Intravenous Haloperidol Versus Ondansetron for Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (HaVOC): A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the cause or optimal treatment of hyperemesis in habitual cannabis users. Anecdotal evidence supports the use of haloperidol over traditional antiemetics for this newly recognized disorder. We compare haloperidol with ondansetron for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome. METHODS: We randomized cannabis users with active emesis to either haloperidol (with a nested randomization to either 0.05 or 0.1 mg/kg) or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously in a triple-blind fashion. The primary outcome was the reduction from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea (each measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale) at 2 hours after treatment. Although the trial allowed for crossover, the primary analysis used only the first treatment period because few subjects crossed over. RESULTS: We enrolled 33 subjects, of whom 30 (16 men, aged 29 years [SD 11 years] using 1.5 g/day [SD 0.9 g/day] since age 19 years [SD 2 years]) received at least 1 treatment (haloperidol 13, ondansetron 17). Haloperidol at either dose was superior to ondansetron (difference 2.3 cm [95% confidence interval 0.6 to 4.0 cm]; P=.01), with similar improvements in both pain and nausea, as well as less use of rescue antiemetics (31% versus 59%; difference -28% [95% confidence interval -61% to 13%]) and shorter time to emergency department (ED) departure (3.1 hours [SD 1.7] versus 5.6 hours [SD 4.5]; difference 2.5 hours [95% confidence interval 0.1 to 5.0 hours]; P=.03). There were 2 return visits for acute dystonia, both in the higher-dose haloperidol group. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, haloperidol was superior to ondansetron for the acute treatment of cannabis-associated hyperemesis. The efficacy of haloperidol over ondansetron provides insight into the pathophysiology of this now common diagnosis in many EDs.

Moving the needle on fall prevention: A Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) Network scoping review and consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Although falls are common, costly, and often preventable, emergency department (ED)-initiated fall screening and prevention efforts are rare. The Geriatric Emergency Medicine Applied Research Falls core (GEAR-Falls) was created to identify existing research gaps and to prioritize future fall research foci. METHODS: GEAR's 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders included patients, geriatricians, ED physicians, epidemiologists, health services researchers, and nursing scientists. We derived relevant clinical fall ED questions and summarized the applicable research evidence, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The highest-priority research foci were identified at the GEAR Consensus Conference. RESULTS: We identified two clinical questions for our review (1) fall prevention interventions (32 studies) and (2) risk stratification and falls care plan (19 studies). For (1) 21 of 32 (66%) of interventions were a falls risk screening assessment and 15 of 21 (71%) of these were combined with an exercise program or physical therapy. For (2) 11 fall screening tools were identified, but none were feasible and sufficiently accurate for ED patients. For both questions, the most frequently reported study outcome was recurrent falls, but various process and patient/clinician-centered outcomes were used. Outcome ascertainment relied on self-reported falls in 18 of 32 (56%) studies for (1) and nine of 19 (47%) studies for (2). CONCLUSION: Harmonizing definitions, research methods, and outcomes is needed for direct comparison of studies. The need to identify ED-appropriate fall risk assessment tools and role of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel persists. Multifactorial interventions, especially involving exercise, are more efficacious in reducing recurrent falls, but more studies are needed to compare appropriate bundle combinations. GEAR prioritizes five research priorities: (1) EMS role in improving fall-related outcomes, (2) identifying optimal ED fall assessment tools, (3) clarifying patient-prioritized fall interventions and outcomes, (4) standardizing uniform fall ascertainment and measured outcomes, and (5) exploring ideal intervention components.