Analgesic effects of paracetamol and morphine after elective laparotomy surgeries

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 as a potential therapeutic target for COVID-19: A review

As of August 16, 2021, there have been 207,173,086 confirmed cases and 4,361,996 deaths due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and the pandemic remains a global challenge. To date, no effective and approved drugs are available for the treatment of COVID-19. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) plays a crucial role in the invasion into host cells by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent of COVID-19. Notably, ACE2 density is influenced by medical conditions, such as hypertension, or by drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which can change the fate of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. ACE2 is a target for these drugs and can be manipulated to limit the viral entry and replication within the cells. Different strategies aimed at blocking ACE2 with small molecules, peptides, and antibodies, or by neutralizing the virus through its competitive binding with human recombinant soluble ACE2 (hrsACE2) are currently under investigation. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge that emphasizes the need to find effective therapeutic agents against COVID-19 by exploiting ACE2 as a potential target. The increased soluble ACE2 levels and the application of hrsACE2 in patients with COVID-19 can be implemented to control the disease. It has not yet been established whether hypertension and other comorbidities, independent of age, have a direct role in COVID-19. Therefore, the use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, ACEIs and ARBs, should not be discontinued during COVID-19 treatment.

•

Blockage of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and ACE2 as a strategy to treat COVID-19 is underway.

•

ACE2 upregulation leads to the increased release of soluble ACE2.

•

Increasing the levels of soluble ACE2 and hrsACE2 has the potential to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and reverse lung injury.

Evidence for the Efficacy of an Opioid-Sparing Effect of Intravenous Acetaminophen in the Surgery Patient: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is used in multimodal analgesia to reduce the amount and duration of opioid use in the postoperative setting.

METHODS

A systematic review of published randomized controlled trials was conducted to define the opioid-sparing effect of IV acetaminophen in different types of surgeries. Eligible studies included prospective, randomized, double-blind trials of IV acetaminophen compared with either a placebo- or active-treatment group in adult (age ≥18 years) patients undergoing surgery. Trials had to be published in English in a peer-reviewed journal.

RESULTS

A total of 44 treatment cohorts included in 37 studies were included in the systematic analysis. Compared with active- or placebo-control treatments, IV acetaminophen produced a statistically significant opioid-sparing effect in 14 of 44 cohorts (32%). An opioid-sparing effect was more common in placebo-controlled comparisons. Of the 28 placebo treatment comparisons, IV acetaminophen produced an opioid-sparing effect in 13 (46%). IV acetaminophen produced an opioid-sparing effect in only 6% (one out of 16) of the active-control groups. Among the 16 active-control groups, opioid consumption was significantly greater with IV acetaminophen than the active comparator in seven cohorts and not significantly different than the active comparator in eight cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic analysis demonstrate that IV acetaminophen is not effective in reducing opioid consumption compared with other adjuvant analgesic agents in the postoperative patient. In patients where other adjuvant analgesic agents are contraindicated, IV acetaminophen may be an option.

Preoperative Administration of Extended-Release Dinalbuphine Sebacate Compares with Morphine for Post-Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Pain Management: A Randomized Study

Purpose

Perioperative pain management plays a critical role in the effort to promote enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Pain is also the most concern for patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Naldebain (extended-release dinalbuphine sebacate, DS) is an oil-based formulation for intramuscular injection that has been designed for extended release and can be used for preoperative analgesia over a 7-day period. This study was aimed to compare the efficacy of DS injection with that of regular postoperative morphine administered when necessary for the management of post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain.

Patients and Methods

Forty-four patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in this prospective study. The patients were allocated randomly into two groups, with equal numbers receiving preoperative DS versus post-operative morphine. A total of 21 and 22 patients completed the study within the preoperative DS and post-operative morphine group, respectively.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between two treatment groups with respect to length of surgery, anesthetics used during operation, or the average visual analog scale pain score in the post-operative anesthesia care unit (PACU), and at 4, 24, 48, and 72 hours post-procedure. Morphine was required only during the first postoperative day among those in the DS group. Safety was comparable in both DS and morphine groups.

Conclusion

A single preoperative dose of DS provides sufficient analgesia along with a manageable safety profile and no interference with surgical anesthetics when compared to control cases that underwent surgery without preoperative DS treatment. This pilot study suggests that preoperative administration of DS is safe and may decrease the need for postoperative opioid use after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03713216.

Angiotensin converting enzyme-2 as therapeutic target in COVID-19

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health emergency that poses a significant threat to world people's health. This outbreak causes major challenges to healthcare systems. Given the lack of effective treatments or vaccine for it, the identification of novel and safe drugs against COVID-19 infection is an urgent need. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is not only an entry receptor of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19, but also can protect from lung injury. In this view, we highlighted potential approaches to address ACE2-mediated SARS-CoV-2 virus, including 1) delivering an excessive soluble form of ACE2 (recombinant human ACE2: rhACE2) and 2) inhibition of the interaction between SARS-CoV-2 virus and ACE2 by some compounds with competitive effects (morphine and codeine). Further clinical trials in this regard can reveal a more definite conclusion against the COVID-19 disaster.

The impact of intravenous acetaminophen on pain after abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain after surgery is commonly controlled with opioid pain medications. A multi-modal pain strategy that involves acetaminophen may help minimize the negative consequences of opioids, such as ileus, respiratory depression, and addictive potential. There are limited data on the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen in comparison with other nonopioid pain medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four databases were queried for the keywords "acetaminophen," "intravenous," and "postoperative". Prospective studies of adult patients receiving at least 24 h of IV acetaminophen after intraabdominal surgery were analyzed for 12- and 24-h pain scores and 24-h narcotic consumption. A random effects model was performed using mean differences and 95% confidence intervals to assess the effect of IV acetaminophen on outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ² and the I² statistics.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were identified that complied with inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in 24-h pain scores between IV acetaminophen and any other comparator, or in secondary endpoints of 12-h pain scores and 24-h narcotic consumption. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant benefit for IV acetaminophen in open surgeries for decreased 24-h narcotic consumption. When analyzing individual medications, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs demonstrated the largest reduction in 24-h narcotic consumption. Data were of moderate quality and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of significant differences in primary endpoints may be explained by the heterogeneous, moderate-quality data. However, subgroup analyses suggested IV acetaminophen may be advantageous in open surgeries, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may lower the 24-h narcotic requirement.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2015

This paper is the thirty-eighth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2015 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

The Effect of Multimodal Analgesia on Intraoperative Morphine Requirement in Lumbar Spine Surgeries

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine surgery demands intense analgesia. Preemptive multimodal analgesia (MMA) is a novel approach to attenuate the stress response to surgical stimulus.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to assess the intraoperative morphine consumption in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, prospective, double-blind study involving 42 patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II scheduled to undergo elective lumbar spine surgery were allocated into two groups of 21 each. Group A (study group) received injection diclofenac sodium, paracetamol, clonidine, and skin infiltration with bupivacaine adrenaline and Group B (control group) received paracetamol and skin infiltration with saline adrenaline. Preemptive analgesia was practiced in both the groups. Intraoperative morphine consumption was documented.

STATISTICAL METHODS

Intraoperative morphine consumption between the two groups was compared using Mann-Whitney U-test. Postextubation sedation score between the two groups was compared using Chi-square test and presented as number and percentage. P < 5% was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Intraoperative morphine consumption was significantly low in the study group (P < 0.001). Postextubation sedation score was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive MMA has demonstrated significant morphine sparing effect intraoperatively in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries.

Comparing the Effect of Preoperative Administration of Melatonin and Passiflora incarnata on Postoperative Cognitive Disorders in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery

Background

Anxiety is a preoperative complication, which most patients encounter. The use of a premedication to reduce preoperative anxiety with minimal cognitive impairment is crucial.

Objectives

This study was conducted to compare the sedative effect of preoperative melatonin and Passiflora incarnata in patients undergoing elective surgery regarding their potential for postoperative cognitive disorders.

Methods

In this clinical trial, 52 patients American society of anesthesiologists grade (ASA) I and II of both genders were selected to receive either Passiflora incarnata (1000 mg nature made) (n = 26) or melatonin (6 mg) (n = 26) as premedication one hour before surgery. Post-operative pain was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Patient’s anxiety and cognitive dysfunction was evaluated with the Ramsey score and the digital symbol substitution test (DSST), respectively. All tests were carried out and evaluated at arrival in the operating room, before induction and before discharge from the post anesthesia care unit (PACU).

Results

There were no statistically differences between groups in VAS (P > 0.05). However, the mean score of pain was higher in the melatonin group compared to the Pssiflora incarnata group when discharged from the PACU (27.63 vs. 25.37). The anxiety scores were statistically significant in both drugs (P = 0.001), however higher sedation scores was caused by premedication with melatonin (P = 0.003 vs. 0.008). Regarding the DSST, there was a significant difference between the two groups one hour before the surgery (P = 0.04) and at the time of discharge from the PACU (P = 0.007). When evaluating each group, the Passiflora incarnata group revealed a significant difference (P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Our findings show that premedication with Passiflora incarnata reduces anxiety as well as Melatonin. However, Melatonin causes less cognitive impairment compared to Passiflora incarnata.

Single dose intravenous paracetamol or intravenous propacetamol for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally, rectally, or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol, and IV propacetamol (a prodrug that is metabolized to paracetamol), compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search for the previous review in May 2010. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), EMBASE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), LILACS (2010 to 2016), a clinical trials registry, and reference lists of reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language and we retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies (36 from the original review and 39 from our updated review) enrolling a total of 7200 participants.Among primary outcomes, 36% of participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 5.6, high quality evidence). The proportion of participants in IV paracetamol/propacetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 6 (4.6 to 7.1, moderate quality evidence). Mean pain intensity at four hours was similar when comparing IV paracetamol and placebo, but was seven points lower on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable, 95% CI -9 to -6, low quality evidence) in those receiving paracetamol at six hours.For secondary outcomes, participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol required 26% less opioid over four hours and 16% less over six hours (moderate quality evidence) than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators (e.g., opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%). Meta-analysis did not demonstrate clinically meaningful differences between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators for any adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we have found 39 new studies providing additional information. Most included studies evaluated adults only. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides high quality evidence that a single dose of either IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 36% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Low to very low quality evidence demonstrates that both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.

Comparing the efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen and intravenous meperidine in pain relief after outpatient urological surgery

Background:

Pain relief after surgery is an essential component of postoperative care.

Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen and intravenous meperidine in pain relief after outpatient urological surgery.

Patients and Methods:

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 100 outpatients of urological surgery were studied in two groups of acetaminophen (A) and meperidine (M). Patients in group A received 1g of acetaminophen in 100 mL saline within 15 minutes and patients in group M received a single intravenous injection of meperidine 0.5 mg/kg, 15 minutes prior to the end of operation. Postoperative pain was recorded using visual analog scale (VAS). Vital signs, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and respiratory depressions were compared between the two groups.

Results:

Pain severity in patients treated with intravenous acetaminophen six hours after the operation within one-hour interval was significantly lower than meperidine group (P < 0.0001). Ninety patients in the meperidine group and five patients in the acetaminophen group required additional doses of analgesics. Nausea was significantly lower in acetaminophen group than meperidine group.

Conclusions:

Intravenous acetaminophen reduced pain following outpatient urological surgery more significantly than meperidine.

The therapeutic use of analgesics in patients with liver cirrhosis: a literature review and evidence-based recommendations

CONTEXT

Pain management in cirrhotic patients is a major clinical challenge for medical professionals. Unfortunately there are no concrete guidelines available regarding the administration of analgesics in patients with liver cirrhosis. In this review we aimed to summarize the available literature and suggest appropriate evidence-based recommendations regarding to administration of these drugs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An indexed MEDLINE search was conducted in July 2014, using keywords "analgesics", "hepatic impairment", "cirrhosis", "acetaminophen or paracetamol", "NSAIDs or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs", "opioid" for the period of 2004 to 2014. All randomized clinical trials, case series, case report and meta-analysis studies with the above mentioned contents were included in review process. In addition, unpublished information from the Food and Drug Administration are included as well.

RESULTS

Paracetamol is safe in patients with chronic liver disease but a reduced dose of 2-3 g/d is recommended for long-term use. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are best avoided because of risk of renal impairment, hepatorenal syndrome, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Most opioids can have deleterious effects in patients with cirrhosis. They have an increased risk of toxicity and hepatic encephalopathy. They should be administrated with lower and less frequent dosing in these patients and be avoided in patients with a history of encephalopathy or addiction to any substance.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence-based guidelines exist on the use of analgesics in patients with liver disease and cirrhosis. As a result pain management in these patients generates considerable misconception among health care professionals, leading under-treatment of pain in this population. Providing concrete guidelines toward the administration of these agents will lead to more efficient and safer pain management in this setting.