Low-dose ketamine safely reduces acute pain in the ED with a more rapid and shorter effect than morphine.

SOURCE CITATION: Guo J, Zhao F, Bian J, et al. Low-dose ketamine versus morphine in the treatment of acute pain in the emergency department: a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials. Am J Emerg Med. 2024;76:140-149. 38071883.

Benzofuran Iboga-Analogs Modulate Nociception and Inflammation in an Acute Mouse Pain Model.

Pain management following acute injury or post-operative procedures is highly necessary for proper recovery and quality of life. Opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) have been used for this purpose, but opioids cause addiction and withdrawal symptoms whereas NSAIDS have several systemic toxicities. Derivatives of the naturally occurring iboga alkaloids have previously shown promising behavior in anti-addiction of morphine by virtue of their interaction with opioid receptors. On this frontier, four benzofuran analogs of the iboga family have been synthesized and their analgesic effects have been studied in formalin induced acute pain model in male Swiss albino mice at 30 mg/kg of body weight dose administered intraperitoneally. The antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and neuro-modulatory effects of the analogs were analyzed. Reversal of tail flick latency, restricted locomotion and anxiogenic behavior were observed in iboga alcohol, primary amide and secondary amide. Local neuroinflammatory mediators' substance P, calcitonin gene related peptide, cyclooxygenase-2 and p65 were significantly decreased whereas the depletion of brain derived neurotrophic factor and glia derived neurotrophic factor was overturned on iboga analog treatment. Behavioral patterns after oral administration of the best analog were also analyzed. Taken together, these results show that the iboga family of alkaloid has huge potential in pain management.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis with Management of Acute Low Back Pain: A Medicare Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

Opioid prescribing requirements to minimize unused medications after an emergency department visit for acute pain: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unused opioid prescriptions can be a driver of opioid misuse. Our objective was to determine the optimal quantity of opioids to prescribe to patients with acute pain at emergency department discharge, in order to meet their analgesic needs while limiting the amount of unused opioids. METHODS: In a prospective, multicentre cohort study, we included consecutive patients aged 18 years and older with an acute pain condition present for less than 2 weeks who were discharged from emergency department with an opioid prescription. Participants completed a pain medication diary for real-time recording of quantity, doses, and names of all analgesics consumed during a 14-day follow-up period. RESULTS: We included 2240 participants, who had a mean age of 51 years; 48% were female. Over 14 days, participants consumed a median of 5 (quartiles, 1-14) morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents, with significant variation across pain conditions (p < 0.001). Most opioid tablets prescribed (63%) were unused. To meet the opioid need of 80% of patients for 2 weeks, we found that those experiencing renal colic or abdominal pain required fewer opioid tablets (8 morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents) than patients who had fractures (24 tablets), back pain (21 tablets), neck pain (17 tablets), or other musculoskeletal pain (16 tablets). INTERPRETATION: Two-thirds of opioid tablets prescribed at emergency department discharge for acute pain were unused, whereas opioid requirements varied significantly based on the cause of acute pain. Smaller, cause-specific opioid prescriptions could provide adequate pain management while reducing the risk of opioid misuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03953534.

Topical Diclofenac Versus Oral Ibuprofen Versus Diclofenac + Ibuprofen for Emergency Department Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are useful for a variety of musculoskeletal injuries. It is not known whether topical NSAIDs should be used for patients presenting with acute nonradicular musculoskeletal low back pain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study in which patients 18 to 69 years of age visiting the emergency department (ED) with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular, musculoskeletal low back pain were randomized at the time of discharge to treatment with 400 mg oral ibuprofen + placebo topical gel, 1% diclofenac topical gel + oral placebo, or 400 mg ibuprofen + 1% diclofenac topical gel. We measured outcomes using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a 24-item yes/no instrument about the effect of back pain on a respondent's daily activities. The primary outcome was change in RMDQ score between ED discharge and 2 days later. Medication-related adverse events were elicited by asking whether the study medications caused any new symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 3,281 patients were screened for participation, and 198 were randomized. Overall, 36% of the population were women, the mean age was 40 years (standard deviation, 13), and the median RMDQ score at baseline was 18 (25th to 75th percentile: 13 to 22), indicating substantial low back-related functional impairment. In total, 183 (92%) participants provided primary outcome data. Two days after the ED visit, the ibuprofen + placebo group had improved by 10.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5 to 12.7), the diclofenac gel + placebo group by 6.4 (95% CI 4.0 to 8.8), and the ibuprofen + diclofenac gel by 8.7 (95% CI 6.3 to 11.1). The between-group differences were as follows: ibuprofen versus diclofenac, 3.7 (95% CI 0.2 to 7.2); ibuprofen versus both medications 1.4 (95% CI -2.1 to 4.9); and diclofenac versus both medications, 2.3 (95% CI -5.7 to 1.0). Medication-related adverse events were reported by 3/60 (5%) ibuprofen patients, 1/63 (2%) diclofenac patients, and 4/64 (6%) patients who received both. CONCLUSION: Among patients with nontraumatic, nonradicular acute musculoskeletal low back pain discharged from an ED, topical diclofenac was probably less efficacious than oral ibuprofen. It demonstrated no additive benefit when coadministered with oral ibuprofen.

Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

The analgesic effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for acute and chronic persistent postsurgical pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.

The Risk of Kidney Injury in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease Treated With Ketorolac for Acute Pain.

Ketorolac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is used in combination with opioids to manage vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs). The relationship between ketorolac use and kidney injury in pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) remains incompletely understood. We hypothesize that ketorolac is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with SCD presenting with pain. All nonsurgical hospitalizations for VOEs treated with ketorolac between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. We used optimal matching methodology to identify control admissions (2:1 ratio) and used nonparametric tests to compare ketorolac administration between cases and controls. A total of 1319 encounters/253 patients were included in this study. AKI was noted in 1.1% of encounters and 5.5% of patients. Cases had significantly higher initial BUN than controls (9.0 vs. 6.0 mg/dL, P =0.012). In cases versus controls, there was significantly lower serum sodium (136.0 vs. 138.0 mmol/L, P =0.021). There was no association between ketorolac dose and development of AKI among children with SCD. Higher BUN and lower sodium in cases suggest that patients with AKI were more volume depleted on admission than controls. This highlights the need for strict assessment of fluid status upon admission for VOE.

Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline. METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria. RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review. CONCLUSION: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

Challenges of acute pain management in older patients.

Adequate management of acute pain in the older population is crucial. However, it is inherently complex because of multiple physiological changes that significantly impact both the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medications. Current guidelines promote paracetamol as the first-line analgesic for acute pain in older adults, whereas opioids are advised cautiously for moderate to severe acute pain. However, opioids come with a significant array of side effects, which can be more pronounced in older individuals. Ketamine administered via intranasal (IN) and nebulised inhalation in the emergency department for managing acute pain in older patients shows promising potential for improving pain management and reducing opioid reliance Kampan, Thong-on, Sri-on (2024, Age Ageing, 53, afad255). Nebulised ketamine appears superior in terms of adverse event incidence. However, the adoption of IN or nebulised ketamine in older adult acute pain management remains unclear because of the lack of definitive conclusions and clear guidelines. Nevertheless, these modalities can be valuable options for patients where opioid analgesics are contraindicated or when intravenous morphine titration is impractical or contraindicated. Here, we review these concepts, the latest evidence and propose avenues for research.

Cannabinoids for Acute Pain Management: Approaches and Rationale.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Acute pain management remains a challenge and postoperative pain is often undermanaged despite many available treatment options, also including cannabinoids. RECENT FINDINGS: In the light of the opioid epidemic, there has been growing interest in alternative care bundles for pain management, including cannabinoids as potential treatment to decrease opioid prescribing. Despite the lack of solid evidence on the efficacy of cannabinoids, their use among patients with pain, including those using opioids, is currently increasing. This use is supported by data suggesting that cannabinoids could potentially contribute to a better pain management and to a reduction in opioid doses while maintaining effective analgesia with minimum side effects. The scientific basis for supporting the use of cannabis is extensive, although it does not necessarily translate into relevant clinical outcomes. The use of cannabinoids in acute pain did not always consistently show statistically significant results in improving acute pain. Large randomized, controlled trials evaluating diverse cannabis extracts are needed in different clinical pain populations to determine safety and efficacy.

Acupuncture Versus Oral Medications for Acute/Subacute Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pharmacologic intervention do not always achieve benefits in the treatment of acute/subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). We assessed efficacy and safety of acupuncture for acute/subacute NSLBP as alternative treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Epistemonikos, CNKI, Wan Fang Database, VIP database, CBMLD, CSTJ, clinical trials, EUCTR, World WHO ICTRP, and ChiCTR for randomized controlled trials, cross-over studies, and cohort studies of NSLBP treated by acupuncture versus oral medication from inception to 23th April 2022. A total of 6 784 records were identified, and 14 studies were included 1 263 participants in this review. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture therapy was slightly more effective than oral medication in improving pain (P < 0.00001, I2 = 92%, MD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.61, -0.72]). According to the results of the meta-analysis, acupuncture therapy exhibited a significant advantage over oral medication with a substantial effect (P < 0.00001, I2 = 90%, SMD = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.62]). Based on the results of the meta-analysis, acupuncture therapy was associated with a 12% improvement rate compared to oral medication in patients with acute/subacute NSLBP (P < 0.0001, I2 = 54%, RR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.05, 1.18]). Acupuncture is more effective and safer than oral medication in treating acute/subacute NSLBP. This systematic review is poised to offer valuable guidance to clinicians treating acute/subacute NSLBP and potentially benefit the afflicted patients. REGISTRATION: This review was registered in PROSPERO ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ) with registration number CRD42021278346.

IPACK Block Efficacy for Acute Pain Management after Total Knee Replacement: A Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients often experience a significant degree of knee pain following total knee replacement (TKR). To alleviate this pain, nerve blocks may be performed such as the adductor canal block (ACB). However, ACBs are unable to relieve pain originating from the posterior region of the knee. A new type of nerve block known as the IPACK block may be used in conjunction with ACBs as it is designed to inhibit nerve branches innervating this area. In this article, we examine the rationale behind the IPACK procedure, how it is performed, and clinical trials examining its efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS: 5 of the 7 clinical trials examined in this article showed the IPACK + ACB block to show superior efficacy in treating pain following TKR compared to other blocks. These blocks included PMDI+ACB, SPANK+ACB, PAI+ACB, ACB alone, and SCAB. 2 of the 7 clinical trials showed the IPACK + ACB to be less effective in managing patients pain following TKR compared to other blocks which included the CACB and 4 in 1 block. In most instances, the IPACK + ACB showed superior efficacy in managing patients' pain following TKR when compared to other types of nerve blocks. This was determined by measuring usage of opioids, reported postoperative pain, and length of hospital stays following TKR. Thus, we suppose the IPACK block may be used in conjunction with the ACB to effectively reduce patient's pain following TKR.

A sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial of analgesic strategies for acute musculoskeletal Pain.

BACKGROUND: Most methodologically rigorous, ED-based, comparative effectiveness analgesic studies completed in the last two decades failed to find a clinically important difference between the comparators. We believe that many of these comparative effectiveness studies were biased towards the null hypothesis because some ED patients with intense pain will respond to relatively mild interventions. We hypothesized that including a run-in period would alter the results of an acute pain RCT. METHODS: We conducted a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized study. Adults with acute moderate/severe musculoskeletal pain were randomized (3:1 ratio) to run-in period or no run-in. We administered 650 mg acetaminophen to run-in participants. Those run-in patients who reported insufficient relief one-hour later were randomized (1:1 ratio) to ibuprofen 800mg PO or ketorolac 20mg PO as were all participants randomized to no run-in. The primary outcome was achieving a clinically important improvement, defined as improvement ≥1.3 on a 0-10 scale. We built a logistic regression model including run-in/no run-in, ketorolac/ibuprofen, age and sex. RESULTS: Of 307 participants who received acetaminophen, 100 (32.6%) reported inadequate relief and were randomized to an NSAID. Of the 100 patients randomized to no run-in, 84/100 (84%) achieved the primary outcome versus 246/287 (86%) run-in participants (95% CI for difference = 2%:-7,10%). Among run-in participants who received an NSAID, 82/99(83%) achieved the primary outcome versus 84/100(84%) no run-in participants (p = 0.82). Among all ibuprofen participants, 44/49(90%) randomized to run-in and 42/50(84%) randomized to no run-in achieved the primary outcome. Among all ketorolac participants, 38/50(76%) randomized to run-in and 42/50 (84%) randomized to no run-in achieved the primary outcome. We observed the following results in a multivariable analysis: OR for ketorolac versus ibuprofen:0.60 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.28); OR for run-in versus no run-in:0.91(95% CI: 0.43, 1.93). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, using an acetaminophen first strategy did not alter pain outcomes.

Opioid Prescribing Rate for Nonoperative Distal Radius Fractures and Clinician Response to a Clinical Decision Support Alert.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed for the management of acute orthopedic trauma pain, including nonoperative distal radius fractures. OBJECTIVES: This prospective study aimed to determine if a clinical decision support intervention influenced prescribing decisions for patients with known risk factors. We sought to quantify frequency of opioid prescriptions for acute nonoperative distal radius fractures treated. METHODS: We performed a prospective study at one large health care system. Utilizing umbrella code S52.5, we identified all distal radius fractures treated nonoperatively, and the encounters were merged with the Prescription Reporting with Immediate Medication Mapping (PRIMUM) database to identify encounters with opioid prescriptions and patients with risk factors for opioid use disorder. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine patient characteristics associated with the prescription of an opioid. Among encounters that triggered the PRIMUM alert, we calculated the percentage of encounters where the PRIMUM alert influenced the prescribing decision. RESULTS: Of 2984 encounters, 1244 (41.7%) included an opioid prescription. Age increment is a significant factor to more likely receive opioid prescriptions (p < 0.0001) after adjusting for other factors. Among encounters where the physician received an alert, those that triggered the alert for early refill were more likely to influence physicians' opioid prescribing when compared with other risk factors (p = 0.0088). CONCLUSION: Over 90% of patients (106/118) continued to receive an opioid medication despite having a known risk factor for abuse. Additionally, we found older patients were more likely to be prescribed opioids for nonoperatively managed distal radius fractures.

Frequency of Persistent Opioid Use 6 Months After Exposure to IV Opioids in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: As rates of opioid use disorder in the general population have increased, some have questioned whether IV opioids should be used routinely for treatment of acute severe pain in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: We determined the incidence of persistent opioid use among opioid-naïve patients exposed to IV opioids in the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, NY. Opioid-naïve adults with severe pain who received IV opioids in the ED were followed-up 6 months later by telephone interview and review of the state opioid prescription database. We defined persistent opioid use as filling 6 or more prescriptions for opioids in the 6 months following the ED visit or an average of one prescription per month. RESULTS: We screened 1555 patients. Of these, 506 patients met entry criteria and provided analyzable data. Morphine was the IV opioid most frequently administered in the ED (478, 94%), followed by hydromorphone (20, 4%). Of the 506, 8 (2%) received both IV morphine and hydromorphone and 63 (12%) participants were prescribed an opioid for use after the ED visit. One patient/506 (0%) met our apriori criteria for persistent opioid use within 6 months. CONCLUSION: Among 506 opioid naïve ED patients administered IV opioids for acute severe pain, only one used opioids persistently during the subsequent 6 months.

Characterizing acute and postsurgical pain management in patients receiving buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a clinical dilemma in treating acute pain in patients receiving long-term buprenorphine products. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort review involving patients receiving long-term buprenorphine therapy who either underwent a surgical procedure or presented to an emergency department (ED) for acute pain between January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022. Patients were excluded if opioids were prescribed 30 days before the index date. Chart reviews were conducted to characterize buprenorphine treatment strategies and the addition of new pain medications. Chart review revealed (1) incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD) relapse, (2) hospital re-presentation for pain or OUD, (3) fatal and non-fatal overdose, and (4) all-cause mortality and suicidality. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results. RESULTS: A total of 70 of 259 screened patients met inclusion criteria. The mean (±SD) age was 50.3 ± 13 years, 92.9% male, 64.3% White, and 78.6% had an OUD diagnosis. While 84.3% presented to the ED, 15.7% underwent surgical procedures. For the primary endpoint, the total daily dose of buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone from index date to discharge was continued in 90.0%, increased in 2.9%, decreased in 1.4%, and discontinued in 5.7% of cases. At discharge, 46.2% were prescribed an additional pain medication. A total of 7.1% re-presented for pain or OUD relapse, 15.7% experienced an OUD relapse, 1.4% experienced new-onset suicidality, and 1.4% experience all-cause mortality within 90 days of the index date. No fatal or non-fatal opioid overdoses were observed. CONCLUSION: The most commonly observed practice was continuing buprenorphine doses in patients with acute or postsurgical pain, which was effective and safe. Although further data is necessary to fully elucidate these findings, the data herein may suggest that clinicians can safely continue buprenorphine doses in the acute pain setting in patients receiving these products chronically.

Impact of a Strategy for Improving Early Management of Acute Pain in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to measure the impact of an intervention on pain treatment in a pediatric emergency department (ED). The application of interventions to improve pain management in DE has demonstrated diverse effects so far, most of them successful. METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental before-and-after, longitudinal, prospective study.Patients were collected between January 2020 and December 2021. Principal outcome was the number of patients with moderate or severe pain who received analgesia before 30 minutes to the ED arrival. The intervention consisted of several training sessions for nursing staff, pediatricians, and trauma physicians. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients were enrolled, 230 during preintervention period and 285 during postintervention period. The percentage of patients receiving analgesia before 30 minutes increased from 24% to 29% and before 60 minutes increased from 31% to 42%. Time to analgesia administration decreased from 43 to 39 minutes.Only 254 patients (49%) received analgesia at some point during their stay in the ED, 137 (26.6%) before 30 minutes and 193 (37.5%) before 60 minutes. The probability of receiving analgesia was greater in patients seen by a pediatrician rather than an orthopedist (59%-37%). Metamizole was the most commonly used drug (48%), followed by ibuprofen and acetaminophen. CONCLUSIONS: The application strategies to enhance early pain treatment in the ED can improve analgesia administration. Training strategies aimed at healthcare personnel working in the ED can change the way they work and achieve clear benefits for the patient. The treatment of pain in the ED should begin as soon as possible, and in this objective, the involvement of the nursing staff is a priority, because they are the professional who has the best opportunity for the detection and treatment of pain from the moment of triage.

Application of hypothetical strategies in acute pain.

Since the publication of ICH E9 (R1), "Addendum to statistical principles for clinical trials: on choosing appropriate estimands and defining sensitivity analyses in clinical trials," there has been a lot of debate about the hypothetical strategy for handling intercurrent events. Arguments against the hypothetical strategy are twofold: (1) the clinical question has limited clinical/regulatory interest; (2) the estimation may need strong statistical assumptions. In this article, we provide an example of a hypothetical strategy handling use of rescue medications in the acute pain setting. We argue that the treatment effect of a drug that is attributable to the treatment alone is the clinical question of interest and is important to regulators. The hypothetical strategy is important when developing non-opioid treatment as it estimates the treatment effect due to treatment during the pre-specified evaluation period whereas the treatment policy strategy does not. Two widely acceptable and non-controversial clinical inputs are required to construct a reasonable estimator. More importantly, this estimator does not rely on additional strong statistical assumptions and is considered reasonable for regulatory decision making. In this article, we point out examples where estimators for a hypothetical strategy can be constructed without any strong additional statistical assumptions besides acceptable clinical inputs. We also showcase a new way to obtain estimation based on disease specific clinical knowledge instead of strong statistical assumptions. In the example presented, we clearly demonstrate the advantages of the hypothetical strategy compared to alternative strategies including the treatment policy strategy and a composite variable strategy.

Transdermal Delivery of Cannabidiol for the Management of Acute Inflammatory Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

The emerging field of nanotechnology has paved the way for revolutionary advancements in drug delivery systems, with nanosystems emerging as a promising avenue for enhancing the therapeutic potential and the stability of various bioactive compounds. Among these, cannabidiol (CBD), the non-psychotropic compound of the Cannabis sativa plant, has gained attention for its therapeutic properties. Consequently, researchers have devoted significant efforts to unlock the full potential of CBD's clinical benefits, where various nanosystems and excipients have emerged to overcome challenges associated with its bioavailability, stability, and controlled release for its transdermal application. Therefore, this comprehensive review aims to explain CBD's role in managing acute inflammatory pain and offers an overview of the state of the art of existing delivery systems and excipients for CBD. To summarize this review, a summary of the cannabinoids and therapeutical targets of CBD will be discussed, followed by its conventional modes of administration. The transdermal route of administration and the current topical and transdermal delivery systems will also be reviewed. This review will conclude with an overview of in vivo techniques that allow the evaluation of the anti-inflammatory and analgesic potentials of these systems.