PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)--patient controlled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with pain from traumatic injuries: randomised trial

Sex and gender reporting in UK emergency medicine trials from 2010 to 2023: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Female participants are underrepresented in randomised control trials conducted in urgent care settings. Although sex and gender are frequently reported within demographic data, it is less common for primary outcomes to be disaggregated by sex or gender. The aim of this review is to report sex and gender of participants in the primary papers published on research listed on the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Trauma and Emergency Care (TEC) portfolio and how these data are presented.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of the published outputs of interventional trials conducted in UK EDs. Interventional trials were eligible to be included in the review if they were registered on the NIHR TEC research portfolio from January 2010, if the primary paper was published before 31 December 2023 and if the research was delivered primarily in the ED. Trials were identified through the NIHR open data platform and the primary papers were identified through specific searches using MedLine, EMBASE and PubMed. The primary objective of the review is to quantify the proportion of sex-disaggregated or gender-disaggregated primary outcomes in clinical trials within UK emergency medicine.

RESULTS

The initial search revealed 169 registered research projects on the NIHR TEC portfolio during the study period, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 76 719 participants were included, of which 31 374 (40%) were female. Only one trial (CRYOSTAT-2) reported a sex-disaggregated analysis of the effect of the intervention on either primary or secondary outcomes, and no sex-based difference in treatment effect was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer females than males were included in TEC trials from 2010 to 2023. One trial reported the primary outcome stratified by sex. There is significant scope to increase the scientific value of TEC trials to females by funders.

Patient-controlled analgesia morphine for the management of acute pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not always possible in the crowded Emergency Department. Therefore, an alternative way to improve pain care in the Emergency Department is needed to avoid this unpleasant sensation in the patients. The best solution to tackle this situation is using Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA), in the form of a PCA pump.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designated to evaluate the efficacy of PCA morphine in treating acute pain at Emergency Department.

METHODS

We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to February 2022 and identified randomized controlled trials with English language only that compare PCA morphine to IV morphine in treating patients presenting with acute pain at Emergency Department.

RESULTS

Eight trials were included in our review, comprising 1490 participants. We compared PCA morphine vs. IV morphine. There were no differences in the pain score between PCA and IV morphine (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.20, p = 0.25). Further subgroup analyses (origin of the pain, time of assessment and the durations) showed no difference except for the dosages as the PCA morphine reduced the pain compared to IV morphine in low and high dosages but only two studies were involved. However, the analysis showed PCA morphine increased patient satisfaction and reduced the number of patients who required additional analgesia compared to IV morphine (MD 0.12, P < 0.001), (MD 0.47, P < 0.001) respectively. Data obtained in this review pertaining to adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and drowsiness is limited since not all the trials reported the events.

CONCLUSIONS

PCA morphine do appear to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of patient satisfaction and the number of patients who required additional analgesia. However, further studies targeting a larger sample size is required to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Patient-controlled analgesia for the management of adults with acute trauma in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCA for the management of adults with acute traumatic pain in the ED. The hypothesis was that PCA can effectively treat acute trauma pain in adults in the ED, with minimal adverse outcomes and better patient satisfaction compared with non-PCA modalities.

METHODS

MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception date to December 13, 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving adults presenting to the ED with acute traumatic pain who received intravenous (IV) analgesia via PCA compared with other modalities were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 1,368 publications were screened, with 3 studies involving 382 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. All three studies compared PCA IV morphine with clinician-titrated IV morphine boluses. For the primary outcome of pain relief, the pooled estimate was in favor of PCA with a standard mean difference of -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.87 to 0.16). There were mixed results concerning patient satisfaction. Adverse event rates were low overall. The evidence from all three studies was graded as low-quality because of a high risk of bias from lack of blinding.

CONCLUSION

This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in pain relief or patient satisfaction using PCA for trauma in the ED. Clinicians wishing to use PCA to treat acute trauma pain in adult patients in the ED are advised to consider the available resources in their own practice settings and to implement protocols for monitoring and responding to potential adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/Meta-Analyses; Level III.

Defining and evaluating the Hawthorne effect in primary care, a systematic review and meta-analysis

In 2015, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in primary care to evaluate if posters and pamphlets dispensed in general practice waiting rooms enhanced vaccination uptake for seasonal influenza. Unexpectedly, vaccination uptake rose in both arms of the RCT whereas public health data indicated a decrease. We wondered if the design of the trial had led to a Hawthorne effect (HE). Searching the literature, we noticed that the definition of the HE was unclear if stated. Our objectives were to refine a definition of the HE for primary care, to evaluate its size, and to draw consequences for primary care research. We designed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses review and meta-analysis between January 2012 and March 2022. We included original reports defining the HE and reports measuring it without setting limitations. Definitions of the HE were collected and summarized. Main published outcomes were extracted and measures were analyzed to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) in primary care. The search led to 180 records, reduced on review to 74 for definition and 15 for quantification. Our definition of HE is "an aware or unconscious complex behavior change in a study environment, related to the complex interaction of four biases affecting the study subjects and investigators: selection bias, commitment and congruence bias, conformity and social desirability bias and observation and measurement bias." Its size varies in time and depends on the education and professional position of the investigators and subjects, the study environment, and the outcome. There are overlap areas between the HE, placebo effect, and regression to the mean. In binary outcomes, the overall OR of the HE computed in primary care was 1.41 (95% CI: [1.13; 1.75]; I 2 = 97%), but the significance of the HE disappears in well-designed studies. We conclude that the HE results from a complex system of interacting phenomena and appears to some degree in all experimental research, but its size can considerably be reduced by refining study designs.

Patient controlled analgesia for the management of acute pain in the emergency department: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The most common presenting complaint to the emergency department (ED) is pain. Several studies have shown that a large proportion of ED patients either receive no or sub-optimal analgesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps used in the post-operative setting has shown to decrease total opioid consumption and has increased patient and nurse satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical trials that have used PCAs in the ED setting, to evaluate safety and efficacy as well as patient and healthcare provider experience.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database was conducted using the MESH search terms emergency department, patient-controlled analgesia, and acute pain up to September 2021. These terms were searched in all fields of publication and were limited to the English-language articles, clinical "human" studies, and studies that included the use of patient-controlled analgesia in the setting of the emergency department.

RESULTS

The search initially identified 227 potentially relevant articles and a total of 10 studies met criteria for inclusion. ED use of PCA therapy was associated with increased patient satisfaction, decreased pain scores, and an overall increase in opioid consumption.

CONCLUSION

The quality, the differences in study methods and outcome measures used, and heterogeneity of the studies performed to date do not provide adequate evidence to support its widespread use in the ED. Well-designed studies conducted in the ED are still needed to evaluate the ideal patient population to whom these PCAs may provide the most benefit as well as a robust cost-analysis to ensure feasibility of use in the future.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Clinical Trial Number

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020223000.

Supplementary Information

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

Percutaneous periarticular multi-drug injection at one day after total knee arthroplasty as a component of multimodal pain management: a randomized control trial

Background

Although intraoperative periarticular multi-drug injection has been used for postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the injection has the inherent shortcoming of limited acting time. This randomized controlled trial was performed to assess whether adding percutaneous periarticular multi-drug injection at the day following TKA would improve the postoperative pain relief.

Methods

A total of 43 participants were randomly assigned to receive additional periarticular injection at 08:30, postoperative day 1 or no additional injection. The multi-drug solution including 40 mg of methylprednisolone, 150 mg of ropivacaine, and 0.1 mg of epinephrine was infiltrated into the muscle belly of the vastus medialis. In both groups, patients were treated with intraoperative periarticular multi-drug injection and postoperative intravenous and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We did not use any narcotic pain medications postoperatively. The primary outcome was the patients’ global assessment of postoperative pain at rest measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) and quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of serial assessments until 20:00, postoperative day 5.

Results

The mean AUC for the postoperative pain VAS at rest was 1616 ± 1191 in patients received the additional periarticular injection versus 2808 ± 1494 in those received no injection (mean difference, − 1192; 95% confidence interval, − 2043 to − 340; p = 0.007). No wound complication or surgical site infection was observed in either groups.

Conclusions

Adding percutaneous periarticular multi-drug injection at the day following TKA may provide better postoperative pain relief. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety of the percutaneous injection.

Trial registration

University Hospital Medical Information Network UMIN000029003. Registered 5 September 2017.

The impact of emergency department patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) on the incidence of chronic pain following trauma and non-traumatic abdominal pain

The effect of patient-controlled analgesia during the emergency phase of care on the prevalence of persistent pain is unkown. We studied individuals with traumatic injuries or abdominal pain 6 months after hospital admission via the emergency department using an opportunistic observational study design. This was conducted using postal questionnaires that were sent to participants recruited to the multi-centre pain solutions in the emergency setting study. Patients with prior chronic pain states or opioid use were not studied. Questionnaires included the EQ5D, the Brief Pain Inventory and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Overall, 141 out of 286 (49% 95%CI 44-56%) patients were included in this follow-up study. Participants presenting with trauma were more likely to develop persistent pain than those presenting with abdominal pain, 45 out of 64 (70%) vs. 24 out of 77 (31%); 95%CI 24-54%, p < 0.001. There were no statistically significant associations between persistent pain and analgesic modality during hospital admission, age or sex. Across both abdominal pain and traumatic injury groups, participants with persistent pain had lower EQ5D mobility scores, worse overall health and higher anxiety and depression scores (p < 0.05). In the abdominal pain group, 13 out of 50 (26%) patients using patient-controlled analgesia developed persistent pain vs. 11 out of 27 (41%) of those with usual treatment; 95%CI for difference (control - patient-controlled analgesia) -8 to 39%, p = 0.183. Acute pain scores at the time of hospital admission were higher in participants who developed persistent pain; 95%CI 0.7-23.6, p = 0.039. For traumatic pain, 25 out of 35 (71%) patients given patient-controlled analgesia developed persistent pain vs. 20 out of 29 (69%) patients with usual treatment; 95%CI -30 to 24%, p = 0.830. Persistent pain is common 6 months after hospital admission, particularly following trauma. The study findings suggest that it may be possible to reduce persistent pain (at least in patients with abdominal pain) by delivering better acute pain management. Further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

A Review of the Burden of Trauma Pain in Emergency Settings in Europe

Trauma pain represents a large proportion of admissions to emergency departments across Europe. There is currently an unmet need in the treatment of trauma pain extending throughout the patient journey in emergency settings. This review aims to explore these unmet needs and describe barriers to the delivery of effective analgesia for trauma pain in emergency settings. A comprehensive, qualitative review of the literature was conducted using a structured search strategy (Medline, Embase and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews) along with additional Internet-based sources to identify relevant human studies published in the prior 11 years (January 2006-December 2017). From a total of 4325 publications identified, 31 were selected for inclusion based on defined criteria. Numerous barriers to the effective treatment of trauma pain in emergency settings were identified, which may be broadly defined as arising from a lack of effective pain management pan-European and national guidelines, delayed or absent pain assessment, an aversion to opioid analgesia and a delay in the administration of analgesia. Several commonly used analgesics also present limitations in the treatment of trauma pain due to the routes of administration, adverse side effect profiles, pharmacokinetic properties and suitability for use in pre-hospital settings. These combined barriers lead to the inadequate and ineffective treatment of trauma pain for patients. An unmet need therefore exists for novel forms of analgesia, wider spread use of available analgesic agents which overcome some limitations associated with several treatment options, and the development of protocols for pain management which include patient assessment of pain.Funding: Mundipharma International Ltd.

Acute Pain Management in the Year 2018-A Review

This review article provides an overview of acute pain management. It highlights the need to provide balanced pain care while limiting harm from opioids as per the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for balanced pain care. Opiophobia and its impact on the use of opioids for acute severe pain are discussed. Interventions that can improve global pain care and the role of pain scales in the management of acute pain are discussed. Newer trends in acute pain management in the emergency department (ED) are also reviewed and include: low dose ketamine, intravenous lidocaine, ultra-sound guided regional anesthesia, intravenous paracetamol, and patient controlled analgesia.

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.

RESULTS

Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.

CONCLUSIONS

Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2016

This paper is the thirty-ninth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2016 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We assess the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized that decline in pain intensity from 30 to 120 minutes after initial intravenous opioid administration is greater in patients receiving morphine by patient-controlled analgesia compared with usual care and would differ by a clinically significant amount.

METHOD

This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled analgesia and usual care (opioid and dose at physician's discretion) in 4 EDs. Entry criteria included age 18 to 65 years and acute pain requiring intravenous opioids. The primary outcome was decline in numeric rating scale pain score 30 to 120 minutes postbaseline. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, time to analgesia, adverse events, and patient-controlled analgesia pump-related problems. We used a mixed-effects linear model to compare rate of decline in pain (slope) between groups. A clinically significant difference between groups was defined as a difference in slopes equivalent to 1.3 numeric rating scale units.

RESULTS

Six hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled. The rate of decline in pain from 30 to 120 minutes was greater for patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (difference=1.0 numeric rating scale unit; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6 to 1.5; P<.001) but did not reach the threshold for clinical significance. More patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia were satisfied with pain management (difference=9.3%; 95% CI 3.3% to 15.1%). Median time to initial analgesia was 15 minutes longer for patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (95% CI 11.4 to 18.6 minutes). There were 7 adverse events in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 1 in the usual care group (difference=2.0%; 95% CI 0.04% to 3.9%), and 11 pump-programming errors.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study do not favor patient-controlled analgesia over usual ED care for acute pain management.

The cost-effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia vs. standard care in patients presenting to the Emergency Department in pain, who are subsequently admitted to hospital

The clinical effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia has been demonstrated in a variety of settings. However, patient-controlled analgesia is rarely utilised in the Emergency Department. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia vs. standard care in participants admitted to hospital from the Emergency Department with pain due to traumatic injury or non-traumatic abdominal pain. Pain scores were measured hourly for 12 h using a visual analogue scale. Cost-effectiveness was measured as the additional cost per hour in moderate to severe pain avoided by using patient-controlled analgesia rather than standard care (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Sampling variation was estimated using bootstrap methods and the effects of parameter uncertainty explored in a sensitivity analysis. The cost per hour in moderate or severe pain averted was estimated as £24.77 (€29.05, US$30.80) (bootstrap estimated 95%CI £8.72 to £89.17) for participants suffering pain from traumatic injuries and £15.17 (€17.79, US$18.86) (bootstrap estimate 95%CI £9.03 to £46.00) for participants with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Overall costs were higher with patient-controlled analgesia than standard care in both groups: pain from traumatic injuries incurred an additional £18.58 (€21.79 US$23.10) (95%CI £15.81 to £21.35) per 12 h; and non-traumatic abdominal pain an additional £20.18 (€23.67 US$25.09) (95%CI £19.45 to £20.84) per 12 h.