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 (

Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids. RESULTS: The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p = 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p = 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p = 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

Presenting Symptoms in the Emergency Department as Predictors of Intensive Care Unit Admissions and Hospital Mortality in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: The identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes may allow for earlier palliative care and prevent futile interventions. We examined the association of presenting symptoms on risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital death among patients with cancer admitted through an emergency department (ED). METHODS: We queried MD Anderson Cancer Center databases for all patients who visited the ED in 2010. Presenting symptoms, ICU admissions, and hospital deaths were reviewed; patient data analyzed; and risk factors for ICU admission and hospital mortality identified. RESULTS: The main presenting symptoms were pain, fever, and respiratory distress. Of the patients with cancer who visited the ED, 5,362 (58%) were admitted to the hospital at least once (range, 1 to 13 admissions), 697 (13%) were admitted to the ICU at least once, and 587 (11%) died during hospitalization (31% of 233 patients with hematologic malignancies and 27% of 354 patients with solid tumors died in the ICU; P < .001). In multivariable logistic regression, presenting symptoms of respiratory distress or altered mental status; lung cancer, leukemia, or lymphoma; and nonwhite race were independent predictors of hospital death. Patients who died had a longer median length of hospital stay than patients discharged alive (14 v 6 days for hematologic malignancies and 7 v 5 days for solid tumors; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer admitted through an ED experience high ICU admission and hospital mortality rates. Patients with advanced cancer and respiratory distress or altered mental status may benefit from palliative care that avoids unnecessary interventions.

Risk for Opioid Misuse Among Emergency Department Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: One of the most challenging areas of emergency medicine practice is the management and treatment of severe and persistent pain, including cancer-related pain. Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States frequently provide care for patients with cancer and an increasing concern is the potential for opioid misuse in this patient group. The authors determined the risk for opioid misuse among ED cancer patients with pain and assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with increased misuse risk. The Texas state prescription monitoring program was also queried for evidence of multiple opioid prescriptions for comparing low- and high-risk groups. METHODS: The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R) was administered to assess risk for opioid misuse among cancer patients presenting to the ED of a comprehensive cancer center in the United States. Eligibility criteria included: 1) presentation for treatment of chronic cancer-related pain while taking a prescribed schedule II opioid for analgesia, 2) age of 18 years or older, 3) ability to speak English, and 4) ability to understand the study and give written informed consent. RESULTS: Of 934 ED patients screened for the study, 290 were eligible and 209 participated (72% response rate). On the basis of the recommended SOAPP-R cutoff score of 18, a total of 71 of the 209 patients (34%) were categorized as having a high risk of misuse. Of note, 15% and 4% of all patients reported past or current use of illicit substances, respectively. The total number of annual opioid prescriptions (17.8 vs. 12.6; p = 0.023) differed between the high- versus low-risk groups. Multivariable analyses showed that depression (odds ratio [OR] = 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45 to 6.48; p = 0.003), poor coping (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.13; p = 0.001), and illicit substance use (OR = 28.30, 95% CI = 2.97 to 269.24; p = 0.029) were significantly associated with high risk of opioid misuse. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of opioid misuse among cancer patients is substantial. Screening for opioid misuse in the ED is feasible.

Integration of palliative care into emergency medicine: the Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine (IPAL-EM) collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) providers commonly care for seriously ill patients who suffer from advanced, chronic, life-limiting illnesses in addition to those that are acutely ill or injured. Both the chronically ill and those who present in extremis may benefit from application of palliative care principles. CASE REPORT: We present a case highlighting the opportunities and need for better integration of emergency medicine and palliative care. DISCUSSION: We offer practical guidelines to the ED faculty/administrators who seek to enhance the quality of patient care in their own unique ED setting by starting an initiative that better integrates palliative principles into daily practice. Specifically, we outline four things to do to jumpstart this collaborative effort. CONCLUSION: The Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine project sponsored by the Center to Advance Palliative Care is a resource that assists ED health care providers with the process and structure needed to integrate palliative care into the ED setting.

Integrating palliative care in the out-of-hospital setting: four things to jump-start an EMS-palliative care initiative.

Emergency medical service (EMS) is frequently called to care for a seriously ill patient with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. The seriously ill include both the acutely injured patients (for example in mass casualty events) and those who suffer from advanced stages of a chronic disease (for example severe malignant pain). EMS therefore plays an important role in delivering realistic, appropriate, and timely care that is consistent with the patient's wishes and in treating distressing symptoms in those who are seriously ill. The purpose of this article is to; 1) review four case scenarios that relate to palliative care and may be commonly encountered in the out-of-hospital setting and 2) provide a road map by suggesting four things to do to start an EMS-palliative care initiative in order to optimize out-of-hospital care of the seriously ill and increase preparedness of EMS providers in these difficult situations.