A randomised controlled trial of paracetamol and ibuprofen with or without codeine or oxycodone as initial analgesia for adults with moderate pain from limb injury

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain in Austere Environments: 2024 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society (WMS) convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in austere environments. Recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence as defined by criteria put forth by the American College of Chest Physicians. This is an update of the 2014 version of the "WMS Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain in Remote Environments" published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 2014; 25:41-49.

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h).

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed.

RESULTS

We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%).

DISCUSSION

Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021249346.

Continued Opioid Use and Adverse Events Following Provision of Opioids for Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of continued opioid use or serious adverse events (SAEs) following opioid therapy in the emergency department (ED) for musculoskeletal pain is unclear. The aim of this review was to examine the prevalence of continued opioid use and serious adverse events (SAEs) following the provision of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) or at discharge.

METHODS

Records were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to 7 October 2022. We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies enrolling adult patients with musculoskeletal pain who were administered and/or prescribed opioids in the ED. Continued opioid use and opioid misuse data after day 4 since ED discharge were extracted. Adverse events were coded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and those rated as grades 3-4 (severe or life-threatening) and grade 5 (death) were considered SAEs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS

Seventy-two studies were included. Among opioid-naïve patients who received an opioid prescription, 6.8-7.0% reported recent opioid use at 3-12 months after discharge, 4.4% filled ≥ 5 opioid prescriptions and 3.1% filled > 90-day supply of opioids within 6 months. The prevalence of SAEs was 0.02% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 0.2%] in the ED and 0.1% (95% CI 0, 1.5%) within 2 days. One study observed 42.9% of patients misused opioids within 30 days after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Around 7% of opioid-naïve patients with musculoskeletal pain receiving opioid therapy continue opioid use at 3-12 months after ED discharge. SAEs following ED administration of an opioid were uncommon; however, studies only monitored patients for 2 days.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

10.31219/osf.io/w4z3u.

Restriction of oxycodone in the emergency department (ROXY-ED): A randomised controlled trial

Background

The prescription of opioids in emergency care has been associated with harm, including overdose and dependence. The aim of this trial was to assess restriction of access to oxycodone (ROXY), in combination with education and guideline modifications, versus education and guideline modifications alone (standard care) to reduce oxycodone administration in the Emergency Department (ED).

Methods

An unblinded, active control, randomised controlled trial was conducted in an adult tertiary ED. Participants were patients aged 18-75 years who had analgesics administered in the ED. The primary intervention was ROXY, through removal of all oxycodone immediate release tablets from the ED imprest, with availability of a small supply after senior clinician approval. The intervention did not restrict prescription of discharge medications. The primary outcome measure was oxycodone administration rates. Secondary outcomes were administration rates of other analgesic medications, time to initial analgesics and oxycodone prescription on discharge.

Results

There were 2258 patients eligible for analysis. Oxycodone was administered to 80 (6.1%) patients in the ROXY group and 221 (23.3%) patients in the standard care group (relative risk (RR) 0.26; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.33; p < .001). Tapentadol was prescribed more frequently in the ROXY group (RR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.71-2.74), while there were no differences in prescription of other analgesic medications. On discharge, significantly fewer patients were prescribed oxycodone (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.66) and no differences were observed in prescription rates of other analgesic medications. There was no difference in time to first analgesic (HR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86-1.02).

Conclusions

Restricted access to oxycodone was superior to education and guideline modifications alone for reducing oxycodone use in the ED and reducing discharge prescriptions of oxycodone from the ED. The addition of simple restrictive interventions is recommended to enable rapid changes to clinician behaviour to reduce the potential harm associated with the prescribing of oxycodone in the ED.

Effectiveness of Opioid Analgesic Medicines Prescribed in or at Discharge From Emergency Departments for Musculoskeletal Pain : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative benefits and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) are uncertain.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and registries from inception to 7 February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of any opioid analgesic compared with placebo or a nonopioid analgesic administered or prescribed to adults in or on discharge from the ED.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pain and disability were rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two articles were included (n = 6128). In the ED, opioids were statistically but not clinically more effective in reducing pain in the short term (about 2 hours) than placebo and paracetamol (acetaminophen) but were not clinically or statistically more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or local or systemic anesthetics. Opioids may carry higher risk for harms than placebo, paracetamol, or NSAIDs, although evidence is very uncertain. There was no evidence of difference in harms associated with local or systemic anesthetics.

LIMITATIONS

Low or very low GRADE ratings for some outcomes, unexplained heterogeneity, and little information on long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The risk-benefit balance of opioids versus placebo, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and local or systemic anesthetics is uncertain. Opioids may have equivalent pain outcomes compared with NSAIDs, but evidence on comparisons of harms is very uncertain and heterogeneous. Although factors such as route of administration or dosage may explain some heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify which subgroups will have a more favorable benefit-risk balance for one analgesic over another. Longer-term pain management once dose thresholds are reached is also uncertain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42021275293).

The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study (OARS)-a comparison of opioid vs. non-opioid combination analgesics for management of post-surgical pain: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Background

Everyday people die unnecessarily from opioid overdose-related addiction. Dentists are among the leading prescribers of opioid analgesics. Opioid-seeking behaviors have been linked to receipt of initial opioid prescriptions following the common dental procedure of third molar extraction. With each opioid prescription, a patient’s risk for opioid misuse or abuse increases. With an estimated 56 million tablets of 5 mg hydrocodone annually prescribed after third molar extractions in the USA, 3.5 million young adults may be unnecessarily exposed to opioids by dentists who are inadvertently increasing their patient’s risk for addiction.

Methods

A double-blind, stratified randomized, multi-center clinical trial has been designed to evaluate whether a combination of over-the-counter non-opioid-containing analgesics is not inferior to the most prescribed opioid analgesic. The impacted 3rd molar extraction model is being used due to the predictable severity of the post-operative pain and generalizability of results. Within each site/clinic and gender type (male/female), patients are randomized to receive either OPIOID (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/300 mg) or NON-OPIOID (ibuprofen/acetaminophen 400/500 mg). Outcome data include pain levels, adverse events, overall patient satisfaction, ability to sleep, and ability to perform daily functions. To develop clinical guidelines and a clinical decision-making tool, pain management, extraction difficulty, and the number of tablets taken are being collected, enabling an experimental decision-making tool to be developed.

Discussion

The proposed methods address the shortcomings of other analgesic studies. Although prior studies have tested short-term effects of single doses of pain medications, patients and their dentists are interested in managing pain for the entire post-operative period, not just the first 12 h. After surgery, patients expect to be able to perform normal daily functions without feeling nauseous or dizzy and they desire a restful sleep at night. Parents of young people are concerned with the risks of opioid use and misuse, related either to treatments received or to subsequent use of leftover pills. Upon successful completion of this clinical trial, dentists, patients, and their families will be better able to make informed decisions regarding post-operative pain management.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04452344. Registered on June 20, 2020

A randomized controlled trial of oxycodone/acetaminophen versus acetaminophen alone for emergency department patients with musculoskeletal pain refractory to ibuprofen

BACKGROUND

Use of oral opioids does not result in more pain relief than nonopioid alternatives when administered to patients as first-line treatment for acute musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy of oxycodone/acetaminophen to that of acetaminophen alone as second-line treatment for patients with acute musculoskeletal pain who were administered prescription-strength ibuprofen and reported insufficient relief 1 h later.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in two urban emergency departments. Opioid-naïve patients ≥ 18 years with an acute musculoskeletal injury were administered ibuprofen 600 mg as part of the study protocol. Those who reported insufficient relief 1 h later were randomized (1:1 ratio) to oxycodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 650 mg or acetaminophen 650 mg. The primary outcome was improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale between randomization and 2 h later. We also assessed medication-associated adverse events. A sample size calculation, built around a minimum clinically important difference of 1.3 units, determined the need for 154 patients.

RESULTS

We screened 924 patients and enrolled 393. All 393 received ibuprofen. A total of 159 (40%) patients reported inadequate relief after 1 h had elapsed. A total of 154 of these were randomized, 77 to oxycodone/acetaminophen and 77 to acetaminophen. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Among patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen, mean (±SD) improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale was 4.0 (±2.6) versus 2.9 (±2.4) in the acetaminophen arm. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference of 1.1 was 0.3 to 1.9. Among patients who received oxycodone/acetaminophen, 26 of 76 (34%) reported any medication-related adverse event versus seven of 74 (9%) participants who received acetaminophen. The 95% CI for the between-group difference of 25% was 12% to 37%).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute musculoskeletal pain refractory to oral ibuprofen, oxycodone/acetaminophen resulted in slightly greater pain relief than acetaminophen, but this was associated with more medication-related adverse events.

Impact of Opioid-Minimizing Pain Protocols after Burn Injury

In 2019, we implemented a pill-based, opioid-minimizing pain protocol and protocolized moderate sedation for dressing changes in order to decrease opioid exposure in burn patients. We hypothesized that these interventions would reduce inpatient opioid exposure without increasing acute pain scores. Two groups of consecutive patients admitted to the burn service were compared: Pre (01/01/2018 to 07/31/2019) and Post (01/01/2020 to 06/30/2020) implementation of the protocols (08/01/2019 to 12/31/2019). We abstracted patient demographics and burn injury characteristics from the burn registry. We obtained opioid exposure and pain scale scores from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Secondary outcomes included MME/day, pain domain-specific MME, and pain scores. Pain was estimated by creating a normalized pain score (range 0-1), which incorporated 3 different pain scales (Numeric Rating Scale, Behavioral Pain Scale, and Behavioral Pain Assessment Scale). Groups were compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi Square. Treatment effects were estimated using Bayesian generalized linear models.There were no differences in demographics or burn characteristics between the Pre (n=495) and Post groups (n=174). The Post group had significantly lower total MME (Post 110 MME [32, 325] versus Pre 230 [60, 840], p<0.001), MME/day (Post 33 MME/day [15, 54] versus Pre 52 [27, 80], p<0.001), and domain-specific total MME. No difference in average normalized pain scores was seen.Implementation of opioid-minimizing protocols for acute burn pain was associated with a significant reduction in inpatient opioid exposure without an increase in pain scores.

We Need to Talk About Codeine: an Implementation Study to reduce the number of Emergency Department patients discharged on high-strength co-codamol using the Behaviour Change Wheel

BACKGROUND

The crisis of prescription opioid addiction in the USA is well-documented. Though opioid consumption per capita is lower in the UK, prescribing has increased dramatically in recent decades with an associated increase in deaths from prescription opioid overdose. At one Scottish Emergency Department high rates of prescribing of take-home co-codamol (30/500 mg) were observed, including for conditions where opioids are not recommended by national guidelines. An Implementation Science approach was adopted to investigate this.

METHODS

A Behaviour Change Wheel analysis suggested several factors contributing to high opioid prescribing: poor awareness of codeine addiction risk, poor knowledge of NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines on common painful conditions, mistaken assumptions about patient expectations and ready access to a large stock of take-home co-codamol. Based on this analysis a combined Education/Persuasion intervention was implemented over a 1-month period (January 2019) reaching 93% of prescribers. An Environmental Restructuring intervention was introduced at 4 months, and co-codamol prescriptions were monitored over a 12-month follow-up period. Unplanned re-attendances and complaints related to analgesia were monitored as balancing measures.

RESULTS

The Education/Persuasion intervention was associated with a 59% reduction in co-codamol prescribing that was maintained over 12 months. The Environmental Restructuring intervention was not associated with any further reduction in prescribing. No increase in unplanned re-attendances occurred during the study period and no complaints were received relating to pain control.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing incidence of prescription opioid addiction in the UK suggests the need for all clinicians who write opioid prescriptions to re-evaluate their practice. This study suggests that knowledge of addiction risk and prescribing guidelines is poor among Emergency Department prescribers. We show that a rapid and sustained reduction in prescribing of take-home opioids is feasible in a UK Emergency Department, and that this reduction was not associated with any increase in unplanned re-attendances or complaints related to analgesia.

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.

Comparative efficacy of therapeutics for traumatic musculoskeletal pain in the emergency setting: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Musculoskeletal pain control is essential in the management of trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). Here, we performed a network meta-analysis of the use of analgesics to manage traumatic musculoskeletal pain.

METHOD

This network meta-analysis (NMA) protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020150145). Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing systemic pharmaceutical interventions for treating traumatic musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting. The outcomes were global efficacy and changes in pain intensity.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (2656 patients, four medication classes) met the inclusion criteria. The top-ranking medication class for global efficacy was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; network odds ratio: 0.52, 95% credible interval: 0.34-0.81, surface under the cumulative ranking curve score: 86). No interventions were more effective at decreasing pain intensity than opioids at 60 min.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs were the most effective medications for treating traumatic musculoskeletal pain, and combination therapies may not have advantages in the ED setting.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of oral paracetamol versus combination oral analgesics for acute musculoskeletal injuries

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if a combination of analgesics conveys any significant clinical benefit over paracetamol alone in managing acute musculoskeletal injuries.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with paracetamol plus other oral analgesics in managing acute musculoskeletal injuries (e.g. sprains, contusions) were identified. Outcomes were reduction in pain score, adverse events and need for additional analgesia. Studies were critiqued using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and data analysed using RevMAN meta-analysis software.

RESULTS

Six studies were included (n = 1254). No paediatric studies were identified. Five studies compared paracetamol to paracetamol plus NSAID. One study also included an opioid in the combination group. There was no clinically important difference between groups for reduction in pain score in the first 2 h, 24 h or 72 h. At 2 h the mean difference in reduction in pain score at rest on 100 mm VAS was 0.72 mm (-1.36, 2.79), P = 0.5. On activity it was -1.79 mm (-4.08, 0.49), P = 0.12. The risk of adverse events in ED was -0.00 (-0.04, 0.03). More patients receiving combination therapy required additional analgesia in the first 2 h: -0.03 (-0.06, -0.01), P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Paracetamol monotherapy is a reasonable first-line analgesic for acute musculoskeletal injuries as combining additional oral agents does not result in any significant additional analgesic effect.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended. There is concern about the use of oral opioids for acute pain leading to dependence. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits or harms of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, 2020 Issue 1, MEDLINE (from 1946), and Embase (from 1980) to January 2020; other databases were searched to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain, or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon, or muscle occurring within 48 hours of inclusion in the study), and comparing oral NSAIDs versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects, and early re-injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 3305 participants. Three studies included children only. The others included predominantly young adults; approximately 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, and five were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. Some evidence relating to pain relief was high certainty. Other evidence was either moderate, low or very low certainty, reflecting study limitations, indirectness, imprecision, or combinations of these. Thus, we are certain or moderately certain about some of the estimates, and uncertain or very uncertain of others. Eleven studies, involving 1853 participants compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. There were no differences between the two groups in pain at one to two hours (1178 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), at days one to three (1232 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), and at day seven or later (467 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was little difference between the groups in numbers of participants with minimal swelling at day seven or later (77 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from three studies (386 participants) means we are uncertain of the finding of little difference between the two groups in return to function at day seven or later. There was low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (1504 participants) that NSAIDs may slightly increase the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with paracetamol. There was low-certainty evidence from nine studies (1679 participants) of little difference in neurological adverse events between the NSAID and paracetamol groups. Six studies, involving 1212 participants compared NSAIDs with opioids. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in pain at one hour (1058 participants, 4 studies), and low-certainty evidence for no difference in pain at days four or seven (706 participants, 1 study). There was very low-certainty evidence of no important difference between the groups in swelling (84 participants, 1 study). Participants in the NSAIDs group were more likely to return to function in 7 to 10 days (542 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence (1143 participants, 5 studies) that NSAIDs were less likely to result in gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events compared with opioids. Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day one (51 participants, 1 study), day three (149 participants, 2 studies), or day seven (138 participants, 2 studies); swelling (230 participants, 3 studies); return to function at day seven (89 participants, 1 study); and the risk of gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies). No studies reported re-injury rates. No studies compared NSAIDs with oral complementary and alternative medicines, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paracetamol, NSAIDs make no difference to pain at one to two hours and at two to three days, and may make no difference at day seven or beyond. NSAIDs may result in a small increase in gastrointestinal adverse events and may make no difference in neurological adverse events compared with paracetamol. Compared with opioids, NSAIDs probably make no difference to pain at one hour, and may make no difference at days four or seven. NSAIDs probably result in fewer gastrointestinal and neurological adverse effects compared with opioids. The very low-certainly evidence for all outcomes for the NSAIDs versus paracetamol with opioid combination analgesics means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences in pain or adverse effects. The current evidence should not be extrapolated to adults older than 65 years, as this group was not well represented in the studies.

Association of Default Electronic Medical Record Settings With Health Care Professional Patterns of Opioid Prescribing in Emergency Departments: A Randomized Quality Improvement Study

IMPORTANCE

Prescription opioids play a significant role in the ongoing opioid crisis. Guidelines and physician education have had mixed success in curbing opioid prescriptions, highlighting the need for other tools that can change prescriber behavior, including nudges based in behavioral economics.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether and to what extent changes in the default settings in the electronic medical record (EMR) are associated with opioid prescriptions for patients discharged from emergency departments (EDs).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study randomly altered, during a series of five 4-week blocks, the prepopulated dispense quantities of discharge prescriptions for commonly prescribed opioids at 2 large, urban EDs. These changes were made without announcement, and prescribers were not informed of the study itself. Participants included all health care professionals (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) working clinically in either of the 2 EDs. Data were collected from November 28, 2016, through July 9, 2017, and analyzed from July 16, 2017, through May 14, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Default quantities for opioids were changed from status quo quantities of 12 and 20 tablets to null, 5, 10, and 15 tablets according to a block randomization scheme. Regardless of the default quantity, each health care professional decided for whom to prescribe opioids and could modify the quantity prescribed without restriction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of tablets of opioid-containing medications prescribed under each default setting.

RESULTS

A total of 104 health care professionals wrote 4320 prescriptions for opioids during the study period. Using linear regression, an increase of 0.19 tablets prescribed (95% CI, 0.15-0.22) was found for each tablet increase in default quantity. When evaluating each of the 15 pairwise comparisons of default quantities (eg, 5 vs 15 tablets), a lower default was associated with a lower number of pills prescribed in more than half (8 of the 15) of the pairwise comparisons; there was a higher quantity in 1 and no difference in 6 comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that default settings in the EMR may influence the quantity of opioids prescribed by health care professionals. This low-cost, easily implementable, EMR-based intervention could have far-reaching implications for opioid prescribing and could be used as a tool to help combat the opioid epidemic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04155229.

Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Acute Headache

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians addressed key issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute headache. A writing subcommittee conducted a systematic review of the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to answer the following clinical questions: (1) In the adult emergency department patient presenting with acute headache, are there risk-stratification strategies that reliably identify the need for emergent neuroimaging? (2) In the adult emergency department patient treated for acute primary headache, are nonopioids preferred to opioid medications? (3) In the adult emergency department patient presenting with acute headache, does a normal noncontrast head computed tomography scan performed within 6 hours of headache onset preclude the need for further diagnostic workup for subarachnoid hemorrhage? (4) In the adult emergency department patient who is still considered to be at risk for subarachnoid hemorrhage after a negative noncontrast head computed tomography, is computed tomography angiography of the head as effective as lumbar puncture to safely rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage? Evidence was graded and recommendations were made based on the strength of the available data.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine or sufentanil combined with ropivacaine for epidural analgesia after thoracotomy: a randomized controlled study

Background

Thoracotomy is frequently accompanied with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, and excellent pain management is important for early rehabilitation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine for epidural analgesia after thoracotomy.

Methods

One hundred and thirty patients undergoing elective lung lobectomy were enrolled in the double-blind study and randomly divided into two groups. Group A received 0.5 µg/mL of dexmedetomidine plus 0.1% ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia, and group B (control group) received 0.5 µg/mL of sufentanil plus 0.1% ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored. Pain intensity at rest was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 2, 4, 6，8, 12, 24, and 48 hrs postoperatively. Ramsay sedation score (RSS), analgesic consumption, postoperative respiratory depression, nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and bradycardia were recorded.

Results

The VAS values at rest during the postoperative 6–48 hrs were lower in group A than those in group B (P<0.05), and the RSS values were higher in group A during the postoperative 4–48 hrs compared to group B (P<0.05). Side effects were similar between the groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine may provide better postoperative analgesia and sedative effect in patients undergoing thoracic surgery with fewer side effects. It is superior to sufentanil in analgesic effect during postoperative analgesia after thoracotomy.

Battlefield Acupuncture and Physical Therapy Versus Physical Therapy Alone After Shoulder Surgery

Objective: Opioid pain medications are commonly prescribed postsurgically for pain. Few studies have investigated the effects of Battlefield Acupuncture (BFA) on postsurgical pain and pain-medication use. To date, no studies have investigated BFA's effectiveness for reducing postoperative shoulder pain and pain-medication use post surgery. The objective of this study was to determine if adding BFA to a rehabilitation protocol was effective for reducing pain and use of prescribed pain medications, compared to that protocol alone after shoulder surgery. Materials and Methods: Forty Department of Defense beneficiaries (ages 17-55) were randomized to either a standard-of-care group or a standard-of-care + BFA group prior to shoulder surgery. The standard BFA protocol was administered with semipermanent acupuncture needles emplaced on the subjects' ears for 3-5 days within 24 hours after shoulder surgery in an outpatient physical therapy setting. BFA was reapplied, as needed, up to 6 weeks postsurgically for pain management in the intervention group. The primary outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) pain rating and daily pain medication use by each subject. Secondary outcome measures were the Global Rating of Change and Patient Specific Functional scale. Outcome measures were obtained at 24 hours, 72 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks post surgery. Results: Significant differences in average and worst VAS pain change scores were noted between baseline and 7 days (P < 0.05). The main effect for time was significant (average and worst VAS pain) at all timepoints (P < 0.05), without time-group interactions seen. No significant differences between the groups in pain-medication use were observed (P > 0.05) Conclusions: BFA reduced postsurgical shoulder pain significantly between the groups' average and worst pain change scores between baseline and 7 days despite similar opioid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use between the groups.

Paracetamol versus other analgesia in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

Objectives

Pain treatment in acute musculoskeletal injuries usually consists of paracetamol, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. It would be beneficial to determine whether paracetamol is as effective as other analgesics. The objective of this study was to evaluate available evidence regarding efficacy of paracetamol in these patients.

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane and relevant trial registers were searched from inception to 14 February 2018 by two independent reviewers to detect all randomised studies with adult patients with acute minor musculoskeletal injuries treated with paracetamol as compared with other analgesics. There were no language or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcome was decrease in pain scores during the first 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included pain decrease beyond 24 hours, need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events.

Results

Seven trials were included, evaluating 2100 patients who were treated with paracetamol or NSAIDs or the combination of both as comparisons, of which only four studies addressed the primary outcome. No studies were found comparing paracetamol with opioids. There were no differences in analgesic effectiveness within and beyond 24 hours, nor in need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. Overall, quality of evidence was low. Because of methodological inconsistencies, a meta-analysis was not possible.

Conclusions

Based on available evidence, paracetamol is as effective as NSAIDs or the combination of both in treating pain in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries in the acute setting. The quality of evidence is low.

An integrated safety analysis of combined acetaminophen and ibuprofen (Maxigesic /Combogesic®) in adults

INTRODUCTION

Acetaminophen (APAP) and ibuprofen (IBP) are two analgesic compounds with a long history of use. Both are considered safe at recommended over-the-counter daily doses. Chronic use, high doses, or concomitant medication can produce safety risks for both drugs. APAP is associated with increased risk of hepatic injury, while IBP can produce gastric bleeding and thromboembolic events. Using a combination of APAP and IBP provides superior analgesia without transgressing daily dose limits of each individual drug.

METHODS

The present study aimed to determine if treatment with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing APAP and IBP results in any unexpected adverse events (AEs) and/or changes in the safety profiles of its two ingredients compared to monotherapy. The analysis will examine clinical safety data obtained from either single dose trials, multiple dose trials, a long-term exposure trial, and post-marketing surveillance data of APAP/IBP FDC tablets (Maxigesic®/Combogesic®, AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd). The largest dataset was obtained by pooling the four randomized-controlled, multiple-dose clinical studies with either APAP 325 mg + IBP 97.5 mg (FDC 325/97.5, three tablets per dose) or APAP 500 mg + IBP 150 mg (FDC 500/150, two tablets per dose). At maximum doses, the two FDCs are bioequivalent, permitting the pooling of data for the analysis of safety.

RESULTS

A safety population of 922 patients who received full doses of either FDC, APAP alone, IBP alone, or placebo was compiled from the four studies. A total of 521 AEs were experienced with the incidence of FDC AEs similar to or below either monotherapy group or placebo. The FDC did not alter the incidence and percentage of the most common AEs, including gastrointestinal events and postoperative bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the FDC is well tolerated and has a strong safety profile at single and multiple doses with improved efficacy over monotherapy.

Intravenous morphine titration vs. oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen for adults with lower extremity displaced fracture in an emergency department setting: A randomized controlled trial

The objective of the present study was to test the hypothesis that intravenous morphine titration provides superior analgesia to oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen for patients with lower extremity displaced fracture in an emergency department (ED) setting. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of ED patients suffering acute lower extremity displaced fracture pain was performed with a total of 206 participants included. After application of exclusion criteria, the cohort comprised 166 patients, 85 of which were randomly allocated to the oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/500 mg) group and 81 to the intravenous morphine titration (every 5 min by 3-mg increments) group. The main outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) at different time-points after the first dose of analgesic was administered. Secondary outcomes included the VAS change during the skeletal traction operation and short-term adverse events. The results demonstrated that the initial VSA of the participants was similar at the baseline on arrival at the ED (P=0.2582). At the time-points of 5, 15, 30 min after the first dose of analgesic administered, the intravenous morphine titration group exhibited a greater VAS reduction compared with that in the oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen group (P<0.01). The differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant at 1 h or thereafter. The incidence of short-term adverse events was similar between the 2 groups but sedation, whose incidence in the morphine group was markedly increased, may not be arbitrarily attributed to adverse events. It was concluded that, compared with oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen, intravenous morphine titration provided a rapid and sufficient pain relief and equivalent short-term adverse events for patients with lower extremity displaced fracture in an ED setting.

Effect of a Single Dose of Oral Opioid and Nonopioid Analgesics on Acute Extremity Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The choice of analgesic to treat acute pain in the emergency department (ED) lacks a clear evidence base. The combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol) may represent a viable nonopioid alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of 4 oral analgesics.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 urban EDs in the Bronx, New York, that included 416 patients aged 21 to 64 years with moderate to severe acute extremity pain enrolled from July 2015 to August 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants (104 per each combination analgesic group) received 400 mg of ibuprofen and 1000 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of oxycodone and 325 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of hydrocodone and 300 mg of acetaminophen; or 30 mg of codeine and 300 mg of acetaminophen.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the between-group difference in decline in pain 2 hours after ingestion. Pain intensity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst possible pain. The predefined minimum clinically important difference was 1.3 on the NRS. Analysis of variance was used to test the overall between-group difference at P = .05 and 99.2% CIs adjusted for multiple pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS

Of 416 patients randomized, 411 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 37 [12] years; 199 [48%] women; 247 [60%] Latino). The baseline mean NRS pain score was 8.7 (SD, 1.3). At 2 hours, the mean NRS pain score decreased by 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.9) in the ibuprofen and acetaminophen group; by 4.4 (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.0) in the oxycodone and acetaminophen group; by 3.5 (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.2) in the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group; and by 3.9 (95% CI, 3.2 to 4.5) in the codeine and acetaminophen group (P = .053). The largest difference in decline in the NRS pain score from baseline to 2 hours was between the oxycodone and acetaminophen group and the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group (0.9; 99.2% CI, -0.1 to 1.8), which was less than the minimum clinically important difference in NRS pain score of 1.3. Adverse events were not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

For patients presenting to the ED with acute extremity pain, there were no statistically significant or clinically important differences in pain reduction at 2 hours among single-dose treatment with ibuprofen and acetaminophen or with 3 different opioid and acetaminophen combination analgesics. Further research to assess adverse events and other dosing may be warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02455518.