

In a study population of 37 patients, those who received (n=13), and did not receive (n=24) ERSB were grouped, respectively. The groups were comparable demographically. ME was used 3.2 fold more frequently in the non-ERSB group (18.0, and 5.6 for non-ERSB, and ESRB groups, respectively (p=0.04). Mean overall pain scores were 3.8/10 for ERSB and 3.9/10 for non-ERSB group, respectively. Per patient medication cost for the control, and ERSB groups were $5.16 and $285.54, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of a new ERSB in penile prosthesis implants did lead to reduced narcotic consumption with comparable postoperative pain control to the non-ERSB group. However, the cost of the ERSB ($285/dose) may be prohibitive for its use.

Retrospective analysis of quality improvement when using liposome bupivacaine for postoperative pain control

Background/objective

Liposome bupivacaine, a prolonged-release bupivacaine formulation, recently became available at the Naval Medical Center San Diego (NMCSD); before availability, postsurgical pain for large thoracic/abdominal procedures was primarily managed with opioids with/without continuous thoracic epidural (CTE) anesthesia. This retrospective chart review was part of a clinical quality initiative to determine whether postsurgical outcomes improved after liposome bupivacaine became available.

Methods

Data from patients who underwent laparotomy, sternotomy, or thoracotomy at NMCSD from May 2013 to May 2014 (after liposome bupivacaine treatment became available) were compared with data from patients who underwent these same procedures from December 2011 to May 2012 (before liposome bupivacaine treatment became available). Collected data included demographics, postoperative pain control methods, opioid consumption, perioperative pain scores, and lengths of intensive care unit and overall hospital stays.

Results

Data from 182 patients were collected: 88 pre-liposome bupivacaine (laparotomy, n=52; sternotomy, n=26; and thoracotomy, n=10) and 94 post-liposome bupivacaine (laparotomy, n=49; sternotomy, n=31; and thoracotomy, n=14) records. Mean hospital stay was 7.0 vs 5.8 days (P=0.009) in the pre- and post-liposome bupivacaine groups, respectively, and mean highest reported postoperative pain score was 7.1 vs 6.2 (P=0.007), respectively. No other significant between-group differences were observed for the overall population. In the laparotomy subgroup, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients who received CTE anesthesia post-liposome bupivacaine (22% [11/49] vs 35% [18/52] pre-liposome bupivacaine).

Conclusion

Surgeons and anesthesiologists have changed the way they manage postoperative pain since the time point that liposome bupivacaine was introduced at NMCSD. Our findings suggest that utilization of liposome bupivacaine may be a useful alternative to epidural anesthesia.

Pilot study of a novel pain management strategy: evaluating the impact on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a novel multimodal pain management strategy on intraoperative opioid requirements, postoperative pain, narcotic use, and length of stay.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were managed with an experimental protocol. The protocol uses a post-induction, pre-incision bilateral TAP block and local peritoneal infiltration at port sites with long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (20 mL long-acting liposomal bupivacaine, 30 mL 0.25 % bupivacaine, 30 mL saline). Experimental patients were matched on age, body mass index, gender, comorbidity, diagnosis, and procedure to a control group that received no block or local wound infiltration. Both groups followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. The main outcome measures were intraoperative opioids, postoperative pain, opioid use, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were analyzed-25 experimental and 25 controls. Patients were well matched on all demographics. In both cohorts, the main diagnosis was colorectal cancer and primary procedure performed a segmental resection. Operative times were similar (p = 0.41). Experimental patients received significantly less intraoperative fentanyl (mean 158 mcg experimental vs. 299 mcg control; p < 0.01). The experimental group had significantly lower initial (p < 0.01) and final PACU pain scores (p = 0.04) and shorter LOS (3.0 vs. 4.1 days, p = 0.04) compared to controls. Experimental patients trended toward shorter PACU times and lower opioid use and daily pain scores throughout the hospital stay. Postoperative complication and readmission rates were similar across groups. There were no reoperations or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multimodal pain management strategy reduced intraoperative opioid administration. Postoperatively, improvements in PACU time, postoperative pain and narcotic use, and lengths of stay were seen in the experimental cohort. With the favorable finding from the pilot study, further investigation is warranted to fully evaluate the impact of this pain management protocol on patient satisfaction, clinical and financial outcomes.

Liposomal bupivacaine in forefoot surgery

BACKGROUND

Liposomal bupivacaine is increasingly being utilized in attempts to provide prolonged local analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to quantify the reduction in opioid consumption as well as postoperative pain scores in the postoperative period when liposomal bupivacaine is used at the conclusion of forefoot surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective therapeutic cohort study with 20 patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine at the conclusion of their forefoot procedure in addition to our routine multimodal analgesic protocol and 20 patients as the control without the addition of liposomal bupivacaine. Pain scores, number of narcotic pills consumed on postoperative days 1 through 4, need for refill, time to first refill and wound complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean number of narcotic pills consumed on postoperative day 1 (1.4 vs 3.6, P = .002) and day 2 (1.8 vs 3.6, P = .021) was significantly lower for the liposomal bupivacaine group than the control group. Daily pain scores were lower for those patients who received liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative days 1 through 4, although this was not statistically significant. Fewer patients required medication refills in the liposomal bupivacaine group compared to the control group, however this was not statistically significant (3 vs 7, P = .273). There was no increase in wound complications in the liposomal bupivacaine group when compared to the control (1 vs 4).

CONCLUSION

Liposomal bupivacaine appears to be a useful adjunct in the treatment of postoperative pain when used as a part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in patients undergoing forefoot surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

The effect of liposomal bupivacaine injection during total hip arthroplasty: a controlled cohort study

Background

Multimodal analgesia following total hip arthroplasty has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, participation with physical therapy, and allow early return to self care. Liposomal bupivacaine is a formulation of local anesthetic which has the potential to provide anesthesia for up to 72 hours following administration. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine with bupivacaine following total hip arthroplasty.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on 28 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing who received intraoperative administration of liposomal bupivacaine. A control group of 30 patients who had previously undergone total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing and had received intraoperative administration of bupivacaine also underwent a chart review. Length of stay, post-operative opioid use, and pain scores were compared for both groups.

Results

The average length of stay in the study group was 1.93 days and the control group length of stay was 2.47 days (p ≤ 0.05). Morphine equivalent use was less in the study group during the first 24 hours compared to the control group (p ≤0.05). During the second and third 24 hours the morphine equivalent use difference was not statistically significant. Visual analogue scores were not significantly different between groups at any time point.

Conclusion

Liposomal bupivacaine administration during total hip arthroplasty appears to decrease the need for opioid use post operatively and decrease length of stay. The results of this study justify the need for a well-designed randomized controlled trial utilizing liposomal bupivacaine as part of multimodal analgesia during THA.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-310) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Liposome bupivacaine for improvement in economic outcomes and opioid burden in GI surgery: IMPROVE Study pooled analysis

Postsurgical pain management remains a significant challenge. Liposome bupivacaine, as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen, has been shown to significantly reduce postsurgical opioid consumption, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization costs in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, compared with intravenous (IV) opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Pooled results from open-label studies comparing a liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesic regimen with IV opioid PCA were analyzed. Patients (n=191) who underwent planned surgery and received study drug (IV opioid PCA, n=105; multimodal analgesia, n=86) were included. Liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia compared with IV opioid PCA significantly reduced mean (standard deviation [SD]) postsurgical opioid consumption (38 [55] mg versus [vs] 96 [85] mg; P<0.0001), postsurgical LOS (median 2.9 vs 4.3 days; P<0.0001), and mean hospitalization costs (US$8,271 vs US$10,726; P=0.0109). The multimodal analgesia group reported significantly fewer patients with opioid-related adverse events (AEs) than the IV opioid PCA group (P=0.0027); there were no significant between-group differences in patient satisfaction scores at 30 days. A liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesic regimen was associated with significantly less opioid consumption, opioid-related AEs, and better health economic outcomes compared with an IV opioid PCA-based regimen in patients undergoing GI surgery.

Liposome Bupivacaine for Postsurgical Analgesia in Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colectomy: Results from Prospective Phase IV Sequential Cohort Studies Assessing Health Economic Outcomes

Background

Opioid-based postsurgical analgesia exposes patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy to elevated risk for gastrointestinal motility problems and other opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). The purpose of our research was to investigate postsurgical outcomes, including opioid consumption, hospital length of stay, and ORAE risk associated with a multimodal analgesia regimen, employing a single administration of liposome bupivacaine as well as other analgesics that act by different mechanisms.

Methods

We analyzed combined results from 6 Phase IV, prospective, single-center studies in which patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy received opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or multimodal analgesia incorporating intraoperative administration of liposome bupivacaine. As-needed rescue therapy was available to all patients. Primary outcome measures were postsurgical opioid consumption, hospital length of stay, and hospitalization costs. Secondary measures included time to first rescue opioid use, patient satisfaction with analgesia (assessed using a 5-point Likert scale), and ORAEs.

Results

Eighty-two patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy and did not meet intraoperative exclusion criteria (PCA n = 56; multimodal analgesia n = 26). Compared with the PCA group, the multimodal analgesia group had significantly lower mean total postsurgical opioid consumption (96 vs 32 mg, respectively; P < 0.0001) and shorter median postsurgical hospital length of stay (3.0 vs 4.0 days; P = 0.0019). Geometric mean costs were $11,234 and $13,018 in the multimodal analgesia and PCA groups, respectively (P = 0.2612). Median time to first rescue opioid use was longer in the multimodal analgesia group versus PCA group (1.1 hours vs 0.6 hours, respectively; P=0.0003). ORAEs were experienced by 41% of patients receiving intravenous opioid PCA and 8% of patients receiving multimodal analgesia (P = 0.0019). Study limitations included use of an open-label, nonrandomized design; small population size; and the inability to isolate treatment-related effects specifically attributable to liposome bupivacaine.

Conclusions

Compared with intravenous opioid PCA, a liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia regimen reduced postsurgical opioid use, hospital length of stay, and ORAEs, and may lead to improved postsurgical outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy.