Search

Aims: To (i) assess the population mortality rates of cocaine‐related deaths in Australia, 2000 to 2021; (ii) determine the circumstances of death and case characteristics; and (iii) determine their toxicological profile. Design: Retrospective study of cocaine‐related deaths in Australia, 2000 to 2021, retrieved from the National Coronial Information System. Setting: Australia‐wide. Cases A total of 884 cases, mean age = 33.8 (SD, 10.0) years and 86.5% (n = 765) male. Measurements Information was collected on characteristics, manner of death and toxicology. Only cases in which the presence of blood cocaine and/or metabolites were included. Findings Population rates did not significantly increase during 2001–2011 (annual percentage change [APC] = 1.5; CI, −3.2, 6.5), but from 2012, there was a marked acceleration (APC = 20.0, 95% CI, 15.5, 25.3). Circumstances of death were unintentional drug toxicity (70.7%, n = 625), intentional self‐harm (17.8%, n = 157), traumatic accident (11.5%, n = 102). The proportion of cases constituted by unintentional toxicity declined across the study period (APC = −2.6; CI, −3.1, −2.1). There was a substantial decline in the proportion of cases with a history of injecting drug use (APC = −5.7; CI, −6.5, −4.9) and with a history of substance use problems (APC = −3.2; CI, −3.9, −2.5). Both cocaine (0.100 vs 0.050 mg/L, P < 0.001) and benzoylecgonine (0.590 vs 0.240 mg/L, P < 0.001) concentrations were higher amongst toxicity cases than in cases of death from traumatic injury. Cocaethylene was present in 26.4% (n = 233), levamisole in 18.6% (n = 164) and lignocaine in 11.5% (n = 102). Psychoactive drugs in addition to cocaine were present in 92.9% (n = 821), most commonly opioids (50.5%, n = 446), alcohol (47.1%, n = 416), hypnosedatives (43.2%, n = 382) and psychostimulants (30.3%, n = 268). There was a steady decline in the proportion of opioid positive cases (APC = −5.4; CI, −6.3, −4.5). Conclusions: There was a large increase in cocaine‐related deaths across Australia from 2000 to 2021. This was accompanied by changes in case profiles, with histories of injecting drug use and substance use problems, as well as recent opioid use, becoming less prominent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on randomized clinical trial comparing three different solutions for the treatment of adults with epigastric pain or dyspepsia presenting to the emergency department (ED). Topics icnlude the epigastric pain and dyspepsia in EDs around the world being typically treated with an antacid, and the patients has prescribed an antacid/lidocaine mixture by the treating emergency doctor were approached for enrollment.

Objective:Co-Phenylcaine Forte is a nasal spray routinely prescribed by otolaryngologists in Australia. The taste of Co-Phenylcaine Forte is typically described as unpleasant. This study sought to improve the overall patient experience associated with Co-Phenylcaine Forte by generating a Co-Phenylcaine Forte formulation, referred to as Co-Phenylcaine Zest, which contains an added vanilla flavour and masking agent.Methods:Participants were randomised to receive two actuations of Co-Phenylcaine Forte in each nostril followed by two actuations of Co-Phenylcaine Zest, or vice versa. There was a 6–36-hour washout period between each treatment. After the administration of each spray, participants completed a questionnaire to rate various sensory attributes of each formulation on seven-point ordinal scales. Patients reported their overall formulation preference after receiving both treatments.Results:A total of 86 participants completed the trial. Seventy-four per cent of patients preferred Co-Phenylcaine Zest, 21 per cent preferred Co-Phenylcaine Forte and 5 per cent had no preference (p < 0.001). The satisfaction score associated with Co-Phenylcaine Zest was 1.22 points greater than with Co-Phenylcaine Forte (p < 0.001).Conclusion:A novel formulation of Co-Phenylcaine Forte was created by adding a flavour and a masking agent; this formulation was preferred by most patients. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Intravenous lidocaine is effective in treating pain. Limited studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with cancer who received subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for pain. Patient characteristics, pain scores and opioid doses before and after lidocaine, and details of infusions were recorded. We identified three time periods of interest. T0 is defined as the 24-hour period immediately before commencing lidocaine treatment. T1 is defined as the 24-hour period before lidocaine was ceased. T2 is defined as the first 24-hour period after lidocaine was ceased. In addition, the overall impression of the effectiveness of lidocaine was subjectively evaluated by the authors. Results: Twenty patients (13M;7F) received lidocaine. Two patients received it twice, totaling 22 episodes. The median lidocaine dose was 0.67 mg/kg/h with the median duration being 5.5 days. The median worst pain score at T0 and T1 was 8.5 and 5.5, respectively. The difference in the mean pain scores was 3.2 95% CI (2.1, 4.4; p < 0.001). In 15/22 episodes (68%), patients experienced a decrease in pain scores of more than 2. The median morphine oral equivalent (MOE) daily doses at T0, T1, and T2 were 425, 362.5, and 275 mg, respectively. The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T1 was −126 (95% CI [−281, 28]; p = 0.13). The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T2 was −207 (95% CI [−370, −44]; p = 0.025). Lidocaine was subjectively deemed effective in 10/22 episodes (45%). There were no documented adverse events attributed to lidocaine. Univariate analyses did not identify any subgroups likely to benefit from lidocaine. Conclusion: Subcutaneous lidocaine infusions may be used safely in cancer pain management and is effective in some patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Postherpetic neuralgia ( PHN) occurs in approximately 10-20% of patients with herpes zoster, and the risk increases with age. In this clinical trial, we evaluated the analgesic properties of KAI-1678-an inhibitor of epsilon protein kinase C-in the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with PHN. Design. The study was a three-treatment period, double-blind, randomized, placebo and active comparator crossover trial evaluating subcutaneous infusions of KAI-1678 (25 mg), placebo, and lidocaine hydrochloride (700 mg; active comparator). Patients. A total of 17 men and 6 women ( N = 23) were enrolled after fulfilling diagnosis of PHN with pain persisting for ≥3 months after a segmental herpes zoster eruption. Patients had to have a mean average pain score of ≥4 points on an 11-point numerical rating scale ( NRS; ranging from 0 to 10) based on at least three daily entries prior to participation in the subsequent treatment period. Results. Overall, administration of KAI-1678 was generally safe and well tolerated. However, compared with placebo, KAI-1678 did not improve clinical pain scores as recorded using the NRS (0-10). In contrast, subcutaneous infusions of lidocaine were associated with a significant reduction in pain intensity at the end of the infusion. Conclusions. We conclude that KAI-1678 is not efficacious as an acute analgesic for chronic neuropathic pain because of PHN. However, for the first time, the results demonstrate that subcutaneous infusions of lidocaine are effective in treating neuropathic pain. The results of lidocaine treatment also indicate that the crossover study design was adequate to detect a clinically meaningful response in this analgesia study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on guidelines on medications and fluids which can be used in pediatric advanced life support which were developed in 2010 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the New Zealand Resuscitation Council. A discussion of factors which should be considered before administering medications and fluids during pediatric advanced life support is presented.

The article discusses methods, including defibrillation, oxygenation, ventilation and external cardiac compression, which can improve the chances for long term survival in cardiac arrest patients. A discussion of guidelines on the use of medications in cardiac arrest which were established in 2010 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the New Zealand Resuscitation Council is presented.

Objective To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eccentric loading exercises (ELE) with prolotherapy injections used singly and in combination for painful Achilles tendinosis. Design A single-blinded randomised clinical trial. The primary outcome measure was the VISA-A questionnaire with a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) of 20 points. Setting Five Australian primary care centres. Participants 43 patients with painful mid-portion Achilles tendinosis commenced and 40 completed treatment protocols. Interventions Participants were randomised to a 12-week program of ELE (n=15), or prolotherapy injections of hypertonic glucose with lignocaine alongside the affected tendon (n=14) or combined treatment (n=14). Main outcome measurements VISA-A, pain, stiffness and limitation of activity scores; treatment costs. Results At 12 months, proportions achieving the MCIC for VISA-A were 73% for ELE, 79% for prolotherapy and 86% for combined treatment. Mean (95% CI) increases in VISA-A scores at 12 months were 23.7 (15.6 to 31.9) for ELE, 27.5 (12.8 to 42.2) for prolotherapy and 41.1 (29.3 to 52.9) for combined treatment. At 6 weeks and 12 months, these increases were significantly less for ELE than for combined treatment. Compared with ELE, reductions in stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with prolotherapy and reductions in pain, stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with combined treatment. Combined treatment had the lowest incremental cost per additional responder ($A1539) compared with ELE. Conclusions For Achilles tendinosis, prolotherapy and particularly ELE combined with prolotherapy give more rapid improvements in symptoms than ELE alone but long-term VISA-A scores are similar. Trial registration number ACTRN: 12606000179538 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Local anesthetic pain-killing injections are commonly used by some professional football teams to allow continued play for certain injuries; however, the long-term safety of this practice has not been studied.Hypothesis: The majority of local anesthetic injections administered in professional football are helpful and safe, not leading to long-term sequelae.Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods: A retrospective survey was conducted of 100 players over 10 seasons who had been injected with local anesthetic on 1023 occasions for 307 injuries (81% follow-up; average follow-up, 5 years; minimum, 1 year). A comparison of match performance statistics was made from 3 seasons between players using and not using local anesthetic.Results: The majority (98%) of players would repeat the procedure if they had their injury again, although 32% felt that there were side effects associated with the procedure (including 22% who thought that the recovery of the primary injury was delayed and 6% who thought that the injury was worsened by playing with local anesthetic). On long-term follow-up, only 6% of players had significant residual pain in the body part injected. The satisfaction rates for acromioclavicular injuries, finger injuries, rib injuries, and iliac contusions were higher than for sternum injuries, wrist injuries, and ankle injuries. Player performance between those players injected and not injected with local anesthetic was not substantially different and mainly reflected a positional bias for the players who used local anesthetic.Conclusion: The most commonly injected injuries—acromioclavicular joint sprains, finger and rib injuries, and iliac crest contusions—appear to be quite safe (in the context of professional sport) to inject at long-term follow-up. Conversely, ankle, wrist, and sternum injections appear to be less safe. A few injuries may have been substantially worsened by playing after an injection. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: A pharmaceutical product was marketed in Australia for ‘teething’ in an almost identical container to a popular paediatric paracetamol preparation. The product contained lignocaine and chlorhexidine. The similarity of the packaging resulted in large number of therapeutic errors in which the ‘teething’ preparation was given in error for paracetamol. As the exact dose of the erroneously administered mouth paint was known this provided an opportunity for outcome assessment of lignocaine ingestion. Methods: Calls to two state poison information centres regarding this product were prospectively followed up. Information collected included: demographics, type of exposure, details of the exposure and adverse effects. A systematic review of the literature was used to identify all previous reported cases of lignocaine and chlorhexidine ingestion. Results: There were 28 cases with complete follow up where the product was given in therapeutic errors (10 girls and 18 boys; median age 11 months; range 2 months−4 years). The mean ingested dose of lignocaine was 2.7 mg/kg (standard deviation 1.3 mg) and chlorhexidine was 0.06 mg/kg (standard deviation 0.03 mg). The largest ingested lignocaine dose was 5.9 mg/kg. Two children developed minor symptoms: one vomited twice and the other was reported to have increased salivation and difficulty with solid food for 20 min. No other adverse effects were reported. The literature review suggested that severe effects occurred with doses more than 15 mg/kg. Conclusion: No major adverse effects occurred with lignocaine ingestions of less than 6 mg/kg and it would be appropriate to observe these patients at home. Chlorhexidine did not appear to cause clinical effects in this low concentration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioids have long been the mainstay of drugs used for intra-operative analgesia. Due to their well-known short and long term side effects, the use of non-opioid analgesics has often been encouraged to decrease the dose of opioid required and minimise these side effects. The trends in using non-opioid adjuvants among Australian Anaesthetists have not been examined before. This study has attempted to determine the use of non-opioid analgesics as part of an opioid sparing practice among anaesthetists across Australia and New Zealand. Methods: A survey was distributed to 985 anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand. The questions focused on frequency of use of different adjuvants and any reasons for not using individual agents. The agents surveyed were paracetamol, dexamethasone, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), tramadol, ketamine, anticonvulsants, intravenous lidocaine, systemic alpha 2 agonists, magnesium sulphate, and beta blockers. Descriptive statistics were used and data are expressed as a percentage of response for each drug. Results: The response rate was 33.4%. Paracetamol was the most frequently used; with 72% of the respondents describing frequent usage (defined as usage above 70% of the time); followed by parecoxib (42% reported frequent usage) and dexamethasone (35% reported frequent usage). Other adjuvants were used much less commonly, with anaesthetists reporting their frequent usage at less than 10%. The majority of respondents suggested that they would never consider dexmedetomidine, magnesium, esmolol, pregabalin or gabapentin. Perceived disincentives for the use of analgesic adjuvants varied. The main concerns were side effects, lack of evidence for benefit, and anaesthetists' experience. The latter two were the major factors for magnesium, dexmedetomidine and esmolol. Conclusion: The uptake of tramadol, lidocaine and magnesium amongst respondents from anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand was poor. Gabapentin, pregabalin, dexmedetomidine and esmolol use was relatively rare. Most anaesthetists need substantial evidence before introducing a non-opioid adjuvant into their routine practice. Future trials should focus on assessing the opioid sparing benefits and relative risk of using individual non-opioid adjuvants in the perioperative period for specific procedures and patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lidocaine-based teething gels have been widely available in Australia for decades in both commercial preparations and those compounded by pharmacies. However, many case reports have highlighted potential risks and toxicity associated with lidocaine-based teething gels when used in infants and young children, including seizures, respiratory arrest and death. The Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry and the American Academy of Paediatrics do not recommend topical agents for teething, and the US Food and Drug Administration does not recommend topical lidocaine for this purpose due to concerns of toxicity. Literature supporting the efficacy of lidocaine for teething is scant and difficult to interpret due to the flawed design of the trials conducted and varied formulations used. This opinion article aims to summarise the available literature showing the limited effectiveness and associated risks of topical lidocaine gels for use in teething. In light of these findings, the authors recommend that regulatory bodies such as the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration review the efficacy and safety of this type of medicine and consider removing the indication for teething or limiting the age of use to older children., (© 2020 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

The article warns about the process of diluting Xylocaine® 10 percent pump spray for topical airway anaesthesia. Physicians in Australia have been advised to dilute the drug due to shortage of 4 percentage Xylocaine® Topical. Upon dilution, the authors observed a white crystalline formation. The authors claim that a suitable alternative for Xylocaine® is Xylocard®500. They emphasize the need for physicians to choose their base solution of lignocaine wisely.

QUESTION Are topical aqueous 2% lignocaine (lidocaine) eardrops effective for relieving ear pain in children with acute otitis media (AOM)? METHODS Design: randomised placebo controlled trial. Allocation: {concealed}. Blinding: blinded (children, parents, clinicians administering treatment, and outcome assessors). Follow-up period: primary outcome was assessed at 10, 20, and 30 minutes. Setting: emergency department (ED) of a children's hospital in Australia. Patients: 63 children 3-17 years of age (mean age 6 y, 51% girls) who had ear pain lasting <3 days and signs of AOM (tympanic membrane with erythema, dullness, and bulging appearance). Children with evidence of tympanic membrane perforation, ventilation tubes in situ, allergy to local anaesthetic or paracetamol, epilepsy, or liver, renal, or cardiac disease were excluded. Intervention: 3 drops of topical aqueous 2% lignocaine (n = 31) or placebo (saline) (n = 32) instilled in the painful ear with the child lying with the ear upward for 5 minutes. Children who had not received analgesia in the previous 4 hours were offered paracetamol, 15 mg/kg. Families were sent home with the assigned drops and instructed to use ≤3 drops/hour for ear soreness for ≤ 24 hours and to stop use if ear discharge occurred. Outcomes: 50% reduction in patient-reported pain scores (Bieri Faces Pain Scale-Revised for children ≤6 y of age or visual analogue scale for children ≥7 y of age). Secondary outcomes included 25% reduction in pain scores. Patient follow-up: 100% (intention-to-treat analysis). MAIN RESULTS More children in the lignocaine group than in the placebo group reported a 50% reduction in pain at 10 and 30 minutes and a 25% reduction at 10, 20, and 30 minutes (table). CONCLUSION Topical aqueous 2% lignocaine eardrops reduced pain in children with acute otitis media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]