Dataset Information

ANalgesic Efficacy and safety of MOrphiNe versus methoxyflurane in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the rationale and design of the ANEMON-SIRIO 3 study: a multicentre, open-label, phase II, randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The unfavourable influence of morphine on the pharmacokinetics of ticagrelor resulting in weaker and retarded antiplatelet effect in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been previously shown. Replacing morphine with methoxyflurane, a potent, non-opioid analgesic agent, that does not weaken or delay the effect of antiplatelet agents may improve the clinical efficacy of treatment of patients with ACS.

Methods

The ANEMON-SIRIO 3 study was designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase II, randomised clinical trial aimed to test the analgesic efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane in patients with ACS. The study population will comprise patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-elevation ACS admitted to the study centres with typical chest pain requiring analgesic treatment. Before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the patients with index ACS will be randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to receive methoxyflurane administered by inhalation, or to obtain morphine administered intravenously. Analgesic treatment will be followed by 300 mg loading dose of aspirin and 180 mg loading dose of ticagrelor. Patients will be assessed with regard to pain intensity according to the Numeric Pain Rating Scale at baseline, 3 min after study drug administration and immediately after PCI. Moreover, patients will be actively monitored with regard to the occurrence of side effects of evaluated therapies, as well as adverse events that may be related to insufficient platelet inhibition (no-reflow phenomenon assessed immediately after PCI, administration of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors during PCI, acute stent thrombosis).

Ethics and dissemination

The study will be conducted in six Polish clinical centres from the beginning of in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Trial registration details

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04476173.

SUBMITTER: Kubica A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8098993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:[18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3?years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3?months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk?=?1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P?=?0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P?=?0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P?=?0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18?192?±?27?679 € versus 11?131?±?13? €, P?<?0.033).18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.NCT00624260.