Dataset Information

Diphenhydramine as Adjuvant Therapy for Acute Migraine: An Emergency Department-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: More than 1 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually seeking care for acute migraine. Parenteral antihistamines have long been used in combination with antidopaminergics such as metoclopramide to treat acute migraine in the ED. High-quality data supporting this practice do not exist. We determine whether administration of diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously results in greater rates of sustained headache relief than placebo+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously.This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 active treatments for acute migraine in an ED. Eligible patients were adults younger than 65 years presenting with an acute moderate or severe headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 migraine criteria. Patients were stratified according to presence or absence of allergic symptoms. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining this level of relief without use of any additional headache medication for 48 hours. Secondary efficacy outcomes included mean improvement on a 0 to 10 verbal scale between baseline and 1 hour, the frequency with which subjects indicated they would want the same medication the next time they present to the ED with migraine, and the ED throughput time. Sample size calculation using a 2-sided ? of .05, a ? of .20, and a 15% difference between study arms determined the need for 374 patients. An interim analysis was conducted when data were available for 200 subjects.Four hundred twenty patients were approached for participation. Two hundred eight eligible patients consented to participate and were randomized. At the planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the study be halted for futility. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Fourteen percent (29/208) of the sample reported allergic symptoms. Of patients randomized to diphenhydramine, 40% (40/100) reported sustained relief at 48 hours, as did 37% (38/103) of patients randomized to placebo (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3%: -10% to 16%). One hour after medication administration, patients randomized to diphenhydramine improved by a mean of 5.1 on the 0 to 10 scale versus 4.8 for those randomized to placebo (95% CI for difference of 0.3: -0.6 to 1.1). Eighty-five percent (84/99) of the patients in the diphenhydramine arm reported they would want the same medication combination during a subsequent ED visit, as did 76% (77/102) of those who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 9%: -2% to 20%). Median ED length of stay was 122 minutes (interquartile range 84 to 180 minutes) in the diphenhydramine group and 139 minutes (interquartile range 90 to 235 minutes) in the placebo arm. Rates of adverse effects, including akathisia, were comparable between the groups.Intravenous diphenhydramine, when administered as adjuvant therapy with metoclopramide, does not improve migraine outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Friedman BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4695376 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diphenhydramine as Adjuvant Therapy for Acute Migraine: An Emergency Department-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.

Friedman Benjamin W BW Cabral Lisa L Adewunmi Victoria V Solorzano Clemencia C Esses David D Bijur Polly E PE Gallagher E John EJ

Annals of emergency medicine 20150829 1

<h4>Study objective</h4>More than 1 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually seeking care for acute migraine. Parenteral antihistamines have long been used in combination with antidopaminergics such as metoclopramide to treat acute migraine in the ED. High-quality data supporting this practice do not exist. We determine whether administration of diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously results in greater rates of sustained headache relief ...[more]

PMID: 26320523

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patients who use an emergency department (ED) for acute migraine headaches have higher migraine disability scores, lower socioeconomic status, and are unlikely to have used a migraine-specific medication prior to presentation to the ED. The objective was to determine if a comprehensive migraine intervention, delivered just prior to ED discharge, could improve migraine impact scores 1?month after the ED visit.? This was a randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive migraine intervention versus typical care among patients who presented to an ED for management of acute migraine. At the time of discharge, for patients randomized to comprehensive care, the research team reinforced their diagnosis, shared a migraine education presentation from the National Library of Medicine, provided them with six tablets of sumatriptan 100?mg and 14 tablets of naproxen 500?mg, and if they wished, provided them with an expedited free appointment to the institution's headache clinic. Patients randomized to typical care received the care their attending emergency physicians (EPs) felt was appropriate. The primary outcome was a between-group comparison of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score, a validated headache assessment instrument, 1?month after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included an assessment of satisfaction with headache care and use of migraine-specific medication within that 1-month period.? Over a 19-month period, 50 migraine patients were enrolled. One-month follow-up was successfully obtained in 92% of patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-month HIT-6 scores in the two groups were nearly identical (59 vs. 56, 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3?=?-5 to 11), as was dissatisfaction with overall headache care (17% vs. 18%, 95% CI for difference of 1%?=?-22% to 24%). Patients randomized to the comprehensive intervention were more likely to be using triptans or migraine-specific therapy (43% vs. 0%, 95% CI for difference of 43%?=?20 to 63%) 1?month later.A comprehensive migraine intervention, when compared to typical care, did not improve HIT-6 scores (a validated measure of the effect of migraine on one's daily life) 1?month after ED discharge. Future work is needed to define a migraine intervention that is practical and useful in an ED, where many underserved patients, of necessity, present for care.

Project description:ImportanceThe delivery of palliative care is not standard of care within most emergency departments (EDs).ObjectiveTo compare quality of life, depression, health care utilization, and survival in ED patients with advanced cancer randomized to ED-initiated palliative care consultation vs care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA single-blind, randomized clinical trial of ED-initiated palliative care consultation for patients with advanced cancer vs usual care took place from June 2011 to April 2014 at an urban, academic ED at a quaternary care referral center. Adult patients with advanced cancer who were able to pass a cognitive screen, had never been seen by palliative care, spoke English or Spanish, and presented to the ED met eligibility criteria; 136 of 298 eligible patients were approached and enrolled in the ED and randomized via balanced block randomization.InterventionsIntervention participants received a comprehensive palliative care consultation by the inpatient team, including an assessment of symptoms, spiritual and/or social needs, and goals of care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Measure (FACT-G) score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included major depressive disorder as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, health care utilization at 180 days, and survival at 1 year.ResultsA total of 136 participants were enrolled, and 69 allocated to palliative care (mean [SD], 55.1 [13.1] years) and 67 were randomized to usual care (mean [SD], 57.8 [14.7] years). Quality of life, as measured by a change in FACT-G score from enrollment to 12 weeks, was significantly higher in patients randomized to the intervention group, who demonstrated a mean (SD) increase of 5.91 (16.65) points compared with 1.08 (16.00) in controls (P = .03 using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test). Median estimates of survival were longer in the intervention group than the control group: 289 (95% CI, 128-453) days vs 132 (95% CI, 80-302) days, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = .20). There were no statistically significant differences in depression, admission to the intensive care unit, and discharge to hospice.Conclusions and relevanceEmergency department-initiated palliative care consultation in advanced cancer improves quality of life in patients with advanced cancer and does not seem to shorten survival; the impact on health care utilization and depression is less clear and warrants further study.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01358110.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of external trigeminal nerve stimulation for acute pain relief during migraine attacks with or without aura via a sham-controlled trial.MethodsThis was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study conducted across three headache centers in the United States. Adult patients who were experiencing an acute migraine attack with or without aura were recruited on site and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either verum or sham external trigeminal nerve stimulation treatment (CEFALY Technology) for 1 hour. Pain intensity was scored using a visual analogue scale (0 = no pain to 10 = maximum pain). The primary outcome measure was the mean change in pain intensity at 1 hour compared to baseline.ResultsA total of 109 participants were screened between February 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Of these, 106 patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (verum: n = 52; sham: n = 54). The primary outcome measure was significantly more reduced in the verum group than in the sham group: -3.46 ± 2.32 versus -1.78 ± 1.89 ( p < 0.0001), or -59% versus -30% ( p < 0.0001). With regards to migraine subgroups, there was a significant difference in pain reduction between verum and sham for 'migraine without aura' attacks: mean visual analogue scale reduction at 1 hour was -3.3 ± 2.4 for the verum group versus -1.7 ± 1.9 for the sham group ( p = 0.0006). For 'migraine with aura' attacks, pain reduction was numerically greater for verum versus sham, but did not reach significance: mean visual analogue scale reduction at 1 hour was -4.3 ± 1.8 for the verum group versus -2.6 ± 1.9 for the sham group ( p = 0.060). No serious adverse events were reported and five minor adverse events occurred in the verum group.ConclusionOne-hour treatment with external trigeminal nerve stimulation resulted in significant headache pain relief compared to sham stimulation and was well tolerated, suggesting it may be a safe and effective acute treatment for migraine attacks.Study protocolClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02590939.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE:To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS:After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS:Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P?<?.001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P?<?.001 for both time and intervention effects; P?=?.02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P?=?.17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P?=?.66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Project description:ImportanceThe National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown.ObjectiveTo compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021.InterventionsConsecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays.Main outcomes and measuresNew HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs).ResultsA total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47).Conclusions and relevanceTargeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.

Project description:ImportanceDespite guidelines recommending administration of intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate for refractory pediatric asthma, the number of asthma-related hospitalizations has remained stable, and IV magnesium therapy is independently associated with hospitalization.ObjectiveTo examine the association between IV magnesium therapy administered in the emergency department (ED) and subsequent hospitalization among pediatric patients with refractory acute asthma after adjustment for patient-level variables.Design, setting, and participantsThis post hoc secondary analysis of a double-blind randomized clinical trial of children with acute asthma treated from September 26, 2011, to November 19, 2019, at 7 Canadian tertiary care pediatric EDs was conducted between September and November 2020. In the randomized clinical trial, 816 otherwise healthy children aged 2 to 17 years with Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) scores of 5 points or higher after initial therapy with systemic corticosteroids and inhaled albuterol with ipratropium bromide were randomly assigned to 3 nebulized treatments of albuterol plus either magnesium sulfate or 5.5% saline placebo.ExposuresIntravenous magnesium sulfate therapy (40-75 mg/kg).Main outcomes and measuresThe association between IV magnesium therapy in the ED and subsequent hospitalization for asthma was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Analyses were adjusted for year epoch at enrollment, receipt of IV magnesium, PRAM score after initial therapy and at ED disposition, age, sex, duration of respiratory distress, previous intensive care unit admission for asthma, hospitalizations for asthma within the past year, atopy, and receipt of oral corticosteroids within 48 hours before arrival in the ED, nebulized magnesium, and additional albuterol after inhaled magnesium or placebo, with site as a random effect.ResultsAmong the 816 participants, the median age was 5 years (interquartile range, 3-7 years), 517 (63.4%) were boys, and 364 (44.6%) were hospitalized. A total of 215 children (26.3%) received IV magnesium, and 190 (88.4%) of these children were hospitalized compared with 174 of 601 children (29.0%) who did not receive IV magnesium. Multivariable factors associated with hospitalization were IV magnesium receipt from 2011 to 2016 (odds ratio [OR], 22.67; 95% CI, 6.26-82.06; P < .001) and from 2017 to 2019 (OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 1.99-8.86; P < .001), use of additional albuterol (OR, 5.94; 95% CI, 3.52-10.01; P < .001), and increase in PRAM score at disposition (per 1-U increase: OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.89-2.65; P < .001). In children with a disposition PRAM score of 3 or lower, receipt of IV magnesium therapy was associated with hospitalization (OR, 8.52; 95% CI, 2.96-24.41; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAfter adjustment for patient-level characteristics, receipt of IV magnesium therapy after initial asthma treatment in the ED was associated with subsequent hospitalization. This association also existed among children with mild asthma at ED disposition. Evidence of a benefit of IV magnesium regarding hospitalization may clarify its use in the treatment of refractory pediatric asthma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01429415.

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.

Dataset Information

Diphenhydramine as Adjuvant Therapy for Acute Migraine: An Emergency Department-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Diphenhydramine as Adjuvant Therapy for Acute Migraine: An Emergency Department-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets