Dataset Information

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients.

ABSTRACT: Opioid titration is an effective strategy for treating pain; however, titration is generally impractical in the busy emergency department (ED) setting. Our objective was to test a rapid, two-step, hydromorphone titration protocol against usual care in older patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain.This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of patients 65 years of age and older presenting to an adult, urban, academic ED with acute severe pain. The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01429285). Patients randomized to the hydromorphone titration protocol initially received 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients randomized to usual care received any dose of any intravenous opioid. At 15 min, patients in both groups were asked, 'Do you want more pain medication?' Patients in the hydromorphone titration group who answered 'yes' received a second dose of 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients in the usual care group who answered 'yes' had their ED attending physician notified, who then could administer any (or no) additional medication. The primary efficacy outcome was satisfactory analgesia defined a priori as the patient declining additional analgesia at least once when asked at 15 or 60 min after administration of the initial opioid. Dose was calculated in morphine equivalent units (MEU: 1 mg hydromorphone = 7 mg morphine). The need for naloxone to reverse adverse opioid effects was the primary safety outcome.83.0 % of 153 patients in the hydromorphone titration group achieved satisfactory analgesia compared with 82.5 % of 166 patients in the usual care group (p = 0.91). Patients in the hydromorphone titration group received lower mean initial doses of opioids at baseline than patients in the usual care group (3.5 MEU vs. 4.7 MEU, respectively; p ? 0.001) and lower total opioids through 60 min (5.3 MEU vs. 6.0 MEU; p = 0.03). No patient needed naloxone.Low-dose titration of intravenous hydromorphone in increments of 0.5 mg provides comparable analgesia to usual care with less opioid over 60 min.

SUBMITTER: Chang AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3758665 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients.

Chang Andrew K AK Bijur Polly E PE Davitt Michelle M Gallagher E John EJ

Drugs & aging 20130901 9

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Opioid titration is an effective strategy for treating pain; however, titration is generally impractical in the busy emergency department (ED) setting. Our objective was to test a rapid, two-step, hydromorphone titration protocol against usual care in older patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of patients 65 years of age and older presenting to an adult, urban, academic ED with acu ...[more]

PMID: 23846749

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveWe compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for "off-protocol" parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.ResultsWe enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol "rescue" analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5).ConclusionIntravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous morphine titration (IVMT) is the French gold standard for opioid treatment in the emergency department (ED). Nebulized morphine titration (NMT) may represent an alternative without venous access, but it has not been adequately studied in adults. We test the hypothesis that NMT is at least as effective as IVMT to initially manage severe acute pain in the ED.Methods/designWe designed a multicenter (10 French EDs), single-blind, randomized and controlled trial. Adults between 18 and 75 years with visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 70/100 or numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 7/10 will be enrolled. We will randomize 850 patients into two groups to compare two routes of MT as long as VAS > 30 or NRS > 3. In group A (425), patients will receive an initial NMT for 5-25 min associated with titration of an intravenously (IV) administered placebo of physiologic serum (PS). In group B (425), patients will receive IVMT plus nebulized PS placebo. NMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 5-min nebulized boluses of 10 mg or 15 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 10-min fixed intervals. IVMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 boluses of 2 mg or 3 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 5-min fixed intervals. Nebulized placebo titration will be performed every 10 min. IV titration of PS will be performed every 5 min. In both groups, after 25 min, if VAS > 30/100 or NRS > 3/10, routine IVMT will be continued until pain relief. Pain severity, vital signs, bronchospasm, and Ramsay score will be recorded every 5 min. The primary outcome is the rate of relief obtained 1 h from the start of drug administration. Complete pain relief in both groups will be compared with a non-inferiority design. Secondary outcomes are pain relief at 30 min (the end of NMT) and at 2 h and median pain relief. We will compare final doses, and study the feasibility and tolerance of NMT (protocol deviations, respiratory or hemodynamic depression, sedation, and minor vegetative side effects). Co-analgesia will be recorded. Discharge criteria from the ED and hospital are defined.DiscussionThis trial is the first multicenter randomized and controlled NMT protocol for severe pain in the ED using the titration concept. We propose an original approach of combined titration with an endpoint at 1 h and a non-inferiority design.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03257319 . Registered on 22 August 2017.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain is a common problem and a substantial source of morbidity and disability worldwide. Patients frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for low back pain, but many experience persistent symptoms at 3 months despite frequent receipt of opioids. Although physical therapy interventions have been demonstrated to improve patient functioning in the outpatient setting, no randomised trial has yet to evaluate physical therapy in the ED setting.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre cluster-randomised trial of an embedded ED physical therapy intervention for acute low back pain. We used a covariate-constrained approach to randomise individual physicians (clusters) at an urban academic ED in Chicago, Illinois, USA, to receive, or not receive, an embedded physical therapist on their primary treatment team to evaluate all patients with low back pain. We will then enrol individual ED patients with acute low back pain and allocate them to the embedded physical therapy or usual care study arms, depending on the randomisation assignment of their treating physician. We will follow patients to a primary endpoint of 3 months and compare a primary outcome of change in PROMIS-Pain Interference score and secondary outcomes of change in modified Oswestry Disability Index score and patient-reported opioid use. Our primary approach will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis, whereby all participants who complete at least one follow-up data time point will be included in analyses, regardless of their or their physicians' adherence to their assigned study arm.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS027426) and was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. All physician and patient participants will give written informed consent to study participation. Trial results will be submitted for presentation at scientific meetings and for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04921449).

Dataset Information

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients.

Publications

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets