Efficacy of local anaesthetic and steroid combination in prevention of post-herpetic neuralgia: A meta-analysis

Objective: The objective was to provide synthesized evidence on the efficacy of local anaesthetics and steroid injections for prevention and management of PHN, compared to the standard treatment using anti-viral and analgesic medications. The primary outcomes of interest were incidence of PHN and duration of neuralgic pain. Methods: Comprehensive searches were done systematically through PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google scholar databases. Randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of local anaesthetics and steroid injections for preventing and managing PHN were included for this meta-analysis. A comprehensive search was done for papers published until 15th July 2021. Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In the overall pooled analyses, compared to standard care/placebo, those receiving a combination of local anaesthetic and steroid injection had 55% lower risk of PHN at 3 months from onset of rash (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29; 0.70). Out of the different modes of intervention delivery i.e., intravenous, subcutaneous and nerve block, maximum beneficial effect in reducing the incidence of PHN was noted in nerve block (RR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34, 0.89). Conclusions: The meta-analysis provides some evidence to support the use of combined local anaesthetic and steroids in reducing risk of post-herpetic neuralgia and duration of neuralgic pain in patients with herpes zoster rash. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.3.5140 How to cite this:Zhang X, Wang Z, Xian Y. Efficacy of local anaesthetic and steroid combination in prevention of post-herpetic neuralgia: A meta-analysis. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(3):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.3.5140 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 Vaccine Can Be Safely Administered in Patients with EDTA Allergy

Background: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have been postulated to be linked to their excipients, such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) in Pfizer Comirnaty, or polysorbate 80 and ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA) in AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S [recombinant] (Vaxzevria). These excipients are potentially found in a range of other products, including injectable and oral medications as well as intravenous radiocontrast media (RCM) and various cosmetic products.Currently patients with proven excipient allergy may be advised to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine containing that excipient and/or potentially cross-reactive excipients. We present two cases of previously confirmed EDTA anaphylaxis, who had negative Vaxzevria vaccine in-vivo testing and subsequently tolerated the vaccine.Case 1: A patient with history of anaphylaxis to RCM and local anaesthetics (LA) had positive intradermal test (IDT) to EDTA nine years earlier. Skin testing to Vaxzeria vaccine (up to 1:10 IDT), Comirnaty vaccine (up to 1:10 IDT) and EDTA 0.3mg/mL IDT were negative. However, following EDTA 3mg/ml IDT, he developed immediate generalised urticaria without anaphylaxis. Basophil activation testing was negative to disodium EDTA, Vaxzevria and Cominarty vaccines. Given the negative in-vitro and in-vivo testing to Vaxzevria vaccine, he proceeded to Vaxzevria immunisation and tolerated both doses.Case 2: A patient with history of anaphylaxis to RCM had positive skin testing to EDTA and RCM containing EDTA six years earlier. Following referral to COVID19 vaccine clinic, Vaxzevria vaccine (1:10 IDT) and Cominarty vaccine (1:10 IDT) were negative whilst EDTA was positive at 0.3mg/mL IDT. He subsequently tolerated both Vaxzevria vaccinations.Conclusion: Excipient allergy does not necessarily preclude a patient from receiving a vaccine containing that excipient. Allergy testing can help identify excipient-allergic patients who may still tolerate vaccination, which is important in situations where COVID-19 vaccination options are limited.

The Safety Profile of General and Local Anaesthetic Agents: Data Collected during 20 Years of Spontaneous Reporting Activities in the Campania Region (Southern Italy)

Background: General and local anaesthetics are widely used during surgery. These drugs have peculiar safety profiles, being commonly associated with mild and reversible local adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but also with more severe and systemic ADRs, including respiratory and cardiovascular depression and anaphylaxis. Methods and Objectives: We carried out a descriptive analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) sent to the Campania Regional Centre of Pharmacovigilance (Southern Italy) from 2001 to 2021 that reported general or local anaesthetics as suspected drugs, with the aim of describing their overall characteristics, focussing on the ADRs’ seriousness and distribution by System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Term (PT). Results: A total of 110 ICSRs documenting general or local anaesthetics were sent to the Italian pharmacovigilance database during 20 years of spontaneous reporting activities in the Campania region. ADRs mainly occurred in patients with a median age of 48 years and in a slightly higher percentage of men. ADRs were more commonly classified as not serious and had a favourable outcome. In terms of ADRs’ distribution by SOC and PT, both general and local anaesthetics were associated with general and cutaneous disorders, with common ADRs that included lack of efficacy, rash, and erythema. In addition, general anaesthetics were associated with the occurrence of respiratory ADRs, while local anaesthetics were associated with the occurrence of nervous ADRs. Conclusion: Even though a limited number of ICSRs documenting anaesthetics-induced ADRs were retrieved from the Italian spontaneous reporting database in the Campania region, we believe that the continuous monitoring of these drugs is highly recommended, especially among the frail population.

P-P08 Towards effective analgesia in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of several analgesic modalities trialled in AP. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted up until June 2021, according to PRISMA Guidelines to identify all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. The primary outcome measure was improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2. Results Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), placebo, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol and metamizole. A weighted single-arm effects estimate showed global improvement in VAS across all modalities from baseline to day 2. On visual inspection, epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in pain scores within the first 24hrs, however at 48hrs it was comparable to opiates. Within the first 24hrs, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting with relatively small datasets per study. Conclusions Given the incidence of AP there is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management. Epidural administration is most effective analgesic modality within the first 24hrs of AP. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24hrs.

Australian podiatrists scheduled medicine prescribing practices and barriers and facilitators to endorsement: a cross-sectional survey

BackgroundNon-medical prescribing is one healthcare reform strategy that has the potential to create savings in the health system as well as offer equitable and timely access to scheduled medicines. Currently there is a lack of information about prescribing practices of Australian podiatrists, making it difficult to assess if endorsement for scheduled medicines (endorsement) for podiatrists provides health system efficiencies or improved patient access and outcomes. Further, the uptake for endorsement remains low among Australian podiatrists. The aim of this research was to investigate the prescribing practices among Australian podiatrists as well as to explore barriers and facilitators that influence participation in endorsement. MethodsParticipants in this quantitative, cross-sectional study were registered and practicing Australian podiatrists and podiatric surgeons who were recruited through a combination of professional networks, social media, and personal contacts. Respondents were invited to complete a customised self-reported online survey. The survey was developed using previously published research, research team’s expertise and piloted with podiatrists. The survey contained three sections: demographic data including clinical experience, questions pertaining to prescribing practices, and barriers and facilitators of the endorsement pathway. ResultsRespondents (n = 225) were predominantly female, aged 25-45, working in the private sector. Approximately one quarter were endorsed (15%) or in training to become endorsed (11%). Of the 168 non-endorsed respondents, 66% reported that they would like to undertake training to become an endorsed prescriber. The medications most frequently prescribed include local anaesthetics, antimycotics, antibacterial agents, and analgesia. The most common indications reported for prescribing these medications include nail surgery (71%), foot infections and ulcerations (88%), post-operative pain (67%), and mycosis (95%). The most prescribed Schedule 2 medications were ibuprofen, paracetamol, and topical terbinafine. The most prescribed Schedule 4 medicines among endorsed podiatrists included lignocaine (84%), Cephalexin (68%), Flucloxacillin (68%), and Amoxicillin with Clavulanic acid (61%). ConclusionWhile podiatrists predominantly prescribe to assist pain, inflammatory, or infectious conditions, lack of public funding and pathology testing access limit podiatrists’ ability to maximise prescribing opportunities. Many barriers exist in the current endorsement for podiatrists, particularly related to training processes, including mentor access and supervised practice opportunities, requiring targeted enabling strategies.

ĀKĀRAKARA AS DERMAL ANAESTHETIC

Nowadays, the role of local anaesthesia in the surgical field is highly appraisable. Local anaesthetics are the drugs that produce a loss of sensation over the localised areas without producing a loss of consciousness. Humans have been using various methods to block pain for thousands of years. Controlling pain during the śhastrakarma in śalyatantra has been always challenging. There has been the introduction of various methods of local anaesthetics since the origin of medical science, topical anaesthetics being one of them. Studies have been conducted to discover novel anaesthetic agents by various scholars. Herbal extracts do not stand far in the pathway of this search. Owing to these discoveries, 30% ethanolic extract gel of Ākārakara (Spilanthes calva DC.) is selected here as a topical anaesthetic to evaluate the efficacy in facilitating the management of warts by a painful procedure agnikarma. Keywords: Dermal anaesthetic, Ākārakara, Spilanthol

Review of Genetic Variants of Butyrylcholinesterase and Their Potential Impact on Human Health

Butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) is an enzyme found in plasma and many other parts of the body. It is enzyme that hydrolyses drugs containing ester bonds such as drugs acting at the neuromuscular junction (succinylcholine) and local anaesthetics (procaine). Examination of the gene for mutations or polymorphisms causing the observed biochemical phenotypes has isolated those responsible for all the most widely known variants. The molecular bases of several genetic variants of BChE have been reported, such as the Atypical variant, fluoride-resistant variant, silent variant, K variant, J variant and C5 variant. In general, BChE polymorphisms have been shown to produce enzymes with varying levels of catalytic activity. Genetic variants of human butyrylcholinesterase were one of the first examples in the new field of pharmacogenetics when it was recognized that abnormal response to the succinylcholine was due to a mutated enzyme with low binding affinity. Beside that, variant of BChE has potential impact for Alzheimer disease patology.