Intranasal fentanyl spray versus intravenous opioids for the treatment of severe pain in patients with cancer in the emergency department setting: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Intranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: We randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group). RESULTS: At T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (

Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients With Stage IV Cancer Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit With Acute Kidney Injury at a Comprehensive Cancer Center Was Not Associated With Survival.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with advanced cancer, prolongation of life with treatment often incurs substantial emotional and financial expense. Among hospitalized patients with cancer since acute kidney injury (AKI) is known to be associated with much higher odds for hospital mortality, we investigated whether renal replacement therapy (RRT) use in the intensive care unit (ICU) was a significant independent predictor of worse outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients admitted in 2005 to 2014 who were diagnosed with stage IV solid tumors, had AKI, and a nephrology consult. The main outcomes were survival times from the landmark time points, inpatient mortality, and longer term survival after hospital discharge. Logistic regression and Cox proportional regression were used to compare inpatient mortality and longer term survival between RRT and non-RRT groups. Propensity score-matched landmark survival analyses were performed with 2 landmark time points chosen at day 2 and at day 7 from ICU admission. RESULTS: Of the 465 patients with stage IV cancer admitted to the ICU with AKI, 176 needed RRT. In the multivariate logistic regression model after adjusting for baseline serum albumin and baseline maximum Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), the patients who received RRT were not significantly different from non-RRT patients in inpatient mortality (odds ratio: 1.004 [95% confidence interval: 0.598-1.684], P = .9892). In total, 189 patients were evaluated for the impact of RRT on long-term survival and concluded that RRT was not significantly associated with long-term survival after discharge for patients who discharged alive. Landmark analyses at day 2 and day 7 confirmed the same findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that receiving RRT in the ICU was not significantly associated with inpatient mortality, survival times from the landmark time points, and long-term survival after discharge for patients with stage IV cancer with AKI.