Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness analysis of intravenous ketorolac and morphine for treating pain after limb injury: double blind randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To investigate the cost effectiveness of intravenous ketorolac compared with intravenous morphine in relieving pain after blunt limb injury in an accident and emergency department. DESIGN:Double blind, randomised, controlled study and cost consequences analysis. SETTING:Emergency department of a university hospital in the New Territories of Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS:148 adult patients with painful isolated limb injuries (limb injuries without other injuries). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome measure was a cost consequences analysis comparing the use of ketorolac with morphine; secondary outcome measures were pain relief at rest and with limb movement, adverse events, patients' satisfaction, and time spent in the emergency department. RESULTS:No difference was found in the median time taken to achieve pain relief at rest between the group receiving ketorolac and the group receiving morphine, but with movement the median reduction in pain score in the ketorolac group was 1.09 per hour (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.02) compared with 0.87 (0.84 to 1.06) in the morphine group (P=0.003). The odds of experiencing adverse events was 144.2 (41.5 to 501.6) times more likely with morphine than with ketorolac. The median time from the initial delivery of analgesia to the participant leaving the department was 20 (4.0 to 39.0) minutes shorter in the ketorolac group than in the morphine group (P=0.02). The mean cost per person was $HK44 ( pound4; $5.6) in the ketorolac group and $HK229 in the morphine group (P<0.0001). The median score for patients' satisfaction was 6.0 for ketorolac and 5.0 for morphine (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION:Intravenous ketorolac is a more cost effective analgesic than intravenous morphine in the management of isolated limb injury in an emergency department in Hong Kong, and its use may be considered as the dominant strategy.

SUBMITTER: Rainer TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27526 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost effectiveness analysis of intravenous ketorolac and morphine for treating pain after limb injury: double blind randomised controlled trial.

Rainer T H TH Jacobs P P Ng Y C YC Cheung N K NK Tam M M Lam P K PK Wong R R Cocks R A RA

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20001101 7271

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate the cost effectiveness of intravenous ketorolac compared with intravenous morphine in relieving pain after blunt limb injury in an accident and emergency department.<h4>Design</h4>Double blind, randomised, controlled study and cost consequences analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Emergency department of a university hospital in the New Territories of Hong Kong.<h4>Participants</h4>148 adult patients with painful isolated limb injuries (limb injuries without other injuries) ...[more]

PMID: 11082083

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous 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 findingsIn 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.ConclusionsWe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02095366. EudraCT 2013-001665-16.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy of intrathecal morphine in the long term by hypothesising that a reduction of the intrathecal opioid dose following long-term administration would increase the level of pain intensity.DesignRandomised, double-blind, controlled, parallel group trial.SettingDepartment of Pain Management, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.Participants24 patients with non-cancer pain implanted with morphine reservoirs were assessed for eligibility.InterventionsParticipants were randomly allocated to one of two parallel groups in which one of the groups had no change in morphine dose and the other group had a small reduction (20%) in dosage every week during a 10-week follow-up.OutcomePrimary outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score change and withdrawal from the study due to lack of efficacy.Results9 of the patients assessed for eligibility declined to participate in the study. 15 patients were randomised to control (n=5) or intervention (n=10) and included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Owing to worsening of pain, seven patients withdrew from the study prematurely. None knew prior to withdrawal which arm of the study they were in, but all turned out to be in the dose-reduction arm. The calculation of dropout rates between groups indicated a significant statistical difference (p=0.026) and recruitment was ceased. The VAS change between baseline and the last observation was smaller in the control group (median, Mdn=11) than in the intervention group (Mdn=30.5), although not statistically significant, Z=-1.839, p=0.070; r=-0.47. Within groups, VAS was significantly lower at baseline (Mdn=49.5) than at the last observation (Mdn=77.5) for the reduction group, Z=-2.805, p=0.002; r=-0.627 but not for the control group (p=0.188).ConclusionsThis double-blind randomised controlled trial of chronic intrathecal morphine administration suggests the effectiveness of this therapy for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. However, owing to the small number of patients completing the study (n=8), further studies are warranted.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Centre (ISRCTN 33733462).

Project description:BackgroundPain is one of the main reasons to present to emergency departments (EDs). Opioids are indispensable for acute pain management but are associated with side effects, misuse, and dependence. The aim of this study was to test whether a single dose of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) can reduce the use of morphine for pain relief and/or morphine-related adverse events (AEs).MethodsED patients >18 years with acute pain (i.e., Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] > 4) were screened for eligibility. Patients with analgesia in the past 6 h, chronic pain, or clinical instability were excluded. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either morphine 0.1 mg/kg and 1 g acetaminophen IV or morphine 0.1 mg/kg and placebo IV. The intervention was double-blinded. Additional morphine 0.05 mg/kg IV was administered every 15 minutes until pain relief (defined as NRS < 4) and whether the pain recurred. The primary outcome was the mean morphine dose for pain relief. Secondary outcomes were the total amount of morphine given, time to achieve pain relief, and AEs.ResultsA total of 220 patients were randomized and 202 evaluated for the primary outcome. The mean morphine dose for pain relief was similar in both groups (acetaminophen 0.15 mg ± 0.07 mg/kg, placebo 0.16 ± 0.07 mg/kg). There were no differences in the total amount of morphine given (acetaminophen 0.19 ± 0.09 mg/kg, placebo 0.19 ± 0.1 mg/kg), the time to achieve pain relief (acetaminophen 30 min [95% CI 17-31 min], placebo 30 min [95% CI 30-35 min]), and the frequency of AEs (overall 27.4%). Time to pain recurrence did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio 1.23 [0.76-1.98], p = 0.40).ConclusionsIn ED patients, acetaminophen had no additional effect on pain control or morphine-sparing effect at the time of first morphine administration. Titrated morphine with the algorithm used was highly effective, with 80% of all patients reporting pain relief within 60 min of starting therapy.

Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness analysis of intravenous ketorolac and morphine for treating pain after limb injury: double blind randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Cost effectiveness analysis of intravenous ketorolac and morphine for treating pain after limb injury: double blind randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets