Intranasal Ketamine as an Adjunct to Fentanyl for the Prehospital Treatment of Acute Traumatic Pain: Design and Rationale of a Randomized Controlled Trial

What is the Evidence for Using Intranasal Medicine in the Prehospital Setting? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is challenging or not feasible. In the prehospital setting, this can be an essential alternative in time critical situations including trauma management, seizures, and agitated patients. However, there is a paucity of evidence summarizing its efficacy in this environment. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence supporting the use of IN medicine (midazolam, ketamine, fentanyl, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone) in the prehospital setting alone.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PROSPERO CRD42023440713) of PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials," Cochrane reviews and Embase was performed from inception to June 2023 to identify studies where IN medications were administered to patients in the prehospital setting. All randomized controlled trials, observational cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included. Papers not written in English, review articles, abstracts, and non-published data (including letters to the editor) were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was interpreted using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. No funding was received.

RESULTS

From 4818 studies, 39 were included (seven for midazolam, five for ketamine, twelve for fentanyl, one for diamorphine, two for glucagon, and twelve for naloxone). A total of 24,097 patients were treated with IN medications across all the studies. There were five moderate quality, four low quality, and thirty very low quality studies. The potential efficacy of IN fentanyl and ketamine was demonstrated consistently throughout the studies with less clear evidence for midazolam, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone. This review was severely limited by the study quality, with most studies demonstrating "high concerns" for bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital IN medication administration has wide-ranging potential, particularly for administering analgesia. There are likely to be certain populations, for example, pediatrics, that will benefit the most, although conclusions are limited by the quality of evidence currently available. We encourage additional research in this area, particularly with robust prospective double-blind RCTs.

Out-of-Hospital Intranasal Ketamine as an Adjunct to Fentanyl for the Treatment of Acute Traumatic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if out-of-hospital administration of fentanyl and intranasal ketamine, compared to fentanyl alone, improves early pain control after injury.

METHODS

We conducted an out-of-hospital randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, parallel group clinical trial from October 2017 to December 2021. Participants were male, aged 18 to 65 years, receiving fentanyl to treat acute traumatic pain prior to hospital arrival, treated by an urban fire-based emergency medical services agency, and transported to the region's only adult Level I trauma center. Participants randomly received 50 mg intranasal ketamine or placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion with a minimum 2-point reduction in self-described pain on the verbal numerical rating scale 30 minutes after study drug administration assessed by 95% confidence interval overlap. Secondary outcomes were side effects, pain ratings, and additional pain medications through the first 3 hours of care.

RESULTS

Among the 192 participants enrolled, 89 (46%) were White, (median age, 36 years; interquartile range, 27 to 53 years), with 103 receiving ketamine and 89 receiving placebo. There was no difference in the proportion experiencing improved pain 30 minutes after treatment (46/103 [44.7%] ketamine versus 32/89 [36.0%] placebo; difference in proportions, 8.7%; 95% confidence interval, -5.1% to 22.5%; P=.22) or at any time point through 3 hours. There was no difference in secondary outcomes or side effects.

CONCLUSION

In our sample, we did not detect an analgesic benefit of adding 50 mg intranasal ketamine to fentanyl in out-of-hospital trauma patients.

Early pharmacological interventions for prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms

BACKGROUND

Acute traumatic stress symptoms may develop in people who have been exposed to a traumatic event. Although they are usually self-limiting in time, some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a severe and debilitating condition. Pharmacological interventions have been proposed for acute symptoms to act as an indicated prevention measure for PTSD development. As many individuals will spontaneously remit, these interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of early pharmacological interventions for prevention of PTSD in adults experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 23 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event and presenting acute traumatic stress symptoms, without restriction on their severity. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo, or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Using a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes were PTSD severity and dropouts due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included PTSD rate, functional disability and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies that considered four interventions (escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin, temazepam) and involved a total of 779 participants. The largest trial contributed 353 participants and the next largest, 120 and 118 participants respectively. The trials enrolled participants admitted to trauma centres or emergency departments. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low except for attrition rate, which we rated as high-risk. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: escitalopram versus placebo (but limited to secondary outcomes) and hydrocortisone versus placebo. One study compared escitalopram to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. There was inconclusive evidence of any difference in terms of PTSD severity (mean difference (MD) on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS, score range 0 to 136) -11.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.56 to 1.86; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence), dropouts due to adverse events (no participant left the study early due to adverse events; 1 study, 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PTSD rates (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 13.08; NNTB 37, 95% CI NNTB 15 to NNTH 1; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess functional disability or quality of life. Three studies compared hydrocortisone to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. We found inconclusive evidence on whether hydrocortisone was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo (MD on CAPS -7.53, 95% CI -25.20 to 10.13; I2 = 85%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduced the risk of developing PTSD (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.38; NNTB 14, 95% CI NNTB 8 to NNTH 5; I2 = 36%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on the risk of dropping out due to adverse events is inconclusive (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.43; 2 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether hydrocortisone might improve quality of life (MD on the SF-36 (score range 0 to 136, higher is better) 19.70, 95% CI -1.10 to 40.50; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides uncertain evidence regarding the use of escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin and temazepam for people with acute stress symptoms. It is therefore unclear whether these pharmacological interventions exert a positive or negative effect in this population. It is important to note that acute traumatic stress symptoms are often limited in time, and that the lack of data prevents the careful assessment of expected benefits against side effects that is therefore required. To yield stronger conclusions regarding both positive and negative outcomes, larger sample sizes are required. A common operational framework of criteria for inclusion and baseline assessment might help in better understanding who, if anyone, benefits from an intervention. As symptom severity alone does not provide the full picture of the impact of exposure to trauma, assessment of quality of life and functional impairment would provide a more comprehensive picture of the effects of the interventions. The assessment and reporting of side effects may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of tolerability.

Clinical Research in Prehospital Care: Current and Future Challenges

Prehospital care plays a critical role in improving patient outcomes, particularly in cases of time-sensitive emergencies such as trauma, cardiac failure, stroke, bleeding, breathing difficulties, systemic infections, etc. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in clinical research in prehospital care, and several challenges and opportunities have emerged. There is an urgent need to adapt clinical research methodology to a context of prehospital care. At the same time, there are many barriers in prehospital research due to the complex context, posing unique challenges for research, development, and evaluation. Among these, this review allows the highlighting of limited resources and infrastructure, ethical and regulatory considerations, time constraints, privacy, safety concerns, data collection and analysis, selection of a homogeneous study group, etc. The analysis of the literature also highlights solutions such as strong collaboration between emergency medical services (EMS) and hospital care, use of (mobile) health technologies and artificial intelligence, use of standardized protocols and guidelines, etc. Overall, the purpose of this narrative review is to examine the current state of clinical research in prehospital care and identify gaps in knowledge, including the challenges and opportunities for future research.

Incidence of Dissociation With Low-Dose Pre-hospital Ketamine in Geriatric Patients With Trauma-Related Pain

Introduction

Sub-dissociative ketamine has been used increasingly for the treatment of acute pain in a wide variety of settings. While there are studies evaluating its use in the geriatric population, no studies have described its safety in the pre-hospital geriatric trauma patient. The objective of this study was to define the incidence of dissociation with low-dose pre-hospital ketamine in geriatric trauma patients.

Methods

Using our county emergency medical services database, we identified all trauma patients greater or equal to 65 years of age who received pre-hospital ketamine for pain after the implementation of a low-dose ketamine protocol. We retrospectively reviewed pre-hospital and emergency department records for demographics, traumatic injuries, Glasgow Coma Score, emergency department length of stay and disposition, and hospital length of stay. This group was compared to a similar population of trauma patients, transported prior to the ketamine protocol. The comparison group was chosen by matching the ketamine group to more than double the number of non-ketamine patients. Records were obtained from two separate trauma centers. Our primary outcome was documentation of “ketamine-related dissociation” by either the pre-hospital, emergency department or trauma provider. Secondary outcomes included emergency department length of stay and intensive care unit admission.

Results

Seventy-nine patients received ketamine with records available for analysis. One hundred ninety-three non-ketamine patients were compared to this group. There were nosignificant differences between the two groups in regards to age, weight, gender, or mechanism of injury. The injury severity score was higher in the ketamine group. Nine patients (11%) had documented dissociation after ketamine, with six of these patients back to baseline mentation by arrival to the emergency department. The emergency department length of stay was shorter in the ketamine group. The rate of intensive care unit admission was the same between both groups.

Conclusions

Pre-hospital sub-dissociative ketamine in geriatric trauma patients is associated with brief episodes of dissociation in a small minority of patients.

Pilot implementation of the competence of Czech paramedics to administer sufentanil for the treatment of pain in acute trauma without consulting a physician: observational study

Background

The use of intravenous opioids in the traumatic pain in pre-hospital care in the Czech Republic is based primarily on the indication of a physician. If the paramedic crew arrives at the site earlier or only on their own, analgesia is given after phone-call consultation with the physician or after his arrival at the site. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the indication and administration of sufentanil by paramedics in the treatment of pain in acute trauma adult patients without the physician’s control.

Methods

Paramedics underwent voluntarily the simulation training aimed at administering intravenously sufentanil to treat pain in acute trauma in adults without physician’s indication. Subsequently, the adverse events and efficacy were monitored for a six-month period and compared in two groups: administration of sufentanil by paramedics without this competence, who further consulted the administration by telephone with physicians (group Consultation) and those with this competence (group Competence).

Results

A total number of sufentanil administration in group Consultation was 88 and in group Competence 70. There was no respiratory arrest, bradypnea, or need for oxygen therapy reported in any of the study groups. The incidence of nausea was 3% in both groups – Consultation (n = 3) and in Competence (n = 2). Vomiting was not reported in the Consultation group and in 6% in the Competence group (n = 4). Intravenous antiemetic drugs were used in the Consultation group only in 1% (n = 1) and in the Competence group in 7% of patients (n = 5) (p < 0,05). In both groups there was observed a decrease in the pain numeric rating scale (Consultation: M =—3,2; SD = 1,2 points vs. Competence: M =—3,9; SD = 1,8 points).

Conclusion

Intravenous administration of sufentanil by properly trained paramedics without consultation with a physician in acute trauma can be considered safe.

Early pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

BACKGROUND

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and debilitating condition. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed with the aim to prevent or mitigate it. These interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability, given that not all individuals exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. There are different possible approaches to preventing PTSD; universal prevention is aimed at individuals at risk of developing PTSD on the basis of having been exposed to a traumatic event, irrespective of whether they are showing signs of psychological difficulties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of PTSD in adults exposed to a traumatic event.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 13 November 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. In a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies which considered eight interventions (hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega-3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare enteral formula, Oxepa enteral formula and 5-hydroxytryptophan) and involved 2023 participants, with a single trial contributing 1244 participants. Eight studies enrolled participants from emergency departments or trauma centres or similar settings. Participants were exposed to a range of both intentional and unintentional traumatic events. Five studies considered participants in the context of intensive care units with traumatic events consisting of severe physical illness. Our concerns about risk of bias in the included studies were mostly due to high attrition and possible selective reporting. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: hydrocortisone versus placebo, but limited to secondary outcomes; and propranolol versus placebo. No study compared hydrocortisone to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, serious inconsistency amongst the studies' results, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (SMD -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.61 to 0.59; I² = 83%; 3 studies, 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study provided data on dropout rates due to side effects at three months post-traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective than placebo in reducing the probability of experiencing PTSD at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92; 3 studies, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability or quality of life.  Only one study compared gabapentin to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event, with inconclusive evidence in terms of both PTSD severity and probability of experiencing PTSD, because of imprecision of the effect estimate, serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (very low-certainty evidence). We found no data on dropout rates due to side effects, functional disability or quality of life. For the remaining comparisons, the available data are inconclusive or missing in terms of PTSD severity reduction and dropout rates due to adverse events. No study assessed functional disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides uncertain evidence only regarding the use of hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega-3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare formula, Oxepa formula, or 5-hydroxytryptophan as universal PTSD prevention strategies. Future research might benefit from larger samples, better reporting of side effects and inclusion of quality of life and functioning measures.

Ketamine Stability over Six Months of Exposure to Moderate and High Temperature Environments

Background: All medications should be stored within temperature ranges defined by manufacturers, but logistical and operational challenges of prehospital and military settings complicate adherence to these recommendations. Lorazepam and succinylcholine experience clinically relevant heat-related degradation, whereas midazolam does not. Because ketamine's stability when stored outside manufacturer recommendations is unknown, we evaluated the heat-related degradation of ketamine exposed to several temperature ranges. Methods: One hundred twenty vials of ketamine (50 mg/mL labeled concentration) from the same manufacturer lot were equally distributed and stored for six months in five environments: an active EMS unit in southwest Ohio (May-October 2019); heat chamber at constant 120 °F (C1); heat chamber fluctuating over 24 hours from 86 °F-120 °F (C2); heat chamber fluctuating over 24 hours from 40 °F-120 °F (C3); heat chamber kept at constant 70 °F (manufacturer recommended room temperature, C4). Four ketamine vials were removed every 30 days from each environment and sent to an FDA-accredited commercial lab for high performance liquid chromatography testing. Data loggers and thermistors allowed temperature recording every minute for all environments. Cumulative heat exposure was quantified by mean kinetic temperature (MKT), which accounts for additional heat-stress over time caused by temperature fluctuations and is a superior measure than simple ambient temperature. MKT was calculated for each environment at the time of ketamine removal. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the concentration changes at each time point. Results: The MKT ranged from 73.6 °F-80.7 °F in the active EMS unit and stayed constant for each chamber (C1 MKT: 120 °F, C2 MKT: 107.3 °F, C3 MKT: 96.5 °F, C4 MKT: 70 °F). No significant absolute ketamine degradation, or trends in degradation, occurred in any environment at any time point. The lowest median concentration occurred in the EMS-stored samples removed after 6 months [48.2 mg/mL (47.75, 48.35)], or 96.4% relative strength to labeled concentration. Conclusion: Ketamine samples exhibited limited degradation after 6 months of exposure to real world and simulated extreme high temperature environments exceeding manufacturer recommendations. Future studies are necessary to evaluate ketamine stability beyond 6 months.