Purpose of Review Effective acute pain management has evolved considerably in recent years and is a primary area of focus in attempts to defend against the opioid epidemic. Persistent postsurgical pain (PPP) has an incidence of up to 30-50% and has negative outcome of quality of life and negative burden on individuals, family, and society. The 2016 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines states that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) forms an integral part of Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH) and is now recommended to use a multimodal opioid-sparing approach for management of postoperative pain. As such, dexmedetomidine is now being used as part of ERAS protocols along with regional nerve blocks and other medications, to create a satisfactory postoperative outcome with reduced opioid consumption in the Post anesthesia care unit (PACU). Recent Findings Dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha 2 agonist, possesses analgesic effects and has a different mechanism of action when compared with opioids. When dexmedetomidine is initiated at the end of a procedure, it has a better hemodynamic stability and pain response than ropivacaine. Dexmedetomidine can be used as an adjuvant in epidurals with local anesthetic sparing effects. Its use during nerve blocks results in reduced postoperative pain. Also, local infiltration of IV dexmedetomidine is associated with earlier discharge from PACU. Summary Perioperative use of dexmedetomidine has significantly improved postoperative outcomes when used as part of ERAS protocols. An in-depth review of the use of dexmedetomidine in ERAS protocols is presented for clinical anesthesiologists.

No abstract

Background: Acotiamide is a novel prokinetic drug that acts by enhancing the release of acetylcholine and is used in the treatment of functional dyspepsia-postprandial distress syndrome (FD-PDS). Mosapride is indicated to FD-PDS as per the Rome III treatment guidelines. Mosapride 5 mg three times daily (TID) is approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) for the treatment of FD-PDS. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of Acotiamide in comparison with Mosapride on FD-PDS.Methods: The 220 patients of either gender (aged 18-64 years) with active PDS included in the study were centrally randomized 1:1 to receive either 100 mg Acotiamide (test product) or 5 mg Mosapride (reference product) TID for four weeks. Responder rates for the overall treatment effect (OTE) at the end of four weeks were the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the elimination rate of postprandial fullness, upper abdominal bloating, and early satiation. The study also evaluated the OTE at each week, individual symptom scores, and quality of life (QoL) assessed by the Short Form-Nepean Dyspepsia Index questionnaire (SF-NDI). The safety endpoints included assessments of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).Results: At the end of four weeks, the responders in the Acotiamide versus Mosapride group for OTE was 98% versus 93.27% in the per-protocol (PP) population. Among the intent to treat (ITT) population, the comparison of Acotiamide versus Mosapride stood at 95.15% versus 89.81%. Secondary efficacy endpoints were significantly improved with 100 mg TID Acotiamide, which was evident from the improvement in postprandial fullness (14.56%), upper abdominal bloating (15.53%), early satiation (10.68%), and QoL (13.7 ± 4.67).Conclusions: Our study results demonstrated that Acotiamide is effective, safe, and well-tolerated and had significantly improved the QoL over a four-week treatment period in FD-PDS patients. The efficacy and safety profiles of Acotiamide were similar to Mosapride.

BackgroundDarbepoetin alfa (DA-α) is a long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating glycoprotein which has half-life three-fold longer than that of Erythropoietin alfa (EPO). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DA-α injection versus EPO for treating renal anemia amongst Indian patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis.MethodsPatients of either gender (aged 18–65 years) with ESRD undergoing dialysis who had hemoglobin (Hb) levels < 10 g/dL after receiving EPO were switched to DA-α (0.45 μg/kg) once weekly subcutaneously or EPO 50 IU/kg thrice weekly subcutaneously (centrally randomized 1:1) for 12–24 weeks (correction phase) followed by 12 weeks maintenance phase (for Hb levels ≥10 g/dL). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in Hb level from baseline to end of correction phase.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat population (n = 126), the between group difference in mean Hb change was − 0.01 g/dL (95% CI – 0.68 to − 0.66, p = 0.97). After adjusting for covariates, the difference was − 0.2878 g/dL (95% CI -0.936 to0.360). The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of primary endpoint was above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of − 1.0 g/dL. Similar trend of non-inferiority was observed for per-protocol population. Safety profile of DA-α and EPO were observed to be similar.ConclusionOur study results demonstrated that for patients with ESRD undergoing dialysis, administering DA-α at lower dose frequency, is equally effective and well tolerated as EPO for treating renal anemia.Trial registrationCTRI/2012/07/002835 [Registered on: 27/07/2012]; Trial Registered Prospectively.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Our study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of Hetero’s adalimumab (Mabura®, Hetero Biopharma Limited) versus reference adalimumab (Humira®, Abbvie Inc.) in Indian patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) concomitant on methotrexate (MTX) therapy. Methods Patients (n = 168) were randomized (2:1) to receive either test or reference product for 24 weeks with concomitant MTX. Proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) criteria at week 12 was the primary endpoint. Changes in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints–C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and patients achieving ACR20 at week 24, ACR50/70 at weeks 12 and 24 were secondary endpoints. Results Patients achieving ACR20 responses with test (96.43%) were similar to reference (96.43%) in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis at week 12. Proportional difference (PD) between groups (PD [95% CI] 0.0 [− 6.0, 6.0], p = 1.000) for ACR20 at week 12 for ITT analysis showed lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was above the pre-specified noninferiority margin of − 15%. Similar trend in PP analysis (PD [95% CI] 0.0 [− 0.03, 0.07], p = 1.000), confirmed therapeutic equivalence. No significant difference was noted between arms for patients attaining ACR20 at week 24 and ACR50/70 at weeks 12 and 24 (all p > 0.05). DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI were similar between groups. Total of 54 patients reported 88 AEs during the study. Out of these, 60 AEs were reported in 34 patients with Hetero-Adalimumab and 28 AEs were reported in 20 patients with Reference-Adalimumab. Total two patients, one in each group reported two serious adverse events (Sinusitis and Viral infection) during the study and resolved completely. No deaths and no life threatening AEs were reported. Conclusion Results demonstrated Hetero’s adalimumab is as effective and well tolerated as reference adalimumab in patients with active RA concomitantly on MTX therapy. Trial registration CTRI/2016/04/006884, Registered on 28/04/2016.

BackgroundDepression is a leading cause of psychiatric morbidity in the modern world, and the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a revolution in the treatment of depression. Vilazodone, a novel SSRI and 5-HT1A partial agonist, received FDA approval in 2011 to treat the major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study conducted in India aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vilazodone when compared to escitalopram or placebo in patients with MDD. MethodsThis was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, comparative study of 375 participants over eight weeks of treatment with either vilazodone (10-40mg/day) or escitalopram (10-40 mg/day) or placebo in adult patients with MDD. Primary efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17); secondary efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score. Safety parameters included adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory results, vital signs, electrocardiogram ( ECG), and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). ResultsMean change in the HAM-D-17 total score from baseline to week 8 for vilazodone, escitalopram, and placebo-treated patients in intent-to-treat (ITT) population was: