Dataset Information

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) for analgesia in trauma: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

More 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.

Methods

We 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.

Discussion

This 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 registration

PROSPERO CRD42020189119 .

SUBMITTER: Eager MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7860209 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) for analgesia in trauma: a systematic review protocol.

Eager Michael M MM Nolan Grant S GS Tonks Kathryn K Ramjeeawon Anoopama A Taylor Natalie N

Systematic reviews 20210203 1

<h4>Background</h4>More 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 advantag ...[more]

PMID: 33536052

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEvidence on the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in the management of trauma pain is conflicting and obfuscated. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane for trauma pain on the basis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsRCTs assessing the efficacy of methoxyflurane in adults or adolescents with acute trauma pain published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. The control groups were those that received placebo or standard analgesic treatment (SAT). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in pain scores during the first 30 min of treatment. Secondary outcomes included time to first pain relief, the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief, rescue analgesia rate, the treatment satisfaction of patients and investigators, and the methoxyflurane-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsA total of nine RCTs (1806 patients) were identified. Results revealed that methoxyflurane provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the mean difference of change from baseline in pain intensity (from - 0.44 to - 1.23 cm, p < 0.001) at various time points within the first 20 min compared to control treatment. Besides, methoxyflurane decreased the time of onset of pain relief (mean difference - 5.29 min; 95% CI - 6.97 to - 3.62) and the proportion of patients who needed rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.17-1.70) despite it increasing the risk of non-severe TEAEs (risk ratio 3.09; 95% CI 1.72-5.57). Notably, the benefit of almost all secondary pain-related outcomes was rendered clinically nonsignificant between methoxyflurane and SAT strata besides the time of onset of pain relief. The quality of evidence was low or very low in all outcomes.ConclusionsIn emergency situations without effective therapy, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides low-quality evidence that methoxyflurane can be used as a rapid-acting and effective treatment for acute trauma pain, although its utilization is associated a risk of non-severe TEAEs. However, the current evidence does not support the notion that inhaled methoxyflurane offered superior analgesic efficacy to SAT.Clinical trial numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020223000.

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:BACKGROUND:Pain from injuries is one of the commonest symptoms in children attending emergency departments (EDs), and this is often inadequately treated in both the pre-hospital and ED settings, in part due to challenges of continual assessment and availability of easily administered analgesic options. Pain practices are therefore a key research priority, including within the field of paediatric emergency medicine. Methoxyflurane, delivered via a self-administered Penthrox® inhaler, belongs to the fluorinated hydrocarbon group of volatile anaesthetics and is unique among the group in having analgesic properties at low doses. Despite over 30 years of clinical acute analgesia use, and a large volume of evidence supporting its safety and efficacy, there is a paucity of randomised controlled trial data for Penthrox®. METHODS:This is an international multi-centre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial assessing the efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane delivered via the Penthrox® inhaler for the management of moderate to severe acute traumatic pain in children and young people aged 6-17 years. Following written informed consent, eligible participants are randomised to self-administer either inhaled methoxyflurane (maximum dose of 2 × 3 ml) or normal saline placebo (maximum dose 2 × 5 ml). Patients, treating clinicians and research nurses are blinded to the treatment. The primary outcome is the change in pain intensity at 15 min after the commencement of treatment, as measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or the Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating scale, with the latter converted to VAS values. Secondary outcome measures include the number and proportion of responders who achieve a 30% reduction in VAS score compared to baseline, rescue medication requested, time and number of inhalations to first pain relief, global medication performance assessment by the patient, clinician and research nurse, and evaluation of adverse events experienced during treatment and during the subsequent 14 ± 2 days. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. The total sample size is 110 randomised and treated patients per treatment arm. DISCUSSION:The Methoxyflurane AnalGesia for Paediatric InjuriEs (MAGPIE) trial will provide efficacy and safety data for methoxyflurane administered via the Penthrox® inhaler, in children and adolescents who present to EDs with moderate to severe injury-related pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT, 2016-004290-41 . Registered on 11 April 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03215056 . Registered on 12 July 2017.

Project description:IntroductionThe undertreatment of acute pain presents a significant challenge in the Emergency Department. This post hoc subgroup analysis of a previously reported randomized controlled UK study reports the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane analgesia in treating adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe trauma pain.Patients and methodsThree hundred patients (96 in the adolescent subgroup) aged ≥12 years requiring analgesia for acute trauma pain (pain score of 4-7 on the Numerical Rating Scale) at triage were randomized 1:1 to methoxyflurane (up to 6 mL) or placebo (normal saline), both administered using a Penthrox® inhaler. The patient could request rescue medication (paracetamol/opioids) at any time. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity.ResultsMean VAS pain score for the adolescent subgroup at baseline was ~ 61 mm. Adjusted mean change in VAS pain intensity from baseline to 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes was -24.5, -28.1, -31.6, and -31.7 mm for methoxyflurane and -14.6, -18.8, -19.2, and -23.7 mm for placebo, with a statistically significant treatment effect in favor of methoxyflurane overall across all four time points (-9.9 mm; 95% CI: -17.4, -2.4 mm; P=0.0104). Median time to first pain relief was significantly shorter with methoxyflurane (1 minute) than placebo (3 minutes, P<0.0001). Pain relief was reported within 1-10 inhalations in 95.7% of methoxyflurane-treated patients and 64.6% of placebo-treated patients. Rescue medication was requested by two (4.3%) methoxyflurane-treated patients and three (6.3%) placebo-treated patients. Over 95% of patients, physicians, and nurses rated methoxyflurane treatment as "Excellent", "Very Good" or "Good" compared with between 64% and 68% for placebo. The incidence of adverse events was higher with methoxyflurane (51%) than placebo (42%), mostly comprising mild/transient dizziness and headache.ConclusionThis subgroup analysis shows that low-dose inhaled methoxyflurane is a rapid-acting and effective analgesic in adolescent patients presenting with moderate-to-severe trauma pain.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01420159, EudraCT number: 2011-000338-12.

Project description:Methoxyflurane is an inhaled analgesic administered via a disposable inhaler which has been used in Australia for over 40 years for the management of pain associated with trauma and for medical procedures in children and adults. Now available in 16 countries worldwide, it is licensed in Europe for moderate to severe pain associated with trauma in conscious adults, although additional applications are being made to widen the range of approved indications. Considering these ongoing developments, we reviewed the available evidence on clinical usage and safety of inhaled analgesic methoxyflurane in trauma pain and in medical procedures in both adults and children. Published data on methoxyflurane in trauma and procedural pain show it to be effective, well tolerated, and highly rated by patients, providing rapid onset of analgesia. Methoxyflurane has a well-established safety profile; adverse events are usually brief and self-limiting, and no clinically significant effects on vital signs or consciousness levels have been reported. Nephrotoxicity previously associated with methoxyflurane at high anesthetic doses is not reported with low analgesic doses. Although two large retrospective comparative studies in the prehospital setting showed inhaled analgesic methoxyflurane to be less effective than intravenous morphine and intranasal fentanyl, this should be balanced against the administration, supervision times, and safety profile of these agents. Given the limitations of currently available analgesic agents in the prehospital and emergency department settings, the ease of use and portability of methoxyflurane combined with its rapid onset of effective pain relief and favorable safety profile make it a useful nonopioid option for pain management. Except for the STOP! study, which formed the basis for approval in trauma pain in Europe, and a few smaller randomized controlled trials (RCTs), much of the available data are observational or retrospective, and further RCTs are currently underway to provide more robust data.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Despite multiple scandals in the medical implant sector, premarket testing has been the attention of little published research. Complications related to new devices, such as the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR, DePuy Synthes, USA), have raised the issue of how designs are tested and whether engineering standards remain up to date with our understanding of implant biomechanics. Despite much work setting up national joint registries to improve implant monitoring, there have been few academic studies examining the premarket engineering standards new implants must meet. Emerging global economies mean that the markets have changed, and it is unknown to what degree engineering standards vary around the world. Governments, industry and independent regulatory bodies all produce engineering standards; therefore, the comparison of surgical implants across different manufacturers and jurisdictions is difficult. In this review, we will systematically collate and compare engineering standards for trauma and orthopaedic implants around the world. This will help inform patient, hospital and surgeon choice and provide an evidence base for future research in this area. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This protocol is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will conduct a systematic review of trauma and orthopaedic engineering standards from four main sources of information as identified in our preliminary scoping searches: governments, industry, independent regulatory bodies and engineering and medical publications. Any current standard relevant to trauma and orthopaedic implants will be included. We will use a predefined search strategy and follow the recommendations of the Cochrane handbook where applicable. We will undertake a narrative synthesis with qualitative evaluation of homogeneity between engineering standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethics approval is required as no primary data are being collected. The results will be made available by peer-reviewed publication and reported according to PRISMA-P guidelines.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. METHODS:We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION:This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018107083.

Project description:BackgroundProcedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used to attenuate the pain and distress that may otherwise be experienced during diagnostic and interventional medical or dental procedures. As the risk of adverse events increases with the depth of sedation induced, frequent monitoring of level of consciousness is recommended. Level of consciousness is usually monitored during PSA with clinical observation. Processed electroencephalogram-based depth of anaesthesia (DoA) monitoring devices provide an alternative method to monitor level of consciousness that can be used in addition to clinical observation. However, there is uncertainty as to whether their routine use in PSA would be justified. Rigorous evaluation of the clinical benefits of DoA monitors during PSA, including comprehensive syntheses of the available evidence, is therefore required. One potential clinical benefit of using DoA monitoring during PSA is that the technology could improve patient safety by reducing sedation-related adverse events, such as death or permanent neurological disability. We hypothesise that earlier identification of lapses into deeper than intended levels of sedation using DoA monitoring leads to more effective titration of sedative and analgesic medications, and results in a reduction in the risk of adverse events caused by the consequences of over-sedation, such as hypoxaemia. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether using DoA monitoring during PSA in the hospital setting improves patient safety by reducing the risk of hypoxaemia (defined as an arterial partial pressure of oxygen below 60 mmHg or percentage of haemoglobin that is saturated with oxygen [SpO(2)] less than 90 %). Other potential clinical benefits of using DoA monitoring devices during sedation will be assessed as secondary outcomes.Methods/designElectronic databases will be systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of depth of anaesthesia monitoring devices with clinical observation of level of consciousness during PSA. Language restrictions will not be imposed. Screening, study selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion. Meta-analyses will be performed if suitable.DiscussionThis review will synthesise the evidence on an important potential clinical benefit of DoA monitoring during PSA within hospital settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015017251.

Dataset Information

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) for analgesia in trauma: a systematic review protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) for analgesia in trauma: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets