Inhaled methoxyflurane for the management of trauma related pain in patients admitted to hospital emergency departments: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (PenASAP study)

Parenteral, Non-Intravenous Analgesia in Acute Traumatic Pain-A Narrative Review Based on a Systematic Literature Search

Traumatic pain is frequently encountered in emergency care and requires immediate analgesia. Unfortunately, most trauma patients report sustained pain upon arrival at and discharge from the Emergency Department. Obtaining intravenous access to administer analgesics can be time-consuming, leading to treatment delay. This review provides an overview of analgesics with both fast onset and parenteral, non-intravenous routes of administration, and also indicates areas where more research is required.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Real world safety of methoxyflurane analgesia in the emergency setting: a comparative hybrid prospective-retrospective post-authorisation safety study

BACKGROUND

Low-dose analgesic methoxyflurane (Penthrox®) was approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate to severe pain in conscious adults with trauma in 2015. A comparative post-authorisation safety study (PASS) was conducted to assess the risk of hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity with methoxyflurane during routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a comparative hybrid prospective-retrospective cohort study. The comparative cohorts consisted of adults who were given methoxyflurane (methoxyflurane cohort) or another analgesic (concurrent cohort) routinely used for moderate to severe trauma and associated pain in the emergency setting (ambulance and Emergency Department) in the UK between December 2016 and November 2018. Hepatic and renal events were captured in the ensuing 12 weeks. A blinded clinical adjudication committee assessed events. A historical comparator cohort (non-concurrent cohort) was identified from patients with fractures in the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) accident and emergency database from November 2013 and November 2015 (before commercial launch of methoxyflurane). Hepatic and renal events were captured in the ensuing 12 weeks via linkage with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and HES hospital admissions databases.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,236, 1,101 and 45,112 patients were analysed in the methoxyflurane, concurrent and non-concurrent comparator cohorts respectively. There was no significant difference in hepatic events between the methoxyflurane and concurrent cohorts (1.9% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.079) or between the methoxyflurane and non-concurrent cohorts (1.9% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.192). Renal events were significantly less common in the methoxyflurane cohort than in the concurrent cohort (2.3% vs. 5.6%, P < 0.001). For methoxyflurane versus non-concurrent cohort the lower occurrence of renal events (2.3% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.070) was not statistically significant. Multivariable adjustment did not change these associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Methoxyflurane administration was not associated with an increased risk of hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity compared with other routinely administered analgesics and was associated with a reduced risk of nephrotoxicity compared with other routinely administered analgesics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study registered in the EU PAS Register (ENCEPP/SDPP/13040).

Pain Self-Management with Inhaled Methoxyflurane by Emergency Department Trauma Patients: A Prospective, Interventional, Single-Center Study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to overcrowding in many emergency departments (EDs). The present single-center, prospective, interventional study (conducted at Bichat University Medical Center (Paris, France)) was designed to assess the impact of self-administered, inhaled, low-dose methoxyflurane on trauma pain in a pre-ED fast-track zone dedicated to the management of lower-acuity non-COVID-19 patients. In the first phase of the study, the control group consisted of patients with mild-to-moderate trauma pain, for whom the triage nurse initiated pain management (based on the World Health Organization (WHO)'s analgesic ladder). In the second phase, the intervention group consisted of similar patients who self-administered methoxyflurane as an adjuvant to the standard analgesic ladder. The primary endpoint was the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score (from 0 to 10) recorded at different time points during the patient's care (T0: arrival in the ED, T1: exit from the triage box, T2: in the radiology department, T3: clinical examination, and T4: discharge from the ED). The level of agreement between the NPRS and the WHO analgesic ladder was assessed by the calculation of Cohen's kappa. Pairwise comparisons of continuous variables were performed with Student's t-test or a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Changes over time in the NPRS were analyzed in an analysis of variance (with Scheffe's post hoc test if a pairwise comparison was significant) or a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test. In all, 268 and 252 patients were included in the control and intervention groups, respectively. The two groups had similar characteristics. The level of agreement between the NPRS score and the analgesic ladder was high in both the control and intervention groups (Cohen's kappa: 0.74 and 0.70, respectively). The NPRS score decreased significantly between T0 and T4 in both groups (p < 0.001), but the decrease between T2 and T4 was significantly greater in the intervention group (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients still in pain on discharge was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (p = 0.001). In conclusion, a combination of self-administered methoxyflurane and the WHO analgesic ladder improves pain management in the ED.

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

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

Evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of inhaled methoxyflurane versus usual analgesia for prehospital injury and trauma: non-randomised clinical study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate clinical benefits and economic costs of inhaled methoxyflurane when used by ambulance staff for prehospital emergency patients with trauma. Comparison is to usual analgesic practice (UAP) in the UK in which patient records were selected if treatment had been with Entonox® or intravenous morphine or intravenous paracetamol.

METHODS

Over a 12-month evaluation period, verbal numerical pain scores (VNPS) were gathered from adults with moderate to severe trauma pain attended by ambulance staff trained in administering and supplied with methoxyflurane. Control VNPS were obtained from ambulance database records of UAP in similar patients for the same period. Statistical modelling enabled comparisons of methoxyflurane to UAP, where we employed an Ordered Probit panel regression model for pain, linked by observational rules to VNPS.

RESULTS

Overall, 96 trained paramedics and technicians from the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) prepared 510 doses of methoxyflurane for administration to a total of 483 patients. Comparison data extracted from the EMAS database of UAP episodes involved: 753 patients using Entonox®, 802 patients using intravenous morphine, and 278 patients using intravenous paracetamol. Modelling results included demonstration of faster pain relief with inhaled methoxyflurane (all p-values < 0.001). Methoxyflurane's time to achieve maximum pain relief was estimated to be significantly shorter: 26.4 min (95%CI 25.0-27.8) versus Entonox® 44.4 min (95%CI 39.5-49.3); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.0-27.9) versus intravenous morphine 41.8 min (95%CI 38.9-44.7); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.1-28.0) versus intravenous paracetamol 40.8 (95%CI 34.7-46.9). Scenario analyses showed that durations spent in severe pain were significantly less for methoxyflurane. Costing scenarios showed the added benefits of methoxyflurane were achieved at higher cost, eg versus Entonox® the additional cost per treated patient was estimated to be £12.30.

CONCLUSION

When administered to adults with moderate or severe pain due to trauma inhaled methoxyflurane reduced pain more rapidly and to a greater extent than Entonox® and parenteral analgesics. Inclusion of inhaled methoxyflurane to the suite of prehospital analgesics provides a clinically useful addition, but one that is costlier per treated patient.

Usability and effectiveness of inhaled methoxyflurane for prehospital analgesia - a prospective, observational study

Background

Pain relief in the prehospital setting is often insufficient, as the administration of potent intravenous analgesic drugs is mostly reserved to physicians. In Australia, inhaled methoxyflurane has been in routine use by paramedics for decades, but experience in Central European countries is lacking. Thus, we aimed to assess whether user friendliness and effectiveness of inhaled methoxyflurane as sole analgesic match the specific capabilities of local ground and air-based EMS systems in Austria.

Methods

Observational study in adult trauma patients (e.g. dislocations, fracture or low back pain following minor trauma) with moderate to severe pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] ≥4). Included patients received a Penthrop® inhaler containing 3 mL of methoxyflurane (maximum use 30 min). When pain relief was considered insufficient (NRS reduction < 3 after 10 min), intravenous analgesics were administered by an emergency physician. The primary endpoint was effectiveness of methoxyflurane as sole analgesic for transport of patients. Secondary endpoints were user friendliness (EMS personell), time to pain relief, vital parameters, side effects, and satisfaction of patients.

Results

Median numeric pain rating was 8.0 (7.0–8.0) in 109 patients. Sufficient analgesia (reduction of NRS ≥3) was achieved by inhaled methoxyflurane alone in 67 patients (61%). The analgesic effect was progressively better with increasing age. Side effects were frequent (n = 58, 53%) but mild. User satisfaction was scored as very good when pain relief was sufficient, but fair in patients without benefit. Technical problems were observed in 16 cases (14.7%), mainly related to filling of the inhaler. In every fifth use, the fruity smell of methoxyflurane was experienced as unpleasant. No negative effects on vital signs were observed.

Conclusion

In prehospital use, inhaled methoxyflurane as sole analgesic is effective for transport of trauma patients (62%) with moderate to severe pain. Older patients benefit especially from inhaled methoxyflurane. Side effects are mild and vital parameters unaffected. Thus, inhaled methoxyflurane could be a valuable device for non-physician EMS personnel rescue services also in the central Europe region.

Bedside Evaluation of Early VAS/NRS Based Protocols for Intravenous Morphine in the Emergency Department: Reasons for Poor Follow-Up and Targeted Practices

Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols based on patient-reported scores, immediately at triage, are recommended for severe pain in Emergency Departments. However, a low follow-up is observed. Scarce data are available regarding bedside organization and pain etiologies to explain this phenomenon. The objective was the real-time observation of motivations and operational barriers leading to morphine avoidance. In a single French hospital, 164 adults with severe pain at triage were included in a cross-sectional study of the prevalence of IV morphine titration; caregivers were interviewed by real-time questionnaires on “real” reasons for protocol avoidance or failure. IV morphine prevalence was 6.1%, prescription avoidance was mainly linked to “Pain reassessment” (61.0%) and/or “alternative treatment prioritization” (49.3%). To further evaluate the organizational impact on prescription decisions, a parallel assessment of “simulated” prescription conditions was simultaneously performed for 98/164 patients; there were 18 titration decisions (18.3%). Treatment prioritization was a decision driver in the same proportion, while non-eligibility for morphine was more frequently cited (40.6% p = 0.001), with higher concerns about pain etiologies. Anticipation of organizational constraints cannot be excluded. In conclusion, IV morphine prescription is rarely based on first pain scores. Triage assessment is used for screening by bedside physicians, who prefer targeted practices to automatic protocols.

[Volatile anesthetics for prehospital analgesia by paramedics-An overview]

Treatment of acute pain is a central task in emergency medicine. Yet, prehospital pain relief is often insufficient or delayed since the administration of potent intravenous analgesic drugs (such as opioids) is mostly limited to physicians due to legal restrictions or training deficiencies in Germany and Austria. Frequently, prehospitally operating emergency physicians have to be demanded later for anguished patients limiting disposability of physicians for patients who are in a potentially life-threatening condition. Thus, inhaled analgesics could represent an interesting alternative.A mixture of 50% nitrous oxide and 50% oxygen (N₂O, Livopan®) has been available in Germany and Austria for several years; however, prehospital use of Livopan has been merely realized and only one trial has been published. In addition, methoxyflurane (Penthrop®), a volatile anesthetic from the group of the dialkyl esters (2-dichloro-1:1-difluoroethyl-methyl-ester) was approved for the treatment of moderate to severe pain following trauma in adults in many European countries in recent years and was brought onto the market in Austria in 2018. Several in-hospital trials demonstrated high effectiveness in this setting.This article discusses the effects and prehospital areas of application of both substances in the light of the existing literature. We provide a narrative overview of the current study situation and report on a recently performed prehospital application study of methoxyflurane (Penthrop®) from Austria.The need for pressurized gas cylinders for the use of N₂O represents a certain limitation in prehospital use. Furthermore, in certain injuries such as of the inner ear or a pneumothorax N₂O should not be used and the risk of diffusion hypoxemia has to be addressed. Users should be particularly careful and limit the use in alcohol addicts and vegans. The advances of N₂O are that it is odorless, has a fast onset of action, the usability in patients over 1 month old and has stabilizing effects on the circulation. Plenty of literature regarding prehospital as well as in-hospital use of nitrous oxide in emergency, obstetric and pediatric settings show its effectiveness as a single drug as well as in combination with other analgesics, such as paracetamol or various opioids. Its long tradition in Anglo-American countries is also based on its safety and low rate of side effects.Methoxyflurane is easier to store and handle and may be slightly more effective in severe pain after trauma; however, its approval is restricted to adults, where it works significantly better with increasing age, based on the declining minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) of all inhaled anesthetics with increasing age. Furthermore, decades of use of inhaled methoxyflurane in Australia have shown the drug is effective, safe and low in side effects and has a broad spectrum of applications. The use of methoxyflurane is limited in patients with severe hepatic or renal insufficiency and the characteristic odor has been described as unpleasant by some patients. In Europe, three large in-hospital trials showed strong pain relief in trauma patients, even comparable to opioids.Overall, based on the current evidence, the use of nitrous oxide and even more of methoxyflurane may be recommended also for prehospital use by skilled paramedics.

Does Inhaled Methoxyflurane Implement Fast and Efficient Pain Management in Trauma Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Evidence on the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in the management of trauma pain is conflicting and obfuscated. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane for trauma pain on the basis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

RCTs assessing the efficacy of methoxyflurane in adults or adolescents with acute trauma pain published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. The control groups were those that received placebo or standard analgesic treatment (SAT). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in pain scores during the first 30 min of treatment. Secondary outcomes included time to first pain relief, the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief, rescue analgesia rate, the treatment satisfaction of patients and investigators, and the methoxyflurane-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

A total of nine RCTs (1806 patients) were identified. Results revealed that methoxyflurane provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the mean difference of change from baseline in pain intensity (from − 0.44 to − 1.23 cm, p < 0.001) at various time points within the first 20 min compared to control treatment. Besides, methoxyflurane decreased the time of onset of pain relief (mean difference − 5.29 min; 95% CI − 6.97 to − 3.62) and the proportion of patients who needed rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.17–1.70) despite it increasing the risk of non-severe TEAEs (risk ratio 3.09; 95% CI 1.72–5.57). Notably, the benefit of almost all secondary pain-related outcomes was rendered clinically nonsignificant between methoxyflurane and SAT strata besides the time of onset of pain relief. The quality of evidence was low or very low in all outcomes.

Conclusions

In emergency situations without effective therapy, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides low-quality evidence that methoxyflurane can be used as a rapid-acting and effective treatment for acute trauma pain, although its utilization is associated a risk of non-severe TEAEs. However, the current evidence does not support the notion that inhaled methoxyflurane offered superior analgesic efficacy to SAT.

Clinical Trial Number

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020223000.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00258-9.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020189119 .

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Role of Inhaled Methoxyflurane in the Management of Acute Trauma Pain

Adequate treatment of trauma pain is an integral part of the management of trauma patients, not just for ethical reasons but also because undertreated pain can lead to increased morbidities and worse long-term outcomes. Trauma pain management presents challenges in the pre-hospital setting, particularly in adverse or hostile environments as well as in busy emergency departments (EDs). Inhaled methoxyflurane, administered at analgesic doses via a disposable inhaler, has recently become available in Europe for the emergency treatment of moderate to severe pain in conscious adult trauma patients. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that inhaled methoxyflurane is well tolerated and effective in providing a rapid onset of analgesia. In this paper, we discuss the rationale for methoxyflurane use in trauma pain management, data from clinical trials recently conducted in Europe, its efficacy and safety profile compared to current standard treatments, its place in therapy and organizational impact. We conclude that inhaled methoxyflurane represents an effective treatment option in the different settings where trauma patients require rapid and flexible pain resolution, with potential organizational advantages.