Prospective study on prevalence, intensity, type, and therapy of acute pain in a second-level urban emergency department

Adverse Reactions Following First-Dose Administration of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol Alone for Moderate-To-Severe Acute Pain

INTRODUCTION

Phase 3 clinical trials in moderate-to-severe acute pain have shown that co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) has improved efficacy and comparable tolerability versus immediate-release tramadol 50 mg alone, with a similar tramadol daily dose, over a 48-h treatment period. However, it is not known how first-dose tolerability compares, given that the administered dose of tramadol is higher in CTC 200 mg (88 mg) versus immediate-release tramadol 50 mg. This was explored in a post hoc analysis of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain (NCT03108482) and has been previously reported. This post hoc analysis evaluated the prevalence of the four most common study drug-related, opioid-associated, treatment-emergent adverse reactions reported in phase 3 CTC clinical trials: somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. Prevalence was evaluated in 2-h intervals, up to 6 h post first dose (just before second-dose administration) of CTC 200 mg or immediate-release tramadol 50 mg p.o. Descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Each group comprised 183 participants for analysis. The proportions of patients reporting drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse reactions of somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting were similar between treatment groups at 2, 4, and 6 h following the first dose.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis indicates that the higher dose of tramadol (88 mg) given in CTC 200 mg did not result in an increase in drug-related adverse reactions after first-dose administration, and had a similar tolerability profile, compared with immediate-release tramadol 50 mg alone (the lowest dose recommended for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain). This is in line with earlier findings for the 48-h treatment period of this phase 3 trial and may be explained by CTC's differentiated physiochemical properties related to its co-crystal structure. These findings may have utility for practicing clinicians.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03108482.

Safety of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) in Patients with Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain: Pooled Analysis of Three Phase 3 Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

Multi-modal analgesia is desirable for the management of acute pain since it can provide effective pain relief at lower doses, thereby aiding tolerability. Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) provides effective analgesia in models of acute pain. Co-crystallization can alter the pharmacokinetics of individual components, potentially improving tolerability. We sought to better understand the safety and tolerability of CTC in patients with acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled analysis of safety data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials in adults with acute moderate-to-severe pain following oral surgery, bunionectomy, and elective abdominal hysterectomy. We present data for CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) and its comparators: tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID) (one trial), tramadol 100 mg QID (two trials), celecoxib 100 mg BID (two trials), and placebo (three trials).

RESULTS

In total, n = 551 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, n = 183 received tramadol 50 mg QID, n = 368 received tramadol 100 mg QID, n = 388 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and n = 274 received placebo. The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to study drug up to 48 h was numerically lower with CTC 200 mg BID (35.9%) than with tramadol 50 mg QID (47.5%) and 100 mg QID (44.8%) but greater than with celecoxib 100 mg BID (12.4%) and placebo (20.4%). The most frequent AEs related to study drug up to 48 h were somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting, which occurred more frequently in patients receiving tramadol 100 mg QID than in those receiving CTC 200 mg BID.

CONCLUSION

CTC 200 mg BID appears to be better tolerated than tramadol 100 mg QID, possibly because of reduced total exposure to tramadol. This may contribute to a more favorable benefit-risk profile for CTC versus individual components, making it a promising treatment for acute pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03108482, NCT02982161 (EudraCT: 2016-000592-24), NCT03062644 (EudraCT: 2016-000593-38).

Acupuncture in the emergency department (ACUITY): Results from a BraveNet multi-center feasibility randomized controlled trial

Background

Pain plays a significant role in emergency department (ED) visits, however safe and effective nonpharmacologic options are needed. Prior studies of acupuncture in the ED reported pain reduction with minimal side effects, but most were small and single site.

Methods

We conducted ACUITY, a prospectively designed multi-center feasibility RCT. Our goal was to recruit 165 adults with acute non-emergent pain ≥4 on a 0-10-point scale at three EDs affiliated with BraveNet Practice Based Research Network. At baseline and 45-60 min later (post), participants self-assessed their pain and anxiety using a 0-10 rating scale. The primary feasibility outcome was recruitment of participants, whereas secondary outcomes were retention, and participant/provider acceptability.

Results

From May 3, 2021, to September 24, 2022, 632 eligible individuals were approached and 165 enrolled (165/632: 26.1 %), meeting our recruitment goal. Notably, 42.4 % of enrollees were Black/African American, 42.4 % were White/Caucasian, and 13.9 % were Hispanic/Latino. Participants were randomized to Acupuncture (n = 83) or Usual care (n = 82), of which 151 (91.5 %) and 128 (77.6 %) provided pain and anxiety scores at post-treatment and 1-week respectively. Acupuncture was rated acceptable to participants and providers. Mean pain ratings (pre-to-post) were 7.4 (2.2) to 4.8 (2.8) for acupuncture and 7.1 (2.3) to 6.4 (2.5) for usual care. Mean anxiety ratings (pre-to-post) were 4.5 (3.4) to 2.5 (2.6) for acupuncture and 4.1 (3.4) to 3.5 (3.2) for usual care.

Conclusion

Successful completion of ACUITY indicates we have the expertise and preliminary data to conduct a future definitive, multi-center RCT.

Trial registration Clinical trialsgov

NCT04880733.

Improving pain management for trauma patients at two Rwandan emergency departments

Background

Little is known regarding the effectiveness of pain protocols and guideline use in Emergency Departments (ED) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, to shed light on this research gap, this study had the following objectives: 1) to evaluate if the implementation of the Essential Pain Management (EPM) course combined with mentorship to use the World Health Organization (WHO) pain ladder-based protocol improves the quality of pain management among trauma patients at the ED of two teaching hospitals in Rwanda; and 2) to determine barriers to implementing the WHO pain ladder-based protocol among trauma patients in the same settings.

Methods

This was a pre- and post-intervention study. The intervention was 1-day essential pain management training for ED clinical staff followed by 1 week mentorship on the use of the WHO pain ladder-based protocol.

Results

We enrolled 261 patients (47.5% pre versus 52.5% post intervention), most of them were aged between 21 and 40 (60% pre versus 33% post intervention), and male (76% pre versus 73% post intervention). The quality of pain management at the ED improved as shown by the decrease of the number of patients with undocumented pain scores from 58% to 24% after the intervention (p-value > 0.001) and the increase of the number of patients with mild pain from 37% to 62% (p-value > 0.001). In addition, patients who were satisfied with the quality of pain management increased significantly from 42% before the intervention to 80% (p-value > 0.001). Barriers to the implementation of the WHO pain ladder-based protocol were identified related to staff (i.e. inadequate experience), to the hospital (i.e. poor documentation), and to patients (i.e. reluctance to report pain).

Conclusion

The implementation of the EPM course along with mentorship to use the WHO pain ladder-based protocol significantly improved the quality of pain management for trauma patients in EDs of both referral hospitals. Despite this, some barriers remain unfixed such as inadequate staff experience, poor documentation, and patient's reluctance to report pain. Appropriate interventions should be implemented to address the identified barriers and ensure adequate pain management for patients admitted at EDs in public hospitals in Rwanda.

Fidelity to the acupuncture intervention protocol in the ACUpuncture In The EmergencY department for pain management (ACUITY) trial: Expanding the gold standard of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines

Background

Acupuncture shows promise as an effective nonpharmacologic option for reduction of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). Following CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally report intervention details and acupoint options, but fidelity to acupuncture interventions, critical to reliability in intervention research, is rarely reported.

Methods

ACUITY is an NCCIH-funded, multi-site feasibility RCT of acupuncture in 3 EDs (Cleveland, Nashville, and San Diego). ACUITY acupuncturists were trained in study design, responsive acupuncture manualization protocol, logistics and real-time recording of session details via REDCap forms created to track fidelity.

Results

Across 3 recruiting sites, 79 participants received acupuncture: 51 % women, 43 % Black/African American, with heterogeneous acute pain sites at baseline: 32 % low back, 22 % extremity, 20 % abdominal, 10 % head. Pragmatically, participants were treated in ED common areas (52 %), private rooms (39 %), and semi-private rooms (9 %). Objective tracking found 98 % adherence to the six components of the acupuncture manualization protocol: staging, number of insertion points (M = 13.2, range 2-22), needle retention time (M = 23.5 min, range 4-52), session length (M = 40.3 min, range 20-66), whether general recommendations were provided and completion of the session form.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to assess and report fidelity to an acupuncture protocol. Fidelity monitoring will be fundamental for ACUITY2, which would be a future definitive, multi-site RCT. Furthermore, we recommend that fidelity to acupuncture interventions be added to CONSORT and STRICTA reporting guidelines in future RCTs.

Protocol registration

The protocol of this study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04880733.

Efficacy of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) in Patients with Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain: A Pooled Analysis of Data from Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

New acute pain medications are needed that provide effective analgesia while minimizing side effects and opioid exposure. Clinical trials of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) have demonstrated an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol or celecoxib alone. We pooled data from two phase 3 clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) in acute moderate-to-severe pain.

METHODS

Efficacy data were pooled from STARDOM1 [acute pain following oral surgery (NCT02982161)] and ESTEVE-SUSA-301 [acute pain following bunionectomy (NCT03108482)]. The primary efficacy outcome was sum of pain intensity difference from 0 to 48 h (SPID0-48).

RESULTS

A total of 344 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, 342 received tramadol 50 or 100 mg four times a day, 181 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and 172 received placebo. The least-squares mean difference in SPID0-48 was -21.8 (p = 0.002) for CTC versus tramadol and -72.8 (p < 0.001) for CTC versus placebo. A similar pattern of SPID0-48 was observed with CTC versus comparator whether patients had moderate or severe pain at baseline. Reduction in pain intensity was faster and reached mild intensity earlier with CTC versus comparators. Patients were significantly (p ≤ 0.005) less likely to receive rescue medication within 4 or 48 h with CTC compared with tramadol or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis reinforces the efficacy profile of CTC versus tramadol and, given that CTC permits lower daily tramadol dosing and thereby reduces unnecessary opioid use, this highlights its improved benefit/risk profile and its potential for the management of moderate-to-severe pain.

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) for acute moderate-to-severe pain

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review aims to provide a clinical perspective on the potential role of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in the management of acute moderate-to-severe pain by synthesizing the available preclinical and clinical data, with emphasis on phase 3 trials.

METHODS

A non-systematic literature review was performed using a targeted PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2000, and May 2, 2023; all publication types were permitted, and selected articles were limited to those published in English. Search results were manually reviewed to identify references based on their preclinical and clinical relevance to CTC and management of acute moderate-to-severe pain.

RESULTS

The crystalline structure of CTC alters the physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib, modifying their pharmacokinetics. If taken in a free combination, tramadol reduces absorption of celecoxib. Conversely, administration of CTC slows tramadol absorption and lowers its maximum plasma concentration, while increasing celecoxib plasma concentration through its enhanced release. In clinical studies across models of acute moderate-to-severe pain, CTC demonstrated an early onset of analgesia, with improved efficacy and lower rescue medication use, compared with either agent alone. CTC's safety profile was in line with that expected for the individual components; no additive effects were observed. CTC exhibited tramadol-sparing effects, with efficacy seen at lower daily/cumulative opioid doses vs. tramadol alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from phase 3 trials suggest that the modified physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib in CTC translate into an improved clinical benefit-risk profile, including fewer opioid-related adverse effects due to lower overall opioid dosing.

Severe pain management in the emergency department: patient pathway as a new factor associated with IV morphine prescription

Background

Across the world, 25-29% of the population suffer from pain. Pain is the most frequent reason for an emergency department (ED) visit. This symptom is involved in approximately 70% of all ED visits. The effective management of acute pain with adequate analgesia remains a challenge, especially for severe pain. Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols are currently indicated. These protocols are based on patient-reported scores, most often after an immediate evaluation of pain intensity at triage. However, they are not systematically prescribed. This aspect could be explained by the fact that physicians individualize opioid pain management for each patient and each care pathway to determine the best benefit-risk balance. Few data are available regarding bedside organizational factors involved in this phenomenon.

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the organizational factors associated with no IV morphine prescription in a standardized context of opioid management in a tertiary-care ED.

Methods

A 3-month prospective study with a case-control design was conducted in a French university hospital ED. This study focused on factors associated with protocol avoidance despite a visual analog scale (VAS) ≥60 or a numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥6 at triage. Pain components, physician characteristics, patient epidemiologic characteristics, and care pathways were considered. Qualitative variables (percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test or the chi-squared tests. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables. The results were expressed as means with their standard deviation (SD). Factors associated with morphine avoidance were identified by logistic regression.

Results

A total of 204 patients were included in this study. A total of 46 cases (IV morphine) and 158 controls (IV morphine avoidance) were compared (3:1 ratio). Pain patterns and patient's epidemiologic characteristics were not associated with an IV morphine prescription. Regarding NRS intervals, the results suggest a practice disconnected from the patient's initial self-report. IV morphine avoidance was significantly associated with care pathways. A significant difference between the IV morphine group and the IV morphine avoidance group was observed for "self-referral" [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.11, 95% CIs: 2.32-12.18, p < 0.0001] and patients' trajectories (Fisher's exact test; p < 0.0001), suggesting IV morphine avoidance in ambulatory pathways. In addition, "junior physician grade" was associated with IV morphine avoidance (aOR: 2.35, 95% CIs: 1.09-5.25, p = 0.03), but physician gender was not.

Conclusion

This bedside case-control study highlights that IV morphine avoidance in the ED could be associated with ambulatory pathways. It confirms the decreased choice of "NRS-only" IV morphine protocols for all patients, including non-trauma patterns. Modern pain education should propose new tools for pain evaluation that integrate the heterogeneity of ED pathways.

Assessment of adequacy and appropriateness of pain management practice among trauma patients at the Ethiopian Aabet Hospital: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Pain is unpleasant sensory and emotional experiences associated with actual and/or potential tissue damage. It is the most common and prevalent reason for emergency departments (ED) visits with prevalence over 70% in the world.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The study aimed to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of pain management at Aabet Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

METHODS

A hospital-based prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Aabet hospital from December 1, 2020 to March 30, 2021. Adult trauma patients having pain (at least score 1 on Numeric Rating Scale) with Glasgow Coma Scale score > 13 were eligible to participate in the study. The pain intensity was evaluated at the time of admission (o minute) and then at 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes. The time of the first analgesics was registered. The adequacy and the appropriateness of the pain management were calculated through pain management index (PMI).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two (232) participants were included in this study of which 126 (54.3%) were admitted due to road traffic accident followed by fall 44(19%). Only 21 (9.1%) study participants received the first analgesic treatment within 30 minutes while 27(11.6%) participants had no treatment at all within 240 minutes. The mean pain intensity score at admission was 5.55 ± 2.32 and reduced to 4.09 ± 2.69. Nearly half 110 (47.4%) of the study participants were treated inadequately (PMI (-) score). There was a weak and negative correlation between PMI and time to analgesia (r = - .159, p = 0.0001). The type of analgesia used, the time to analgesia, and the degree of pain may predict 65% of the variance in PMI score (R2 = 0.65, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

From the results of this study, it can be concluded that acute pain in trauma patients was under and inappropriately treated.

The Pain Management of Trauma Patients in the Emergency Department

The vast majority of injured patients suffer from pain. Systematic assessment of pain on admission to the emergency department (ED) is a cornerstone of translating the best treatment strategies for patient care into practice. Pain must be measured with severity scales that are validated in clinical practice, including for specific populations (such as children and older adults). Although primary care ED of trauma patients focuses on resuscitation, diagnosis and treatment, pain assessment and management remains a critical element as professionals are not prepared to provide effective and early therapy. To date, most EDs have pain assessment and management protocols that take into account the patient's hemodynamic status and clinical condition and give preference to non-pharmacological approaches where possible. When selecting medications, the focus is on those that are least disruptive to hemodynamic status. Pain relief may still be necessary in hemodynamically unstable patients, but caution should be exercised, especially when using opioids, as absorption may be impaired or shock may be exacerbated. The analgesic dose of ketamine is certainly an attractive option. Fentanyl is clearly superior to other opioids in initial resuscitation and treatment as it has minimal effects on hemodynamic status and does not cause central nervous system depression. Inhaled analgesia techniques and ultrasound-guided nerve blocks are also increasingly effective solutions. A multimodal pain approach, which involves the use of two or more drugs with different mechanisms of action, plays an important role in the relief of trauma pain. All EDs must have policies and promote the adoption of procedures that use multimodal strategies for effective pain management in all injured patients.

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on transcutaneuous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)

Increasing digitization also raises concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of online health information. In this study, we aimed to examine the readability, reliability, and quality of internet-based patient education materials on "transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation." On September 15, 2022, we used Google search engine to search the keyword "Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation" and obtained information from 200 websites. The readability of the websites was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Gunning Fog. The Journal of American Medical Association score and Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct were used to determine the reliability of the websites, whereas the DISCERN score and Global Quality Score were used to evaluate the quality of the websites. In the readability analysis of 102 websites that met the inclusion criteria of this study, we found that the Flesch Reading Ease Score was 47.91 ± 13.79 (difficult), average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook were 11.20 ± 2.85 and 10.53 ± 2.11 years, respectively, and average Gunning Fog score was 14.04 ± 2.74 (very difficult). Commercial websites constituted the highest proportion of websites (n = 36, 35.5%). Overall, 16.7% of the websites were found to be of high quality according to the Global Quality Score, 16 (15.7%) websites had Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct certification, and 8.8% of the websites were found to be highly reliable according to the Journal of American Medical Association scores. There was a statistically significant difference between website typologies and quality and reliability scores (P < .001). Compared with the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Health, the readability of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-related internet-based patient education materials was considerably high, but they showed low reliability and moderate-to-poor quality. Thus, the quality, reliability, and readability of websites developed by health professionals play a major role in conveying accurate and easily understandable information.

Induced pain affects auricular and body biosignals: From cold stressor to deep breathing

Pain affects every fifth adult worldwide and is a significant health problem. From a physiological perspective, pain is a protective reaction that restricts physical functions and causes responses in physiological systems. These responses are accessible for evaluation via recorded biosignals and can be favorably used as feedback in active pain therapy via auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS). The aim of this study is to assess the significance of diverse parameters of biosignals with respect to their deflection from cold stressor to deep breathing and their suitability for use as biofeedback in aVNS stimulator. Seventy-eight volunteers participated in two cold pressors and one deep breathing test. Three targeted physiological parameters (RR interval of electrocardiogram, cardiac deflection magnitude Z _AC of ear impedance signal, and cardiac deflection magnitude PPG _AC of finger photoplethysmogram) and two reference parameters (systolic and diastolic blood pressures BP _S and BP _D) were derived and monitored. The results show that the cold water decreases the medians of targeted parameters (by 5.6, 9.3%, and 8.0% of RR, Z _AC, and PPG _AC, respectively) and increases the medians of reference parameters (by 7.1% and 6.1% of BP _S and BP _D, respectively), with opposite changes in deep breathing. Increasing pain level from relatively mild to moderate/strong with cold stressor varies the medians of targeted and reference parameters in the range from 0.5% to 6.0% (e.g., 2.9% for RR, Z _AC and 6.0% for BP _D). The physiological footprints of painful cold stressor and relaxing deep breathing were shown for auricular and non-auricular biosignals. The investigated targeted parameters can be used as biofeedback to close the loop in aVNS to personalize the pain therapy and increase its compliance.

Clinical assessment and risk stratification for prehospital use of methoxyflurane versus standard analgesia in adult patients with trauma pain

Oligoanalgesia, the undertreatment of trauma-related pain using standard analgesics in prehospital and emergency departments, has been extensively documented as one of the major challenges affecting the effective treatment of trauma-related pain. When administered in low doses, methoxyflurane has been highlighted by numerous medical works of literature to provide an effective, nonopioid, nonnarcotic treatment alternative to standard analgesics for prehospital and emergency department use. Low-dose methoxyflurane has been associated with fast-pain relief in adult patients manifesting moderate-to-severe pain symptoms. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical implication of low-dose methoxyflurane use in prehospital and emergency departments in adult patients with moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain. Moreover, the review aimed at assessing the risk stratification associated with using low-dose methoxyflurane in prehospital and emergency departments. The systematic review and meta-analysis performed a comprehensive search for pertinent literature assessing the implications and risks of using low-dose methoxyflurane in adult patients exhibiting moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in prehospital settings. A comparison between the use of low-dose methoxyflurane and standard-of-care analgesics, placebo, in prehospital settings was reported in four clinically conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These RCTs included the STOP! trial, InMEDIATE, MEDIATA, and the PenASAP trials. A meta-analysis comparing the time taken to achieve first pain relief on initial treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain favored the use of low-dose methoxyflurane to the standard-of-care analgesics (mean difference = -6.63, 95% confidence interval = -7.37, -5.09) on time taken to establish effective pain relief. Low-dose methoxyflurane has been associated with superior and faster pain relief in prehospital and emergency departments in adult patients exhibiting moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain compared to other standard analgesics.

Intravenous acetaminophen with morphine versus intravenous morphine alone for acute pain in the emergency room: protocol for a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study (ADAMOPA)

BACKGROUND

In emergency medicine, pain is a frequent reason for consultation. However, there is a great variation in its management which is often insufficient. The use intravenous morphine alone or multimodal analgesia with paracetamol is recommended for severe pain. But robust data are lacking to justify the association of paracetamol with morphine versus morphine alone for pain management in the emergency room (ER). The aim of our study is therefore to assess if in patients with acute pain of moderate to severe intensity with a numerical verbal scale (NVS) ≥5 in the ER, the intravenous administration of morphine alone is not inferior to the administration of intravenous morphine combined with paracetamol at 30 min from the first administration of the study drug.

METHODS

ADAMOPA is a prospective, non-inferiority, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized (1:1), double-blind trial. Subjects will be enrolled in the ER if they experience moderate to severe, acute, non-traumatic, and traumatic pain, defined as an NVS ≥5. The primary endpoint will be the between-group difference in mean change in NVS pain scores among patients receiving the combination of intravenous morphine plus paracetamol or intravenous morphine given alone, measured from the time before administration of the study medication to 30 min later.

DISCUSSION

This trial will determine the clinical utility of the association of paracetamol with morphine for pain management in the emergency room. The ADAMOPA trial will be conducted in accordance with the International Council on Harmonization Good Clinical Practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2019-002149-39.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT04148495. Date of trial registration: November 1, 2019.

Pain Management in a Prehospital Emergency Setting: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

Acute pain is a prevalent symptomatology in prehospital emergency care. Although inadequate assessment and treatment of acute pain are associated with various complications, about 43% of adults suffering from pain are undertreated. This phenomenon is poorly studied, and limited data are available in the literature. The objective was to investigate the pain management in a prehospital emergency health-care setting, verifying pain assessment, pharmacological treatment adherence and the effectiveness of pain relief therapy.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted in a sample including all adults treated by the professionals of nurse-staffed ambulances and medical cars in an Italian Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from 1 January 2019 to 31 May 2019. We collected both demographic information and Numeric Rating Scale scores, which evaluated presence and intensity of pain, from the EMS paper forms. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 27.

Results

The study sample was composed of 629 people: 310 males (49%) and 319 females (51%), with an average age of 64.2±22 years (range 18-108). Pain information was collected in 75.5% (n = 475) of our sample; among them 222 patients (46.7%) suffered from pain. We recorded that 79.7% (n = 177) of the subjects with pain received no pharmacological treatment, and in almost all of the treated cases they did not adhere to the analgesia algorithm in use. Among those who were pharmacologically treated, pain statistically significantly decreased in intensity, from before to after, in both emergency vehicles (nurse-staffed ambulances pre m = 8.36±0.9 vs post m = 4.18±2.2, p<0.001; medical cars pre m = 7.25±1.7 vs post m = 3.50±2.6, p<0.001). Subsequently, pain was only re-ascertained in 24.3% of subjects.

Conclusion

Our findings confirm that pain is a prevalent symptom in prehospital patients, especially in the younger age range, but that it remains an underrecognized, underestimated, and undertreated symptom with the risk of causing worse health outcomes.

Disparities in Prehospital Non-Traumatic Pain Management

INTRODUCTION

While prior research has identified racial disparities in prehospital analgesia for traumatic pain, little is known about non-traumatic pain. Using a national prehospital dataset, we sought to evaluate for racial and ethnic disparities in analgesia given by EMS for non-traumatic pain.

METHODS

We analyzed the 2018 and 2019 data from the ESO Data Collaborative, a collection of de-identified prehospital electronic health records from nearly 1,300 participating EMS agencies in the US. We included all transported, adult, non-traumatic encounters with a primary or secondary impression of a pain complaint, and we stratified encounters based on race and ethnicity as recorded by the EMS clinicians. We performed a mixed model analysis, modeling EMS agency as a random intercept and adjusting for age, sex, pain location, level of service, location of incident, and highest pain score. With non-Hispanic White patients as the reference group, we then evaluated the association between race/ethnicity and receiving any pain medication (acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, or opioids), receiving opioid pain medication, and receiving pain medication within 20 minutes of EMS arrival.

RESULTS

We included 1,035,486 patients; 67.5% non-Hispanic White, 26.8% Black, 4.9% Hispanic, 0.5% Asian, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 0.2% American Indian or Alaska Native patients. 4.7% of patients received pain medications. Compared to White patients (5.1%), Black patients were less likely to receive pain medication (3.3%, aOR 0.7; 95% CI 0.7-0.7) and Hispanics were more likely to receive pain medication (7.6%, aOR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4-1.6). Black patients were also less likely to receive opioids (1.8% for Black v 3.0% for White, aOR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.7), while Hispanic patients were more likely to receive opioids (4.9%, aOR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.5). The odds of receiving pain medication within 20 minutes was lower for Black patients (aOR 0.9; 95% CI 0.8-0.95) but no different for Hispanic patients (aOR 1.0; 95% CI 0.9-1.1), when compared to White patients.

CONCLUSION

Pain medication administration is uncommon for non-traumatic pain complaints. While Black patients were less likely than White patients to receive pain medications and receive pain medication within 20 minutes, Hispanics were more likely to receive pain medications.

Analgesic Efficacy of Oral Aspirin/Ketamine Combination for Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department - A Proof of Concept Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain (MSK) affects one out of three adults and is the most common source of significant long-term pain, physical disability, and under-treatment in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the analgesic efficacy of a combination of oral VTS-Aspirin® (Vitalis Analgesics, New York, NY) and ketamine in managing acute MSK pain in adult ED patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, proof-of-concept, single-arm, pilot study evaluating the analgesic efficacy of a single dose of oral combination of VTS-Aspirin and ketamine in adult ED patients with acute moderate-to-severe MSK pain. The primary outcome included the difference in pain scores on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale at 60 min. Secondary outcomes included the need for rescue analgesia, the occurrence of adverse events at 60 min, and a change in pain scores at 120 min.

RESULTS

We enrolled 25 subjects in the study. The mean baseline pain score was 8.6 and the mean pain score at 60 min decreased to 4.8. The oral ketamine dose ranged from 24 mg to 50 mg, with a mean dose of 37.8 mg. No clinically concerning changes in vital signs were noted. No serious adverse events occurred in any of the subjects. Majority of adverse effects were transient and weak in intensity.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that administration of an oral combination of VTS-Aspirin and ketamine to adult ED patients with acute MSK pain resulted in clinically significant pain relief in 80% of enrolled subjects.

Prophylactic antiemetics for adults receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting

BACKGROUND

Physicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients. Prophylactic antiemetics may be one option to reduce opioid-associated nausea and vomiting. However, these medications also have their own adverse effects, so it is important to understand their efficacy and safety prior to routine use. This is a review of randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care for preventing opioid-associated nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in adults (aged 16 years or older) receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) from inception to January 2022, and Google Scholar (17 January 2022). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care in adults prior to receiving an intravenous opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MG, JNC) independently determined the eligibility of each study according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MG, GDP) then independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, number of vomiting episodes, and number of participants requiring antiemetic rescue therapy. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (e.g. presence of vomiting, presence of nausea, number of participants requiring rescue medication, adverse events) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference for continuous data (e.g. number of vomiting episodes, nausea severity) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 527 participants (187 women and 340 men) with a mean age of 42 years.  All studies used intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) as the intervention and a placebo for the comparator. No studies assessed any other antiemetic or compared the intervention to standard care. Compared to placebo, metoclopramide did not reduce vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.32; low-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; low-certainty evidence) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.61; low-certainty evidence).  No data were available regarding the number of vomiting episodes. Metoclopramide did reduce the severity of nausea compared with placebo (MD -0.49, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.23; low-certainty evidence) but did not reduce the need for rescue medication (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.16; low-certainty evidence).  Two studies were at unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, one for blinding of outcome assessors, one for incomplete outcome data, and two for selective reporting. The studies were at low risk of bias for all remaining components.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that prophylactic metoclopramide affected the risk of vomiting, nausea, or the need for rescue medication when provided prior to intravenous opioids in the acute care setting. There was a clinically insignificant difference in nausea severity when comparing prophylactic metoclopramide with placebo. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. Future research could better delineate the effects of prophylactic antiemetics on specific populations, and new studies are needed to evaluate the use of other prophylactic antiemetic agents, for which there were no data.

Managing patients' pain in the intensive care units: Nurses' awareness of pain management

OBJECTIVES

To assess nurses' knowledge and attitudes toward pain management in intensive care units (ICUs) in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional correlational study was carried out at 5 governmental hospitals in the Al-Qassim region (namely, Buraydah Centeral Hospital, King Fahad Spcialist Hospital, Al Rass General Hospital, Bukariyah General Hospital, and Al Badaya General Hospital) using purposive sampling to collect data between May 2020 and July 2020. Nurses' awareness of pain management was assessed using the Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (NKASRP). Statistical Pacaksge for the Social Sciences software was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed. The Spearman's correlation test was carried out to determine correlations.

RESULTS

The mean score for ICUs nurses' pain management awareness was 22.59, suggesting knowledge and behaviors deficits toward pain management. Positive correlations were found between nurses' age, total years of clinical nursing experience, and their total score on pain management awareness. Nurses' gender, religion, education, and years of experience as ICU nurses showed no association with their scores on NKASRP.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient pain management knowledge and unacceptable attitudes were established among nurses owing to several barriers and obstacles. Pain assessment and management educational programs should be held regularly for all nurses in the Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia, especially ICU nurses.

Dose-dependent effects of high intensity focused ultrasound on compound action potentials in an ex vivo rodent peripheral nerve model: comparison to local anesthetics

Background

In animal models, focused ultrasound can reversibly or permanently inhibit nerve conduction, suggesting a potential role in managing pain. We hypothesized focused ultrasound’s effects on action potential parameters may be similar to those of local anesthetics.

Methods

In an ex vivo rat sciatic nerve model, action potential amplitude, area under the curve, latency to 10% peak, latency to 100% peak, rate of rise, and half peak width changes were assessed after separately applying increasing focused ultrasound pressures or concentrations of bupivacaine and ropivacaine. Focused ultrasound’s effects on nerve structure were examined histologically.

Results

Increasing focused ultrasound pressures decreased action potential amplitude, area under the curve, and rate of rise, increased latency to 10% peak, and did not change latency to 100% peak or half peak width. Increasing local anesthetic concentrations decreased action potential amplitude, area under the curve, and rate of rise and increased latency to 10% peak, latency to 100% peak, and half peak width. At the highest focused ultrasound pressures, nerve architecture was altered compared with controls.

Discussion

While some action potential parameters were altered comparably by focused ultrasound and local anesthetics, there were small but notable differences. It is not evident if these differences may lead to differences in clinical pain effects when focused ultrasound is applied in vivo or if focused ultrasound pressures that result in clinically relevant changes damage nerve structures. Given the potential advantages of a non-invasive technique for managing pain conditions, further investigation may be warranted in an in vivo pain model.

Painful Truth: The Need to Re-Center Chronic Pain on the Functional Role of Pain

Pain is undesirable, whether it is a symptom of mild or severe illness or instead indicates disorder in the nervous system’s ability to perceive and process sensory information. Nonetheless, pain is part of the body’s ability to defend itself and promote its own survival—this is its fundamental evolutionary function. This normal expression of pain is not limited to what is considered useful because it alerts us to the initiation of illness. It also applies to pain that continues when illness or noxious stimuli persist. However, the parameters of what is here termed functional pain are not fully understood and are seldom explicitly the focus of research. This paper posits that failure to appreciate the functional role of pain in research has had significant unintended consequences and may be contributing to inconsistent research findings. To that end, the paper describes the misclassification issue at the core of chronic pain research—whether a given pain reflects functional or pathological processes—and discusses research areas where reconsidering the functional role of pain may lead to advancements.

A qualitative understanding of nurses' challenges with pain management

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that providers deliver inadequate pain management, which is important since ineffective pain management can lead to patient safety concerns and negative health outcomes. There is a gap in the literature understanding the specific details of nurses' struggles treating patients who need help with pain management.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study assessed nurses' challenges with pain management to provide a comprehensive, low-inference summary of the data. Participants were interviewed about their biggest challenges.

FINDINGS

Three main themes emerged from the data: prescribing patterns, education on zero pain, and system problems. Major challenges identified in this study were understanding nurses' perceptions of pain management care delivery and the need for quality pain management education.

DISCUSSION

The health community needs to raise awareness and provide more comprehensive education regarding the nurse' role in pain management.

Moving toward patient-centered care in the emergency department: Patient-reported expectations, definitions of success, and importance of improvement in pain-related outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Musculoskeletal pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation, and patient-centered care may improve quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and outcomes. Our objective was to investigate the expectations, definitions of success, and priorities of ED patients with musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of adult ED patients (n = 210) with musculoskeletal pain. Patients completed the Patient-Centered Outcomes Questionnaire to quantify usual, desired, expected, and successful levels of pain and interference with daily activities, fatigue, and emotion from 0 (none) to 100 (worst imaginable). They also reported the importance of improvement in each domain. Cluster analysis identified subgroups by importance ratings. Patients were asked their willingness to try various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. Fully completed surveys were analyzed (n = 174).

RESULTS

Most patients desired 100% resolution in each domain and defined treatment success as substantial (median = 63.2%-76.5%) reductions but expected only moderate (median = 45%-53.7%) improvements across all domains. Patients with previous pain episodes had similar desired levels but less stringent definitions of success and expectations for improvement. Cluster analysis identified three patient subgroups by importance ratings of each domain: (1) multiple domains important (n = 118) with high importance attached to all four domains, (2) pain and function important (n = 34) with high importance primarily for pain and interference with daily activities, and (3) only pain important (n = 22). Regardless of subgroup, there was a high willingness to use a variety of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCUSSION

ED patients with musculoskeletal pain have expectations and goals that include addressing impairments in function, improving quality of life, and reducing pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that: (1) patient subgroups by outcome priorities may exist that could inform multimodal, personalized approaches from the ED and (2) patients are flexible in which treatments they are willing to try to meet their individual goals.

Comparing Pain Intensity Using the Numeric Rating Scale and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale in Patients Revisiting the Emergency Department

Objective 

To determine the relationship between Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) as pain intensity measures, we compared pain scores to sociodemographic and treatment data in patients revisiting the emergency department (ED).

Methods 

After Institutional Review Board approval, 389 adults presenting within 30 days of an index visit were enrolled. Pain scores were classified as follows: 0-3 (mild), 4-7 (moderate), and 8-10 (high). Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test measured the association of pain score with gender. Pain scales were correlated using Spearman correlation coefficient. Pain scale association with opioid treatment was tested via ordinal logistic regression controlling for gender, home opioid use, and if ED revisit was for pain.

Results 

Average patient age was 49. Most patients were African American (68.4%), male (51.2%), and returned for pain (67.0%). As continuous measures, both scales were positively correlated with each other (p<0.0001). Pain score severity categories were distributed differently between the two scales (p=0.0085), decreasing by 8% in patients reporting high pain severity when using DVPRS. For both scales, the proportion of patients (1) administered opioids (p=0.0009 and p≤0.0001, respectively) and (2) discharged with opioids (p=0.0103 and p=0.0417, respectively) increased with pain severity. Discharge NRS (p=0.0001) (OR=3.2, 1.780-5.988) and DVPRS pain score categories (p<0.0001) (OR=2.7, 95% CI=1.63-4.473) were associated with revisits for pain. 

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate a link between NRS and administration of opioid medications and suggest that DVPRS may better differentiate between moderate and high levels of pain in the ED setting.

[A riverine emergency health service: characteristics and factors related to patients' clinical evolution]

The study aimed to describe the profile of patients and the care provided by the Mobile Riverine Emergency Medical Service (SAMU) in river-dwelling communities of the Amazon and to identify factors related to patients' evolution during care by this service. This descriptive study was conducted in two stages: in the first, the data were obtained on care for individuals in the service from 2009 to 2015; in the second, the data collection was prospective during the first semester of 2016, and patients' evolution was assessed with the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score. In all the periods analyzed, some 90% of the care included medical evacuation, varying over the years as to the type of boat used most frequently in transporting the patients. The most frequent reasons for care were signs and symptoms of unknown etiology and external causes. Of the patients transported by the service in the first semester of 2016, 68.5% maintained their clinical status, 18% worsened, and 13.5% improved during care. For patients seen during this period, the mean response and total riverine care times were 84 and 172 minutes, respectively. There was an association between evolution and incidents involving venomous snakes, acute pain, age, initial severity, and destination of the patient. Causes of care were related to worsening clinical status during care, and patients who worsened were younger and in less serious condition and were more frequently evacuated to hospitals. The profile of patients and care in the riverine SAMU pointed to the need for a revision of this service's objectives and structuring.

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) for analgesia in trauma: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

More than 75% of patients presenting to the Emergency Department are suffering symptoms of pain. Despite this, 67% will not receive any analgesia. Methoxyflurane is a fluorinated hydrocarbon gas which has analgesic properties when inhaled. Penthrox is a methoxyflurane autoinhaler recently licenced in Europe. Its ease of administration, safety, and fast onset of action make it of particular relevance to emergency medicine. Additionally, outside the hospital, it has the advantage of increased temperature stability and portability over current standard care. New evidence of its efficacy is emerging; however, currently, its use in Europe is not widespread. The objective of this study will be to systematically evaluate the evidence on inhaled methoxyflurane to determine if it is a superior analgesia in the acute trauma setting.

METHODS

We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials, comparing inhaled methoxyflurane and either placebo or standard care. A comprehensive search will be conducted from database inception onwards in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database, concurrent with a search of the grey literature for other relevant studies, including clinical trial databases. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. No limitations will be imposed on publication status or language of publication. The primary outcome will be mean difference in patient-reported pain at time points within the first 30 min of administration. Secondary outcomes will be mean difference in time to clinically significant pain relief and relative risk of adverse effects. Two reviewers will independently screen all returned studies and collect data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. Individual study methodological quality will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis; if this is not possible, we will construct a narrative synthesis.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will summarise the best available evidence and definitively establish if inhaled methoxyflurane is a superior analgesia to standard care in the acute trauma setting. This knowledge will directly impact emergency care in the UK and worldwide and may require amendments to European pain relief guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020189119 .

Low-Dose Methoxyflurane versus Standard of Care Analgesics for Emergency Trauma Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pooled Data

Purpose

Undertreatment of trauma-related pain is common in the pre-hospital and hospital settings owing to barriers to the use of traditional standard of care analgesics. Low-dose methoxyflurane is an inhaled non-opioid analgesic with a rapid onset of pain relief that is approved for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults. This analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane with standard of care analgesics in adults with trauma-related pain.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed on pooled data from randomized controlled trials identified via a systematic review. The primary endpoint was the pain intensity difference between baseline and various time intervals (5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes) after initiation of treatment.

Results

The pain intensity difference was statistically superior with low-dose methoxyflurane compared with standard of care analgesics (overall estimated treatment effect=11.88, 95% CI=9.75–14.00; P<0.0001). The superiority of low-dose methoxyflurane was demonstrated at 5 minutes after treatment initiation and was maintained across all timepoints. Significantly more patients treated with methoxyflurane achieved response criteria of pain intensity ≤30 mm on a visual analog scale, and relative reductions in pain intensity of ≥30% and ≥50%, compared with patients who received standard of care analgesics. The median time to pain relief was shorter with methoxyflurane than with standard of care analgesics. The findings were consistent in a subgroup of elderly patients (aged ≥65 years).

Conclusion

Methoxyflurane can be considered as an alternative to standard of care analgesics in pre-hospital and hospital settings for treatment of adult patients with acute trauma-related pain.

Predictors of emergency department opioid administration and prescribing: A machine learning approach

INTRODUCTION

The opioid epidemic has altered normative clinical perceptions on addressing both acute and chronic pain, particularly within the Emergency Department (ED) setting, where providers are now confronted with balancing pain management and potential abuse. This study aims to examine patient sociodemographic and ED clinical characteristics to comprehensively determine predictors of opioid administration during an ED visit (ED-RX) and prescribing upon discharge (DC-RX).

METHODS

ED visit data of patients ≥18 years old from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2014 to 2017 were used. Opioid prescriptions were determined utilizing Lexicon narcotic drug classifications. Visit characteristics studied included sociodemographic variables, and ED clinical variables, such as chief complaint, and discharge diagnosis. Machine learning methods were used to determine predictors of ED-RX and DC-RX and weighted logistic regressions were performed using selected predictors.

RESULTS

Of the 44,227 ED visits identified, patients tended to be female (57.4%), and White (74.2%) with an average age of 46.4 years (SE = 0.3). Weighted proportions of ED-RX and DC-RX were 23.2% and 18.9%, respectively. The strongest predictors of ED-RX were CT scan ordered (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.84-2.58), abdominal pain (OR = 1.93, 95% CI:1.59-2.34) and back pain (OR = 1.81, 95% CI:1.45-2.27). Tooth pain (OR = 6.94, 95% CI = 4.40-10.94) and fracture injury diagnoses (OR = 3.76, 95% CI = 2.72-5.19) were the strongest predictors of DC-RX.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate the utility of machine learning for understanding clinical predictors of opioid administration and prescribing in the ED, and its potential in informing standardized prescribing recommendations and guidelines.

Nurses' Behavior Regarding Pain Treatment in an Emergency Department: A Single-Center Observational Study

Purpose

The aim of this prospective study was to assess the behavior of emergency department (ED) nurses with regard to pain and their role in pain management in a real-life clinical setting.

Methods

A total of 509 consecutive patients were enrolled during a 6-week period. A case-report form was used to collect data on nurses’ approaches to pain, time to analgesia provision, and patient-perceived quality of analgesia.

Results

Triage nurses actively inquired about pain in almost every case, but they did not estimate pain intensity in a third of patients. In the majority of cases, triage nurses did not report pain-related findings to the physician, who was the only professional that could prescribe analgesia to patients. The assignment of the color-coding of triage by nurses appears to be related to the perceived severity of the clinical case and a more comprehensive evaluation of pain. More than half of patients were at least fairly satisfied with analgesia.

Conclusion

Pain is increasingly screened during triage, but its comprehensive assessment and management still lack systematic application. We believe that further education and implementation of analgesia protocols may empower nurses to manage ED patients’ pain more effectively and in a more timely manner.

Approaching acute pain in emergency settings: European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) guidelines-part 1: assessment

Pain management is a vital component of patient care, particularly in the emergency setting. Pain can hinder the opportunities to treat and manage pain-causing conditions and remains one of the primary reasons patients seek emergency medical care, yet despite this, pain often remains under-acknowledged, under-assessed and undertreated. Despite the importance of effective management of acute pain, there are currently no well-defined emergency medicine guidelines at a European level to support healthcare professionals in achieving this goal. The European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) identified this as a significant unmet requirement, for improving day-to-day patient management and for providing guidance to trainees and non-emergency medicine physicians. Under the auspices of EUSEM, a programme-the European Pain Initiative-was launched with the aim of providing information, advice and guidance on pain management in pre-hospital and emergency department settings. Search terms were developed to search MEDLINE, Cochrane database, Google Scholar and EMBASE online databases to return English language articles published in the last 10 years. A working package of reference materials was evaluated against inclusion and exclusion criteria and levels of evidence ascribed. A short survey was developed by the European Pain Initiative Steering Committee for completion by EUSEM members to evaluate actual clinical practice. A working document of > 800 publications was identified for further review and evaluation against agreed criteria. Some further publications were included by the Steering Committee to explore older literature for long-established analgesics, or newly emergent literature that was considered important for inclusion but was identified as the guideline development was underway. This article provides the methodology used to inform the guidelines, including survey results of EUSEM members on assessment and treatment of acute pain. A companion manuscript in this issue presents an evidence-based review and recommendations for individualised evaluation of acute pain in patients in emergency settings.

Intravenous versus oral paracetamol in a UK ambulance service: a case control study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of intravenous versus oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of acute pain in the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

We extracted ambulance electronic patient care records for all patients who received 1 g intravenous paracetamol throughout January 2019, and case matched these by sex and age with consecutive patients who received 1 g oral paracetamol over the same time period. Eligible for inclusion were all patients aged ≥ 18 who received 1 g paracetamol for acute pain and who were transported to the emergency department (ED). The primary outcome was the mean reduction in pain score using the numeric rating scale (NRS), with a reduction of 2 or more accepted as clinically significant.

RESULTS

80 care records were eligible for analysis; 40 patients received intravenous and 40 patients received oral paracetamol. The mean age of both groups was 54 years (± 3 years) and 67.5% (n = 54) were female. Patients receiving intravenous paracetamol had a clinically significant mean (SD) improved pain score compared to those receiving oral paracetamol, 2.02 (1.64) versus 0.75 (1.76), respectively [p = 0.0013]. 13/40 (32.5%) patients who received intravenous paracetamol saw an improved pain score of ≥ 2 compared to 8/40 (20%) who received oral paracetamol. No patients received additional analgesia or reported any adverse symptoms. Abdominal pain, infection and trauma were the most common causes of pain in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that intravenous paracetamol is more effective than oral paracetamol when managing acute pain in the out-of-hospital setting. Our findings support further investigation of the role of paracetamol in paramedic practice using more robust methods.

Prehospital acute traumatic pain assessment and management practices in the Western Cape, South Africa: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a common aetiology of acute pain in the emergency setting, and traumatic injuries have been recognised as a global public health crisis leading to numerous deaths and disabilities. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of acute pain among high acuity trauma patients presenting to a public sector emergency medical service and to describe prehospital acute traumatic pain assessment and management practices amongst emergency care providers in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

METHODS

A retrospective review of electronic patient care reports of trauma patients treated by the South African Western Cape Emergency Medical Services between January 1 and December 31, 2017 was conducted. Stratified random sampling was utilised to select 2401 trauma patients out of 24,575 that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 2401 patients reviewed, 435 (18.1%) had a pain score recorded, of which 423 (97.2%) were experiencing pain. An additional 8.1% (n = 194) of patients had pain or tenderness mentioned in the working diagnosis but no pain score noted. Eighty-one (18.6%) patients experienced mild pain, 175 (40.2%) moderate pain and 167 (38.2%) severe pain. No association was found between a pain score recorded and age group (≤ 14 versus > 14 years) (p = 0.649) or gender (p = 0.139). Only 7.6% of patients with moderate-to-severe pain and 2.8% of all trauma patients received any form of analgesic medication. No association was found between the administration of analgesia and age group (≤ 14 versus > 14 years) (p = 0.151) or gender (p = 0.054). Patients were more likely to receive analgesia if they had a pain score recorded (p < 0.001), were managed by advanced life support practitioners (p < 0.001) or had severe pain (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Acute trauma pain assessment and management practices in this prehospital cohort are less well established than reported elsewhere and whether this reflects emergency care training, institutional culture, scopes of practice or analgesic resources, requires further research. Emergency medical services need to monitor and promote quality pain care, enhance pain education and ensure that all levels of emergency care providers have access to analgesic medication approved for prehospital use. Clear and rational guidelines would enable better pain management by all cadres of providers, for all levels of pain.

Inhaled Methoxyflurane versus Intravenous Morphine for Severe Trauma Pain in the Emergency Setting: Subgroup Analysis of MEDITA, a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Trial

Purpose

Opioid analgesics remain the cornerstone of treatment for severe trauma pain in the emergency setting, but there are barriers to their use. This post hoc analysis of a previously reported trial (MEDITA) investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane versus intravenous (IV) morphine for severe trauma pain.

Patients and Methods

MEDITA was a Phase IIIb, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study in Italian pre-hospital units and emergency departments (EudraCT: 2017-001565-25; NCT03585374). Adult patients (N=272) with moderate-to-severe trauma pain (score ≥4 on the Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]) were randomized 1:1 to inhaled methoxyflurane (3 mL) or standard analgesic treatment (SAT; IV paracetamol 1g or ketoprofen 100mg for moderate pain [NRS 4-6] and IV morphine 0.1mg/kg for severe pain [NRS ≥7]). Analyses were performed for the severe pain subgroup. The primary efficacy variable was the overall change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity at 3, 5 and 10min post-randomization. Non-inferiority of methoxyflurane versus morphine was concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was <1; superiority was concluded if the upper 95% CI was <0.

Results

Ninety-three patients (methoxyflurane: 49; SAT: 44) were included in the severe pain intention-to-treat population. The reduction in VAS pain intensity over the first 10min was superior for methoxyflurane versus morphine (adjusted mean treatment difference: -5.54mm; 95% CI: -10.49, -0.59mm; p=0.029). Median time to onset of pain relief was 9min for methoxyflurane and 15min for morphine. Patients rated treatment efficacy and physicians rated treatment practicality "Excellent" or "Very good" for more methoxyflurane-treated patients (42.8% and 67.3%) than morphine-treated patients (18.1% and 22.8%). Adverse events, all non-serious, were reported in 20.4% of methoxyflurane-treated patients and in 4.8% of morphine-treated patients.

Conclusion

Methoxyflurane provided superior short-term pain relief to IV morphine in patients with severe trauma pain and offers an effective non-narcotic treatment option.

Non-interventional study evaluating exposure to inhaled, low-dose methoxyflurane experienced by hospital emergency department personnel in France

OBJECTIVES

Low-dose methoxyflurane is a non-opioid, inhaled analgesic administered via the Penthrox inhaler and was recently licensed in Europe for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-associated pain in conscious adults. This non-interventional study investigated occupational exposure to methoxyflurane in the hospital emergency department (ED) personnel during routine clinical practice.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study was conducted in two hospital ED triage rooms in France over a 2-week and 3-week period, respectively. Low-dose methoxyflurane analgesia was self-administered by patients via the inhaler under the supervision of nursing staff, per routine clinical practice. An organic vapour personal badge sampler was attached to the uniform of the nurses working in the treatment rooms throughout an 8-hour shift (total of 140 shifts during the study period). Seven-day ambient air monitoring of each treatment room was also performed. Methoxyflurane levels adsorbed in each badge sampler were measured by a central laboratory. The primary objective was to evaluate methoxyflurane exposure experience by the hospital ED nurses during an 8-hour shift.

RESULTS

In 138 badge samplers, the median (range) concentration of methoxyflurane present following 8-hour nursing shifts was 0.017 (0.008, 0.736) ppm. This level was almost 900-fold lower than the previously reported 8-hour-derived maximal exposure level of 15 ppm; methoxyflurane exposure approaching this threshold was not documented in any badges. There was no correlation between the number of applications of low-dose methoxyflurane administered during a shift (range 0-5) and the vapour exposure measured on the personal badge samplers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that nurses working in hospital EDs experience very low levels of occupational exposure to methoxyflurane vapour during routine clinical practice. These real-world data can provide reassurance to healthcare providers supervising patients receiving low-dose methoxyflurane analgesia via a Penthrox inhaler; further studies may inform exposure in other hospital ED settings.

The utility of adding symptoms and signs to the management of injury-related pain

OBJECTIVE

Improved pain assessment and management in the emergency department (ED) is warranted. We aimed to determine the impact on pain management, of adding symptoms and signs to pain assessment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single center before-and-after study was conducted, supplemented by an interrupted time series analysis. The intervention included the addition of clinical presentation (CP) of the injury and facial expression (FE) of the patient to pain assessment scales of patients with soft tissue injures. Pain intensity was categorized as: mild, moderate, and severe. We compared types of pain relief medications, use of strong opioids, and pain relief efficacy between pre and post intervention phases.

RESULTS

Before-and-after analysis revealed a significant reduction in the use of strong opioids. The adjusted relative ratio for the use of strong opioids in the post intervention phase was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.48-0.82). This reduction was mostly driven by less use of strong opioids in patients reporting severe pain (from 17.3%-7.9%) (P < 0.0001). A larger proportion of patients in the post intervention phase than in the pre intervention phase received weak opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (27.4% vs 19.1%, P = 0.002), and a larger proportion did not receive any pain relief medication (19.8% vs 10.5%, p < 0.0001). The use of strong opioids increased with higher levels of FE and CP. Among patients with mild injury and reporting severe pain, the odds of receiving a strong opioid was nearly 9 times (OR = 8.9, 95% CI: 4.0-19.6) higher among those who were with an unrelaxed FE and showed pain behavior than those with relaxed FE. Interrupted time-series analysis showed that the mean ΔVAS (VAS score at entry minus VAS score at discharge) in the post intervention phase compared with the pre intervention phase was not statistically significant (P = 0.073). The use of strong opioids in the post intervention phase was significantly reduced (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Adding symptoms and signs to pain assessment of patients admitted with soft tissue injuries decreased the use of strong opioids, without affecting pain relief efficacy.

The clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain: a protocol for a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We intend to search electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDRO, Web of Science, AMED and SPORTDiscus) from inception to the present day to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the use of TENS in adults for any type of pain including acute pain, chronic pain and cancer-related pain. We will screen the RCTs against eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently undertake RCT selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be: (i) participant-reported pain relief of ≥30% expressed as frequency (dichotomous) data; and (ii) participant-reported pain intensity expressed as mean (continuous) data. We will conduct meta-analyses to determine risk ratio for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised MD for continuous data for TENS versus placebo TENS, no treatment or waiting list control, standard of care, and other treatments. Subgroup analyses will include different pain conditions (eg, acute vs chronic), TENS intensity, during versus after TENS, TENS as a sole treatment versus TENS in combination with other treatments and TENS administered as a single dose versus repetitive dose.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will not use data from individual participants, and the results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at a conference.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019125054.

Evaluation of pain relief treatment and timelines in emergency care in six European countries and Australia

Purpose

Inadequate relief of pain is common in prehospital and hospital emergency department (ED) settings. We investigated pain treatments and timelines in patients receiving pre-hospital and hospital ED care to provide insight into potential approaches to reduce the burden of trauma-related pain.

Patients and methods

In this observational, retrospective chart review, patients had received emergency care for musculoskeletal trauma injuries and analgesic treatment for moderate-to-severe pain in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Sweden. As inhaled low-dose methoxyflurane (LDM) is used extensively in Australia but was not widely available in Europe at the time of this analysis, data from Australia were collated to provide insight into the potential utility of this analgesic in Europe. The primary endpoint was time to administration of first pain relief treatment following arrival of paramedic/ED care.

Results

Randomly selected physicians (n=189) collated data from 856 patients (Europe: n=585; Australia: n=271) via an online survey. Time to first pain relief treatment varied between countries and was significantly longer across Europe versus Australia (mean [SD] 38.1 [34.7] vs 29.9 [35.5] mins; P=0.0017). Patients from Australia who received LDM experience a shorter mean (SD) time to first pain treatment following arrival of emergency care versus patients who received other analgesics (propensity score matched [n=85] per group: 21.7 [24.2] vs 39.1 [43.0] mins; P=0.0013). Across all countries, mean (SD) time to first analgesic was shorter when treatment was administered by paramedics versus hospital ED staff (15.7 [14.7] vs 49.1 [38.4] mins).

Conclusions

While there was a large variation in analgesia timelines across countries, mean times are shorter in Australia compared with Europe overall. In Australia, use of LDM was associated with a significantly shorter time from emergency assistance to first pain treatment compared with non-LDM treatments. Further studies are needed to investigate the utility of LDM in Europe.

Co-crystals as a new approach to multimodal analgesia and the treatment of pain

Pain is highly prevalent, but frequently untreated or under-treated, and health care professionals are faced with a range of treatment challenges. Multimodal therapy is recommended and can be achieved using open combinations (ie, concomitant administration) of individual agents, fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), or multimodal agents (ie, single agents with multiple mechanisms of action). Co-crystallization of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) offers another approach, with the potential to provide drugs with unique properties and advantages for therapeutic applications compared to combinations. API–API co-crystals are single-entity forms that offer a unique possibility of improving the physicochemical properties of both constituent APIs, as well as permitting their synchronous release. Consequently, this may positively impact on their pharmacokinetic (PK) properties and profiles, providing a potential advantage over FDCs and translating into improved clinical efficacy and safety profiles. We report here a revision of the literature concerning API–API co-crystals for the treatment of pain. It becomes apparent that identifying APIs with complementary mechanisms of action that can be adequately co-crystallized in an appropriate molecular ratio applicable for therapeutic use is challenging. In addition, API–API co-crystals normally result in a mere increased exposure of an API without defined clinical benefits (since, to maintain the benefit-risk, the dose needs to be proportionally reduced to adjust for the increased exposure). An exception to this is the co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC), that represents a unique concept in co-crystal technology. In CTC neither of its three active components that have complementary mechanisms of action (ie, the two enantiomers of tramadol and celecoxib) show increased exposure levels versus commercially available single-entity reference products, but rather show a change in their PK profile with potential clinical advantages. CTC is in Phase III clinical development for the treatment of pain.

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib: preclinical and clinical evaluation of a novel analgesic

INTRODUCTION

Pain management is a major unmet need due to the suboptimal efficacy and undesirable side effects of current analgesics. Multimodal therapies recruiting complementary mechanisms of action may help address this. Co-crystals incorporating two active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) constitute an innovative approach to multimodal therapy, particularly if modification of the physicochemical properties of constituent APIs can be translated into clinical benefits.

AREAS COVERED

The preclinical and clinical profiles of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC), a novel API-API co-crystal (1:1 molecular ratio of rac-tramadol.hydrochloride and celecoxib) are described.

EXPERT OPINION

CTC may provide a relevant addition to pain therapy due to its: i) unique co-crystal structure conferring differentiated intrinsic dissolution profiles on constituent APIs, ii) modified clinical pharmacokinetics (slower absorption of tramadol and faster absorption of celecoxib) compared with commercially available single-entity reference products (in agreement with modified dissolution rates), iii) superior benefit-risk ratio compared with reference products (suggested by preclinical synergistic antinociceptive effects, without potentiation of adverse effects), and iv) efficacy in a phase 2 trial of moderate to severe pain following extraction of ≥2 impacted third molars requiring bone removal, where CTC doses containing low doses of APIs exerted a significant effect. Phase 3 studies are currently ongoing.

Acute Pain in the African Prehospital Setting: A Scoping Review

Background

Acute pain is a common reason for seeking prehospital emergency care. Regrettably, acute pain is often underestimated and poorly managed in this setting. The scoping review was conducted to gain insight into existing research on the topic and to make recommendations for future work.

Objectives

To identify all available evidence related to acute pain assessment and management in the African prehospital setting, describe the extent of the evidence, encapsulate findings, and identify research gaps.

Methods

The scoping review considered primary and secondary research related to acute pain assessment and management of both medical and traumatic origins in all age groups in the African prehospital setting. The search strategy aimed to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing research which met the inclusion criteria. Potentially eligible studies were identified by a comprehensive search of electronic databases, trial registers, dissertation/thesis databases, grey literature databases, and conference proceedings. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate.

Results

The comprehensive search identified 3823 potential studies, duplicate titles were removed, and 3358 titles/abstracts were screened. Full text of 66 potentially eligible titles was screened, 60 were excluded, and six publications met the inclusion criteria. Despite recommendations for pain assessment during general patient care, most studies reported no/limited pain assessment. In general, pain management was concluded to be insufficient and not conforming to best practice.

Conclusions

Only six publications addressing prehospital acute pain care in Africa could be identified, possibly indicative of a knowledge gap. Future research is indicated to enable a better understanding of the epidemiology of acute pain and barriers and enablers of acute pain care and to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) catering for all EMS systems in Africa. Additionally, educational initiatives should be implemented to improve the quality of acute pain care and to monitor quality through continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs.

Nebulized versus intravenous morphine titration for the initial treatment of severe acute pain in the emergency department: study protocol for a multicenter, prospective randomized and controlled trial, CLIN-AEROMORPH

BACKGROUND

Intravenous morphine titration (IVMT) is the French gold standard for opioid treatment in the emergency department (ED). Nebulized morphine titration (NMT) may represent an alternative without venous access, but it has not been adequately studied in adults. We test the hypothesis that NMT is at least as effective as IVMT to initially manage severe acute pain in the ED.

METHODS/DESIGN

We designed a multicenter (10 French EDs), single-blind, randomized and controlled trial. Adults between 18 and 75 years with visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 70/100 or numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 7/10 will be enrolled. We will randomize 850 patients into two groups to compare two routes of MT as long as VAS >  30 or NRS >  3. In group A (425), patients will receive an initial NMT for 5-25 min associated with titration of an intravenously (IV) administered placebo of physiologic serum (PS). In group B (425), patients will receive IVMT plus nebulized PS placebo. NMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 5-min nebulized boluses of 10 mg or 15 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 10-min fixed intervals. IVMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 boluses of 2 mg or 3 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 5-min fixed intervals. Nebulized placebo titration will be performed every 10 min. IV titration of PS will be performed every 5 min. In both groups, after 25 min, if VAS > 30/100 or NRS > 3/10, routine IVMT will be continued until pain relief. Pain severity, vital signs, bronchospasm, and Ramsay score will be recorded every 5 min. The primary outcome is the rate of relief obtained 1 h from the start of drug administration. Complete pain relief in both groups will be compared with a non-inferiority design. Secondary outcomes are pain relief at 30 min (the end of NMT) and at 2 h and median pain relief. We will compare final doses, and study the feasibility and tolerance of NMT (protocol deviations, respiratory or hemodynamic depression, sedation, and minor vegetative side effects). Co-analgesia will be recorded. Discharge criteria from the ED and hospital are defined.

DISCUSSION

This trial is the first multicenter randomized and controlled NMT protocol for severe pain in the ED using the titration concept. We propose an original approach of combined titration with an endpoint at 1 h and a non-inferiority design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03257319 . Registered on 22 August 2017.

Neuroleptanalgesia for acute abdominal pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute abdominal pain (AAP) comprises up to 10% of all emergency department (ED) visits. Current pain management practice is moving toward multi-modal analgesia regimens that decrease opioid use.

OBJECTIVE

This project sought to determine whether, in patients with AAP (population), does administration of butyrophenone antipsychotics (intervention) compared to placebo, usual care, or opiates alone (comparisons) improve analgesia or decrease opiate consumption (outcomes)?

METHODS

A structured search was performed in Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Directory of Open Access Journals, Embase, IEEE-Xplorer, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Magiran, PubMed, Scientific Information Database, Scopus, TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM, and Web of Science. Clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry), relevant bibliographies, and conference proceedings were also searched. Searches were not limited by date, language, or publication status. Studies eligible for inclusion were prospective randomized clinical trials enrolling patients (age ≥18 years) with AAP treated in acute care environments (ED, intensive care unit, postoperative). The butyrophenone must have been administered either intravenously or intra-muscularly. Comparison groups included placebo, opiate only, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or acetaminophen.

RESULTS

We identified 7,217 references. Six studies met inclusion criteria. One study assessed ED patients with AAP associated with gastroparesis, whereas five studies assessed patients with postoperative AAP: abdominal hysterectomy (n=4), sleeve gastrectomy (n=1). Three of four studies found improvements in pain intensity with butyrophenone use. Three of five studies reported no change in postoperative opiate consumption, while two reported a decrease. One ED study reported no change in patient satisfaction, while one postoperative study reported improved satisfaction scores. Both extrapyramidal side effects (n=3) and sedation (n=3) were reported as unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Based on available evidence, we cannot draw a conclusion on the efficacy or benefit of neuroleptanalgesia in the management of patients with AAP. However, preliminary data suggest that it may improve analgesia and decrease opiate consumption.

Prospective, Multicentre Trial of Methoxyflurane for Acute Trauma-Related Pain in Helicopter Emergency Medical Systems and Hostile Environments: METEORA Protocol

Introduction

The inhalational analgesic low-dose methoxyflurane has been widely used by Australian ambulance services since 1975 and is now approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in conscious adult patients. The use of methoxyflurane in hostile environments is of special interest given its portability, ease of use and rapid onset of action. This trial will investigate the efficacy, tolerability and practicality of use of inhaled methoxyflurane in patients with moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain rescued from hostile mountainous environments by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) in Italy.

Methods

METEORA is a phase IIIb, prospective, single-arm, multicentre trial. Approximately 200 adult patients with a pain score of at least 4 on the numerical rating scale (NRS) due to limb trauma rescued by HEMS will be enrolled. Patients will receive up to 2 × 3 mL methoxyflurane, self-administered by the patient by inhalation under medical supervision. Rescue medication will be permitted if required.

Planned Outcomes

Pain intensity will be measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 and 60 min after the start of methoxyflurane inhalation and when positioning the patient on a spinal board or stretcher; and also using the NRS at enrolment and at 10 min. Use of rescue medication (yes/no) will be recorded. The patient will rate efficacy and the healthcare professional will rate practicality of methoxyflurane treatment at 30 and 60 min using a 5-point Likert scale. Vital signs will be measured at baseline, 10, 30 and 60 min. Assessments after 30 min will only be performed for patients using a second inhaler. Adverse events will be recorded until safety follow-up at 3 ± 1 days. The primary endpoint is the percentage of patients achieving at least 30% improvement from baseline in VAS pain intensity within the first 10 min of methoxyflurane administration.

Trial Registration

EudraCT number: 2017-004601-40.

Funding

Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals, srl.

Plain Language Summary

Plain language summary available for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0816-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The treatment of pain is an essential part of the management of injured patients. In emergency rescue situations, rapid and effective pain relief can reduce the patient’s stress and discomfort, making it easier to assess, treat and extricate them. Currently available painkillers have limitations such as being slow to work (oral medications), requiring needles (intravenous medications) or prolonged monitoring and observation (e.g. opioids). An inhaled painkiller (methoxyflurane) is now available in Europe for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe pain in conscious adult patients with trauma (injury) and associated pain. Methoxyflurane is administered via a hand-held inhaler, which provides pain relief within 6–10 inhalations and lasts for 25–30 min, on average, when used continuously. The patient can control his/her own level of pain relief and a second inhaler may be used if required. Methoxyflurane has been widely used by Australian ambulance services since 1975 and its effectiveness and safety are well established. Considering its ease of use and rapid action, inhaled methoxyflurane may be useful in emergency situations in remote and hostile environments. A new trial (METEORA) will assess the use of methoxyflurane in 200 patients with limb injuries who are rescued from mountainous environments by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) in Italy. Patients with moderate-to-severe pain will receive inhaled methoxyflurane under medical supervision. A second inhaler and/or additional pain-relieving medication will be provided if necessary. The trial will assess the reduction in pain intensity and whether additional pain-relieving medication is needed. The practicality of use of methoxyflurane in the emergency rescue situation and any side effects will also be evaluated.

A Review of the Burden of Trauma Pain in Emergency Settings in Europe

Trauma pain represents a large proportion of admissions to emergency departments across Europe. There is currently an unmet need in the treatment of trauma pain extending throughout the patient journey in emergency settings. This review aims to explore these unmet needs and describe barriers to the delivery of effective analgesia for trauma pain in emergency settings. A comprehensive, qualitative review of the literature was conducted using a structured search strategy (Medline, Embase and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews) along with additional Internet-based sources to identify relevant human studies published in the prior 11 years (January 2006-December 2017). From a total of 4325 publications identified, 31 were selected for inclusion based on defined criteria. Numerous barriers to the effective treatment of trauma pain in emergency settings were identified, which may be broadly defined as arising from a lack of effective pain management pan-European and national guidelines, delayed or absent pain assessment, an aversion to opioid analgesia and a delay in the administration of analgesia. Several commonly used analgesics also present limitations in the treatment of trauma pain due to the routes of administration, adverse side effect profiles, pharmacokinetic properties and suitability for use in pre-hospital settings. These combined barriers lead to the inadequate and ineffective treatment of trauma pain for patients. An unmet need therefore exists for novel forms of analgesia, wider spread use of available analgesic agents which overcome some limitations associated with several treatment options, and the development of protocols for pain management which include patient assessment of pain.Funding: Mundipharma International Ltd.

Acute Pain Management in the Year 2018-A Review

This review article provides an overview of acute pain management. It highlights the need to provide balanced pain care while limiting harm from opioids as per the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for balanced pain care. Opiophobia and its impact on the use of opioids for acute severe pain are discussed. Interventions that can improve global pain care and the role of pain scales in the management of acute pain are discussed. Newer trends in acute pain management in the emergency department (ED) are also reviewed and include: low dose ketamine, intravenous lidocaine, ultra-sound guided regional anesthesia, intravenous paracetamol, and patient controlled analgesia.