1
|
Utsumi S, Amagasa S, Moriwaki T, Uematsu S. Oral analgesic for musculoskeletal injuries in children: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2024; 31:61-70. [PMID: 37688572 DOI: 10.1111/acem.14803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2023] [Revised: 08/28/2023] [Accepted: 09/03/2023] [Indexed: 09/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Pain in pediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries can lead to increased anxiety, fear, and avoidance of medical care, making analgesic management critical. Therefore, we evaluated analgesic efficacy and adverse effects to select the optimal analgesic agent in pediatric patients with MSK injuries. METHODS Four databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for peer-reviewed, open randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Inclusion criteria were: (1) trials with RCT design, (2) children aged 1 month-18 years with MSK injury, (3) outpatient setting, (4) interventions and control, (5) primary outcome of pain score at 60 and 120 min and secondary outcome of adverse effects, and (6) full-text and peer-reviewed articles. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach. RESULTS We included eight trials comprising 1645 children. Ibuprofen was significantly associated with pain reduction at 120 min, compared with acetaminophen (SMD 0.31 [95% CI 0.11-0.51]; moderate certainty) and opioids (SMD 0.34 [95% CI 0.20-0.48]; moderate certainty). Compared with opioids alone, ibuprofen-opioid combination was significantly associated with pain reduction at 120 min (SMD 0.19 [95% CI 0.03-0.35]). No significant differences were found in pain interventions at 60 min. Ibuprofen had statistically fewer adverse events than opioids (RR, 0.54 [95% CI 0.33-0.90]; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen with opioids (RR 0.47 [95% CI 0.25-0.89]; moderate certainty). In terms of limitations, the eight RCTs included had relatively small sample sizes; only two were high-quality RCTs. CONCLUSIONS Our NMA found ibuprofen to be the most effective and least adverse analgesic in pediatric patients with MSK injuries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shu Utsumi
- Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
- Department of Emergency and Transport Medicine, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shunsuke Amagasa
- Department of Emergency and Transport Medicine, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Taro Moriwaki
- Department of Emergency and Transport Medicine, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Satoko Uematsu
- Department of Emergency and Transport Medicine, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Daoust R, Paquet J, Marquis M, Williamson D, Fontaine G, Chauny JM, Frégeau A, Orkin AM, Upadhye S, Lessard J, Cournoyer A. Efficacy of prescribed opioids for acute pain after being discharged from the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2023; 30:1253-1263. [PMID: 37607265 DOI: 10.1111/acem.14790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 08/08/2023] [Indexed: 08/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Opioids are often prescribed for acute pain to patients discharged from the emergency department (ED), but there is a paucity of data on their short-term use. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence regarding the efficacy of prescribed opioids compared to nonopioid analgesics for acute pain relief in ED-discharged patients. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and gray literature databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of prescribed opioids for ED-discharged patients, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Authors were contacted for missing data and to identify additional studies. The primary outcome was the difference in pain intensity scores or pain relief. All meta-analyses used a random-effect model and a sensitivity analysis compared patients treated with codeine versus those treated with other opioids. RESULTS From 5419 initially screened citations, 46 full texts were evaluated and six studies enrolling 1161 patients were included. Risk of bias was low for five studies. There was no statistically significant difference in pain intensity scores or pain relief between opioids versus nonopioid analgesics (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.10 to 0.34). Contrary to children, adult patients treated with opioid had better pain relief (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.42) compared to nonopioids. In another sensitivity analysis excluding studies using codeine, opioids were more effective than nonopioids (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.45). However, there were more adverse events associated with opioids (odds ratio 2.64, 95% CI 2.04-3.42). CONCLUSIONS For ED-discharged patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, opioids do not seem to be more effective than nonopioid analgesics. However, this absence of efficacy seems to be driven by codeine, as opioids other than codeine are more effective than nonopioids (mostly NSAIDs). Further prospective studies on the efficacy of short-term opioid use after ED discharge (excluding codeine), measuring patient-centered outcomes, adverse events, and potential misuse, are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raoul Daoust
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d'Urgence, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Centre de Recherce, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord de-l'Île-de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Jean Paquet
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Martin Marquis
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - David Williamson
- Centre de Recherce, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord de-l'Île-de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Guillaume Fontaine
- Centre for Implementation Research, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jean-Marc Chauny
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d'Urgence, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Centre de Recherce, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord de-l'Île-de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Amélie Frégeau
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d'Urgence, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Aaron M Orkin
- Department of Family and Community Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Joseph's Health Centre, Unity Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Suneel Upadhye
- McMaster University, Division of Emergency Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Justine Lessard
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d'Urgence, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Centre de Recherce, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord de-l'Île-de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Alexis Cournoyer
- Study Center in Emergency Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d'Urgence, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Centre de Recherce, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal (CIUSSS du Nord de-l'Île-de-Montréal), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fu Y, Liu Q, Nie H. Efficacy of opioids for traumatic pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1209131. [PMID: 37576822 PMCID: PMC10413574 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1209131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 08/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Aim: To systematically assess and rank the efficacy of opioid medications for traumatic pain in the emergency department in terms of pain relief, adverse events and rescue analgesia. Methods: Four databases were systematically searched until 26 September 2022: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Outcomes were pain relief, adverse events (dizziness, hypotension, pruritus, sedation), and rescue analgesia. For each outcome, network plots were drawn to exhibit direct and indirect comparisons, and rank probabilities were utilized to rank the efficacy of different opioids. Results: Twenty studies of 3,040 patients were eligible for this network meta-analysis. According to the rank probabilities, the top three analgesic medications for pain relief may be sufentanil (78.29% probability of ranking first), buprenorphine (48.54% probability of ranking second) and fentanyl (53.25% probability of ranking third); buprenorphine (31.20%), fentanyl (20.14%) and sufentanil (21.55%) were least likely to cause dizziness; the top three analgesic medications which were least likely to cause hypotension were buprenorphine (81.64%), morphine (45.02%) and sufentanil (17.27%); butorphanol (40.56%), morphine (41.11%) and fentanyl (14.63%) were least likely to cause pruritus; the top three medications which were least likely to cause sedation were hydrocodone + acetaminophen (97.92%), morphine (61.85%) and butorphanol (55.24%); patients who received oxycodone (83.64%), butorphanol (38.31%) and fentanyl (25.91%) were least likely to need rescue analgesia in sequence. Conclusion: Sufentanil, buprenorphine and fentanyl may be superior to other opioid medications in terms of pain relief and the incidence of dizziness, hypotension and pruritus, which might be selected as opioid analgesics for traumatic pain in the emergency setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yawen Fu
- Department of Emergency, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Qiang Liu
- Department of Emergency, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Hu Nie
- Department of Emergency, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
- West China Xiamen Hospital of Sichuan University, Xiamen, Fujian, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Prince EJ, Pecker LH, Lanzkron S, Carroll CP. The Complex Association of Daily Opioid Dose with Visits for Pain in Sickle Cell Disease: Tolerance or Treatment-Refractory Pain? PAIN MEDICINE (MALDEN, MASS.) 2023; 24:703-712. [PMID: 36458906 PMCID: PMC10501470 DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnac187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Revised: 11/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Opioids are used for acute and chronic pain in patients with sickle cell disease. How outpatient opioid regimens relate to acute care visits is of interest given the risks of high opioid doses and high hospital utilization. A prior study by our group suggested that outpatient opioid treatment for chronic pain could contribute to a vicious cycle of treatment-refractory acute pain, greater acute care utilization, and escalating opioid doses. The present larger naturalistic observational study was undertaken to determine whether the results were reliable across multiple acute care settings. METHODS One year of clinical data on patients (n = 291) followed in the Sickle Cell Center for Adults (August 2018 to July 2019) were extracted, including visits to the emergency department, visits to the infusion center, and inpatient admissions. Outpatient opioid dosage was used to predict acute care treatment in generalized linear models that were controlled for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS Outpatient opioid dosage predicted dosage during visits but did not predict visit length or pain relief. Higher outpatient opioid dosage was associated with greater number of visits. However, in post hoc analyses, this relationship was nonlinear, with a clear positive association only for those prescribed the lowest 50% of dosages. DISCUSSION Higher outpatient opioid dosage predicted higher dosages during acute care visits to achieve the same pain score improvement, which is more consistent with opioid tolerance than with treatment-refractory pain. The relationship of outpatient opioid dosage with number of acute care visits was more complex, which suggests that opioid consumption at lower levels is driven by intermittent acute pain and opioid consumption at higher levels is driven by chronic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sophie Lanzkron
- Medicine and Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhong J, Hu J, Mao L, Ye G, Qiu K, Zhao Y, Hu S. Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Relief in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 8:706844. [PMID: 35111766 PMCID: PMC8801430 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.706844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department. METHODS The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included. RESULTS Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.08, 0.61 I 2 = 81% p = 0.59), 30 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.03, 0.55 I 2 = 86% p = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: -0.66, 1.29 I 2 = 66% p = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: -0.26, 1.44 I 2 = 75% p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 I 2 = 41% p = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 I 2 = 48% p = 0.78). CONCLUSION IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Junfeng Zhong
- Department of Pain Medicine, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| | - Junfeng Hu
- Department of Pain Medicine, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| | - Linling Mao
- Department of Pain Medicine, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| | - Gang Ye
- Department of Pain Medicine, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| | - Kai Qiu
- Department of Pain Medicine, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| | - Yuhong Zhao
- Department of Pain Medicine, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| | - Shuangyan Hu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Shaoxing Peoples's Hospital, Shaoxing, China
| |
Collapse
|