Bupivacaine Lozenge Compared with Lidocaine Spray as Topical Pharyngeal Anesthetic before Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Optimization and comparison of unidirectional lidocaine-loaded buccal patch with the articaine-loaded buccal patch to reduce injection pain and increment of patients' compliance in dental procedures: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Nervous patients often postpone dental visits until they are in severe pain, exacerbating anxiety. Buccal patches provide a noninvasive method of delivering drugs between the upper gum and cheek, offering local and systemic effects. Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness, safety, and reliability of topical lidocaine or articaine patches for oral anesthesia. Consequently, this study aimed to develop a three-layered buccal drug delivery system for topical anesthetics.

Methods

The first step was preparing and optimizing lidocaine-loaded three-layer patches using Design-expert software. The effects of ethylcellulose, Eudragit, and carbopol concentrations were investigated on patch characteristics, including mucoadhesion, Young's modulus, and Elongation-at-break. Subsequently, patches were fabricated according to the optimized formulation determined by the software, and their efficacy was studied in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Participants received either lidocaine or articaine-loaded compared with placebo in a split-mouth study. They evaluated their pain levels using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the onset and duration of action were recorded for each treatment.

Results

According to the results, increasing ethyl cellulose and Eudragit concentrations improved mucoadhesion force (p < 0.05) while increasing ethyl cellulose and reducing Eudragit concentrations increased Young's modulus (p < 0.05). Increasing Carbopol and decreasing Eudragit concentrations also raised elongation at break significantly in the patch (p < 0.05). Treatment with lidocaine-loaded patches resulted in lower VAS scores and faster onset of action in patients than articaine-loaded patches. However, the duration of the effect was longer in the former(p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Based on the responses' analysis, the formulation of the 3-layered buccal patch was optimized. This formulation comprised 4.72 % ethyl cellulose, 2 % Carbopol, and 5 % eudragit. Clinical evaluation results showed that loading the optimized formulation with lidocaine was more efficient in controlling the injection pain than articaine.

Trial registration

This trial was prospectively registered with irct.behdasht.gov.ir (registration number: IRCT20210118050067N2) on Aug 19, 2022.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

Methods

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation.

Results

In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015).

Conclusion

Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Trial Register

Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

Topical lignocaine anaesthesia for oropharyngeal sampling for COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain if topical lignocaine application in oropharynx prior to swab sampling to test for COVID-19 improves a patient's comfort and to assess its effect on the swab sample taken to conduct the RT-PCR.

METHODS

Adult patients testing positive on the RT-PCR COVID-19 test were sampled again within 48 h after administering topical oropharyngeal anaesthesia. Patients were asked to rate their discomfort on a visual analog scale (VAS) for both sample A and B. A qualitative real-time RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, was performed, and the cycle threshold value (Ct), used as a surrogate marker for the viral load, was measured for the sample taken without lignocaine (sample A) and the sample taken post-lignocaine application (sample B). The difference in Ct values of both the groups was checked for any statistical significance using paired t-test. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used on VAS scores to determine any significant decrease in discomfort.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study. Twenty-nine patients (72.5%) reported the procedure to be more comfortable post-lignocaine application. Median (IQR) discomfort on VAS decreased from 7 (1) to 5 (2) after lignocaine use, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Mean Ct value for sample A was 17.21 ± 5.25 and for sample B was 18.44 ± 4.8 (p > 0.05), indicating a non-significant effect of lignocaine on SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the sample.

CONCLUSION

Topical lignocaine, while improving the comfort of the procedure of oropharyngeal sampling for patient did not alter the SARS-CoV-2 viral load that was detected in nasal and oropharyngeal samples taken together.

Investigation of Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray for Sedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children

PURPOSE

Our aim in this study is to investigate efficacy of topical lidocaine spray for sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.

METHODS

The endoscopy of children aged between 3-18 years who underwent EGD in our endoscopy unit. Intravenous (IV) midazolam and ketamine were used for sedation. Prior to sedation, endoscopy nurse applied topical lidocaine 10% with pump spray at 1 mg/kg dose in group 1, and distilled water via identically scaled pump spray in group 2, in a double blinded fashion.

RESULTS

Sedation was not applied in 24.1% of the cases in topical lidocaine spray group (LS group) and in 5.7% of the cases in distilled water spray group (DS group). Gag reflex was observed in 6.5% of cases in LS group and 33.3% of cases in DS group (p=0.024), increased oral secretion was observed in 9.3% of cases in LS group and 51.7% of cases in DS group (p=0.038), sore throat was observed in 3.7% of cases in LS group and 35.6% of cases in DS group (p=0.019) and the difference was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that topical pharyngeal lidocaine reduces both requirement and amount of IV sedation before EGD in children and sore throat, gag reflex and decreased oral secretion increase.

A novel lozenge containing bupivacaine as topical alleviation of oral mucositis pain in patients with head and neck cancer: a pilot study

Introduction: Oral mucositis induces severe oral pain in head and neck cancer patients. There is at this point no effective pain treatment without considerable side effects.

Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate pain reduction in oral cavity and pharynx in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) with oral mucositis, the location of anesthetic effect, and duration of pain relief, after a single-dose administration of a 25 mg bupivacaine lozenge.

Methods: Ten patients with HNC suffering from oral mucositis pain were included. The patients assessed pain in the oral cavity and pharynx on a visual analogue scale (from 0 to 100 mm) at baseline and up to 3 hours after the lozenge was dissolved. Possible adverse events were registered.

Results: The baseline pain was 51 mm (range: 30–73 mm) in the oral cavity and 58 mm (range: 35–70 mm) in the pharynx. When the lozenge was dissolved, both oral (−27 mm; range: −3 to −52 mm; P = 0.0003) and pharynx pain (−20 mm; range: −3 to −45 mm; P = 0.008) were significantly reduced. After 180 minutes, the mean reduction in pain was significant in the oral cavity (−18 mm; range: −8 to −30 mm; P < 0.0001) but not in the pharynx (−8 mm; range: +4 to −23 mm; P = 0.12). No adverse events were observed.

Conclusion: The results indicate that the bupivacaine lozenge has a clinically significant and long-lasting pain-relieving effect on pain because of oral mucositis in patients with HNC.

Absorption of Bupivacaine after Administration of a Lozenge as Topical Treatment for Pain from Oral Mucositis

The aim was to investigate systemic exposure after administration of a novel bupivacaine lozenge in healthy individuals with normal mucosa and in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients with oral mucositis. A lozenge containing 5, 10, 25 and 50 mg bupivacaine, respectively, was administered as single dose to 10 healthy individuals, and a lozenge containing 25 mg bupivacaine was administered as single dose to 10 HNC patients with oral mucositis and as multiple doses to five patients with HNC. Blood samples were collected for 6 hr from the healthy individuals and 3 hr from the patients with HNC, respectively, after administration. The plasma concentration-time profiles of bupivacaine were fitted to pharmacokinetic models using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling, evaluating demographics and health status as covariates. The population pharmacokinetics (PK) of bupivacaine lozenge was best described by a two-compartment distribution model with absorption transit compartments. All the observed plasma concentrations were well below the bupivacaine concentrations (2000-2250 ng/ml) which have caused toxic symptoms. The PK model suggested that relative bioavailability was two times higher in HNC patients with oral mucositis grade 1-2 and three times higher in HNC patients with oral mucositis grade 3-4 than in the healthy individuals. Simulations showed that the plasma concentrations would be below the toxic limit after repeated dosing every second hour with 25 mg bupivacaine for five days. The 25-mg bupivacaine lozenges were safe without systemic toxic levels of bupivacaine or risk of side effects. Based on PK simulations of repeated doses of 25 mg every two hours for 16 hr a day, the lozenges can be administered with minimum risk of exceeding the toxic limit.

Efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus lidocaine in local anesthesia of the nasopharynx: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anesthesia of nasopharynx through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A number of medical literature data bases were searched electronically. Relevant journals and references of included studies were manually searched. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment.

RESULTS

Four studies were included. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, acceptable discomfort, and bleeding scores were analyzed for bupivacaine versus lidocaine. When considering the VAS scores, bupivacaine as a local anesthetic agent was better than lidocaine in controlling the pain of postoperative patients (p < 0.00001). From VAS scores of patients for transnasal fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopic examination that was performed to evaluate upper airway structures, lidocaine was found to be better at pain management in patients who underwent transnasal endoscopic examination (p < 0.00001). However, when analyzing the acceptable discomfort of patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, which serves as a valuable tool to evaluate upper gastrointestinal structures, the patients in the bupivacaine group demonstrated a higher acceptable discomfort than the patients in the lidocaine group (p = 0.008). With regard to the bleeding scores of the patients with nasal surgery, lidocaine was better at bleeding in postoperative patients compared with bupivacaine (p = 0.0007). These results indicated that bupivacaine showed better pain control of postoperative patients and acceptable discomfort in patients with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Lidocaine had a significantly increased ability the pain of patients with transnasal fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopic examination and bleeding in postoperative patients. No systemic adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Bupivacaine was found to have better promotion to pain control than did lidocaine for the patients after nasal surgery. Lidocaine had a significantly increased inhibition of bleeding in these postoperative patients; however, the efficacy between bupivacaine and lidocaine was unclear for the patients who had transnasal endoscopic examinations.