
==== Front
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology
ALN
Anesthesiology
0003-3022
1528-1175
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD

39254541
ALN-D-24-00799
00010
10.1097/ALN.0000000000005133
3
Editorial
Liposomal Bupivacaine in Peripheral Nerve Blocks: Duration and Meaningful Differences
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6144-3273
Ilfeld Brian M. M.D., M.S. bilfeld@health.ucsd.edu
1
Sessler Daniel I. M.D. ds@or.org
2
1 Department of Anesthesiology and Outcomes Research Consortium, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California.
2 Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Address correspondence to Dr. Ilfeld: bilfeld@health.ucsd.edu
09 9 2024
10 2024
141 4 638642
17 6 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., on behalf of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

OPEN-ACCESSTRUE
==== Body
pmc“[T]he clinical meaningfulness of group differences in pain scores cannot alone determine the overall clinical importance of that difference: tolerability, safety, convenience, durability of benefits, and cost along with a host of additional factors must be considered including comparisons with alternatives.”

Image: J. P. Rathmell.

Postoperative pain usually lasts considerably longer than the duration of plain bupivacaine HCl when used for single-injection peripheral nerve blocks, even with unapproved additives such as epinephrine, clonidine, and steroids. A formulation of bupivacaine HCl within liposomes (Exparel, Pacira BioSciences, USA) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Silver Spring, Maryland) for use in interscalene, adductor canal, transversus abdominis plane, and popliteal–sciatic nerve blocks. Pacira proposes that liposomal bupivacaine lasts 48 to 72 h, which far exceeds the duration of plain bupivacaine (usually less than 24 h). However, the extent to which liposomal bupivacaine prolongs analgesia remains controversial.1–5 A trial by Chan et al. in this issue of Anesthesiology helps us understand this potentially transformative local anesthetic.6

Chan et al. evaluated 80 patients having distal radial fracture fixation with a supraclavicular brachial plexus block who were randomized to bupivacaine hydrochloride (20 ml of 0.5%) or a combination of bupivacaine hydrochloride (10 ml of 0.5%) and liposomal bupivacaine (10 ml of 1.3%).6 The primary outcome was weighted area under the pain-at-rest curve (AUC) during the initial 48 postoperative hours. As defined by the authors, weighted AUC is AUC divided by the monitoring period, which is generally referred to as time-weighted average. Addition of liposomal bupivacaine improved weighted AUC compared with standard bupivacaine: 0.6 versus 1.4 points (P < 0.001). This result raises two fundamental questions. The first is whether weighted AUC adequately characterizes the temporal nature of pain. And the second is whether the improvement was clinically meaningful.

Pain AUC and Treatment Duration

AUC is widely used to characterize outcomes that vary over time. Often it is the best single summary. For example, area is commonly used to collapse duration and magnitude of desaturation or hypotension into a single value. But a disadvantage is that by collapsing results over time, temporal resolution is lost—resolution that may be particularly important when the underlying clinical question is whether liposomal bupivacaine prolongs analgesia duration. Since liposomal bupivacaine costs about 100 times as much as standard bupivacaine, how much longer the drug lasts is of substantial interest.

A problem with AUC is illustrated in two pivotal liposomal bupivacaine trials that led to Food and Drug Administration approval.5 Each randomized patients having bunionectomy or hemorrhoidectomy to infiltration of the surgical site with either liposomal bupivacaine or a placebo. Both reported statistically significant differences in their primary endpoint, AUC pain scores for the first 48 and 72 h, respectively, leading to claims of a 48- to 72-h benefit.5 Subsequently, after reviewing the primary data set (fig. 1), the Food and Drug Administration concluded that “the two treatments (bupivacaine liposomal and placebo) differed significantly and clinically only during the first 24 h.”5 Their reasoning was that while AUC differed significantly at 48 and 72 h compared with placebo, essentially all the difference accrued during the initial 12 to 24 h, where even plain bupivacaine would be expected to provide substantial analgesia. This example illustrates that while AUC is a reasonable estimate of aggregate effect over time, the metric can be misleading when outcomes vary directionally over time—and thus poorly estimates benefit duration.

Fig. 1. Pain intensity versus time plot showing the difference in effect on mean ± SD pain with liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo for (A) hemorrhoidectomy and (B) bunionectomy surgical site infiltration. Note that while the primary outcomes were the area under the curve for the first 72 and 48 h, respectively, and were positive for each, no differences were found at individual time points after 24 h. In other words, although liposomal bupivacaine was not found superior to placebo after the first 24 postoperative hours, the positive primary outcomes implied a duration of 48 to 72 h. Reproduced from Ilfeld. Anesthesiology 2021; 134:283–344.

To their credit, Chan et al. provide day-by-day outcomes. Pain scores with liposomal bupivacaine were significantly lower (better) on postoperative day 1, with mean values at rest being 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8) versus 1.9 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.5) points (P < 0.001) on the numeric rating scale.6 An even larger difference was detected for pain during movement on postoperative day 1, with mean values being 2.7 (95% CI, 2.0 to 3.3) versus 4.9 (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) points (P < 0.001). Importantly, though, there were no significant difference in pain scores at rest or with movement on any subsequent day. Nor were there any differences in opioid consumption, which matters because rescue opioid use can mask an ineffective local anesthetic approach. By the second postoperative day, pain scores no longer differed significantly (with correction for multiple comparisons): 0.9 versus 1.3 points at rest and 2.8 versus 3.7 points with movement. The results of the study by Chan et al. thus provide weak evidence for a prolonged benefit from liposomal bupivacaine.

Statistical Significance versus Clinical Meaning

This brings us to our second question: What difference should be considered clinically meaningful? Here we distinguish between statistical significance (very roughly how likely the results are to be correct) and what magnitude might reasonably matter to patients and clinicians. The first can be calculated; the second is based on myriad factors in addition to patient perception including treatment cost, potential toxicity, and clinical judgment. Both statistical significance and clinical meaning are important since statistically significant findings can be of trivial magnitude (especially in observational research with large data sets) and findings can be clinically meaningful without being statistically significant (as in marginally powered trials).

Determining clinically meaningful differences requires distinguishing individuals from treatment populations, or groups. How to estimate the smallest improvements in analgesia important to individuals is well described (fig. 2).7 For example, the minimum improvement in numeric rating scale deemed meaningful for individual patients with acute pain is thought to be 1.0 to 2.0 points.8–12 However, trials aggregate results into groups of patients, and what intergroup difference is clinically meaningful remains poorly characterized.13 Somewhat confusingly, the smallest change that is important to individual patients cannot be extrapolated to the evaluation of differences between groups in clinical trials.14–17 While covered in detail elsewhere,7,13,14,18,19 in general, the minimum meaningful analgesic improvement between groups of patients is smaller than for individual patients. Consequently, if intergroup differences are compared to meaningful thresholds based on individual preferences, worthwhile medications/interventions might inappropriately be dismissed as clinically unimportant.

Fig. 2. A hypothetical example of an “anchor-based” method to determine the smallest improvement in analgesia that individual patients consider relevant or important. This example is simplified to convey the general concept; reality is (unfortunately) more complex. Adapted from Ilfeld. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2022; 47:395–400 (used with permission).13

For example, consider a situation in which a decrease of 2 points on the 0 to 10 numeric rating scale is considered clinically meaningful by individuals.12 It is easy to imagine a situation in which a substantial fraction of treated patients have pain reductions of 2 points or more but the average reduction across the population (group) remains less than 2 points (fig. 3).18 Additional examples of why clinical differences deemed relevant to individual patients cannot be extrapolated to the evaluation of differences between groups in clinical trials include the placebo effect, spontaneous resolution, and regression to the mean (fig. 4).14–17

Fig. 3. A hypothetical example of extrapolating the smallest change that is important to individual patients to the evaluation of group differences. This example is simplified to convey the general concept; reality is (unfortunately) more complex. Adapted from Ilfeld. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2022; 47:395–400 (used with permission).13

Fig. 4. A hypothetical example of how the placebo effect decreases the smallest important difference between two groups. This example is simplified to convey the general concept; reality is (unfortunately) more complex. The placebo effect can influence the group of participants receiving active treatment; however, the effect is far greater on the group receiving placebo. NRS, numeric rating scale. Adapted from Ilfeld. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2022; 47:395–400 (used with permission).13

Do the between-group differences of 1.4 to 2.2 reported by Chan et al. indicate a meaningful analgesic improvement to the participants? We believe that they do because (1) the minimum improvement in numeric rating scale deemed meaningful for individual patients with acute pain has been estimated to be 1.0 to 2.0 points8–12; and (2) clinically relevant differences between group means tend to be smaller than for individual patients13,14,18,20; thus, the results suggest that the benefit to trial participants was clinically meaningful on postoperative day 1.13 Consistent with this theory is the observation that during the first 24 h, only 28% of participants given liposomal bupivacaine experienced moderate or severe pain (numeric rating scale, 4 or more) compared with 68% for the bupivacaine-only group. Furthermore, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with lower Overall Benefit of Analgesia Scores during the first 48 h (although not on individual days).

Additional Considerations

While the analgesic improvement from liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative day 1 suggests that the patients themselves valued the difference, determining overall clinical importance requires considering additional factors. For example, acetaminophen produces minimal—if any—benefits after knee and hip arthroplasty,21,22 yet remains included in every Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol because there are few reasons to not include it. Conversely, an analgesic with a greater risk of side effects or toxicity will usually require a greater analgesic benefit to be considered warranted. These examples demonstrate that the clinical meaningfulness of group differences in pain scores cannot alone determine the overall clinical importance of that difference: tolerability, safety, convenience, durability of benefits, and cost along with a host of additional factors must be considered including comparisons with alternatives.18 Fortunately, the available evidence suggests there to be little difference between unencapsulated and liposomal bupivacaine for most of these considerations,1,23 leaving cost as the primary differentiating factor. Due to differing clinical scenarios and financial priorities—among other issues—various clinicians, administrators, payers, and researchers will likely draw differing conclusions on the value of adding liposomal bupivacaine.

Conclusions

Chan et al. evaluated liposomal bupivacaine for supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks (a use that is not currently Food and Drug Administration approved). Based on 48-h pain score–weighted AUC (time-weighted average), they conclude that “addition of liposomal bupivacaine in the supraclavicular brachial plexus block reduced postoperative pain at rest in the first 48 h after distal radial fracture surgery compared to standard bupivacaine alone.” Analysis of daily pain scores reveals a more nuanced picture in which benefit was largely restricted to the first day and was of a clinically meaningful magnitude to the participants. There was considerably less benefit on the second postoperative day. Whether the observed benefit justifies the additional cost of encapsulated bupivacaine will depend on circumstances. We also note that the amount and duration of analgesia from liposomal bupivacaine are context sensitive and will presumably differ for other nerve blocks and infiltration applications. We look forward to additional trials comparing liposomal and plain bupivacaine for various uses.

Competing Interests

Dr. Ilfeld’s institution has received funding and/or product from Epimed International (Dallas, Texas), SPR Therapeutics (Cleveland, Ohio), Infutronix (Natick, Massachusetts), Masimo (Irvine, California), Varian Medical Systems (Palo Alto, California), and Avanos Medical (Irvine, California). Dr. Ilfeld was a consultant to Pacira Pharmaceuticals (Parsippany, New Jersey) before 2014. Dr. Sessler is a consultant for Pacira Biosciences, a company that funds trials conducted in Outcomes Research, Department of Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, Ohio).

This editorial accompanies the article on p. 732.

The article processing charge was funded by the Department of Anesthesiology, University of California-San Diego.
==== Refs
References

1. Ilfeld BM Eisenach JC Gabriel RA : Clinical effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine administered by infiltration or peripheral nerve block to treat postoperative pain. Anesthesiology 2021; 134 :283–344 33372949
2. Abildgaard JT Chung AS Tokish JM Hattrup SJ : Clinical efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine: A systematic review of prospective, randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev 2019; 7 :e8
3. McCann ME : Liposomal bupivacaine: Effective, cost-effective, or (just) costly? Anesthesiology 2021; 134 :139–42 33433621
4. Shafer SL : Letter to the editor on “Local infiltration analgesia with liposomal bupivacaine improves pain scores and reduces opioid use after total knee arthroplasty: Results of a randomized controlled trial.” J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 :2694
5. Noviasky J Pierce DP Whalen K Guharoy R Hildreth K : Bupivacaine liposomal versus bupivacaine: Comparative review. Hosp Pharm 2014; 49 :539–43 24958971
6. Chan TCW Wong JSH Wang F : Addition of liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine versus standard bupivacaine alone in the supraclavicular brachial plexus block: A randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2024; 141 :732–44 38696340
7. Dworkin RH Turk DC Wyrwich KW : Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008; 9 :105–21 18055266
8. Myles PS Myles DB Galagher W : Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: The minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Br J Anaesth 2017; 118 :424–9 28186223
9. Cepeda MS Africano JM Polo R Alcala R Carr DB : What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? Pain 2003; 105 :151–7 14499431
10. Todd KH Funk KG Funk JP Bonacci R : Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity. Ann Emerg Med 1996; 27 :485–9 8604867
11. Gallagher EJ Liebman M Bijur PE : Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38 :633–8 11719741
12. Farrar JT Berlin JA Strom BL : Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: A validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003; 25 :406–11 12727037
13. Ilfeld BM : Why science is less scientific than we think (and what to do about it): The 2022 Gaston Labat Award Lecture. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2022; 47 :395–400 35365548
14. Dworkin RH McDermott MP Raja SN : Preventing chronic postsurgical pain: How much of a difference makes a difference? Anesthesiology 2010; 112 :516–8 20124976
15. Cella D Bullinger M Scott C Barofsky I : Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G: Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77 :384–92 11936936
16. Chin KJ : Erector spinae plane and paravertebral blocks have similar opioid-sparing effects following breast surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2020; 45 :940–1
17. Ilfeld BM Donohue MC Swisher MW : Response to: ‘Erector spinae plane and paravertebral blocks have similar opioid-sparing effects following breast surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2020; 45 :941–2
18. Dworkin RH Turk DC McDermott MP : Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2009; 146 :238–44 19836888
19. Munoz-Leyva F El-Boghdadly K Chan V : Is the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in acute pain a good measure of analgesic efficacy in regional anesthesia? Reg Anesth Pain Med 2020; 45 :1000–5 32900985
20. Myles PS Myles DB : Conflating effect size and minimal clinically important difference. Comment on Br J Anaesth 2021; 126: 1029-37. Br J Anaesth 2022; 128 :e1–2 34656325
21. Thybo KH Hagi-Pedersen D Dahl JB : Effect of combination of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen vs either alone on patient-controlled morphine consumption in the first 24 hours after total hip arthroplasty: The PANSAID randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 321 :562–71 30747964
22. Wang Q Ma T Wang L Zhao C Kang P : Efficacy of adding acetaminophen to preemptive multimodal analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: A double-blinded randomized study. Orthop Surg 2023; 15 :2283–90 37403525
23. Ilfeld BM Viscusi ER Hadzic A : Safety and side effect profile of liposome bupivacaine (Exparel) in peripheral nerve locks. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2015; 40 :572–82 26204387
