Dataset Information

Methoxyflurane Versus Standard of Care for Acute Trauma-Related Pain in the Emergency Setting: Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Study in Italy (MEDITA).

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Low-dose methoxyflurane, administered via a hand-held inhaler, has been used for short-term pain relief in emergency medicine in Australia and New Zealand for over 40 years, and was recently approved in Europe for the rapid relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults. There is currently a lack of data for methoxyflurane versus active comparators, therefore this trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane compared with standard of care (SoC) in the treatment of acute trauma-related pain in pre-hospital and ED settings in Italy. METHODS:MEDITA (Methoxyflurane in Emergency Department in ITAly) is a Phase IIIb, prospective, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre trial. A total of 272 adult patients with moderate-to-severe pain [score???4 on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)] due to limb trauma will be randomised 1:1 to receive 3 mL methoxyflurane (self-administered by the patient via inhalation under supervision of a trained person) or medications that currently comprise the SoC in Italy [intravenous (IV) morphine for severe pain (NRS???7); IV paracetamol or ketoprofen for moderate pain (NRS 4-6)], administered as soon as possible after randomisation. PLANNED OUTCOMES:Pain intensity will be measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline (time of randomisation) and at intervals up to 30 min. Time of onset of pain relief as reported by the patient and use of rescue medication will be recorded. The patient will rate the efficacy and the healthcare professional will rate the practicality of study treatment at 30 min after randomisation using a 5-point Likert scale. Adverse events will be recorded until safety follow-up at 14?±?2 days. Vital signs will be measured at baseline, 10 and 30 min. The primary aim is to demonstrate non-inferiority of methoxyflurane versus SoC for the change in VAS pain intensity from baseline (randomisation) to 3, 5 and 10 min. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT number: 2017-001565-25. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03585374. FUNDING:Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals srl.

SUBMITTER: Fabbri A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6318254 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methoxyflurane Versus Standard of Care for Acute Trauma-Related Pain in the Emergency Setting: Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Study in Italy (MEDITA).

Fabbri Andrea A Carpinteri Giuseppe G Ruggiano Germana G Bonafede Elisabetta E Sblendido Antonella A Farina Alberto A Soldi Amedeo A

Advances in therapy 20181122 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Low-dose methoxyflurane, administered via a hand-held inhaler, has been used for short-term pain relief in emergency medicine in Australia and New Zealand for over 40 years, and was recently approved in Europe for the rapid relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults. There is currently a lack of data for methoxyflurane versus active comparators, therefore this trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane compared with standard of c ...[more]

PMID: 30467809

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionInhaled low-dose methoxyflurane is approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults, but data versus active comparators are sparse. The phase IIIb Methoxyflurane in Emergency Department in ITAly (MEDITA) trial investigated the analgesic efficacy, practicality and safety of methoxyflurane versus standard analgesic treatment (SAT) for acute trauma pain.MethodsThis was a randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label trial conducted in 15 Italian emergency units. Adults with limb trauma and pain score ≥ 4 on numerical rating scale (NRS) were randomised 1:1 to inhaled methoxyflurane 3 mL or SAT [intravenously administered (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg for severe pain (NRS ≥ 7); IV paracetamol 1 g or IV ketoprofen 100 mg for moderate pain (NRS 4-6)]. The primary endpoint was overall change in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain intensity from baseline (time of randomisation) to 3, 5 and 10 min. Non-inferiority and superiority of methoxyflurane versus SAT were concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment comparison (methoxyflurane-SAT) was less than 1 and less than 0, respectively.ResultsBetween 8 February 2018 and 8 February 2019, 272 patients were randomised (136 per treatment group). A total of 270 patients (mean age 51 years; 49% male; 34% with severe pain; mean baseline VAS 67 mm) were treated and analysed for efficacy and safety. Superiority of methoxyflurane was demonstrated for moderate-to-severe pain (adjusted mean treatment difference - 5.94 mm; 95% CI - 8.83, - 3.06 mm), moderate pain (- 5.97 mm; 95% CI - 9.55, - 2.39 mm) and severe pain (- 5.54 mm; 95% CI - 10.49, - 0.59 mm). Median onset of pain relief was 9 min for methoxyflurane and 15 min for SAT. Practicality of methoxyflurane treatment was rated "Excellent", "Very Good" or "Good" by 90% of clinicians vs. 64% for SAT. Adverse events (all non-serious) were reported by 17% of methoxyflurane-treated patients and 3% of SAT-treated patients.ConclusionMethoxyflurane provided superior pain relief to SAT in patients with moderate-to-severe trauma pain and may offer a simple, fast, effective non-opioid treatment option.Trial registrationTrial registered with EudraCT (2017-001565-25) on 2 March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03585374) on 13 July 2018.FundingMundipharma Pharmaceuticals S.r.l.

Project description:Purpose:Opioid analgesics remain the cornerstone of treatment for severe trauma pain in the emergency setting, but there are barriers to their use. This post hoc analysis of a previously reported trial (MEDITA) investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane versus intravenous (IV) morphine for severe trauma pain. Patients and Methods:MEDITA was a Phase IIIb, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study in Italian pre-hospital units and emergency departments (EudraCT: 2017-001565-25; NCT03585374). Adult patients (N=272) with moderate-to-severe trauma pain (score ?4 on the Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]) were randomized 1:1 to inhaled methoxyflurane (3 mL) or standard analgesic treatment (SAT; IV paracetamol 1g or ketoprofen 100mg for moderate pain [NRS 4-6] and IV morphine 0.1mg/kg for severe pain [NRS ?7]). Analyses were performed for the severe pain subgroup. The primary efficacy variable was the overall change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity at 3, 5 and 10min post-randomization. Non-inferiority of methoxyflurane versus morphine was concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was <1; superiority was concluded if the upper 95% CI was <0. Results:Ninety-three patients (methoxyflurane: 49; SAT: 44) were included in the severe pain intention-to-treat population. The reduction in VAS pain intensity over the first 10min was superior for methoxyflurane versus morphine (adjusted mean treatment difference: -5.54mm; 95% CI: -10.49, -0.59mm; p=0.029). Median time to onset of pain relief was 9min for methoxyflurane and 15min for morphine. Patients rated treatment efficacy and physicians rated treatment practicality "Excellent" or "Very good" for more methoxyflurane-treated patients (42.8% and 67.3%) than morphine-treated patients (18.1% and 22.8%). Adverse events, all non-serious, were reported in 20.4% of methoxyflurane-treated patients and in 4.8% of morphine-treated patients. Conclusion:Methoxyflurane provided superior short-term pain relief to IV morphine in patients with severe trauma pain and offers an effective non-narcotic treatment option.

Project description:IntroductionThe inhalational analgesic low-dose methoxyflurane has been widely used by Australian ambulance services since 1975 and is now approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in conscious adult patients. The use of methoxyflurane in hostile environments is of special interest given its portability, ease of use and rapid onset of action. This trial will investigate the efficacy, tolerability and practicality of use of inhaled methoxyflurane in patients with moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain rescued from hostile mountainous environments by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) in Italy.MethodsMETEORA is a phase IIIb, prospective, single-arm, multicentre trial. Approximately 200 adult patients with a pain score of at least 4 on the numerical rating scale (NRS) due to limb trauma rescued by HEMS will be enrolled. Patients will receive up to 2 × 3 mL methoxyflurane, self-administered by the patient by inhalation under medical supervision. Rescue medication will be permitted if required.Planned outcomesPain intensity will be measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 and 60 min after the start of methoxyflurane inhalation and when positioning the patient on a spinal board or stretcher; and also using the NRS at enrolment and at 10 min. Use of rescue medication (yes/no) will be recorded. The patient will rate efficacy and the healthcare professional will rate practicality of methoxyflurane treatment at 30 and 60 min using a 5-point Likert scale. Vital signs will be measured at baseline, 10, 30 and 60 min. Assessments after 30 min will only be performed for patients using a second inhaler. Adverse events will be recorded until safety follow-up at 3 ± 1 days. The primary endpoint is the percentage of patients achieving at least 30% improvement from baseline in VAS pain intensity within the first 10 min of methoxyflurane administration.Trial registrationEudraCT number: 2017-004601-40.FundingMundipharma Pharmaceuticals, srl. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:IntroductionPain is the commonest reason that patients present to an emergency department (ED), but it is often not treated effectively. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is used in other hospital settings but there is little evidence to support its use in emergency patients. We describe two randomised trials aiming to compare PCA to nurse titrated analgesia (routine care) in adult patients who present to the ED requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain and are subsequently admitted to hospital.Methods and analysisTwo prospective multi-centre open-label randomised trials of PCA versus routine care in emergency department patients who require intravenous opioid analgesia followed by admission to hospital; one trial involving patients with traumatic musculoskeletal injuries and the second involving patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. In each trial, 200 participants will be randomised to receive either routine care or PCA, and followed for the first 12 h of their hospital stay. The primary outcome measure is hourly pain score recorded by the participant using a visual analogue scale (VAS) over the 12 h study period, with the primary statistical analyses based on the area under the curve of these pain scores. Secondary outcomes include total opioid use, side effects, time spent asleep, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay and incremental cost effectiveness ratio.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the South Central-Southampton A Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 11/SC/0151). Data collection will be completed by August 2013, with statistical analyses starting after all final data queries are resolved. Dissemination plans include presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings held by relevant Colleges and societies. Publications should be ready for submission during 2014. A lay summary of the results will be available to study participants on request, and disseminated via a publically accessible website.Registration detailsThe study is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT Number: 2011-000194-31) and is on the ISCRTN register (ISRCTN25343280).

Project description:IntroductionThe quantity and quality of surgical training in the UK has been negatively affected by reduced working hours and National Health Service (NHS) financial pressures. Traditionally surgical training has occurred by the master-apprentice model involving a process of graduated responsibility, but a modern alternative is to use simulation for the early stages of training. It is not known if simulation training for junior trainees can safeguard patients and improve clinical outcomes. This paper details the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled educational trial of a cadaveric simulation training intervention versus standard training for junior postgraduate orthopaedic surgeons-in-training. This is the first study to assess the effect of cadaveric simulation training for open surgery on patient outcome. The feasibility of delivering cadaveric training, use of radiographic and clinical outcome measures to assess impact and the challenges of upscaling provision will be explored.Methods and analysisWe will recruit postgraduate orthopaedic surgeons-in-training in the first 3 years (of 8) of the specialist training programme. Participants will be block randomised and allocated to either cadaveric simulation or standard 'on-the-job' training, learning three common orthopaedic procedures, each of which is a substudy within the trial. The procedures are (1) dynamic hip screw, (2) hemiarthroplasty and (3) ankle fracture fixation. These procedures have been selected as they are very common procedures which are routinely performed by junior surgeons-in-training. A pragmatic approach to sample size is taken in lieu of a formal power calculation as this is novel exploratory work with no a priori estimate of effect size to reference. The primary outcome measure is the technical success of the surgery performed on patients by the participating surgeons-in-training during the follow-up period for the three substudy procedures, as measured by the implant position on the postoperative radiograph. The secondary outcome measures are procedure time, postoperative complication rate and patient health state at 4 months postoperation (EQ-5D-substudies 1 and 2 only).Ethics, registration and disseminationNational research ethics approval was granted for this study by the NHS Research Authority South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (15/WM/0464). Confidentiality Advisory Group approval was granted for accessing radiographic and outcome data without patient consent on 27 February 2017 (16/CAG/0125). The results of this trial will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will inform educational and clinical practice.Trial registration numberISRCTN20431944.

Project description:BackgroundMore than 75% of patients presenting to the Emergency Department are suffering symptoms of pain. Despite this, 67% will not receive any analgesia. Methoxyflurane is a fluorinated hydrocarbon gas which has analgesic properties when inhaled. Penthrox is a methoxyflurane autoinhaler recently licenced in Europe. Its ease of administration, safety, and fast onset of action make it of particular relevance to emergency medicine. Additionally, outside the hospital, it has the advantage of increased temperature stability and portability over current standard care. New evidence of its efficacy is emerging; however, currently, its use in Europe is not widespread. The objective of this study will be to systematically evaluate the evidence on inhaled methoxyflurane to determine if it is a superior analgesia in the acute trauma setting.MethodsWe designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials, comparing inhaled methoxyflurane and either placebo or standard care. A comprehensive search will be conducted from database inception onwards in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database, concurrent with a search of the grey literature for other relevant studies, including clinical trial databases. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. No limitations will be imposed on publication status or language of publication. The primary outcome will be mean difference in patient-reported pain at time points within the first 30 min of administration. Secondary outcomes will be mean difference in time to clinically significant pain relief and relative risk of adverse effects. Two reviewers will independently screen all returned studies and collect data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. Individual study methodological quality will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis; if this is not possible, we will construct a narrative synthesis.DiscussionThis systematic review will summarise the best available evidence and definitively establish if inhaled methoxyflurane is a superior analgesia to standard care in the acute trauma setting. This knowledge will directly impact emergency care in the UK and worldwide and may require amendments to European pain relief guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020189119 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute trauma pain is poorly managed in the emergency department (ED). The reasons are partly organizational: ED crowding and rare trauma care pathways contribute to oligoanalgesia. Anticipating the organizational impact of an innovative care procedure might facilitate the decision-making process and help to optimize pain management. METHODS:We used a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to consider the organizational impact of methoxyflurane (self-administered) in the ED, introduced alone or supported by a trauma care pathway. A MCDA experiment was designed for this specific context, 8 experts in emergency trauma care pathways (leading physicians and pharmacists working in French urban tertiary hospitals) were recruited. The study involved four steps: (i) Selection of organizational criteria for evaluating the innovation's impact; (ii) assessment of the relative weight of each criterion; (iii) choice of appropriate scenarios for exploring the organizational impact of MEOX under various contexts; and (iv) software-assisted simulation based on pairwise comparisons of the scenarios. The final outcome measure was the expected overall organizational impact of methoxyflurane on a 0-to-100 scale (score >50: positive impact). RESULTS:Nine organizational criteria were selected. "Mean length of stay in the ED" was the most weighted. Methoxyflurane alone obtained 59 as a total score, with a putative positive impact for eight criteria, and a neutral effect on one. When a trauma care pathway was introduced concomitantly, the impact of methoxyflurane was greater overall (score: 75) and for each individual criterion. CONCLUSIONS:Our model highlighted the putative positive organizational impact of methoxyflurane in the ED-particularly when supported by a trauma care pathway-and the relevance of expert consensus in this particular pharmacoeconomic context. The MCDA approach could be extended to other research fields and healthcare challenges in emergency medicine.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to investigate clinical benefits and economic costs of inhaled methoxyflurane when used by ambulance staff for prehospital emergency patients with trauma. Comparison is to usual analgesic practice (UAP) in the UK in which patient records were selected if treatment had been with Entonox® or intravenous morphine or intravenous paracetamol.MethodsOver a 12-month evaluation period, verbal numerical pain scores (VNPS) were gathered from adults with moderate to severe trauma pain attended by ambulance staff trained in administering and supplied with methoxyflurane. Control VNPS were obtained from ambulance database records of UAP in similar patients for the same period. Statistical modelling enabled comparisons of methoxyflurane to UAP, where we employed an Ordered Probit panel regression model for pain, linked by observational rules to VNPS.ResultsOverall, 96 trained paramedics and technicians from the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) prepared 510 doses of methoxyflurane for administration to a total of 483 patients. Comparison data extracted from the EMAS database of UAP episodes involved: 753 patients using Entonox®, 802 patients using intravenous morphine, and 278 patients using intravenous paracetamol. Modelling results included demonstration of faster pain relief with inhaled methoxyflurane (all p-values < 0.001). Methoxyflurane's time to achieve maximum pain relief was estimated to be significantly shorter: 26.4 min (95%CI 25.0-27.8) versus Entonox® 44.4 min (95%CI 39.5-49.3); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.0-27.9) versus intravenous morphine 41.8 min (95%CI 38.9-44.7); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.1-28.0) versus intravenous paracetamol 40.8 (95%CI 34.7-46.9). Scenario analyses showed that durations spent in severe pain were significantly less for methoxyflurane. Costing scenarios showed the added benefits of methoxyflurane were achieved at higher cost, eg versus Entonox® the additional cost per treated patient was estimated to be £12.30.ConclusionWhen administered to adults with moderate or severe pain due to trauma inhaled methoxyflurane reduced pain more rapidly and to a greater extent than Entonox® and parenteral analgesics. Inclusion of inhaled methoxyflurane to the suite of prehospital analgesics provides a clinically useful addition, but one that is costlier per treated patient.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pediatric sickle cell disease, highly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, carries great morbidity and mortality risk. Limited resources and monitoring make management of acute vaso-occlusive crises challenging. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subdissociative intranasal ketamine as a cheap, readily available and easily administered adjunct to standard pain therapy. We hypothesise that subdissociative, intranasal ketamine may significantly augment current approaches to pain management in resource-limited settings in a safe and cost-effective manner. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a multicentred, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling children 4-16 years of age with sickle cell disease and painful vaso-occlusive pain crises. Study sites include two sub-Saharan teaching and referral hospitals with acute intake areas. All patients receive standard analgesic therapy during evaluation. Patients randomised to the treatment arm receive 1 mg/kg intranasal ketamine at onset of therapy, while placebo arm participants receive volume-matched intranasal normal saline. All participants and clinical staff are blinded to the treatment allocation. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Primary endpoints are changes in self-report pain scales (Faces Pain Scale-Revised) at 30, 60 and 120 minutes and rates of adverse events. Secondary endpoints include hospital length of stay, total analgesia use and quality of life assessment 2-3 weeks postintervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The research methods for this study have been approved by the Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Board Institutional Review Board (IRB2015-07), the Tanzanian National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol. IX/2299), Muhimbili National Hospital IRB (MNH/IRB/I/2015/14) and the Tanzanian Food and Drugs Authority (TFDA0015/CTR/0015/9). Data reports will be provided to the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) periodically throughout the study as well as all reports of adverse events. All protocol amendments will also be reviewed by the DSMB. Study results, regardless of direction or amplitude, will be submitted for publication in relevant peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT02573714. Date of registration: 8 October 2015. Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Methoxyflurane Versus Standard of Care for Acute Trauma-Related Pain in the Emergency Setting: Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Study in Italy (MEDITA).

Publications

Methoxyflurane Versus Standard of Care for Acute Trauma-Related Pain in the Emergency Setting: Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Study in Italy (MEDITA).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets