Seizing child recieving IN treatmentTherapeutic Intranasal Drug Delivery

Needleless treatment options for medical problems

(Scroll down if the text is missing on your screen)

Featured new articles related to intranasal drug delivery:

October - December 2011

___________________________________

Pestieau, S.R., et al., The effect of dexmedetomidine during myringotomy and pressure-equalizing tube placement in children. Paediatr Anaesth, 2011. 21(11): p. 1128-35.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral myringotomy (BMT) is a commonly performed otolaryngologic procedure in children. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine, an alpha(2)-adrenoceptor agonist, on time-averaged pain scores, pain control, need for rescue analgesia, and agitation scores in children undergoing BMT. METHODS: We designed a trial to enroll 160 children randomized to one of four groups: two study groups, dexmedetomidine (1 or 2 mug.kg(-1)), or two control groups representing our institutional standards of practice (intranasal fentanyl-2 mug.kg(-1) or acetaminophen as needed postoperatively). RESULTS: After 101 children were enrolled, patient caregivers observed that some enrollees were excessively sedated and required prolonged postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay. This observation led to an unplanned interim analysis and early trial termination. After data were collected, severe nonnormality of pain and agitation scores necessitated a switch of the outcome to assess repeated measurements of the proportion of patients with pain, severe pain, and agitation. Demographics, time to emergence, and agitation were similar among all groups. The risk of requiring acetaminophen rescue (P < 0.0001) and proportion of patients having pain (P = 0.016) was significantly higher in one control group (rescue analgesia only) compared with fentanyl or dexmedetomidine groups. Importantly, length of stay in the PACU was significantly longer in dexmedetomidine-2 mug.kg(-1)-treated compared with dexmedetomidine-1 mug.kg(-1)-treated, fentanyl-treated, or the control group, P = 0.0037. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, we were unable to answer the original question as to the role of dexmedetomidine on time-averaged pain and agitation scores after BMT. However, our findings clearly demonstrate that in children undergoing BMT, at higher doses, dexmedetomidine significantly prolongs length of stay in the PACU.

Web site Editorial comments:

These authors in fact did find that IN dexmedetomidine in either dose, or intranasal fentanyl at 2 mcg/kg was more effective at reducing postoperative pain and agitation than placebo. However, the high dose dexmedetomidine cases were in the recovery room much longer (70 minutes versus about 40 minutes). This article came out shortly after the comments we made in the July-Sept featured articles section related to IN dexmedetomidine in adults: "Despite this length of action there was no delay in recovery for this type of dental surgical extraction (perhaps this would not be the case for something fast like a myringotomy)." In fact this is exactly what the authors found. IN dexmedetomidine lasts so long (55 to 100 minutes per other articles by Yuen) that children undergoing myringotomy have a prolonged length of stay in the recovery room. the authors conclude that that intranasal fentanyl or rectal acetaminophen are also effective and do not result in longer recovery times so these therapies should be used for short surgical cases like myringotomy.

Pubmed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21575102

___________________________________

Antonio, C., J. Zurek, et al. (2011). "Reducing the pain of intranasal drug administration." Pediatr Dent 33(5): 415-419.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research study was to develop a score to assess intranasal (IN) drug administration discomfort and then assess 3 different approaches to reduce the pain associated with the administration of an IN citrate study solution. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and with informed consent, volunteers intranasally received 0.3 M solution of citrate, on 4 different days. In stage 1, the citrate was administered via syringe or by aerosol. Stage 2 compared the IN citrate before and 60 seconds after 2% lidocaine was given. Stage 3 compared the IN citrate to an IN mixture of 2% lidocaine and citrate. A placebo of IN saline was also used on one occasion. The degree of pain, burning, and unpleasant taste was recorded using a scale of 1 to 10 to give an overall intranasal discomfort score (INDS). RESULTS: The citrate proved significantly more unpleasant and painful than the placebo saline. The mean INDS was 12.1, which was significantly higher following IN citrate compared to saline. Lidocaine, both pretreatment and mixed, significantly reduced the INDS. CONCLUSIONS: The intranasal discomfort score appeared reproducible for assessing painful intranasal drug administration. The addition of lidocaine appeared to reduce the discomfort of intranasal citrate in adult volunteers.

Web site Editorial comments:

This article is provided as an important article due to the concept of topical lidocaine to reduce nasal burning from irritating drugs. These authors found both pretreatment or simultaneous treatment with topical lidocaine (2%) was effective. Any time you consider nasal midazolam sedation in an awake child I suggest you utilize this concept to prevent the burning that occurs in the first minute.

Pubmed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22104710

___________________________________

Pandey, R. K., S. K. Bahetwar, et al. (2011). "A comparative evaluation of drops versus atomized administration of intranasal ketamine for the procedural sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a prospective crossover trial." J Clin Pediatr Dent 36(1): 79-84.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the efficacy and safety of drops and atomized administration of intranasal ketamine (INK) in terms of behavioral response for agent acceptance during administration and for agent efficacy and safety for the sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental patients. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-four uncooperative ASA grade-1 children, requiring dental treatment were randomly assigned to receive INK as drops and atomized spray in one of the subsequent visit. This was a two stage cross-over trial and each child received INK by both modes of administration. The vital signs were monitored continuously during each visit. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in patients acceptance (P < 0.0001) was observed in the atomized administration when compared to drops administration for the procedural event of drug administration. Moreover there were also significant differences (P < 0.05) between onset of sedation and recovery time between two groups. All the vital signs were within normal physiological limits and there were no significant adverse effects in either group. CONCLUSIONS: INK is safe and effective by either mode of intranasal (IN) drug administration for moderate sedation in facilitating dental care for anxious and uncooperative pediatric dental patients. Moreover, INK when administered with the mucosal atomization device, the acceptance of the drug was associated with less aversive reaction, rapid onset and recovery of sedation, as compared to the drop administration of the same agent.

Web site Editorial comments:

Interesting article and another addition to our growing list of studies supporting intranasal ketamine. Further evidence that we need to use ENOUGH drug or it won’t work. This study confirms what others have also proven – that we need doses of at least 5-6 mg/kg of nasal ketamine to achieve moderate sedation (and if you read other studies carefully you need 9-10 mg/kg to achieve sedation deep enough to perform most truly painful procedures).  Another aspect of this study was the crossover design to compare nasal drops to atomization. Not surprising to those of us who have used nasal medications for decades – the atomization group accepted nasal drug delivery much more readily that the nasal drops - 70% excellent vs. 23% excellent, 6% poor versus 44% poor.

Full article link (free access): Pandey 2011

___________________________________

Title:

Abstract

Web site Editorial comments:

Pubmed link: