BACKGROUND: Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (BM-MSC)-derived extracellular vesicles (ExoFlo) convey the immunomodulatory and regenerative properties of intact BM-MSCs. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ExoFlo as treatment for moderate to severe ARDS in patients with severe COVID-19. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do two doses of ExoFlo safely reduce mortality in COVID-19associated moderate to severe ARDS compared with placebo? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective phase 2 multicenter double-anonymized randomized placebo-controlled dosing trial was conducted at five sites across the United States with infusions of placebo, 10 mL of ExoFlo, or 15 mL of ExoFlo on days 1 and 4. Patients (N = 102) with COVID-19-associated moderate to severe ARDS were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Adverse events were documented throughout the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause 60-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included time to death (overall mortality); the incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events; proportion of discharged patients at 7, 30, and 60 days; time to hospital discharge; and ventilation-free days. RESULTS: No treatment-related adverse events were reported. Mortality (60-day) in the intention-to-treat population was reduced with 15 mL ExoFlo mixed with 85 mL normal saline (ExoFlo-15) compared with placebo (not significant, c2, P = .1343). For the post hoc subgroup analyses, 60-day mortality was decreased with ExoFlo-15 compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.385; 95% CI, 0.159-0.931; P = .0340; n = 50). With ExoFlo-15, a relative risk of 0.423 (95% CI, 0.173-1.032; P = .0588; n = 24) was determined for participants aged 18 to 65 years with moderate to severe ARDS. Ventilation-free days improved with ExoFlo-15 (P = .0455; n = 50) for all participants aged 18 to 65 years. INTERPRETATION: The 15 mL dose of ExoFlo was found to be safe in patients with severe or critical COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. In participants aged 18 to 65 years, the risk reduction in 60-day mortality was further improved from subjects of all ages in the intentionto-treat population after two doses of 15 mL of ExoFlo compared with placebo.

BACKGROUND:Although antiemetics are commonly used to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting, the failure rate is appreciable and there is currently no generally accepted standard for rescue treatment of postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was designed to test the hypothesis that intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3-antagonist, is superior to placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis.METHODS:A total of 2,285 adult patients undergoing surgery under general inhalational anesthesia and receiving standard antiemetic prophylaxis were enrolled at 23 sites in Canada, France, Germany, and the United States. Of these, 702 patients experienced postoperative nausea or vomiting in the 24-h period after surgery and were randomized to receive a single dose of 5 or 10 mg intravenous amisulpride or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue antiemetic use for 24 h after study drug administration, excluding emesis in the first 30 min. Secondary endpoints included incidence of emesis and rescue medication use, nausea burden, time to treatment failure, and length of stay in postanesthesia care unit and hospital.RESULTS:Complete response occurred in significantly more patients receiving 10 mg amisulpride (96 of 230, 41.7%) than placebo (67 of 235, 28.5%), a 13.2% difference (95% CI, 4.6 to 21.8; odds ratio, 1.80; P = 0.006). A 5-mg dose of amisulpride did not show a significant benefit (80 of 237, 33.8%); the difference from placebo was 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.6; odds ratio, 1.24; P = 0.109). The total number of adverse events recorded and proportion of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable between the placebo and amisulpride groups. No clinically relevant toxicities were observed.CONCLUSIONS:A single 10-mg dose of intravenous amisulpride was safe and more effective than placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients failing postoperative nausea or vomiting prophylaxis.

Aim: To evaluate the pooled safety of sufentanil sublingual tablets (SSTs) administered at 30-mcg dose equivalents over ≤72 h for moderate-to-severe acute pain management in medically supervised settings. Patients & methods: Safety data from SST 30 mcg Phase III studies were pooled with an additional patient subset from studies in which two SST 15 mcg were self-administered within 20–25 min (30-mcg dose-equivalent). Results: Analyses included 804 patients. Median (range) SST 30-mcg dosing over 24 h was 7.0 (1–15) tablets. Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 60.5% (SST) and 61.4% (placebo) and treatment-related AEs by 43.8% (SST) and 33.5% (placebo; 10.3% difference; 95% CI: 2.0–18.6) of patients. No dose-dependent increase in oxygen desaturation was observed with SST. Conclusion: SST was well-tolerated, with most AEs considered mild or moderate in severity.

An intravenous (IV) formulation of meloxicam is being studied for moderate to severe pain management. This phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the safety of once-daily meloxicam IV 30 mg in subjects following major elective surgery. Eligible subjects were randomized (3:1) to receive meloxicam IV 30 mg or placebo administered once daily. Safety was evaluated via adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, wound healing, and opioid consumption. The incidence of adverse events was similar between meloxicam IV- and placebo-treated subjects (63.0% versus 65.0%). Investigators assessed most adverse events as mild or moderate in intensity and unrelated to treatment. Adverse events of interest (injection-site reactions, bleeding, cardiovascular, hepatic, renal, thrombotic, and wound-healing events) were similar between groups. Over the treatment period, meloxicam IV was associated with a 23.6% (P = .0531) reduction in total opioid use (9.2 mg morphine equivalent) compared to placebo-treated subjects. The results suggest that meloxicam IV had a safety profile similar to that of placebo with respect to numbers and frequencies of adverse events and reduced opioid consumption in subjects with moderate to severe postoperative pain following major elective surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs commonly in surgical patients despite widespread prophylactic antiemetic use. Rescue options are currently limited. 5HT(3) antagonists are most frequently used for prophylaxis, but if they fail, additional doses are not effective as rescue medication. Intravenous (IV) amisulpride, a well-studied D-2/D-3 antagonist, has been shown in trials to prevent PONV. This study was designed to determine if amisulpride could be used to treat established PONV in patients at low-to-moderate risk of PONV who had not received any prior prophylaxis. METHODS: Men and women aged over 18 years were permitted to enroll if they were to undergo general inhalational anesthesia, expected to last at least 1 hour, for an outpatient or inpatient surgical procedure. Patients who then suffered PONV were randomized equally to 1 of 3 single-dose IV regimens: placebo or 5 or 10 mg amisulpride. The primary end point was complete response, defined as no emesis in the period 30 minutes to 24 hours after study drug treatment and no use of rescue medication in the entire 24-hour period. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled preoperatively, of whom 560 were randomized to a treatment arm. Complete response occurred in 39 of 181 patients (21.5%) in the placebo group compared to 60 of 191 patients (31.4%; P = .016) and 59 of 188 patients (31.4%; P = .016) in the amisulpride 5 and 10 mg groups, respectively. The adverse event profile of amisulpride at either dose was similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: IV amisulpride at 5 and 10 mg was safe and efficacious in the treatment of established PONV in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia with no prior PONV prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND:Postoperative nausea and vomiting causes distress for patients and can prolong care requirements. Consensus guidelines recommend use of multiple antiemetics from different mechanistic classes as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The prophylactic efficacy of the dopamine D2/D3 antagonist amisulpride in combination with other antiemetics was investigated.METHODS:This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter trial was conducted in 1,147 adult surgical patients having three or four postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous amisulpride (5 mg) or matching placebo at induction of general anesthesia, in addition to one standard, nondopaminergic antiemetic, most commonly ondansetron or dexamethasone. Vomiting/retching, nausea, and use of rescue medication were recorded for 24 h after wound closure. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue medication use in the 24-h postoperative period.RESULTS:Complete response occurred in 330 of 572 (57.7%) of the amisulpride group and 268 of 575 (46.6%) of the control group (difference 11.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 16.8; P < 0.001). The incidences of emesis (13.8% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.003), any nausea (50.0% vs. 58.3%, P = 0.002), significant nausea (37.1% vs. 47.7%, P < 0.001), and rescue medication use (40.9% vs. 49.4%, P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the amisulpride group. Adverse events and laboratory and electrocardiogram abnormalities occurred no more frequently with amisulpride than with placebo.CONCLUSIONS:Intravenous amisulpride was safe and effective as prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given in combination with an antiemetic from another class to adult patients at high risk for suffering postoperative nausea and vomiting undergoing elective surgery under inhalational general anesthesia.VISUAL ABSTRACT:An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B727.

Anesthesiology, V 128 • No 6 1099 June 2018 W ITHOUT effective prophylaxis, nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after surgical operations under volatile anesthesia may occur in 60 to 80% of patients with at least three of the recognized risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting: female sex, prior history of postoperative nausea and vomiting or motion sickness, nonsmoker, and expected use of postoperative opioid analgesia.1 Agents blocking a variety of neurotransmitter pathways, including serotonin 5-HT3, dopamine D2, and histamine H1, have been shown to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in a proportion of patients, as have corticosteroids, the mechanism of action of which is unclear.2–4 Because it cannot be predicted which pathway(s) will be active in a patient, consensus guidelines recommend that patients at high risk of suffering postoperative nausea and vomiting should be given prophylaxis with a combination of antiemetics with different mechanisms of action.5 Evidence from a large trial of factorial design suggests that antiemetics of different classes provide What We Already Know about This Topic

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting causes distress for patients and can prolong care requirements. Consensus guidelines recommend use of multiple antiemetics from different mechanistic classes as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The prophylactic efficacy of the dopamine D-2/D-3 antagonist amisulpride in combination with other antiemetics was investigated. Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter trial was conducted in 1,147 adult surgical patients having three or four postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous amisulpride (5 mg) or matching placebo at induction of general anesthesia, in addition to one standard, nondopaminergic antiemetic, most commonly ondansetron or dexamethasone. Vomiting/retching, nausea, and use of rescue medication were recorded for 24 h after wound closure. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue medication use in the 24-h postoperative period. Results: Complete response occurred in 330 of 572 (57.7%) of the amisulpride group and 268 of 575 (46.6%)) of the control group (difference 11.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 16.8; P < 0.001). The incidences of emesis (13.8% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.003), any nausea (50.0% vs. 58.3%, P = 0.002), significant nausea (37.1% vs. 47.7%, P < 0.001), and rescue medication use (40.9% vs. 49.4%), P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the amisulpride group. Adverse events and laboratory and electrocardiogram abnormalities occurred no more frequently with amisulpride than with placebo. Conclusions: Intravenous amisulpride was safe and effective as prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given in combination with an antiemetic from another class to adult patients at high risk for suffering postoperative nausea and vomiting undergoing elective surgery under inhalational general anesthesia.

Abstract Background Two essentially identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III studies evaluated the efficacy of intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 antagonist, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients. Methods Adult inpatients undergoing elective surgery during general anesthesia and having at least two of the four Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting were enrolled at 9 U.S. and 10 European sites. A single 5-mg dose of amisulpride or matching placebo was given at induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting/retching and no use of antiemetic rescue medication in the 24-h postoperative period. Nausea incidence was a secondary endpoint. Results Across the two studies, 689 patients were randomized and dosed with study medication, of whom 626 were evaluable per protocol. In the U.S. study, 46.9% (95% CI, 39.0 to 54.9) of patients achieved complete response in the amisulpride group compared to 33.8% (95% CI, 26.2 to 42.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.026). In the European study, complete response rates were 57.4% (95% CI, 49.2 to 65.3) for amisulpride and 46.6% (95% CI, 38.8 to 54.6) for placebo (P = 0.070). Nausea occurred less often in patients who received amisulpride than those who received placebo. There was no clinically significant difference in the safety profile of amisulpride and placebo; in particular, there were no differences in terms of QT prolongation, extrapyramidal side effects, or sedation. Conclusions One of the two trials demonstrated superiority, while pooling both in a post hoc change to the plan of analysis supported the hypothesis that amisulpride was safe and superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a population of adult inpatients at moderate to high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND:Two essentially identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III studies evaluated the efficacy of intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 antagonist, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients.METHODS:Adult inpatients undergoing elective surgery during general anesthesia and having at least two of the four Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting were enrolled at 9 U.S. and 10 European sites. A single 5-mg dose of amisulpride or matching placebo was given at induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting/retching and no use of antiemetic rescue medication in the 24-h postoperative period. Nausea incidence was a secondary endpoint.RESULTS:Across the two studies, 689 patients were randomized and dosed with study medication, of whom 626 were evaluable per protocol. In the U.S. study, 46.9% (95% CI, 39.0 to 54.9) of patients achieved complete response in the amisulpride group compared to 33.8% (95% CI, 26.2 to 42.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.026). In the European study, complete response rates were 57.4% (95% CI, 49.2 to 65.3) for amisulpride and 46.6% (95% CI, 38.8 to 54.6) for placebo (P = 0.070). Nausea occurred less often in patients who received amisulpride than those who received placebo. There was no clinically significant difference in the safety profile of amisulpride and placebo; in particular, there were no differences in terms of QT prolongation, extrapyramidal side effects, or sedation.CONCLUSIONS:One of the two trials demonstrated superiority, while pooling both in a post hoc change to the plan of analysis supported the hypothesis that amisulpride was safe and superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a population of adult inpatients at moderate to high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Background The authors evaluated the efficacy of liposome bupivacaine in a femoral nerve block (FNB) after total knee arthroplasty. Methods Part 1: subjects received FNB with 20 ml liposome bupivacaine (67, 133, or 266 mg) or placebo. Part 2: subjects were randomized to FNB with liposome bupivacaine 266 mg or placebo. The primary outcome measure was area under the curve of the numeric rating scale score for pain intensity at rest through 72 h (AUC NRS-R0–72) with imputed scores after rescue medication. Results In part 1, FNB with liposome bupivacaine 266 mg (n = 24) resulted in analgesia similar to that obtained with 133 mg and was chosen for part 2. In part 2, least-squares mean (standard error) AUC NRS-R0–72 was lower with liposome bupivacaine 266 mg (n = 92) than with placebo (n = 91; 419 [17] vs. 516 [17]; P < 0.0001). This outcome remained unchanged in a post hoc analysis without score imputation (221 [12] vs. 282 [12]; P = 0.0005). Least-squares mean AUC NRS-R with imputed scores was lower with liposome bupivacaine during each 24-h interval (0 to 24, 24 to 48, and 48 to 72 h) after surgery; AUC NRS-R without imputed scores was lower during the 0- to 24-h and 24- to 48-h intervals. The liposome bupivacaine group had lower mean total opioid use (76 vs. 103 mg morphine; P = 0.0016). Pain was sufficiently severe to require second-step rescue with opioids via intravenously administered patient-controlled analgesia in 92% of liposome bupivacaine patients and 81% of placebo patients. With patient-controlled analgesia and other forms of rescue analgesia, mean NRS scores with activity were moderate in both liposome bupivacaine and placebo groups throughout the part 2 study period. Incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups (part 1: 90 vs. 96%; part 2: 96 vs. 96%, respectively). Conclusion FNB with liposome bupivacaine (266 mg) resulted in modestly lower pain scores and reduced opioid requirements after surgery, with an adverse event profile similar to placebo.

INTRODUCTION: The sufentanil sublingual tablet system is a non-invasive, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) drug/device product recently approved by the European Medicines Agency for treatment of acute moderate-to-severe post-operative pain in a hospital setting. A second sufentanil product, a 30 mcg tablet (ST) dispensed sublingually by a healthcare professional via a single-dose applicator, is in Phase 3 development for treatment of moderate-to-severe pain in medically-supervised settings, such as outpatient or ambulatory surgery. Sublingual sufentanil appears well-suited for short duration acute pain management because it acts rapidly (plasma-CNS equilibration time of 6 minutes), does not require an invasive route of delivery and possess a predictable off-set, in part due to lack of active metabolites. The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the ST to placebo tablet (PT) for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain following typical outpatient abdominal surgeries. METHODS: The study was multicenter, randomized and placebo-controlled for up to 48 hours in adult patients undergoing the following outpatient abdominal surgical procedures: abdominoplasty, open tension-free inguinal hernioplasty or laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Following IRB approval and patient informed consent, approximately 180 patients who met all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to treatment with ST or PT. Efficacy was assessed by patient reports of pain intensity on an 11-point numerical rating scale (0 = no pain, and 10 = worst possible pain) and a five-point pain relief scale (0 = no relief, 4 = complete relief). The primary efficacy variable was the summed pain intensity difference to baseline over the 12-hour study period (SPID12). Safety was assessed via periodic measurement of vital signs, continuous monitoring of oxygen saturation, spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs) and the use of concomitant medications. RESULTS: A total of 161 (107 ST and 54 PT) patients were randomized and received study drug. Average patient age was 41 years, 68% were female and approximately 50% had undergone abdominoplasty surgery. Statistically significant SPID12 differences were observed in favor of ST over PT (25.8 vs. 13.1; p<0.001) for the entire cohort, demonstrating superiority of sublingual sufentanil 30mcg for management of acute post-operative pain. Subgroup analysis by surgery type, despite much smaller sample sizes, also yielded significantly higher scores for ST over PT for abdominoplasty patients (30.8 vs 17.6; p=0.001). Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity with nausea and headache as the most common across both treatment arms. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The sufentanil sublingual 30 mcg tablet has shown benefit over placebo across a range of surgical procedures as a non-invasive analgesic modality requiring short-term treatment of acute moderate-to-severe pain.

BACKGROUND:Results from a phase-3, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating sufentanil sublingual tablet 30 mcg (SST) for the management of pain after ambulatory abdominal surgery are presented.METHODS:Adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1 to 3 scheduled to undergo abdominoplasty, open tension-free inguinal hernioplasty, or laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general or spinal anesthesia that did not include intrathecal opioids during the operation were eligible. Opioid-tolerant patients were excluded. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted summed pain intensity difference to baseline (SPID) over 12 hours. Secondary endpoints included SPID over 24 and 48 hours, total pain relief, and patient and healthcare professional (HCP) global assessments.RESULTS:Overall, 161 patients were randomized to SST (N = 107) or placebo (N = 54); pain scores were recorded for up to 48 hours. SPID 12 was higher (greater pain intensity reduction from baseline) in the SST group compared with placebo (25.8 vs. 13.1; P < 0.001, with a difference of 12.7 [95% confidence interval 7.16, 18.23]). In the SST group, a greater proportion of patients and HCPs responded "good" or "excellent" on the global assessments compared with placebo (P < 0.001 for both). There was a numerically, but not statistically, higher incidence of nausea and headache in the SST group.CONCLUSIONS:In patients following abdominal surgery in an ambulatory care setting, SST was an effective opioid analgesic in postoperative pain management. In addition, SST was well tolerated with mild-to-moderate side effects, similar to those found in placebo-treated patients.

Background and Aims: Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine currently being developed for procedural sedation and for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. This trial was the fourth study for procedural sedation. The aim was to compare the safety and efficacy profile of remimazolam and to refine suitable doses for subsequent phase III studies in this indication.Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, active controlled clinical trial with 162 male and female patients, aged 18 to 70, scheduled to undergo a routine colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive 1 of 3 remimazolam doses or midazolam for sedation. Supplemental oxygen and 100 mu g of fentanyl was given before procedures were started, and the colonoscopy commenced as soon as suitable sedation had been achieved (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score <= 3). Top-up doses of the study drug and/or fentanyl were allowed to maintain suitable sedation and/or analgesia. Response was defined as sufficient sedation, no rescue sedative, and no ventilation required.Results: This study showed that a single dose of remimazolam or midazolam, followed by top-up doses to maintain suitable sedation, provided adequate sedation with a high success rate (> 92%) for the remimazolam groups, compared with 75% for the midazolam group (P = . 007). There was no requirement for mechanical ventilation in any group, and procedure failures were all due to use of rescue sedative.Conclusions: The high success rates and good safety profile of remimazolam observed in this study warrants further investigation and confirmation in phase III trials.

Problems with intravenous patient‐controlled analgesia (IV PCA) are well known, including invasive route of delivery and pump programming errors. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with a novel sublingual sufentanil PCA system (sufentanil sublingual tablet system 15 mcg with a 20‐minute lockout interval; SSTS) to IV PCA morphine sulfate 1 mg with a 6‐minute lockout interval (IV PCA MS) for the management of acute postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVEDecisions to use or avoid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postsurgical pain are often influenced by concerns about bleeding and renal adverse effects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of a novel parenteral NSAID, hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) diclofenac, in a large postsurgical patient population, with particular focus on bleeding and renal effects.METHODSThis was a large open-label study in adult patients with acute moderate-to-severe pain following major surgery. Patients received ≥2 days of continuous treatment with HPβCD diclofenac, administered as a small-volume bolus injection every 6 hours. Few exclusion criteria were applied in order to reflect surgical patient populations commonly managed in clinical practice. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. The incidences of bleeding- and renal-related AEs were examined in patient subpopulations with known risk factors for NSAID-induced complications: advanced age, pre-existing renal insufficiency, concomitant anticoagulant use, prolonged exposure, elevated dosage, and major surgeries.RESULTSOf the total 971 patients studied, 38% were ≥65 years old (12% >75 years), 62% received concomitant anticoagulants, and 6% had pre-existing renal insufficiency. HPβCD diclofenac was well tolerated by the patient population. AE rates are presented by risk factor to enable clinicians to better describe renal- or bleeding-related AEs.CONCLUSIONSIn addition to its previously demonstrated efficacy, this study provides evidence of HPβCD diclofenac's safety in a large postsurgical population including anticoagulated, elderly or renally insufficient patients. Because study exclusion criteria were minimal, these findings may be broadly generalizable to populations commonly treated in clinical practice.

Objectives:A novel injectable formulation of diclofenac, Dyloject, utilizes hydroxypropyl-&bgr;-cyclodextrin (HP&bgr;CD) as a solubilizing agent, allowing dosing as a small-volume intravenous bolus for postoperative pain. In this test of the efficacy and safety of HP&bgr;CD diclofenac, we hypothesized that HP&bgr;CD diclofenac would relieve moderate and severe pain after orthopedic surgery. Patients and Methods:Adults 18 to 85 years old with moderate and severe pain within 6 hours after surgery were randomized to HP&bgr;CD diclofenac, ketorolac tromethamine, or placebo, and stratified by risk cohort. The HP&bgr;CD diclofenac non–high-risk cohort dose was 37.5 mg, the high-risk cohort received 18.75 mg, and patients ≥95 kg received 50 mg. The ketorolac dose was 30 mg in the non–high-risk and high-weight cohorts and 15 mg in the high-risk cohort. Rescue intravenous morphine was given for pain as needed. Efficacy was measured by the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID). Results:Mean SPID scores of 277 patients were significantly better with HP&bgr;CD diclofenac and ketorolac than with placebo (P<0.0001), across all risk cohorts (P<0.05). HP&bgr;CD diclofenac was associated with better SPID scores, faster onset of analgesia, and significantly lower opioid requirement (P<0.008) than ketorolac. In patients more than or equal to 65 years, HP&bgr;CD diclofenac was associated with significantly better analgesic efficacy (P=0.05), and lower opioid requirement versus ketorolac. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar across groups. Discussion:HP&bgr;CD diclofenac is safe and efficacious for acute moderate and severe pain after orthopedic surgery and significantly spares morphine use.

HYPOTHESISPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are associated with a variety of complications. Neurokinin subtype 1 receptor antagonists have antiemetic activity in the postoperative setting, and the neurokinin subtype 1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate (GW679769) was well tolerated and effective at reducing the incidence of PONV in phase 1 and phase 2 trials.DESIGNA multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 analysis was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of casopitant in combination with a single intravenous dose of the serotonin subtype 3 receptor antagonist ondansetron hydrochloride for the prevention of PONV in the perioperative setting.SETTINGForty-three centers in 11 countries.PATIENTSWe studied 484 women at high risk for developing PONV scheduled to undergo operations associated with high emetogenic risk.INTERVENTIONSThe women were randomized to receive a single dose of intravenous ondansetron, 4 mg, or oral casopitant, 50 mg, in combination with intravenous ondansetron, 4 mg.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response, defined as no vomiting, retching, or rescue therapy. Patients received a balanced anesthetic regimen.RESULTSBetween March 20 and August 31, 2006, 484 patients were enrolled in the study. Patients in the casopitant plus ondansetron group had a 68.7% rate of complete response during the first 24 hours after surgery compared with 58.7% in the ondansetron-only group (P = .03). The difference between groups in complete response from 24 to 48 hours (63.4% with ondansetron only vs 70.0% with ondansetron plus casopitant) was not significant. No vomiting for 0 to 24 hours was observed in 89.7% of the casopitant plus ondansetron group compared with 74.9% of the ondansetron-only group (P < .001). Oral casopitant administered in combination with ondansetron was well tolerated.CONCLUSIONSThe results of this pivotal phase 3 study demonstrate that the combination of casopitant and ondansetron was superior to ondansetron only in patients at high risk for PONV. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00326248.