A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing nebulized ketamine to intravenous morphine for older adults in the emergency department with acute musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of nebulized ketamine in managing acute moderate-to-severe musculoskeletal pain in older emergency department (ED) patients compared with intravenous (IV) morphine.

METHODS

This was a non-inferiority, double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at a single medical centre. The patients aged 65 and older, who presented at the ED musculoskeletal pain within 7 days and had a pain score of 5 or more on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS), were included in the study. The outcomes were a comparison of the NRS reduction between nebulized ketamine and IV morphine 30 minutes after treatment, incidence of adverse events and rate of rescue therapy.

RESULTS

The final study included 92 individuals, divided equally into two groups. At 30 minutes, the difference in mean NRS between the nebulized ketamine and IV morphine groups was insignificant (5.2 versus 5.7). The comparative mean difference in the NRS change from baseline between nebulized ketamine and IV morphine [-1.96 (95% confidence interval-CI: -2.45 to -1.46) and -2.15 (95% CI: -2.64 to -1.66) = 0.2 (95% CI: -0.49 to 0.89)] did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.3. The rate of rescue therapy did not differ between the groups. The morphine group had considerably higher incidence of nausea than the control group (zero patients in the ketamine group versus eight patients (17.4%) in the morphine group; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulized ketamine has non-inferior analgesic efficacy compared with IV morphine for acute musculoskeletal pain in older persons, with fewer adverse effects.

Medical students' perception of online intensive pediatric review: an experimental cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Despite regular pediatric education, pediatric instructors regularly provide an on-site intensive pediatric review course (IPR) as per medical students (MS)' request, to summarize pediatric knowledge for fifth-year MS in preparation for their externship. However, considering the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions (e.g., social distancing), an online intensive pediatric review (OIPR) is required instead. Unfortunately, the relationship between MS' perception and outcome of OIPR remains unclear.

METHODS

We developed the OIPR and an online mock pediatric examination (OMPE), aligning it with the essential pediatric components of the Medical Council curriculum. The OIPR comprised of two parts: self-paced online learning and in-class online discussions. The self-paced online learning materials were electronically distributed via Google Classroom to MS ten days priors to the one-day course, which included a pretest, in-class online discussions, posttest, and satisfactory survey. The constructed and validated satisfactory survey was categorized into two parts: demographic data and self-perceived satisfaction with OIPR. For data collection, an anonymous self-administered survey was used and was distributed to MS in April 2022. These data were then analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

Of the 80 eligible fifth-year MS, 45 agreed to participate (56.3%), of which 24 (53.3%) were females. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of MS' age was 23 ± 0.6 years. All (100%) concurred that OIPR is beneficial and recommended it to junior students who were planning to take the examination. The mean ± SD of OMPE significantly increased, from 20.9 ± 3.8 to 22.9 ± 3.3 (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which required social distancing, OIPR has helped MS summarize and enhance their knowledge in preparation for externship and the examination.