Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of Two Intravenous Morphine Dosages (0.10 mg/kg and 0.15 mg/kg) in Emergency Department Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Pain

Health Status Perception and Psychological Sequelae in Buried Victims: An Observational Study on Survivors of the Earthquake in Amatrice (Italy), Three Years Later

INTRODUCTION

The extrication from rubble is particularly critical for the survival of the victims of an earthquake. Early repeated infusion of sedative agents (SAs) in the acute trauma phase may interfere with neural processes leading to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the psychological status reported by the buried victims of the earthquake in Amatrice (August 24, 2016; Italy) by considering type of the SAs administered during the extrication maneuvers.

METHODS

This was an observational study on data from 51 patients directly rescued under the rubble during the earthquake in Amatrice. During extrication maneuvers, a moderate sedation was administered by titrating ketamine (0.3-0.5mg/kg) or morphine (0.1-0.15mg/kg) with respect to the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS; between -2 and -3) in buried victims.Three years following the rescue, the survivors were interviewed on their perceived health status and stress using a questionnaire which consisted of 17 items: the standard four-item set of healthy days core questions (CDC HRQOL-4); the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12); and in addition, survivors were asked if they had a diagnosis for anxiety, depression, or for PTSD.

RESULTS

The study analyzed data from the complete clinical documentation of 51 survivors; 30 were males and 21 females, with an average age of 52 years. Twenty-six (26) subjects were treated with ketamine, while 25 were treated with morphine, during the extrication procedures. Concerning the quality-of-life analysis, only 10 survivors out of 51 perceived their health status as good; the others reported psychological disorders. The GHQ-12 scores showed that all survivors had psychological distress with a mean total score of 22.2 (SD = 3.5). Eighteen (18) victims declared to have had a diagnosis of generalized anxiety (35%), while 29 were treated for depression (57%) and PTSD (57%) by a specialist. With regards to the perceived distress level and the anxiety disorder, this analysis showed significant associations with SAs used during extrication, with a better performance for ketamine than for morphine.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest investigating whether early sedation with ketamine directly in the disaster setting may promote the prophylaxis and reduce the risk of developing trauma-related disorders (TRDs) on the buried victims of major natural disasters in future studies.

Intravenous acetaminophen does not reduce morphine use for pain relief in emergency department patients: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Pain is one of the main reasons to present to emergency departments (EDs). Opioids are indispensable for acute pain management but are associated with side effects, misuse, and dependence. The aim of this study was to test whether a single dose of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) can reduce the use of morphine for pain relief and/or morphine‐related adverse events (AEs).

Methods

ED patients >18 years with acute pain (i.e., Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] > 4) were screened for eligibility. Patients with analgesia in the past 6 h, chronic pain, or clinical instability were excluded. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either morphine 0.1 mg/kg and 1 g acetaminophen IV or morphine 0.1 mg/kg and placebo IV. The intervention was double‐blinded. Additional morphine 0.05 mg/kg IV was administered every 15 minutes until pain relief (defined as NRS < 4) and whether the pain recurred. The primary outcome was the mean morphine dose for pain relief. Secondary outcomes were the total amount of morphine given, time to achieve pain relief, and AEs.

Results

A total of 220 patients were randomized and 202 evaluated for the primary outcome. The mean morphine dose for pain relief was similar in both groups (acetaminophen 0.15 mg ± 0.07 mg/kg, placebo 0.16 ± 0.07 mg/kg). There were no differences in the total amount of morphine given (acetaminophen 0.19 ± 0.09 mg/kg, placebo 0.19 ± 0.1 mg/kg), the time to achieve pain relief (acetaminophen 30 min [95% CI 17–31 min], placebo 30 min [95% CI 30–35 min]), and the frequency of AEs (overall 27.4%). Time to pain recurrence did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio 1.23 [0.76–1.98], p = 0.40).

Conclusions

In ED patients, acetaminophen had no additional effect on pain control or morphine‐sparing effect at the time of first morphine administration. Titrated morphine with the algorithm used was highly effective, with 80% of all patients reporting pain relief within 60 min of starting therapy.

Intranasal sufentanil versus intravenous morphine for acute severe trauma pain: A double-blind randomized non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous morphine (IVM) is the most common strong analgesic used in trauma, but is associated with a clear time limitation related to the need to obtain an access route. The intranasal (IN) route provides easy administration with a fast peak action time due to high vascularization and the absence of first-pass metabolism. We aimed to determine whether IN sufentanil (INS) for patients presenting to an emergency department with acute severe traumatic pain results in a reduction in pain intensity non-inferior to IVM.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In a prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority trial conducted in the emergency departments of 6 hospitals across France, patients were randomized 1:1 to INS titration (0.3 μg/kg and additional doses of 0.15 μg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if numerical pain rating scale [NRS] > 3) and intravenous placebo, or to IVM (0.1 mg/kg and additional doses of 0.05 mg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if NRS > 3) and IN placebo. Patients, clinical staff, and research staff were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the total decrease on NRS at 30 minutes after first administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -1.3 on the NRS. The primary outcome was analyzed per protocol. Adverse events were prospectively recorded during 4 hours. Among the 194 patients enrolled in the emergency department cohort between November 4, 2013, and April 10, 2016, 157 were randomized, and the protocol was correctly administered in 136 (69 IVM group, 67 INS group, per protocol population, 76% men, median age 40 [IQR 29 to 54] years). The mean difference between NRS at first administration and NRS at 30 minutes was -4.1 (97.5% CI -4.6 to -3.6) in the IVM group and -5.2 (97.5% CI -5.7 to -4.6) in the INS group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (p < 0.001 with 1-sided mean-equivalence t test), as the lower 97.5% confidence interval of 0.29 (97.5% CI 0.29 to 1.93) was above the prespecified margin of -1.3. INS was superior to IVM (intention to treat analysis: p = 0.034), but without a clinically significant difference in mean NRS between groups. Six severe adverse events were observed in the INS group and 2 in the IVM group (number needed to harm: 17), including an apparent imbalance for hypoxemia (3 in the INS group versus 1 in the IVM group) and for bradypnea (2 in the INS group versus 0 in the IVM group). The main limitation of the study was that the choice of concomitant analgesics, when they were used, was left to the discretion of the physician in charge, and co-analgesia was more often used in the IVM group. Moreover, the size of the study did not allow us to conclude with certainty about the safety of INS in emergency settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirm the non-inferiority of INS compared to IVM for pain reduction at 30 minutes after administration in patients with severe traumatic pain presenting to an emergency department. The IN route, with no need to obtain a venous route, may allow early and effective analgesia in emergency settings and in difficult situations. Confirmation of the safety profile of INS will require further larger studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02095366. EudraCT 2013-001665-16.

Essential pharmacologic options for acute pain management in the emergency setting

Pain is the root cause for the overwhelming majority of emergency department (ED) visits worldwide. However, pain is often undertreated due to inappropriate analgesic dosing and ineffective utilization of available analgesics. It is essential for emergency providers to understand the analgesic armamentarium at their disposal and how it can be used safely and effectively to treat pain of every proportion within the emergency setting. A 'balanced analgesia' regimen may be used to treat pain while reducing the overall pharmacologic side effect profile of the combined analgesics. Channels-Enzymes-Receptors Targeted Analgesia (CERTA) is a multimodal analgesic strategy incorporating balanced analgesia by shifting from a system-based to a mechanistic-based approach to pain management that targets the physiologic pathways involved in pain signaling transmission. Targeting individual pain pathways allows for a variety of reduced-dose pharmacologic options - both opioid and non-opioid - to be used in a stepwise progression of analgesic strength as pain advances up the severity scale. By developing a familiarity with the various analgesic options at their disposal, emergency providers may formulate safe, effective, balanced analgesic combinations unique to each emergency pain presentation.

The Evolving Landscape of Acute Pain Management in the Era of the Opioid Crisis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to evaluate and analyze the role of both opioid and non-opioid analgesics in the emergency department (ED).

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have shown that the implementation of opioid-prescribing policies in the ED has the potential to reduce the opioid addiction burden. Clinical studies point to inconsistencies in providers' approach to pain treatment. In this review, we discuss specific aspects of opioid utilization and explore alternative non-opioid approaches to pain management. Pain is the most common reason patients present to the ED. As such, emergency medicine (EM) providers must be well versed in treating pain. EM providers must be comfortable using a wide variety of analgesic medications. Opioid analgesics, while effective for some indications, are associated with significant adverse effects and abuse potential. EM providers should utilize opioid analgesics in a safe and rational manner in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic and to avoid therapeutic misadventures. EM providers should be aware of all of their therapeutic options, e.g., opioid and non-opioid, in order to provide effective analgesia for their patients, while avoiding adverse effects and minimizing the potential for misuse.

Does co-treatment with ultra-low-dose naloxone and morphine provide better analgesia in renal colic patients?

OBJECTIVE

This study attempted to evaluate the efficacy of ultra-low-dose intravenous (IV) naloxone combined with IV morphine, as compared to IV morphine alone, in terms of reducing pain and morphine-induced side effects in patients with renal colic.

METHODS

In this double-blind clinical trial, 150 patients aged 34 to 60 years old who presented to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic were randomly allocated to either an intervention group that received ultra-low-dose IV naloxone combined with IV morphine or to a control group that received morphine plus a placebo. The severity of pain, sedation, and nausea were assessed and recorded for all patients at entrance to the ED (T1), then at 20 (T2), 40 (T3), 60 (T4), 120 (T5), and 180 (T6) minutes after starting treatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used for the assessment of pain and nausea intensities, and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) was used to assess sedation.

RESULTS

A GEE model revealed that patients in the naloxone group had non-significantly reduced pain scores compared to those in the morphine group (coefficient = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.11, Wald X2 (1) = 5.41, p = 0.02). The sedation outcome demonstrated no statistically significant differences at T1 to T4 among patients with renal colic compared to the ones who only received morphine. At T5 and T6, 1.5% vs. 20% and 1.5% vs. 16.9% of subjects from the naloxone group versus the morphine group obtained RSS scores equal to 3, respectively (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to patients who only received IV morphine, co-treatment of ultra-low-dose naloxone with morphine could not provide better analgesia and sedation/agitation states in renal colic patients.

Use of Ultrasound-Guided Superficial Cervical Plexus Block for Pain Management in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Although use of the superficial cervical plexus block (SCPB) by anesthesia for perioperative indications is well described, there is a paucity of research on use of SCPB in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

This prospective observational study aims to prospectively characterize the feasibility, potential for efficacy, and safety of ultrasound-guided SCPB in a convenience sample of ED patients presenting with painful conditions of the "cape" distribution of the neck and shoulder.

METHODS

Data were gathered prospectively on a convenience sample of 27 patients presenting to a community ED with painful conditions involving the distribution of the SCPB: para-cervical muscle spasm/pain (n = 8), clavicle fractures (n = 7), acromioclavicular joint injuries (n = 3), radicular pain (n = 3), and rotator cuff disorders (n = 6). Pre- and post-block 11-point verbal numeric pain scores (VNPS) were recorded, as was the incidence of any immediate complications. A retrospective chart review looked for delayed complications in the 14-day post-block period.

RESULTS

The mean 11-point VNPS reduction was 5.4 points (62%). There were no early serious complications and one case each of self-limiting vocal hoarseness and asymptomatic hemi-diaphragmatic paresis. No delayed block-related complications were found.

CONCLUSIONS

While limited by the fact that this was a nonrandomized observational experience with no control group, our findings suggest that SCBP may be safe and have potential for efficacy, and warrants further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

Administration of intravenous morphine for acute pain in the emergency department inflicts an economic burden in Europe

BACKGROUND

Acute pain is among the leading causes of referral to the emergency department (ED) in industrialized countries. Its management mainly depends on intensity. Moderate-to-severe pain is treated with intravenous (IV) administered opioids, of which morphine is the most commonly used in the ED. We have estimated the burden of IV administration of morphine in the five key European countries (EU5) using a micro-costing approach.

SCOPE

A structured literature review was conducted to identify clinical guidelines for acute pain management in EU5 and clinical studies conducted in the ED setting. The data identified in this literature review constituted the source for all model input parameters, which were clustered as analgesic (morphine), material used for IV morphine administration, nurse workforce time and management of morphine-related adverse events and IV-related complications.

FINDINGS

The cost per patient of IV morphine administration in the ED ranges between €18.31 in Spain and €28.38 in Germany. If costs associated with the management of morphine-related adverse events and IV-related complications are also considered, the total costs amount to €121.13-€132.43. The main driver of those total costs is the management of IV-related complications (phlebitis, extravasation and IV prescription errors; 73% of all costs) followed by workforce time (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

IV morphine provides effective pain relief in the ED, but the costs associated with the IV administration inflict an economic burden on the respective national health services in EU5. An equally rapid-onset and efficacious analgesic that does not require IV administration could reduce this burden.

Acute Pain Management in Emergency Department, Low Dose Ketamine Versus Morphine, A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Ketamine, as an opium alternative, has been proposed for pain relief in the emergency department (ED).

Objectives

This study was carried out to compare low dose ketamine (LDK) with morphine for pain relief in trauma patients.

Methods

In this randomized double-blinded clinical trial, 300 trauma patients from the ED of 2 teaching hospitals in Tehran, Iran were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 equal groups. The 1st group received 0.2 mg/kg of ketamine while the 2nd group received 0.1 mg/kg of intravenous morphine. The pain intensity and complications were measured and compared every 15 minutes to 1 hour.

Results

Fifteen minutes after drug injection in both groups, a significant reduction was found in average pain intensity compared to the initial pain (P = 0.01). At 15 minutes, no significant difference was found in both groups in regards to average pain intensity (P = 0.23). The average pain intensity at 30, 45, and 60 minutes in the group receiving morphine was lower than the ketamine group (P = 0.01, P < 0.001, P < 0.001 respectively). Two complications (drop in O₂ saturation below 90% and flushing) were significantly greater in the morphine group.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that LDK, at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg, in the earlier minutes leads to significant reduction of pain when compared to that of intravenous morphine. It also created fewer complications than morphine.

Cost of Intravenous Analgesia for the Management of Acute Pain in the Emergency Department is Substantial in the United States

Background: Pain is a leading cause of admission to the emergency department (ED) and moderate-to-severe acute pain in medically supervised settings is often treated with intravenous (IV) opioids. With novel noninvasive analgesic products in development for this indication, it is important to assess the costs associated with IV administration of opioids. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study of data derived from the Premier database was conducted. All ED encounters of adult patients treated with IV opioids during a 2-year time period, who were charged for at least one IV opioid administration in the ED were included. Hospital reported costs were used to estimate the costs to administer IV opioids. Results: Over a 24 month-period, 7.3 million encounters, which included the administration of IV opioids took place in 614 US EDs. The mean cost per encounter of IV administration of an initial dose of the three most frequently prescribed opioids were: morphine $145, hydromorphone $146, and fentanyl $147. The main driver of the total costs is the cost of nursing time and equipment cost to set up and maintain an IV infusion ($140 ± 60). Adding a second dose of opioid, brings the average costs to $151-$154. If costs associated with the management of opioid-related adverse events and IV-related complications are also added, the total costs can amount to $269-$273. Of these 7.3 million encounters, 4.3 million (58%) did not lead to hospital admission of the patient and, therefore, the patient may have only required an IV catheter for opioid administration. Conclusions: IV opioid use in the ED is indicated for moderate-to-severe pain but is associated with significant costs. In subjects who are discharged from the ED and may not have required an IV for reasons other than opioid administration, rapid-onset analgesics for moderate-to-severe pain that do not require IV administration could lead to direct cost reductions and improved care.

A description of pharmacological analgesia administration by public sector advanced life support paramedics in the City of Cape Town

INTRODUCTION

Emergency Medical Services are ideally placed to provide relief of acute pain and discomfort. The objectives of this study were to describe pre-hospital pain management practices by Emergency Medical Services in the Western Cape, South Africa.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive survey was undertaken of analgesic drug administration by advanced life support paramedics. Patient care records generated in the City of Cape Town during an 11-month period containing administrations of morphine, ketamine, nitrates and 50% nitrous oxide/oxygen were randomly sampled. Variables studied were drug dose, dose frequency, and route of administration, patient age, gender, disorder and call type as well as qualification and experience level of the provider.

RESULTS

A total of 530 patient care records were included (n = 530). Morphine was administered in 371 (70%, 95% CI 66-74) cases, nitrates in 197 (37%, 95% CI 33-41) and ketamine in 9 (1.7%, 95% CI 1-3) cases. A total of 5 mg or less of morphine was administered in 278 (75%, 95% CI 70-79) cases, with the median dose being 4 mg (IQR 3-6). Single doses were administered to 268 (72.2%, 95% CI 67-77) morphine administrations, five (56%, 95% CI 21-86) ketamine administrations and 161 (82%, 95% CI 76-87) of nitrate administrations. Chest pain was the reason for pain management in 226 (43%) cases. Advanced Life Support Providers had a median experience level of two years (IQR 2-4).

DISCUSSION

Pre-hospital acute pain management in the Western Cape does not appear to conform to best practice as Advanced Life Support providers in the Western Cape use low doses of morphine. Chest pain is an important reason for drug administration in acute pre-hospital pain. Multimodal analgesia is not a feature of care in this pre-hospital service. The development of a Clinical Practice Guideline for and training in pre-hospital pain should be viewed as imperative.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Versus Ilioinguinal and Iliohypogastric Nerve Blocks for Analgesia Following Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that preoperative (pre-op) ultrasound (US)-guided posterior transversus abdominis plane block (TAP) and US-guided ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block (ILI+IHG) will produce a comparable analgesia after Lichtenstein patch tension-free method of open inguinal hernia repair in adult men. The genital branch of the genitofemoral nerve will be blocked separately.

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, and observer-blinded clinical study. A total of 166 adult men were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a pre-op TAP group, a pre-op ILI+IHG group, and a control group. An intraoperative block of the genital branch of the genitofemoral nerve was performed in all patients in all three groups, followed by postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine. The pain intensity and morphine consumption immediately after surgery and during the 24 hours after surgery were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients completed the study protocol. The intensity of pain immediately after surgery and morphine consumption were similar in the two "block" groups; however, they were significantly decreased compared with the control group. During the 24 hours after surgery, morphine consumption in the ILI+IHG group decreased compared with the TAP group, as well as in each "block" group versus the control group. Twenty-four hours after surgery, all evaluated parameters were similar.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided ILI+IHG provided better pain control than US-guided posterior TAP following the Lichtenstein patch tension-free method of open inguinal hernia repair in men during 24 hours after surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01429480.).

Advanced Concepts and Controversies in Emergency Department Pain Management

Pain is the most common complaint for which patients come to the emergency department (ED). Emergency physicians are responsible for pain relief in a timely, efficient, and safe manner in the ED. The improvement in our understanding of the neurobiology of pain has balanced the utilization of nonopioid and opioid analgesia, and simultaneously has led to more rational and safer opioid prescribing practices. This article reviews advances in pain management in the ED for patients with acute and chronic pain as well as describes several newer strategies and controversies.

Delivering safe and effective analgesia for management of renal colic in the emergency department: a double-blind, multigroup, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The excruciating pain of patients with renal colic on presentation to the emergency department requires effective analgesia to be administered in the shortest possible time. Trials comparing intramuscular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with intravenous opioids or paracetamol have been inconclusive because of the challenges associated with concealment of randomisation, small sample size, differences in outcome measures, and inadequate masking of participants and assessors. We did this trial to develop definitive evidence regarding the choice of initial analgesia and route of administration in participants presenting with renal colic to the emergency department.

METHODS

In this three-treatment group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, adult participants (aged 18-65 years) presenting to the emergency department of an academic, tertiary care hospital in Qatar, with moderate to severe renal colic (Numerical pain Rating Scale ≥ 4) were recruited. With the use of computer-generated block randomisation (block sizes of six and nine), participants were assigned (1:1:1) to receive diclofenac (75 mg/3 mL intramuscular), morphine (0.1 mg/kg intravenous), or paracetamol (1 g/100 mL intravenous). Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in initial pain score at 30 min after analgesia, assessed by intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, which included patients where a calculus in the urinary tract was detected with imaging. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02187614.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 5, 2014, and March 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 1645 participants, of whom 1644 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (547 in the diclofenac group, 548 in the paracetemol group, and 549 in the morphine group). Ureteric calculi were detected in 1316 patients, who were analysed as the per-protocol population (438 in the diclofenac group, 435 in the paracetemol group, and 443 in the morphine group). The primary outcome was achieved in 371 (68%) patients in the diclofenac group, 364 (66%) in the paracetamol group, and 335 (61%) in the morphine group in the intention-to-treat population. Compared to morphine, diclofenac was significantly more effective in achieving the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR] 1·35, 95% CI 1·05-1·73, p=0·0187), whereas no difference was detected in the effectiveness of morphine compared with intravenous paracetamol (1·26, 0·99-1·62, p=0·0629). In the per-protocol population, diclofenac (OR 1·49, 95% CI 1·13-1·97, p=0·0046) and paracetamol (1·40, 1·06-1·85, p=0·0166) were more effective than morphine in achieving the primary outcome. Acute adverse events in the morphine group occurred in 19 (3%) participants. Significantly lower numbers of adverse events were recorded in the diclofenac group (7 [1%] participants, OR 0·31, 95% CI 0·12-0·78, p=0·0088) and paracetamol group (7 [1%] participants, 0·36, 0·15-0·87, p=0·0175) than in the morphine group. During the 2 week follow-up, no additional adverse events were noted in any group.

INTERPRETATION

Intramuscular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs offer the most effective sustained analgesia for renal colic in the emergency department and seem to have fewer side-effects.

FUNDING

Hamad Medical Corporation Medical Research Center, Doha, Qatar.

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Opioid titration is an effective strategy for treating pain; however, titration is generally impractical in the busy emergency department (ED) setting. Our objective was to test a rapid, two-step, hydromorphone titration protocol against usual care in older patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of patients 65 years of age and older presenting to an adult, urban, academic ED with acute severe pain. The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01429285). Patients randomized to the hydromorphone titration protocol initially received 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients randomized to usual care received any dose of any intravenous opioid. At 15 min, patients in both groups were asked, 'Do you want more pain medication?' Patients in the hydromorphone titration group who answered 'yes' received a second dose of 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients in the usual care group who answered 'yes' had their ED attending physician notified, who then could administer any (or no) additional medication. The primary efficacy outcome was satisfactory analgesia defined a priori as the patient declining additional analgesia at least once when asked at 15 or 60 min after administration of the initial opioid. Dose was calculated in morphine equivalent units (MEU: 1 mg hydromorphone = 7 mg morphine). The need for naloxone to reverse adverse opioid effects was the primary safety outcome.

RESULTS

83.0 % of 153 patients in the hydromorphone titration group achieved satisfactory analgesia compared with 82.5 % of 166 patients in the usual care group (p = 0.91). Patients in the hydromorphone titration group received lower mean initial doses of opioids at baseline than patients in the usual care group (3.5 MEU vs. 4.7 MEU, respectively; p ≤ 0.001) and lower total opioids through 60 min (5.3 MEU vs. 6.0 MEU; p = 0.03). No patient needed naloxone.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose titration of intravenous hydromorphone in increments of 0.5 mg provides comparable analgesia to usual care with less opioid over 60 min.

Does midazolam enhance pain control in prehospital management of traumatic severe pain?

PURPOSE

Midazolam comedication with morphine is a routine practice in pre and postoperative patients but has not been evaluated in prehospital setting. We aimed to evaluate the comedication effect of midazolam in the prehospital traumatic adults.

METHODS

A prehospital prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous morphine 0.10 mg/kg and midazolam 0.04 mg/kg vs morphine 0.10 mg/kg and placebo. Pain assessment was done using a validated numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary end point was to achieve an efficient analgesic effect (NRS≤3) 20 minutes after the baseline. The secondary end points were treatment safety, total morphine dose required until obtaining NRS≤3, and efficient analgesic effect 30 minutes after the baseline.

FINDINGS

Ninety-one patients were randomized into midazolam (n=41) and placebo (n=50) groups. No significant difference in proportion of patients with a pain score≤3 was observed between midazolam (43.6%) and placebo (45.7%) after 20 minutes (P=.849). Secondary end points were similar in regard with proportion of patients with a pain score≤3 at T30, the side effects and adverse events except for drowsiness in midazolam vs placebo, 43.6% vs 6.5% (P<.001). No significant difference in total morphine dose was observed, that is, midazolam (14.09 mg±6.64) vs placebo (15.53 mg±6.27) (P=.315).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our study, midazolam does not enhance pain control as an adjunctive to morphine regimen in the management of trauma-induced pain in prehospital setting. However, such midazolam use seems to be associated with an increase in drowsiness.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety of a single 2-mg intravenous dose of hydromorphone versus usual care in the management of acute pain

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to test the efficacy and safety of 2 mg of intravenous (IV) hydromorphone (Dilaudid) against "usual care" in emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain.

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial. Patients allocated to 2 mg of IV hydromorphone received their medication in a single dose. Those randomized to usual care received any IV opioid, with type, dose, and frequency chosen by the ED attending. All patients received 2 L/min. nasal cannula oxygen. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients who achieved clinically satisfactory analgesia by 30 minutes. This was defined as the patient declining additional analgesia when asked the question, "Do you want more pain medicine?" A 10% absolute difference was chosen a priori as the minimum difference considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Of 175 subjects randomized to each group, 164 in the 2 mg hydromorphone group and 161 in the usual care group had sufficient data for analysis. Additional pain medication was declined by 77.4% of patients in the 2 mg hydromorphone group at 30 minutes, compared to 65.8% in the usual care group. This difference of 11.6% was statistically and clinically significant (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8% to 21.1%). Safety profiles were similar and no patient required naloxone. There was more pruritus in the hydromorphone group (18.3% vs. 8.7%; difference = 9.6%, 95% CI = 2.6% to 16.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a simple dichotomous patient-centered endpoint in which a difference of 10% in proportion obtaining adequate analgesia was considered clinically significant, 2 mg of hydromorphone in a single IV dose is clinically and statistically more efficacious when compared to usual care for acute pain management in the ED.

Time of admission, gender and age: challenging factors in emergency renal colic - a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Nephrolithiasis is a relatively common problem and a frequent Emergency Department (ED) diagnosis in patients who present with acute flank/abdominal pain. The pain management in these patients is often challenging.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the most effective dose of morphine with the least side effects in emergency renal colic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

150 renal colic patients who experienced a pain level of 4 or greater, based on visual analog scale (VAS) at admission time were included. Pain was scored on a 100 mm VAS (0 = no pain, 100 = the worst pain imagined). When patients arrived at ED, a physician would examine the patients and assessed initial pain score, then filled a questionnaire according to the patient information. Patients were assigned to receive 2.5 mg morphine sulfate intravenously. We monitored patients' visual analog scale (VAS), and adverse events at different time points (every 15 minutes) for 90 minutes. Additional doses of intravenous morphine (2.5 mg) were administered if the patient still had pain. (Max dose: 10 mg). The cumulative dose of morphine, defined as the total amount of morphine prescribed to each patient during the 90 minutes of the study, was recorded. Patients were not permitted to use any nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as coadjuvant analgesics during the study period. Subjects with inadequate pain relief at 90 minutes received rescue morphine and were excluded from the study. The primary end point in this study was pain relief at 90 minutes, defined as either VAS<40 or decrease of 50% or more as compared to the initial VAS. The secondary objective was to detect the occurrence of adverse effects at any time points in ED.

RESULTS

The studied patients consisted of 104 men and 46 women with the mean age of 43 ±14 years (range, 18 to 75 years). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean age and gender differences in pain response. Rescue analgesia at 30 minutes were given in 54.5% receiving morphine. The average time to painless was 35 minutes. But there were no statistically significant differences between the mean age and gender differences in pain response (P > 0.05). Older patients responded sooner to morphine than the young. Most of the patients had a pain score of 90 -100 (77.3 %) at the beginning that was reduced to 29.4% during the 30 minutes follow up. During the first hour, we found that 94.7% of the patients had no pain or significant pain reduction and only 2.1% of the patients still had pain.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there were no significant differences among the gender, time of admission and side - effects in renal colic patients in response to morphine.

Parenteral opioids in emergency medicine - A systematic review of efficacy and safety

Introduction and aim Pain is a frequent symptom in emergency patients and opioids are commonly used to treat it at emergency departments and at pre-hospital settings. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the efficacy and safety of parenteral opioids used for acute pain in emergency medicine. Method Qualitative review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on parenteral opioids for acute pain in adult emergency patients. Main outcome measures were: type and dose of the opioid, analgesic efficacy as compared to either placebo or another opioid and adverse effects. Results Twenty double-blind RCTs with results on 2322 patients were included. Seven studies were placebo controlled. Majority of studies were performed in the emergency department. Only five studies were in prehospital setting. Prehospital studies Four studies were on mainly trauma-related pain, one ischemic chest pain. One study compared two different doses of morphine in mainly trauma pain showing faster analgesia with the larger dose but no difference at 30 min postdrug. Three other studies on the same pain model showed equal analgesic effects with morphine and other opioids. Alfentanil was more effective than morphine in ischemic chest pain. Emergency department studies Pain models used were acute abdominal pain seven, renal colic four, mixed (mainly abdominal pain) three and trauma pain one study. Five studies compared morphine to placebo in acute abdominal pain and in all studies morphine was more effective than placebo. In four out of five studies on acute abdominal pain morphine did not change diagnostic accuracy, clinical or radiological findings. Most commonly used morphine dose in the emergency department was 0.1 mg/kg (five studies). Other opioids showed analgesic effect comparable to morphine. Adverse effects Recording and reporting of adverse effects was very variable. Vital signs were recorded in 15 of the 20 studies (including all prehospital studies). Incidence of adverse effects in the opioid groups was 5-38% of the patients in the prehospital setting and 4-46% of the patients in the emergency department. Nausea or vomiting was reported in 11-25% of the patients given opioids. Study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects five patients (one placebo, two sufentanil, two morphine). Eight studies commented on administration of naloxone for reversal of opioid effects. One patient out of 1266 was given naloxone for drowsiness. Ventilatory depression defined by variable criteria occurred in occurred in 7 out of 756 emergency department patients. Conclusion Evidence for selection of optimal opioid and dose is scarce. Opioids, especially morphine, are effective in relieving acute pain also in emergency medicine patients. Studies so far are small and reporting of adverse effects is very variable. Therefore the safety of different opioids and doses remains to be studied. Also the optimal titration regimens need to be evaluated in future studies. The prevention and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting is an important clinical consideration that requires further clinical and scientific attention in this patient group.

Intravenous Opioids for Severe Acute Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective:

To review clinical trials of intravenous opioids for severe acute pain in the emergency department (ED) and to provide an approach for optimization of therapy.

Data Sources:

Articles were identified through a search of Ovid/MEDLINE (1948-August 2010), PubMed (1950-August 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991-August 2010), and Google Scholar (1900-August 2010). The search terms used were pain, opioid, and emergency department.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

The search was limited by age group to adults and by publication type to comparative studies. Studies comparing routes of administration other than intravenous or using non-opioid comparators were not included. Bibliographies of all retrieved articles were reviewed to obtain additional articles. The focus of the search was to identify original research that compared intravenous opioids used for treatment of severe acute pain for adults in the ED.

Data Synthesis:

At equipotent doses, randomized controlled trials have not shown clinically significant differences in analgesic response or adverse effects between opioids studied. Single opioid doses less than 0.1 mg/kg of intravenous morphine, 0.015 mg/kg of intravenous hydromorphone, or 1 μg/kg of intravenous fentanyl are likely to be inadequate for severe, acute pain and the need for additional doses should be anticipated. In none of the randomized controlled trials did patients develop respiratory depression requiring the use of naloxone. Future trials could investigate the safety and efficacy of higher doses of opioids. Implementation of nurse-initiated and patient-driven pain management protocols for opioids in the ED has shown improvements in timely provision of appropriate analgesics and has resulted in better pain reduction.

Conclusions:

Currently, intravenous administration of opioids for severe acute pain in the ED appears to be inadequate. Opioid doses in the ED should be high enough to provide adequate analgesia without additional risk to the patient. EDs could implement institution-specific protocols to standardize the management of pain.

Aspects on the intensity and the relief of pain in the prehospital phase of acute coronary syndrome: experiences from a randomized clinical trial

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the pain relief and tolerability of two pain-relieving strategies in the prehospital phase of presumed acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and the secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the intensity and relief of pain and heart rate, blood pressure, and ST deviation. Patients with chest pain judged as caused by ACS were randomized (open) to either metoprolol 5 mg intravenously (i.v.) three times at 2-min intervals (n = 84; metoprolol group) or morphine 5 mg i.v. followed by metoprolol 5 mg three times i.v (n = 80; morphine group). Pain was assessed on a 10-grade scale before randomization and 10, 20, and 30 min thereafter. The mean pain score decreased from 6.5 at randomization to 2.8 30 min later, with no significant difference between groups. The percentages with complete pain relief (pain score < or = 1) after 10, 20, and 30 min were 11, 16, and 21%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Hypotension was less frequent in the metoprolol group compared with the morphine group (0 vs. 6.3%; P=0.03), as was nausea/vomiting (7.2 vs. 24.0%; P=0.004). At randomization intensity of pain was associated with degree of ST elevation (P=0.009). The degree of pain relief over 30 min was associated with decrease in heart rate (P=0.03) and decrease in ST elevation (P=0.01).In conclusion, in the prehospital phase of presumed ACS, neither a pain-relieving strategy including an anti-ischemic agent alone nor an analgesic plus anti-ischemic strategy in combination resulted in complete pain relief. Fewer side effects were found with the former strategy. Other pain-relieving strategies need to be evaluated.

Sufentanil is not superior to morphine for the treatment of acute traumatic pain in an emergency setting: a randomized, double-blind, out-of-hospital trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine the best intravenous opioid titration protocol by comparing morphine and sufentanil for adult patients with severe traumatic acute pain in an out-of-hospital setting, with a physician providing care.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, patients were eligible for inclusion if aged 18 years or older, with acute severe pain (defined as a numeric rating scale score ≥ 6/10) caused by trauma. They were assigned to receive either intravenous 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil, followed by 0.075 μg/kg every 3 minutes or intravenous 0.15 mg/kg morphine and then 0.075 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was pain relief at 15 minutes, defined as a numeric rating scale less than or equal to 3 of 10. Secondary endpoints were time to analgesia, adverse events, and duration of analgesia during the first 6 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were included, 54 in each group. At 15 minutes, 74% of the patients in the sufentanil group had a numeric rating scale score of 3 or lower versus 70% of those in the morphine group (Δ4%; 95% confidence interval -13% to 21%). At 9 minutes, 65% of the patients in the sufentanil group experienced pain relief versus 46% of those in the morphine group (Δ18%; 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 35%). The duration of analgesia was in favor of the morphine group. Nineteen percent of patients experienced an adverse event in both groups, all mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous morphine titration using a loading dose of morphine followed by strictly administered lower doses at regular intervals remains the criterion standard. Moreover, this study supports the idea that the doses studied should be considered for routine administration in severe pain protocols.

Patient Weight as a Predictor of Pain Response to Morphine in the Emergency Department

Study Objectives: There is little evidence that patient weight is associated with pain response to morphine in the emergency department (ED). The primary outcome of this study is to identify demographic variables including patient weight that are associated with an adequate pain reduction after the first dose of morphine. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients with severe nontraumatic abdominal pain receiving intravenous morphine was conducted in our ED over a 3-month time period. Pain score, using an 11-point verbal numerical pain scale (0-10), was measured before and after each dose of morphine. Adequate response was defined as a ≥ 4-point reduction from baseline pain score. Results: A total of 105 patients were included in the analysis. Univariate logistic regression analyses stratified by dose (2 or 4 mg) showed that patient weight was not predictive of adequate pain response after the first dose of morphine (2 mg: odds ratio = 1; 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.03; P = .88; 4 mg: odds ratio = 1; 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.03; P = .86). Conclusions: Patient weight may not predict pain response to morphine in the ED. Dosing strategies based on patient weight may not be necessary in this patient population.

Predictors of pain relief and adverse events in patients receiving opioids in a prehospital setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze factors predicting pain relief and adverse events in patients receiving opioids for acute pain in a prehospital setting.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational clinical study, adult patients with a numerical rating scale (NRS) score of 5 of 10 or higher who required treatment with intravenous opioids for pain control were included. The primary outcome variable was final analgesia defined by an NRS score of 3 of 10 or lower upon arrival to the emergency department. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictive factors of pain relief and adverse effects.

RESULTS

In total, 277 patients (age, 49 ± 22 years), 205 (74%) of whom were male and 154 (56%) with a traumatic pain were included in the analysis. Median (interquartile range) NRS scores at baseline and at discharge were 8 of 10 (7-10) and 3 of 10 (2-5), respectively. The final model had 3 independent variables reaching significance. Physician-staffed ambulance transportation (odds ratio [OR], 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-5.49) was the only independent predictor of patients' final pain relief. High initial pain scores and acetaminophen use were predictive factors for failure of analgesia (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93 for one unit/10; P < .01; and OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.77; P < .01, respectively). In the entire sample, 25 (9.0%) presented one adverse effect, all mild to moderate in severity, with no significant predictive factors.

CONCLUSION

Despite advancement in prehospital pain management, pain relief at discharge is still inadequate in some patients. Finally, one important message of our study is that patients in pain have to be transported by well-equipped and staffed ambulances to reevaluate and alleviate pain.

Oral versus intravenous opioid dosing for the initial treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to compare the time to medication administration, the side effects, and the analgesic effect at sequential time points after medication administration of an oral treatment strategy using oxycodone solution with an intravenous (IV) treatment strategy using morphine sulfate for the initial treatment of musculoskeletal pain in emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of patients >6 years old who were going to receive IV morphine sulfate for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain but did not yet have an IV. Consenting patients were randomized to have the treating physician order either 0.1 mg/kg morphine sulfate IV or 0.125 mg/kg oxycodone orally in a 5 mg/5 mL suspension as their initial treatment for pain. The time from the placement of the order to the administration of the medication was recorded. Pain was measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and recorded at 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40 minutes after drug administration.

RESULTS

A total of 405 eligible patients were identified during the study period; 328 (81.0%) patients consented to be in the study. A total of 158 patients were randomized to the IV morphine sulfate treatment group, and 162 were randomized to the oral oxycodone treatment group. Of the patients who were randomized to IV therapy, 34 were withdrawn from the study prior to drug administration; leaving 125 patients in the IV group for analysis. Of the patients who randomized to oral therapy, 22 were withdrawn from the study prior to drug administration, leaving 140 patients for analysis. No serious adverse events were detected. There was a 12-minute difference between the median time of the order and the administration of oral oxycodone (8.5 minutes) and IV morphine (20.5 minutes). The mean percent change in VAS score was larger for patients in the IV therapy group than those in the oral therapy group at 10 and 20 minutes. At 30 and 40 minutes, the authors could no longer detect a difference. The satisfaction scale score was higher after treatment for the morphine group (median = 4; interquartile range [IQR] = 4 to 5) than for the oxycodone group (median = 4; IQR = 2 to 5; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The oral loading strategy was associated with delayed onset of analgesia and decreased patient satisfaction, but a shorter time to administration. The oral loading strategy using an oxycodone solution provided similar pain relief to the IV strategy using morphine 30 minutes after administration of the drug. Oral 0.125 mg/kg oxycodone represents a feasible alternative to 0.1 mg/kg IV morphine in the treatment of severe acute musculoskeletal pain when difficult or delayed IV placement greater than 30 minutes presents a barrier to treatment.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2007

This paper is the thirtieth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2007 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

The relative efficacy of meperidine for the treatment of acute migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Despite guidelines recommending against opioids as first-line treatment for acute migraine, meperidine is the agent used most commonly in North American emergency departments. Clinical trials performed to date have been small and have not arrived at consistent conclusions about the efficacy of meperidine. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative efficacy and adverse effect profile of opioids compared with nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

We searched multiple sources (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS, emergency and headache medicine conference proceedings) for randomized controlled trials comparing parenteral opioid and nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine headache. Our primary outcome was relief of headache. If this was unavailable, we accepted rescue medication use or we transformed visual analog scale change scores by using an established procedure. We grouped studies by comparator: a regimen containing dihydroergotamine, antiemetic alone, or ketorolac. For each study, we calculated an odds ratio (OR) of headache relief and then assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity for the group of studies. We then pooled the ORs of headache relief with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

From 899 citations, 19 clinical trials were identified, of which 11 were appropriate and had available data. Four trials involving 254 patients compared meperidine to dihydroergotamine, 4 trials involving 248 patients compared meperidine to an antiemetic, and 3 trials involving 123 patients compared meperidine to ketorolac. Meperidine was less effective than dihydroergotamine at providing headache relief (OR=0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.97) and trended toward less efficacy than the antiemetics (OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11); however, the efficacy of meperidine was similar to that of ketorolac (OR=1.75; 95% CI 0.84 to 3.61). Compared to dihydroergotamine, meperidine caused more sedation (OR=3.52; 95% CI 0.87 to 14.19) and dizziness (OR=8.67; 95% CI 2.66 to 28.23). Compared to the antiemetics, meperidine caused less akathisia (OR=0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57). Meperidine and ketorolac use resulted in similar rates of gastrointestinal adverse effects (OR=1.27; 95% CI 0.31 to 5.15) and sedation (OR=1.70; 95% CI 0.23 to 12.72).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should consider alternatives to meperidine when treating acute migraine with injectable agents.

Response to morphine in male and female patients: analgesia and adverse events

BACKGROUND

There is little agreement about a differential response of men and women to opioid analgesics. Some experimental and clinical studies have shown that women have a better response to opioids, others have found no difference, and still others have found opioids to be more effective analgesics for men than women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess sex differences in analgesic response to morphine and incidence of adverse events in patients receiving a dose of 0.1 mg intravenous morphine/kg.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of the control arms of 6 randomized clinical trials that compared 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine with other opioids or other doses of morphine in patients aged 21 to 65 with acute pain. The setting was an academic medical center Emergency Department serving primarily Latino and African-American patients. Change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 30 minutes postbaseline on a validated and reproducible 11-point numerical rating scale and count of adverse events were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 211 women and 144 men. The mean change in pain from baseline to 30 minutes postbaseline was 3.7 in women, 3.6 men (difference=0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.52, 0.60). In women without nausea before administration of morphine, the incidence of adverse events was 18.3% versus 10.7% in men without initial nausea (difference=7.6%; 95% confidence interval: -2.0, 17.2).

DISCUSSION

Men and women presenting to the Emergency Department did not have a differential response to a single weight-based dose of morphine for alleviation of acute pain. Women without baseline nausea had more adverse events than men.