Metoclopramide for Acute Migraine Treatment in the Emergency Department: An Effective Alternative to Opioids

The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.

METHODS

We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.

CONCLUSION

A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.

Pain reduction and adverse effects of intravenous metoclopramide for acute migraine attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Metoclopramide may be used to treat people suffering from acute migraine. However, no comprehensive investigation on this issue has been recorded. This review will provide more solid evidence for the use of metoclopramide in treating acute migraine.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of intravenous metoclopramide with other therapies in migraine attack treatment in an emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of participants older than 18 years with acute migraine headaches, which included at least one arm that received intravenous (IV) metoclopramide at the ED. A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration, and Reference Citation Analysis on December 31, 2021 retrieved other drugs or placebo-controlled studies without language limitation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary endpoint was pain reduction at 60 min or closest to 1 h after treatment, as measured by the pain scale. Secondary endpoints included adverse effects or reactions resulting from metoclopramide or comparisons.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with a total of 1661 individuals were eligible for review. The risk of bias ranged from low to intermediate. IV metoclopramide administration was not associated with higher pain reduction at 1 h (Standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.33-0.28, P = 0.87). However, metoclopramide was associated with better pain reduction than placebo (SMD = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.50-1.58, P = 0.0002). In addition, side effects were not significantly different between IV metoclopramide and other drugs or placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.48-1.19, P = 0.09 and OR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.31-2.74, P = 0.54, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Metoclopramide is more effective than placebo in treating migraine in the ED. Despite the observed tendency of decreased side effects, its effectiveness compared to other regimens is poorly understood. More research on this area is needed to treat migraine in acute care settings effectively.

The Utility of Pain Scale to Assess Verifiable vs Non-Verifiable Pain in United States Emergency Departments

Introduction

We sought to examine the utility of self-reported pain scale by comparing emergency department (ED) triage pain scores of self-reported but non-verifiable painful conditions with those of verifiable painful conditions using a large, nationally representative sample.

Methods

We analyzed the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) 2015. Verifiable painful conditions were identified based on the final diagnoses in the five included International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes. Non-verifiable painful conditions were identified by the five main reasons for visit. Only adults 18 years of age or older were included. The primary outcome variable was the pain scale from 0 to 10 at triage. We performed descriptive and multivariate analyses to investigate the relationships between the pain scale and whether the painful condition was verifiable, controlling for patient characteristics.

Results

There were 55 million pain-related adult ED visits in 2015. The average pain scale was 6.49. For verifiable painful diagnoses, which were about 24% of the total visits, the average was 6.27, statistically significantly lower than that for non-verifiable painful conditions, 6.56. Even after controlling for the confounding of patient characteristics and comorbidities, verifiable painful diagnoses still presented less pain than those with non-verifiable painful complaints. Older age, female gender, and urban residents had significantly higher pain scores than their respective counterparts, controlling for other confounding factors. Psychiatric disorders were independently associated with higher pain scores by about a half point.

Conclusion

Self-reported pain scales obtained at ED triage likely have a larger psychological component than a physiological one. Close attention to clinical appropriateness and overall patient comfort are more likely to lead to better health outcomes and patient experiences than focusing on self-reported pain alone.

Perioperative pain management in COVID-19 patients: Considerations and recommendations by the Saudi Anesthesia Society (SAS) and Saudi Society of Pain Medicine (SSPM)

The COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the world over the past few months. Many articles have been published on the safety of anesthetic medications and procedures used in COVID-19 positive patients presenting for surgery. Several other articles covered the chronic pain management aspect during the pandemic. Our review aimed to focus on perioperative pain management for COVID-19 patients. We conducted a literature search for pertinent recent articles that cover considerations and recommendations concerning perioperative pain management in COVID-19 patients. We also searched the literature for the relevant adverse effects of the commonly used medications in the treatment of COVID-19, and their potential drug-drug interactions with the common medications used in perioperative pain management. Professional societies recommend prioritizing regional anesthesia techniques, which have many benefits over other perioperative pain management options. When neuraxial and continuous peripheral nerve block catheters are not an option, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) should be considered if applicable. Many of the medications used for the treatment of COVID-19 and its symptoms can interfere with the metabolism of medications used in perioperative pain management. We formulated an up-to-date guide for anesthesia providers to help them manage perioperative pain in COVID-19 patients presenting for surgery.

Association Between In-Clinic Opioid Administration and Discharge Opioid Prescription in Urgent Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments increasingly use nonopioid analgesics to manage acute pain and minimize opioid-related harms. Urgent care centers are expanding to lower costs and provide efficient access to healthcare. General internists increasingly work in these acute care settings. Much is known about opioid prescribing in the primary care, inpatient, and emergency department setting. Little is known about opioid prescribing in the urgent care setting and associated outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between in-clinic opioid administration and opioid receipt at clinic discharge and on progression to chronic opioid use among urgent care patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients, 20 years or older and not on opioid medications, who presented for care to an urgent care clinic within a safety-net healthcare system from June 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019.

MAIN MEASURES

We examined the association between the in-clinic administration of oral or intravenous opioids and opioid receipt at clinic discharge. We also examined the association between in-clinic opioid administration and progression to chronic opioid use after six months.

KEY RESULTS

The study sample included 34,978 patients, of which 13.8% (n = 4842) received in-clinic opioids and 86.2% (n = 30,136) did not receive in-clinic opioids. After adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, and pain diagnosis, patients who received in-clinic opioids were more likely to receive opioids at discharge compared to patients who did not receive in-clinic opioids (aOR = 12.30, 95% CI 11.44-13.23). Among a selected cohort of patients, in-clinic opioid administration was associated with progression to chronic opioid use (aOR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.66-2.71).

CONCLUSIONS

In-clinic opioid administration was strongly associated with opioid receipt at discharge and progression to chronic opioid use. Increased use of nonopioid analgesics in urgent care could likely reduce this association and limit opioids available for diversion, overdose, and death.

Acute headache management in emergency department. A narrative review

Headache is a significant reason for access to Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. Though primary forms represent the vast majority, the life-threatening potential of secondary forms, such as subarachnoid hemorrage or meningitis, makes it imperative for the ED physician to rule out secondary headaches as first step, based on clinical history, careful physical (especially neurological) examination and, if appropriate, hematochemical analyses, neuroimaging or lumbar puncture. Once secondary forms are excluded, distinction among primary forms should be performed, based on the international headache classification criteria. Most frequent primary forms motivating ED observation are acute migraine attacks, particularly status migrainous, and cluster headache. Though universally accepted guidelines do not exist for headache management in an emergency setting, pharmacological parenteral treatment remains the principal approach worldwide, with NSAIDs, neuroleptic antinauseants, triptans and corticosteroids, tailored to the specific headache type. Opioids should be avoided, for their scarce effectiveness in the acute phase, while IV hydration should be limited in cases of ascertained dehydration. Referral of the patient to a Headache Center should subsequently be an integral part of the ED approach to the headache patients, being ascertained that lack of this referral involves a high rate of relapse and new accesses to the ED. More controlled studies are needed to establish specific protocols of management for the headache patient in the ED.

Emerging Novel Pharmacological Non-opioid Therapies in Headache Management: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic headache is a significant worldwide problem despite advances in treatment options. Chronic headaches can have significant a detrimental impact on the activities of daily living.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients who do not obtain relief from chronic head and neck pain from conservative treatments are commonly being managed with interventional treatments. These interventional treatment options include botulinum toxin A, injections, local occipital nerve anesthetic and corticosteroid infiltration, occipital nerve subcutaneous stimulation and occipital nerve pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), sphenopalatine ganglion block, and radiofrequency techniques. Recently, evidence has emerged to support non-opioid-based drug and interventional approaches. Overall, more research is necessary to clarify the safety and efficacy of interventional treatments and to better understand the pathogenesis of chronic headache pain.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Headache Management in the Emergency Department

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss pharmacological interventions in the emergency department (ED) setting for the management of acute primary headache.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute headache treatment in the ED has seen an expansion in terms of possible pharmacological interventions in recent years. After a thorough evaluation ruling out dangerous causes of headache, providers should take the patient's history, comorbidities, and prior therapy into consideration. Antidopaminergics have an established role in the management of acute, severe, headache with manageable side-effect profiles. However, recent studies suggest anesthetic and anti-epileptic drugs may play roles in headache treatment in the ED. Current literature also suggest steroids as a promising tool for emergency department clinicians combating the readmission of patients with recurrent headaches. Emergency medicine providers must be cognizant of these traditional and emerging therapies in order to optimize the care of headache patients.