Intranasal Sufentanil Versus Intravenous Morphine for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Pilot Trial

Effect of intranasal sufentanil on acute post-traumatic pain in the emergency department: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sufentanil is a potent opioid which can be used in patients with traumatic injuries presenting to the ED. Although previous studies have demonstrated the superiority of intranasal sufentanil over intravenous morphine in terms of pain relief, its clinical superiority in patients with traumatic injuries receiving adequate multimodal analgesia with acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is uncertain. We compared pain relief offered by intranasal sufentanil with that offered by oral and intravenous opioids in patients with acute traumatic injuries also receiving a specified regimen of non-opioid treatment.

METHODS

In this single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted between January 2020 and February 2022, trauma patients presenting to the ED with a pain score of ≥7 on a visual analogue scale (VAS) were randomised to receive either intranasal sufentanil or other oral/intravenous opioids alongside oral/intravenous acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The primary outcome was reduction in VAS score 15-20 min after randomisation.

RESULTS

An intention-to-treat analysis included 170 out of 205 patients screened for inclusion. The intranasal sufentanil group (83 patients) showed a significantly greater reduction in pain when compared with the oral/intravenous opioid group (87 patients) 15-20 min after randomisation (reduction in VAS score 3.0 (IQR 1.7-5.0) vs 1.5 (IQR 0.9-3.0); p<0.001). Similarly, a greater reduction in pain was observed in the intranasal sufentanil group 60 min after randomisation (5.0 (IQR 3.0-7.0) vs 3.0 (IQR 2.0-5.3); p<0.001). However, side effects were more frequent in the intervention group (71.1% vs 23%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal sufentanil was associated with more effective pain relief than oral/intravenous opioids in patients with traumatic injuries treated with coanalgesia. Intranasal sufentanil could be considered for the management of pain in patients with traumatic injuries associated with severe pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04137198.

Effectiveness of Intranasal Analgesia in the Emergency Department

In the Emergency Department (ED), pain is one of the symptoms that are most frequently reported, making it one of the most significant issues for the emergency physician, but it is frequently under-treated. Intravenous (IV), oral (PO), and intramuscular (IM) delivery are the standard methods for administering acute pain relief. Firstly, we compared the safety and efficacy of IN analgesia to other conventional routes of analgesia to assess if IN analgesia may be an alternative for the management of acute pain in ED. Secondly, we analyzed the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and rescue analgesia required. We performed a narrative review-based keywords in Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Controlled Trials Register, finding only twenty randomized Clinical trials eligible in the timeline 1992-2022. A total of 2098 patients were analyzed and compared to intravenous analgesia, showing no statistical difference in adverse effects. In addition, intranasal analgesia also has a rapid onset and quick absorption. Fentanyl and ketamine are two intranasal drugs that appear promising and may be taken simply and safely while providing effective pain relief. Intravenous is simple to administer, non-invasive, rapid onset, and quick absorption; it might be a viable choice in a variety of situations to reduce patient suffering or delays in pain management.

Efficacy of opioids for traumatic pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

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.

A systematic review of sufentanil for the management of adults with acute pain in the emergency department and pre-hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Pain is commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED) and pre-hospital setting and often requires opioid analgesia. We sought to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of sufentanil for acute pain relief for adult patients in the pre-hospital or ED setting.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 1, 2022. The grey literature was also searched. We included randomized controlled trials of adult patients with acute pain who were treated with sufentanil. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full text review, and data extraction. Primary outcome was reduction in pain. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, need for rescue analgesia, and patient and provider satisfaction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 1120 unique citations, four studies (3 ED and 1 pre-hospital) met full inclusion criteria (n = 467 participants). The overall quality of the included studies was high. Intranasal (IN) sufentanil was superior to placebo for pain relief at 30 min (difference 20.8%, 95% CI 4.0-36.2%, p = 0.01). Both IN (two studies) and IV sufentanil (one study) were comparable to IV morphine. Mild adverse events were common and there was a higher propensity for minor sedation in patients receiving sufentanil. There were no serious adverse events requiring advanced interventions.

CONCLUSION

Sufentanil was comparable to IV morphine and was superior to placebo for rapid relief of acute pain in the ED setting. The safety profile of sufentanil is similar to IV morphine in this setting, with minimal concern for serious adverse events. The intranasal formulation may provide an alternative, rapid, non-parenteral route that could benefit our unique emergency department and pre-hospital patient population. Due to the overall small sample size of this review, larger studies are required to confirm safety.

Intranasal Fentanyl for On-the-Hill Analgesia by Ski Patrol

INTRODUCTION

Intranasal fentanyl offers a means for safe and effective pain management in austere environments. Prehospital analgesia traditionally involves intravenous or intramuscular medication. However, for wilderness rescuers, these methods are often impractical.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of health records to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intranasal fentanyl administered by EMT-Basic certified ski patrollers. Our primary aim was to measure the reduction in initial pain scores to subsequent measurements at 5, 10, and 15 min using the pain numeric rating scale (0-10). Clinically significant reduction in severe pain has been established as ≥1.8 points. We used paired t-tests and multilevel modeling to measure statistical significance and potential interactions and reviewed patient charts for adverse events, including respiratory depression or the use of naloxone.

RESULTS

We compiled the results from the winter seasons for 2007 through 2012 and 2016 through 2020. A total of 247 patients were included. The initial pain score was 8.6±1.5 (mean±SD). The decrease in pain scores from 0 to 5, 10, and 15 min, respectively, was -1.8, -2.4, and -2.9 (P<0.0001), which demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant decrease in pain scores. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional standard of care analgesics are invasive, elongate scene times, and increase the risk of environmental exposure and provider needlestick. Intranasal fentanyl offers a safe, noninvasive, and rapid analgesia that is well-suited for austere winter environments, such as those encountered at ski resorts. This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the administration of intranasal fentanyl by EMT-Basic certified providers.

Intranasal sufentanil compared with a classic protocol for acute pain management in an emergency department: A prospective sequential study

Introduction

Pain is a frequent complaint in the emergency department and should be measured and treated according to the existing protocols. The intranasal route offers several advantages over the oral or intravenous routes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal sufentanil as the primary opioid for acute pain in the emergency department.

Materials and methods

This was a prospective open-label sequential study in patients who presented to the emergency department with severe non-visceral pain. The control group was treated according to the current standard of care including oral or intravenous opioids whereas the intervention group was treated according to a modified protocol, including intranasal sufentanil as the only opioid. Pain intensity was measured at different time points. The occurrence of side effects, the placement of intravenous lines and the need for additional analgesia were also recorded.

Results

Pain intensity in the two groups was not comparable at baseline (8.5; IQR 8–10 in the intervention group vs 7.9; IQR 7–9.4 in the control group; p = .026). However, the median reduction of the pain score was significantly larger in the intervention group compared to the control group after 15 minutes (2.5; IQR 1.2 – 4 vs 1.6; IQR 1–2.4; p = .005) and after 30 min (4; IQR 3–5.7 vs 3.1; IQR 2–4.4; p = .02). No significant difference in pain scores between the two groups was observed after 60 min from baseline.

Conclusions

Patients receiving intranasal sufentanil for severe pain achieved better pain relief at 15 min and 30 min compared to those receiving standard care. Vertigo, nausea, vomiting and diaphoresis were side effects more frequently observed in the sufentanil group. No differences in pain relief were observed after 30 and 60 min from baseline.

Expert review and recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Pain management is an evolving area of expertise in Qatar. Gaps in knowledge, inadequate training for physicians and nurses, and the absence of policies/guidelines are the main barriers to effective pain management in Qatar. In addition, the use of certain pain medication, especially opioids, is highly regulated, limiting their availability in outpatient pain management. These factors are responsible for the undertreatment of pain in Qatar. This study aimed to standardize evidence-based local recommendations for pharmacological treatment of pain in Qatar.

METHODS

An expert panel of physicians from different disciplines, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of the three pain types (i.e., acute, chronic, and neuropathic), was convened for two face-to-face meetings in Doha, Qatar, on November 29, 2019, and on February 22, 2020, with subsequent virtual meetings. A literature search was performed on Medline and Google Scholar databases from inception till December 2019, and all relevant articles were selected. Based on these articles and repeated feedback from the authors, the final pain treatment protocols were developed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the treatment of acute pain, based on pain severity, followed three approaches: acetaminophen/paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and moderate pain and referral to a pain specialist for severe pain. Acetaminophen/paracetamol or NSAIDs is recommended for chronic pain, and the use of opioids was strongly discouraged because of its long-term side effects. For neuropathic pain, tricyclic antidepressants or gabapentin or pregabalin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were recommended first-line agents. Non-responders must be referred to neurologists or a pain specialist.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel provides recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain based on international guidelines adapted to local practice and treatment availability in Qatar. More importantly, the panel has recommended taking extreme caution in the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic pain and to refer the patient to a pain specialist clinician as required.

Patient-Reported outcomes of pain care research in the adult emergency department: A scoping review

Despite more than 30 years of research, pain in the emergency department (ED) setting is frequently undertreated. EDs prioritise process measures that often have tenuous links to patient-reported outcomes. However, process measures, such as time to the administration of first analgesic medication, are neither direct objective measures of analgesia nor appropriate surrogate markers of pain relief. Since pain is a subjective symptom that lacks an objective measure, pain research in any clinical environment, including EDs, should rely upon patient-reported outcomes. This scoping review examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of pain care in the adult emergency department at the micro, meso and macro-level over the last ten years. We reviewed pain care research conducted on adults in EDs over the last ten years and identified 57 articles using 14 patient-reported outcomes of pain care falling into five broad areas, most without validation or adaption to the ED setting. Despite efforts made to incorporate PROs and PROMs into acute pain care research in the ED over the last ten years, there is still no gold-standard PROM in widespread use. We recommend the adaptation of existing tools with rigorous validation in ED populations.

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.