A controlled comparison between single doses of intravenous and intramuscular morphine with respect to analgesic effects and patient safety

Review of Intranasal Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Delivery Systems

In recent decades, there has been an increased interest in the development of intranasal delivery systems for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) not only for treating local nasal diseases but also for treating systemic diseases, central nervous system (CNS) disorders, and vaccine delivery. The nasal cavity possesses a unique set of anatomical characteristics for delivering active pharmaceutical ingredients, but there are several limitations that recent research in the field of the intranasal administration of APIs aims to overcome. For the effective delivery of nasal preparations, active pharmaceutical ingredients are incorporated into various micro- and nanosystems. Some of the most commonly encountered API delivery systems in the scientific literature include liposomal systems, polymer particles with mucoadhesive properties, in situ gels, nano- and microemulsions, and solid lipid particles. This article provides a review of research on the development of nasal preparations for treating local nasal cavity diseases (in particular, for antibiotic delivery), systemic diseases (analgesics, drugs for cardiovascular diseases, antiviral and antiemetic drugs), CNS disorders (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, depression), and vaccine delivery. The literature data show that active research is underway to reformulate drugs of various pharmacotherapeutic groups into a nasal form.

MethOxyfluraNe in InTerventiOnal Radiology (MONITOR): A randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Procedural sedation and pain management in interventional radiology (IR) are of critical importance to successful outcomes but remain under-researched. Methoxyflurane has been previously used in some minor procedures with several advantages including rapid onset and offset and a good safety profile. The purpose of this study was to evaluate methoxyflurane for procedures in IR.

METHODS

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed between October 2021 and November 2022. Patients presenting for portacath insertion, portacath removal or solid organ biopsy were randomised to either methoxyflurane or placebo. Three hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled in total. Patients were supplied with one Penthrox inhaler containing either 3 mL methoxyflurane or placebo. The primary endpoints of the study were change in pain and anxiety scores compared with baseline, measured on a standardised visual analogue scale (VAS) pre-procedure, at 5-min intervals during the procedure and post-procedure. Baselines scores were controlled for in the statistical analysis. Safety analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-nine patients received methoxyflurane and 145 received placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The methoxyflurane group had lower pain and anxiety scores throughout the procedure (P < 0.001) with 2.5 times less pain (VAS 1.08/10) and 1.6 times less anxiety (VAS 0.97/10) on average. Lower post-procedure pain (mean 0.72 vs 1.44; P < 0.001) and anxiety (mean 0.55 vs 1.13; P = 0.008) were also observed with methoxyflurane. There were no drug or major procedure-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that methoxyflurane provides safe and effective analgesia and anxiolysis for some procedures in IR.

Use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and midline catheters for palliative care in patients with cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (MCs) may offer convenient intravenous access, but evidence to support their place in palliative care is limited. This review aimed to assess catheter indications, utilization, complications, dwell time, and patient experiences in cancer patients receiving palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic search for studies on catheter utilization for supportive or symptom treatment was conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CENTRAL databases. Studies with a study population or a subgroup of palliative care cancer patients were included. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Of 7631 unique titles, 17 articles were examined in detail, all published between 2002 and 2022. Median catheter dwell time varied from 15 to 194 days, the longest when utilized for home parenteral nutrition. For pain and symptom management, the typical duration was 2-4 weeks, often until the patient's death. Complication rates were minimal, with thrombosis, infections, and occlusion ranging from 0 to 2.46 incidents per 1000 catheter days. In studies from palliative care services, patients reported minimal distress during procedures and high user satisfaction. Quality of life assessments post-procedure improved, possibly influenced by concurrent specialist palliative care provision. All studies were assessed to be of moderate or weak quality.

CONCLUSION

PICC and MC are safe and valuable tools in palliative care cancer patients who would benefit from intravenous access for symptom management. Further studies are needed to clarify indications for PICC or MC in palliative care.

Use and safety of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters in palliative care cancer patients: a retrospective review

PURPOSE

Some cancer patients in palliative care require intravenous administration of symptom relieving drugs. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (MCs) provide easy and accessible intravenous access. However, limited evidence supports the use of these devices in palliative care. The aim was to assess the use, safety, and efficacy of PICC and MC in this patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all palliative care cancer patients who received PICC or MC at the Department of Palliative Medicine at Akershus University Hospital between 2020 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 374 patients were included; 239 patients received a PICC and 135 an MC with a total catheterization duration of 11,698 days. The catheters remained in place until death in 91% of patients, with a median catheter dwell time of 21 days for PICCs and 2 days for MCs. The complication rate was 3.3 per 1000 catheter days, with minor bleeding and accidental dislocation as the most common. The catheters were utilized primarily for opioids and other symptom directed treatments, and 89% of patients received a patient or nurse-controlled analgesia pump. Patients with PICC or MC discharged to home or nursing homes spent 81% of their time out of hospital.

CONCLUSION

PICC and MC provide safe parenteral access for palliative care cancer patients where intravenous symptom treatment is indicated. Their use can facilitate intravenous symptom treatment beyond the confines of a hospital and supplement the traditional practice relying on subcutaneous administration.

Opioid Sparing Effect of Ketamine in Military Pre-Hospital Pain Management - A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most commonly used analgesics in acute trauma, but are limited by slow onset and significant adverse effects. Ketamine is an effective and widely used analgesic. This study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and opioid-sparing effects of ketamine when utilized in pre-hospital military trauma setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a pre-hospital military trauma registry between 2014 - 2020. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 16 years, ≥2 documented pain assessments, at least one indicating severe pain, and administration of opioids and/or low-dose ketamine. Joint hypothesis testing was used to compare casualties who received opioids only to those who received ketamine on outcomes of pain score reduction and opioid consumption.

RESULTS

Overall, 382 casualties were included. 91 (24%) received ketamine (21 as a single analgesic), with a mean dose of 29 mg (SD 11). Mean reduction in pain scores (on an 11-point scale) was not significantly different; 4.3-point (2.8) reduction in the ketamine group and 3.7-points (2.4) in the opioid-only group (p = 0.095). Casualties in the ketamine group received a median of 10 mg (IQR 3.5, 25) of morphine equivalents (ME) compared with a median of 20 ME (10, 20) in the opioid-only group. In a multivariable multinomial logistic regression, casualties in the ketamine group were significantly more likely to receive a low (1-10 ME) rather than a medium (11-20 ME) dose of opioids compared to the opioid-only group (OR 0.032, CI 0.14 - 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ketamine in the pre-hospital military setting as part of a pain management protocol was associated with a low rather than medium dose of opioids in a multivariable analysis, while the mean reduction in pain scores was not significantly different between groups. Using ketamine as a first-line agent may further reduce opioid consumption with a similar analgesic effect.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic/care management.

Effectiveness and harms of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in adults in intensive care units after cardiac surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness and harms of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION

Patients who undergo cardiac surgery are at high risk of delirium (incidence: 50-90%). Delirium has deleterious effects, increasing the risk of death and adversely affecting recovery. Clinical interventional trials have been conducted to prevent and treat postoperative delirium pharmacologically including antipsychotics and sedatives. These trials have provided some evidence about efficacy and influenced clinical decision making. However, much reporting is incomplete and provides biased assessments of efficacy; benefits are emphasized while harms are inadequately reported.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Participants were ≥ 16 years, any sex or ethnicity, who were treated postoperatively in a cardiothoracic ICU following cardiac surgery and were identified as having delirium. Any pharmacological intervention for the treatment of delirium was included, regardless of drug classification, dosage, intensity or frequency of administration. Outcomes of interest of this review were: mortality, duration and severity of delirium, use of physical restraints, quality of life, family members' satisfaction with delirium management, duration/severity of the aggressive episode, associated falls, severity of accidental self-harm, pharmacological harms, harms related to over-sedation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay (post ICU), total hospital length of stay, need for additional intervention medication and need for rescue medication. Randomized controlled trials were considered first and in their absence, non-randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental would have been considered, followed by analytical observational studies.

METHODS

A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Epistemonikos, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trials in New Zealand, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses to locate both published and unpublished studies. There was no date limit for the search. A hand search for primary studies published between January 1, 2012 and November 17, 2018 in relevant journals was also conducted. Only studies published in English were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI and McMaster University. Quantitative data were extracted using the standardized JBI data extraction tool. A meta-analysis was not performed, as there was too much clinical and methodological heterogeneity in the included studies. Results have been presented in a narrative form. Standard GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) evidence assessment of outcomes has been reported.

RESULTS

Three RCTs investigating morphine versus haloperidol (n = 53), ondansetron versus haloperidol (n = 72), and dexmedetomidine versus midazolam (n = 80) were included. Due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Overall, the methodological quality of these studies was found to be low. Additionally, this review found reporting of harms to be inadequate and superficial for all three studies and did not meet the required standards for harms reporting, as defined by the CONSORT statement extension for harms.

CONCLUSIONS

It was not possible to draw any valid conclusions regarding the effectiveness of morphine vs haloperidol, ondansetron vs haloperidol or dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in treating delirium after cardiac surgery. This is due to the low number of studies, the poor methodological quality in conducting and reporting and the heterogeneity between the studies.

The Efficacy and Safety of Opioids in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioids are frequently used to treat pain after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of opioids in primary TJA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials were searched for studies published before November 2018 on opioids in TJA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of opioids.

RESULTS

Preoperative opioid use leads to increased opioid consumption and complications after TJA along with a higher risk of chronic opioid use and inferior patient-reported outcomes. Scheduled opioids administered preemptively, intraoperatively, or postoperatively reduce the need for additional opioids for breakthrough pain. Prescribing fewer opioid pills after discharge is associated with equivalent functional outcomes and decreased opioid consumption. Tramadol reduces postoperative opioid consumption but increases the risk of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and dizziness.

CONCLUSION

Moderate evidence supports the use of opioids in TJA to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Opioids should be used cautiously as they may increase the risk of complications, such as respiratory depression and sedation, especially if combined with other central nervous system depressants or used in the elderly.

The Reincarnation of Methoxyflurane

Methoxyflurane was an inhaled agent commonly used for general anesthesia in the 1960s, but its clinical role gradually decreased in the 1970s because of reports of dose-dependent nephrotoxicity. In 1999 its manufacturer, Abbott Laboratories, discontinued distribution of methoxyflurane in the United States and Canada. Outside of North America, however, methoxyflurane has been reborn as an inhaled analgesic used for pain relief in the prehospital setting and for minor surgical procedures. First used in Australia and New Zealand, and subsequently in over thirty-seven other countries, low concentrations of methoxyflurane are administered with a hand-held inhaler which provides conscious sedation, so that patients can self-assess their level of pain and control the amount of inhaled agent. The Penthrox inhaler, originally developed in Australia after several other hand-held vaporizers were tried, is currently being used worldwide as a portable and disposable self-administered agent delivery system. Methoxyflurane-induced nephrotoxicity continues to be a major concern, but with cautious administration of recommended doses methoxyflurane has been established as a remarkably safe analgesic agent with minimal side effects for patients in need of rapid and potent pain relief.

An Open-Label Study of Sufentanil Sublingual Tablet 30 Mcg in Patients with Postoperative Pain

Objective

To evaluate sufentanil sublingual tablet 30 mcg (SST 30 mcg) for postoperative pain in an older patient population with comorbidities.

Design

Multicenter, open-label, single-arm study.

Setting

Nine hospitals across the United States.

Subjects

Adults aged ≥40 years who had undergone a surgical procedure.

Methods

Patients with a postoperative pain intensity score ≥4 on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) were allowed to enter the study and receive SST 30 mcg as requested for pain (minimum 60-minute redosing interval) over the 12-hour study period. Efficacy was assessed by patient reports of pain intensity on the NRS and a five-point pain relief scale. Safety was monitored throughout the study; plasma sufentanil concentrations were also measured. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time-weighted summed pain intensity difference (SPID) to baseline over 12 hours (SPID12).

Results

Of the 140 patients enrolled, 69% were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Class II or III, 44% had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 mg/kg², and 29% had hepatic and/or renal impairment. Average age was 54.7 years (SD = 9.9 years), and average baseline pain intensity was 6.2 (SD = 1.9). The most common surgeries were abdominal (59%) and orthopedic (20%). The mean SPID12 was 36.0 (standard error of the mean = 2.2); mean scores were similar, regardless of age, sex, race, and BMI. From baseline, mean pain intensity decreased significantly starting 30 minutes postdose, and mean pain relief increased significantly starting 15 minutes postdose, remaining relatively stable through 12 hours (P < 0.001 at each time point). Four (3%) patients discontinued due to inadequate analgesia, and 45 (32%) patients had one or more adverse events that were considered possibly or probably related to the study drug. Mean plasma sufentanil concentrations were generally similar regardless of age, sex, BMI, or organ impairment status.

Conclusions

SST 30 mcg was effective and well tolerated for the management of moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Methoxyflurane Versus Standard of Care for Acute Trauma-Related Pain in the Emergency Setting: Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Study in Italy (MEDITA)

Introduction

Low-dose methoxyflurane, administered via a hand-held inhaler, has been used for short-term pain relief in emergency medicine in Australia and New Zealand for over 40 years, and was recently approved in Europe for the rapid relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults. There is currently a lack of data for methoxyflurane versus active comparators, therefore this trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane compared with standard of care (SoC) in the treatment of acute trauma-related pain in pre-hospital and ED settings in Italy.

Methods

MEDITA (Methoxyflurane in Emergency Department in ITAly) is a Phase IIIb, prospective, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre trial. A total of 272 adult patients with moderate-to-severe pain [score ≥ 4 on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)] due to limb trauma will be randomised 1:1 to receive 3 mL methoxyflurane (self-administered by the patient via inhalation under supervision of a trained person) or medications that currently comprise the SoC in Italy [intravenous (IV) morphine for severe pain (NRS ≥ 7); IV paracetamol or ketoprofen for moderate pain (NRS 4–6)], administered as soon as possible after randomisation.

Planned Outcomes

Pain intensity will be measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline (time of randomisation) and at intervals up to 30 min. Time of onset of pain relief as reported by the patient and use of rescue medication will be recorded. The patient will rate the efficacy and the healthcare professional will rate the practicality of study treatment at 30 min after randomisation using a 5-point Likert scale. Adverse events will be recorded until safety follow-up at 14 ± 2 days. Vital signs will be measured at baseline, 10 and 30 min. The primary aim is to demonstrate non-inferiority of methoxyflurane versus SoC for the change in VAS pain intensity from baseline (randomisation) to 3, 5 and 10 min.

Trial Registration

EudraCT number: 2017-001565-25. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03585374.

Funding

Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals srl.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0830-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The role of inhaled methoxyflurane in acute pain management

Methoxyflurane is an inhaled analgesic administered via a disposable inhaler which has been used in Australia for over 40 years for the management of pain associated with trauma and for medical procedures in children and adults. Now available in 16 countries worldwide, it is licensed in Europe for moderate to severe pain associated with trauma in conscious adults, although additional applications are being made to widen the range of approved indications. Considering these ongoing developments, we reviewed the available evidence on clinical usage and safety of inhaled analgesic methoxyflurane in trauma pain and in medical procedures in both adults and children. Published data on methoxyflurane in trauma and procedural pain show it to be effective, well tolerated, and highly rated by patients, providing rapid onset of analgesia. Methoxyflurane has a well-established safety profile; adverse events are usually brief and self-limiting, and no clinically significant effects on vital signs or consciousness levels have been reported. Nephrotoxicity previously associated with methoxyflurane at high anesthetic doses is not reported with low analgesic doses. Although two large retrospective comparative studies in the prehospital setting showed inhaled analgesic methoxyflurane to be less effective than intravenous morphine and intranasal fentanyl, this should be balanced against the administration, supervision times, and safety profile of these agents. Given the limitations of currently available analgesic agents in the prehospital and emergency department settings, the ease of use and portability of methoxyflurane combined with its rapid onset of effective pain relief and favorable safety profile make it a useful nonopioid option for pain management. Except for the STOP! study, which formed the basis for approval in trauma pain in Europe, and a few smaller randomized controlled trials (RCTs), much of the available data are observational or retrospective, and further RCTs are currently underway to provide more robust data.

Methoxyflurane Analgesia in Adult Patients in the Emergency Department: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study (STOP!)

INTRODUCTION

Acute pain remains highly prevalent in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled UK study investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane analgesia for the treatment of acute pain in the ED in the adult population of the STOP! trial.

METHODS

Patients presenting to the ED requiring analgesia for acute pain (pain score of 4-7 on the Numerical Rating Scale) due to minor trauma were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive methoxyflurane (up to 6 mL) or placebo (normal saline), both via a Penthrox® (Medical Developments International Limited, Scoresby, Australia) inhaler. Rescue medication (paracetamol/opioids) was available immediately upon request. Change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

300 adult and adolescent patients were randomized; data are presented for the adult subgroup (N = 204). Mean baseline VAS pain score was ~66 mm in both groups. The mean change from baseline to 5, 10, 15 and 20 min was greater for methoxyflurane (-20.7, -27.4, -33.3 and -34.8 mm, respectively) than placebo (-8.0, -11.1, -12.3 and -15.2 mm, respectively). The primary analysis showed a highly significant treatment effect overall across all four time points (-17.4 mm; 95% confidence interval: -22.3 to -12.5 mm; p < 0.0001). Median time to first pain relief was 5 min with methoxyflurane [versus 20 min with placebo; (hazard ratio: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.63, 3.30; p < 0.0001)]; 79.4% of methoxyflurane-treated patients experienced pain relief within 1-10 inhalations. 22.8% of placebo-treated patients requested rescue medication within 20 min compared with 2.0% of methoxyflurane-treated patients (p = 0.0003). Methoxyflurane treatment was rated 'Excellent', 'Very Good' or 'Good' by 77.6% of patients, 74.5% of physicians and 72.5% of nurses. Treatment-related adverse events (mostly dizziness/headache) were reported by 42.2% of patients receiving methoxyflurane and 14.9% of patients receiving placebo; none caused withdrawal and the majority were mild and transient.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study support the evidence from previous trials that low-dose methoxyflurane administered via the Penthrox inhaler is a well-tolerated, efficacious and rapid-acting analgesic.

FUNDING

Medical Developments International (MDI) Limited and Mundipharma Research GmbH & Co.KG.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01420159, EudraCT number: 2011-000338-12.

Perspectives on Intravenous Oxycodone for Control of Postoperative Pain

Intravenous (IV) analgesia has particular advantages in the immediate postoperative period. For example, IV administration results in a faster onset of pain relief and results in more predictable pharmacokinetics than does administration by other routes. It also allows for convenient dosing before or during surgery, permitting the initiation of effective analgesia in the early phase of the postoperative period. In addition, when patients are able to tolerate oral intake, they can be switched from IV to oral dosing based on maintaining the predictable analgesia established by the IV route. IV morphine is widely used for the control of postoperative pain, but there is a trend toward the use of oxycodone. Oxycodone (which may be mediated partly through kappa- as well as mu-opioid receptors) offers several potential advantages. Published studies comparing IV oxycodone to other IV opioids for postsurgical pain report that oxycodone is a safe and effective analgesic. Some studies show that IV oxycodone may be associated with greater pain control, fewer or less severe adverse events, and faster onset of action, although the results are not consistent across all studies. Oxycodone has been reported to be safe in the geriatric and other special populations when adequate clinical adjustments are made. Thus, the clinical reports and oxycodone's pharmacologic profile make intravenous oxycodone a potentially important "new" old drug for postoperative pain control.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Hamad Medical Corporation Medical Research Center, Doha, Qatar.

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

RESULTS

"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

CONCLUSION

This updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.

STOP!: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane for the treatment of acute pain

Objective

To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane for the treatment of acute pain in patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) with minor trauma.

Methods

STOP! was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled study conducted at six sites in the UK. A total of 300 patients, 90 of whom were adolescent patients (age 12–17 years), were randomised 150:150 to receive either methoxyflurane via a Penthrox inhaler or placebo. The primary end point of the study was the change in pain intensity as measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) from baseline to 5, 10, 15 and 20 min after the start of study drug inhalation. Patients were supplied with one inhaler containing 3 mL methoxyflurane or 5 mL placebo after enrolment and initial assessments. Age group (adolescent/adult) and baseline VAS score were controlled for in the statistical analyses.

Results

A total of 149 patients received methoxyflurane, and 149 patients received placebo. Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Methoxyflurane reduced pain severity significantly more than placebo (p<0.0001) at all time points tested, with the greatest estimated treatment effect of −18.5 mm (adjusted change from baseline) seen at 15 min after the start of treatment. Methoxyflurane was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse reactions being mild, transient and in line with anticipated pharmacological action.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that methoxyflurane administered via the Penthrox inhaler is an efficacious, safe, and rapidly acting analgesic.

Trial registration number:

NCT01420159.

An Evidence-based Guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma

BACKGROUND

The management of acute traumatic pain is a crucial component of prehospital care and yet the assessment and administration of analgesia is highly variable, frequently suboptimal, and often determined by consensus-based regional protocols.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline (EBG) for the clinical management of acute traumatic pain in adults and children by advanced life support (ALS) providers in the prehospital setting. Methods. We recruited a multi-stakeholder panel with expertise in acute pain management, guideline development, health informatics, and emergency medical services (EMS) outcomes research. Representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (sponsoring agency) and a major children's research center (investigative team) also contributed to the process. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to guide the process of question formulation, evidence retrieval, appraisal/synthesis, and formulation of recommendations. The process also adhered to the National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline (EBG) model process approved by the Federal Interagency Council for EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council.

RESULTS

Four strong and three weak recommendations emerged from the process; two of the strong recommendations were linked to high- and moderate-quality evidence, respectively. The panel recommended that all patients be considered candidates for analgesia, regardless of transport interval, and that opioid medications should be considered for patients in moderate to severe pain. The panel also recommended that all patients should be reassessed at frequent intervals using a standardized pain scale and that patients should be re-dosed if pain persists. The panel suggested the use of specific age-appropriate pain scales.

CONCLUSION

GRADE methodology was used to develop an evidence-based guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma. The panel issued four strong recommendations regarding patient assessment and narcotic medication dosing. Future research should define optimal approaches for implementation of the guideline as well as the impact of the protocol on safety and effectiveness metrics.

[Post-operative pain management in hospitals]

BACKGROUND

Relief of post-operative pain has a bearing on the patient's well-being, mobilisation and time confined to bed. The article discusses indications, contraindications and the efficacy of the various treatment modalities.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We have examined review articles, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials, identified through literature searches in PubMed.

RESULTS

The use of several medicines and techniques (multimodal pain treatment) is necessary to achieve a good balance between pain relief, side effects and risk. Systemic administration of paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioids and glucocorticoids is effective for post-operative pain. The same applies to epidural analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks and local anaesthetic wound infiltration. Subanaesthetic doses of ketamine have an opioid-sparing effect, but the optimal dosing regimen is uncertain. Gabapentinoids have an effect on post-operative pain, but the effect appears to vary depending on the type of operation and analgesic regimen. The effect of one analgesic will depend on which other drugs are used in multimodal pain treatment. Epidural analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks or extensive local infiltration analgesia is often necessary to relieve movement-related pain.

INTERPRETATION

Many treatment modalities are effective for post-operative pain. It is crucial that the treatment is well organised and that it includes routines for systematic pain assessment, efficacy and side effects of the pain management.

Adding ketamine to morphine for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for acute postoperative pain: a qualitative review of randomized trials

In experimental trials, ketamine has been shown to reduce hyperalgesia, prevent opioid tolerance, and lower morphine consumption. Clinical trials have found contradictory results. We performed a review of randomized, double-blinded clinical trials of ketamine added to opioid in i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative pain in order to clarify this controversy. Our primary aim was to compare the effectiveness and safety of postoperative administered ketamine in addition to opioid for i.v. PCA compared with i.v. PCA with opioid alone. Studies were identified from the Cochrane Library 2003, MEDLINE (1966-2009), and EMBASE (1980-2009) and by hand-searching reference lists from review articles and trials. Eleven studies were identified with a total of 887 patients. Quality and validity assessment was performed on all trials included using the Oxford Quality Scale with an average quality score of 4.5. Pain was assessed using visual analogue scales or verbal rating scales. Six studies showed significant improved postoperative analgesia with the addition of ketamine to opioids. Five studies showed no significant clinical improvement. For thoracic surgery, the addition of ketamine to opioid for i.v. PCA was superior to i.v. PCA opioid alone. The combination allows a significant reduction in pain score, cumulative morphine consumption, and postoperative desaturation. The benefit of adding ketamine to morphine in i.v. PCA for orthopaedic or abdominal surgery remains unclear. Owing to huge heterogeneity of studies and small sample sizes, larger double-blinded randomized studies showing greater degree of homogeneity are required to confirm these findings.

Remifentanil for INSURE in preterm infants: a pilot study for evaluation of efficacy and safety aspects

AIM

To evaluate intubating conditions, extubation times and outcome in preterm infants receiving remifentanil as induction agent for the INSURE procedure.

METHODS

In twenty-one preterm infants of 29 to 32 weeks gestation and signs of respiratory distress, we utilized remifentanil as induction agent for the INSURE procedure. Following intubation and surfactant application, the infants were mechanically ventilated until respiratory drive was judged to be satisfactory for continuing CPAP therapy. Intubating conditions were classified by our own scoring system by rating limb movements, coughing and breathing. Heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation were recorded during the entire INSURE procedure.

RESULTS

Remifentanil provided excellent or good intubating conditions in all patients. We observed no serious side effects after remifentanil infusion, in particular, no thorax rigidity, clinically significant bradycardia or arterial hypotension. Average extubation time after surfactant administration was 16.9 min (1-45 min); none of the infants had to be reintubated. Following extubation, the infants required only 3.3 days (1-8 days) of CPAP therapy. None exhibited serious complications of prematurity like periventricular leucomalacia, intraventricular haemorrhage >I degree, necrotizing enterocolitis or retinopathy.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, INSURE with remifentanil was associated with good intubating conditions and early extubation resulting in an excellent neonatal outcome.

Analgesia for labour: a survey of Norwegian practice - with a focus on parenteral opioids

BACKGROUND

During the last two decades, epidural analgesia has become 'a gold standard' for labour pain in most Western countries. Newer short-acting opioids given systemically represent an alternative for adequate pain relief without using regional techniques. With this survey, we wish to explore how Norwegian hospitals practice labour analgesia, especially their use of systemic opioids.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to the head of all 46 registered Norwegian labour units in 2005. The questionnaire focused on epidural and the use of systemic opioids. In 2008, the same questionnaire was sent to the 19 largest units reporting >1000 births a year, seeking updated information.

RESULTS

Forty-three of the 46 original questionnaires were returned. An epidural frequency of 25.9% was registered. For epidural treatment, bupivacaine was the preferred local anaesthetic, while sufentanil was the opioid of choice for the majority of units. Pethidine was the most commonly used opioid for systemic administration (77%). All units reported nurse administration of systemic opioids. The intramuscular route was most commonly used, either alone (58%) or in combination with an intravenous (i.v.) administration (34%). Only one unit used i.v. fentanyl. There were only minor changes with the repeated survey, except for one large unit, which reported over a 50% increase in the epidural frequency.

CONCLUSION

In Norway, the frequency of epidural for labour analgesia is still relatively low, but seems to be increasing. Systemic opioids are often used instead of or as a supplement. Clinical practice seems to be conservative, and newer short-acting opioids are seldom used systemically.