A Randomized Study of Intravenous Hydromorphone Versus Intravenous Acetaminophen for Older Adult Patients with Acute Severe Pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized study to compare the efficacy and adverse event profile of 1,000 mg of intravenous acetaminophen to that of 0.5 mg of intravenous hydromorphone among patients aged 65 years or more with acute pain of severity that was sufficient enough to warrant intravenous opioids. METHODS: This randomized comparative effectiveness study with 162 participants was conducted in 2 urban emergency departments (EDs). The primary outcome was an improvement in a 0 to 10 pain scale from baseline to 60 minutes later. Secondary outcomes included the need for additional analgesic medication and adverse events that were attributable to the investigational medication. The minimum clinically important difference was an improvement of 1.3 on the 0 to 10 pain scale. RESULTS: The median baseline pain score was 10 (interquartile range 8 to 10) in both the groups. By 60 minutes, patients taking acetaminophen improved by 3.6 (standard deviation 2.9) on the 0 to 10 pain scale, whereas patients taking hydromorphone improved by 4.6 (standard deviation 3.3) (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference of 1.0 was 0.1 to 2.0). Additional analgesic medications were required for 37 (46%) of 81 patients taking acetaminophen and 31 (38%) of 81 patients taking hydromorphone (95% CI for the rounded difference of 7% was -8% to 23%). Adverse events were reported by 6 (7%) of 81 patients taking acetaminophen and 10 (12%) of 81 patients taking hydromorphone (95% CI for the difference of 5% was -4% to 14%) and included dizziness, drowsiness, headache, and nausea. CONCLUSION: Although 0.5 mg of the intravenously administered hydromorphone was statistically superior to 1,000 mg of intravenous acetaminophen administered in older patients with acute severe pain in the ED, this difference was not clinically significant. Regardless of the medication received, many participants experienced minimal or incomplete pain relief.

Evaluation of Specimen Types and Saliva Stabilization Solutions for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical to tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequent supply strain. Therefore, alternative specimen types have been investigated that provide similar detection sensitivity with reduced health care exposure and the potential for self-collection. In this study, the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs (NS) and saliva was compared to that of NPS using matched specimens from two outpatient cohorts in New York State (total n = 463). The first cohort showed only a 5.4% positivity, but the second cohort (n = 227) had a positivity rate of 41%, with sensitivity in NPS, NS, and saliva of 97.9%, 87.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Whether the reduced sensitivity of NS or saliva is acceptable must be assessed in the settings where they are used. However, we sought to improve on it by validating a method to mix the two sample types, as the combination of nasal swab and saliva resulted in 94.6% SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity. Spiking experiments showed that combining them did not adversely affect the detection sensitivity in either. Virus stability in saliva was also investigated, with and without the addition of commercially available stabilizing solutions. The virus was stable in saliva at both 4°C and room temperature for up to 7 days. The addition of stabilizing solutions did not enhance stability and, in some situations, reduced detectable virus levels.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Five Oral Analgesics for Treatment of Acute Musculoskeletal Extremity Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare the efficacy and adverse effects of 5 oral analgesics in emergency department (ED) patients aged 21 to 64 years with acute musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients received 400 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen, 800 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen, 30 mg codeine/300 mg acetaminophen, 5 mg hydrocodone/300 mg acetaminophen, or 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen. The primary outcome was change in pain before administration of medication (baseline) to 1 hour postbaseline. A numeric rating scale was used, varying from 0="no pain" to 10="worst imaginable pain." Secondary outcomes included receipt of rescue medication and adverse effects at 1 and 2 hours postbaseline. ANOVA was used to test differences in the primary outcome between treatment groups. RESULTS: Six hundred participants, predominantly men and Latino, were enrolled. Change in pain from baseline to 60 minutes did not differ by treatment (P=.69). The mean change in pain in numeric rating scale units was 400 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6 to 3.5); 800 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen 3.0 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.5), 30 mg codeine/300 mg acetaminophen 3.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 3.9), 5 mg hydrocodone/300 mg acetaminophen 3.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.5), and 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen 3.3 (95% CI 2.8 to 3.7). Rescue medication was received before 1 hour had elapsed by 2 patients receiving 400 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen (1.7%), 3 patients receiving 800 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen (2.5%), zero patients receiving 30 mg codeine/300 mg acetaminophen (0.0%), 3 patients receiving 5 mg hydrocodone/300 mg acetaminophen (2.5%), and zero patients receiving 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen (0.0%) (P=.21). More patients who received opioids were nauseated or vomited compared with those who did not: 6.7% versus 1.7% (5.0% difference; 95% CI 1.7% to 8.2%). The findings at 2 hours were similar. CONCLUSION: No analgesic was more efficacious than others 1 or 2 hours after baseline. There was significantly more nausea and vomiting among patients treated with opioids.

Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized that decline in pain intensity from 30 to 120 minutes after initial intravenous opioid administration is greater in patients receiving morphine by patient-controlled analgesia compared with usual care and would differ by a clinically significant amount. METHOD: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled analgesia and usual care (opioid and dose at physician's discretion) in 4 EDs. Entry criteria included age 18 to 65 years and acute pain requiring intravenous opioids. The primary outcome was decline in numeric rating scale pain score 30 to 120 minutes postbaseline. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, time to analgesia, adverse events, and patient-controlled analgesia pump-related problems. We used a mixed-effects linear model to compare rate of decline in pain (slope) between groups. A clinically significant difference between groups was defined as a difference in slopes equivalent to 1.3 numeric rating scale units. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled. The rate of decline in pain from 30 to 120 minutes was greater for patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (difference=1.0 numeric rating scale unit; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6 to 1.5; P<.001) but did not reach the threshold for clinical significance. More patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia were satisfied with pain management (difference=9.3%; 95% CI 3.3% to 15.1%). Median time to initial analgesia was 15 minutes longer for patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (95% CI 11.4 to 18.6 minutes). There were 7 adverse events in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 1 in the usual care group (difference=2.0%; 95% CI 0.04% to 3.9%), and 11 pump-programming errors. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study do not favor patient-controlled analgesia over usual ED care for acute pain management.

Effect of a Single Dose of Oral Opioid and Nonopioid Analgesics on Acute Extremity Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The choice of analgesic to treat acute pain in the emergency department (ED) lacks a clear evidence base. The combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol) may represent a viable nonopioid alternative. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of 4 oral analgesics. Design, Settings, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 urban EDs in the Bronx, New York, that included 416 patients aged 21 to 64 years with moderate to severe acute extremity pain enrolled from July 2015 to August 2016. Interventions: Participants (104 per each combination analgesic group) received 400 mg of ibuprofen and 1000 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of oxycodone and 325 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of hydrocodone and 300 mg of acetaminophen; or 30 mg of codeine and 300 mg of acetaminophen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in decline in pain 2 hours after ingestion. Pain intensity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst possible pain. The predefined minimum clinically important difference was 1.3 on the NRS. Analysis of variance was used to test the overall between-group difference at P = .05 and 99.2% CIs adjusted for multiple pairwise comparisons. Results: Of 416 patients randomized, 411 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 37 [12] years; 199 [48%] women; 247 [60%] Latino). The baseline mean NRS pain score was 8.7 (SD, 1.3). At 2 hours, the mean NRS pain score decreased by 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.9) in the ibuprofen and acetaminophen group; by 4.4 (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.0) in the oxycodone and acetaminophen group; by 3.5 (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.2) in the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group; and by 3.9 (95% CI, 3.2 to 4.5) in the codeine and acetaminophen group (P = .053). The largest difference in decline in the NRS pain score from baseline to 2 hours was between the oxycodone and acetaminophen group and the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group (0.9; 99.2% CI, -0.1 to 1.8), which was less than the minimum clinically important difference in NRS pain score of 1.3. Adverse events were not assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients presenting to the ED with acute extremity pain, there were no statistically significant or clinically important differences in pain reduction at 2 hours among single-dose treatment with ibuprofen and acetaminophen or with 3 different opioid and acetaminophen combination analgesics. Further research to assess adverse events and other dosing may be warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02455518.

Efficacy of an Acute Pain Titration Protocol Driven by Patient Response to a Simple Query: Do You Want More Pain Medication?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the efficacy of a simple pain titration protocol of 1-mg increments of intravenous hydromorphone, given at fixed intervals, driven solely by patient response to a yes/no question. METHODS: This was a prospective interventional cohort study of nonelderly adults with acute severe pain defined as requiring intravenous opioids in the judgment of the attending emergency physician. All patients received 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 30 minutes later were asked, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients responding yes received an additional 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone and were asked the same question 30 minutes after receiving it. Those responding no did not receive additional opioid and were asked the question again 30 minutes later. Each patient was queried 4 times. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving satisfactory pain control, defined as declining additional pain medication on 1 or more occasions. RESULTS: Of 215 patients enrolled, there were 8 protocol violations, leaving 207 patients with analyzable data; 205 of 207 patients (99%; 95% confidence interval 97% to 100%) achieved satisfactory analgesia at 1 or more points during the study. Nine patients desaturated below 95% on room air, 2 had respiratory rates less than 10 breaths/min, and 2 had pulse rates less than 50 beats/min. No adverse events were associated with amount of hydromorphone received. CONCLUSION: A pain protocol, based on titration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone, driven solely by patient response to a simple standardized question repeated at intervals, resulted in achievement of satisfactory analgesia on at least 1 occasion in 99% of patients.

Comparative Analgesic Efficacy of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen vs Codeine/Acetaminophen for Short-Term Pain Management Following ED Discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that oxycodone/acetaminophen provides analgesia superior to codeine/acetaminophen following emergency department (ED) discharge. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, trial. SETTING: Adult inner city ED. SUBJECTS: ED patients with acute extremity pain who were discharged home. METHODS: Patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/325 mg) or codeine/acetaminophen (30 mg/300 mg). The primary outcome, obtained via telephone one day after ED discharge, was the between-group difference in improvement in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores over a 2-hour period following the most recent ingestion of study drug. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients with >50% pain reduction, side-effect profile, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty patients were enrolled. Mean baseline NRS scores were 7.9 in both groups. Mean decrease over 2 hours was 4.5 NRS units in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group vs 4.2 NRS units in the codeine/acetaminophen group, for a clinically and statistically nonsignificant difference of 0.2 NRS units (95% CI -0.4-0.9 NRS units). Similarly, 66% vs 61% achieved >50% pain relief for a nonsignificant difference of 5% (95% CI -8% to 17%). Side-effect profile and patient satisfaction were similar. CONCLUSION: Our hypothesis that oxycodone/acetaminophen provides analgesia superior to codeine/acetaminophen was rejected. Although pain within each group was reduced by more than half, the between-group difference was not significant. Pending independent validation, these unexpected findings suggest that codeine/acetaminophen, a Schedule III agent, may be a clinically reasonable outpatient opioid alternative to oxycodone/acetaminophen, a more tightly restricted Schedule II agent thought to be more prone to misuse.

Randomized clinical trial of the 2 mg hydromorphone bolus protocol versus the "1+1" hydromorphone titration protocol in treatment of acute, severe pain in the first hour of emergency department presentation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare a high initial dose of 2 mg intravenous hydromorphone against titration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone followed by an optional second dose. METHODS: Patients aged 21 to 64 years with severe pain were randomly allocated to 2 mg intravenous hydromorphone in a single bolus or the "1+1" hydromorphone titration protocol. 1+1 Patients received 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone followed by a second 1 mg dose 15 minutes later if they answered yes when asked, Do you want more pain medication? The primary outcome was the between-group difference in proportion of patients who declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes. RESULTS: Of the 350 enrolled patients, 334 had sufficient data for analysis. The proportion who declined additional analgesics was 67.5% in the 2 mg bolus arm and 67.3% in the 1+1 titration arm (difference 0.2%; 95% confidence interval -9.7% to 10.2%). The between-group difference in numeric rating scale pain scores was 0.4 numeric rating scale units (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.1). The incidence of adverse effects was similar; 42.3% of 1+1 patients achieved satisfactory analgesia at 1 hour with only 1 mg hydromorphone. CONCLUSION: A hydromorphone 1+1 titration protocol provides similar pain relief to an initial 2 mg bolus dose, with no apparent clinical advantage to the latter. The 1+1 titration protocol had an opioid-sparing effect because 50% less opioid was needed to achieve satisfactory analgesia for 42.3% of patients allocated to this protocol.

Myocardial Contraction Fraction is not a Predictor of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Systolic Heart Failure: A Brief Report.

Introduction: The utility of myocardial contraction fraction (MCF), a volumetric measure of myocardial shortening, has not been well evaluated in patients with systolic heart failure (SHF). Materials and Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of all adults admitted with acute SHF from 2013 to 2018 at an academic medical center. A chart review was performed to identify key echocardiographic transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), laboratory, and demographic characteristics. MCF was calculated based on M-mode measurements of estimated stroke volume and myocardial volume based on admission TTE. The primary outcome was 30-day combined all-cause readmission/mortality and 365-day all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 1282 patients were analyzed. The 30-day composite outcome occurred in 310 patients (24.2%), and all-cause death at 365 days occurred in 375 patients (29.3%). There was a weak correlation between the visually estimated ejection fraction (EF) and MCF (r = 0.356, P < 0.001). Neither MCF nor EF was associated with either component of the primary outcome. Other parameters on TTE that were associated with higher risk of primary outcome were higher tricuspid regurgitation (TR) velocity, larger left atrial (LA) diameter, and moderate or greater TR and mitral regurgitation (MR). Conclusion: Echocardiographic predictors of postdischarge adverse events among patients hospitalized with acute SHF include higher TR velocity, larger LA diameter, and at least moderate MR or TR. MCF does not correlate well with visually assessed EF among patients with acute SHF, and neither MCF nor EF provides prognostic information in this population.

Dosing and titration of intravenous opioid analgesics administered to ED patients in acute severe pain.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to describe the dose of opioids and incidence of titration for management of acute pain in emergency department patients and, secondarily, to assess the association between change in pain and dose. METHODS: Data from control groups of 2 randomized clinical trials were analyzed. Patients 21 to 64 years with acute pain judged to warrant intravenous (i.v.) opioids were eligible. We calculated the mean weight-based dose of i.v. opioids, distribution of dose, proportion of patients receiving additional i.v. opioids, and 95% confidence intervals. We compared these statistics to 3 recommendations: 0.1 mg/kg morphine, 10 mg morphine, and titration to analgesic effect. We used multiple linear regression to assess the association between change in pain measured on a numerical rating scale and dose. RESULTS: There were 281 patients with an initial median pain score of 10 (interquartile range: 8, 10). Mean weight-based dose of i.v. opioids was 0.08 mg/kg (0.07, 0.08 mg/kg). A total of 268 patients (95.4% [92.2%, 97.5%]) received less than 10 mg i.v. morphine equivalents; 7 patients (2.5% [1.0%, 5.0%]) received additional opioids. There was a weak association between change in pain in the 15, 30, and 60 minutes after the initial bolus and dose: b = 0.22 (0.07, 0.37), b = 0.17 (0.02, 0.32), and b = 0.12 (-0.03, 0.28), respectively, after adjustment for baseline pain. CONCLUSION: Analgesic practice did not conform to recommended doses or regimens. There was only a weak association between change of pain and dose in the range of doses given. These findings suggest that oligoanalgesia continues to be a problem despite improvements over the past 20 years.

Echocardiographic Parameters and Outcomes in Methamphetamine-Associated Heart Failure: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis.

Background: Methamphetamines are a common cause of systolic heart failure (HF). There are limited data on the prognosis associated with hospitalizations for decompensated HF in the setting of methamphetamine use. We aimed to evaluate patient characteristics and outcomes among patients admitted with decompensated HF who had positive drug screens for amphetamines as well as to determine whether any parameters from transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) can predict outcomes in this population. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted to the Loma Linda Medical Center who had an active hospital problem of acute on chronic systolic (or systolic and diastolic) HF from 2013 to 2018. Electronic medical records were mined for relevant patient data. Methamphetamine-associated heart failure (MethHF) group was defined as those with an admission urine drug screen (UDS) that was positive for methamphetamines, whereas non-MethHF was defined by patients with negative methamphetamine on UDS or UDS was not done on physician's discretion. The primary outcomes of the study were 30-day composite outcome (defined as combined all-cause readmission and all-cause mortality), 365-day all-cause mortality, and length of stay (LOS). Propensity score weighting for these outcomes was performed using demographics, laboratory and clinical variables, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as covariates. TTE parameters from presentation were also evaluated to determine if any had prognostic implications. Results: A total of 1,655 patients were included (101 patients with positive urine methamphetamine and 1,554 patients without). Patients with MethHF were younger, more likely to be male, had fewer comorbidities, had lower LVEF, and were more likely to have right ventricular systolic dysfunction. In propensity-weighted analyses, there were no significant differences in LOS, 30-day composite outcome, or 365-day mortality between the MethHF and non-MethHF group in (P > 0.05 for all). Presence of at least moderate tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR) was the only TTE predictor of 30-day composite outcome (odds ratio (OR) = 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5 - 14.50, P < 0.01) and 365-day mortality (OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 1.5 - 14.50, P < 0.01) in the MethHF group. Conclusion: Patients with MethHF admitted for decompensated HF had similar outcomes compared to non-MethHF after adjusting for baseline characteristics. TR is the only TTE value to predict outcomes in this population.

Influence of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Foundation's Research Training Grant on postaward academic federal funding.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to measure the impact of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Foundation's (SAEMF) Research Training Grant (RTG) by comparing academic success in grant recipients versus non-recipient applicants. Our primary outcome was subsequent federal funding as a principal investigator (PI) or multiple principal investigator (MPI). Our secondary outcomes included subsequent K-award funding, R-series funding, R01 funding, and academic productivity measured by first author peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: The authors examined all SAEMF RTG applicants from 2002 through 2019 (n = 109). Data were collected using the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database, a literature search using PubMed, and an online survey sent to all RTG applicants. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Over 18 years, 18 of 109 (16.5%) RTG applicants were awarded by SAEMF. Subsequent federal funding as PI or MPI was obtained by 11 of the 18 RTG recipients compared to 29 of the 91 nonrecipients (61% vs. 33%, RR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.2-3.1). The RTG award was also associated with increased probability of receiving a federal Career Development Award (K-series) (RR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.9) and R-series award (RR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.9) but not an R01 award (RR 2.1; 95% CI 0.8-5.3). The median number of first-authored peer reviewed manuscripts did not differ between RTG award recipients (14, IQR 8,44) and nonrecipients (14, IQR 6,30) (p = 0.5) though RTG recipients had a higher percentage of their publications as a first author (49% vs. 33%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: SAEMF RTG awards were associated with increased probability of future federal funding, including career development awards and R-series awards but not R01 awards. RTG recipients also had a higher percentage of their peer reviewed publications as first author.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of a hydromorphone titration protocol to usual care in the management of adult emergency department patients with acute severe pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We test the efficacy and safety of the "1+1" (1 mg plus 1 mg 15 minutes later if needed) hydromorphone protocol against usual care of emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of ED patients with acute severe pain. The 1+1 protocol specifies administration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone, followed by a second dose of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone 15 minutes after the first bolus if the patient answers yes to the question, "Do you want more pain medication?" Usual care is the administration of any intravenous opioid, with type and dose chosen by the ED attending physician. Usual care patients who wanted more medication at 15 minutes were treated at the physician's discretion. At 60 minutes, all patients were asked again whether they wanted more pain medication. The primary outcome was successful treatment defined a priori as not wanting additional analgesia at either 15 or 60 minutes after the initial bolus. The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportion of patients with successful treatment who received the complete 1+1 protocol versus usual care with a per-protocol analysis. An intention-to-treat analysis was also performed. A 10% difference in rate of successful treatment was chosen a priori as a clinically meaningful difference. RESULTS: Of 167 patients in the 1+1 group, 156 received the full 1+1 protocol, whereas 171 received usual care. Of patients who received the 1+1 protocol, 92.3% (144/156) had successful treatment versus 76.6% (131/171) of usual care patients (difference=15.7%; 95% confidence interval 7.9% to 23.3%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 86.8% (145/167) of patients randomized to the 1+1 group received successful treatment versus 76.6% (131/171) of usual care patients (difference=10.2%; 95% confidence interval 2.0% to 18.3%). No patient required naloxone. One patient in the 1+1 group and 2 patients in the usual care group had transient oxygen saturation less than 95%. The incidence of all adverse effects was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: When analyzed per protocol or with the more conservative intention-to-treat analysis, the 1+1 hydromorphone protocol is statistically and clinically more efficacious than usual care. Safety profiles were similar in both groups.

Characteristics of medical students interested in emergency medicine with intention to practice in underserved areas.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments serve a wide variety of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender backgrounds. It is currently unknown what characteristics of students who express interest in emergency medicine (EM) are associated with a simultaneous desire to work in medically underserved areas. We hypothesize that those who are underrepresented in medicine, are female, learn another language, and have more student debt will be more likely to practice in a medically underserved area. METHODS: Data from the National Board of Medical Examiners, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Student Record System, and the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire were collected on a national cohort of 92,013 U.S. medical students who matriculated from 2007 through 2012. Extracted variables included planned practice area, intention to practice in underserved areas, race/ethnicity, sex, medical school experiences, age at matriculation, debt at graduation, and first-attempt USMLE Step 1 score. RESULTS: EM-intending students who identified as female, non-Hispanic Black/African American, or Latinx/Hispanic; had a larger debt at graduation; had experiences with health education in the community; had global health experience; and had learned more than one language were more likely to report an intention to practice in underserved areas. CONCLUSION: With the increasing importance of physician diversity to match those of the community being served, this study identifies factors associated with a desire of EM students to work in underserved areas. Medical schools and EM residencies may wish to consider these factors in their admissions process.

Identifying the minimum clinically significant difference in acute pain in the elderly.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify the minimum clinically significant difference in pain in elderly emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective study of a convenience sample of patients aged 65 years or older with acute pain. Patients rated their pain on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) on entering the study and every 30 minutes for 2 hours. The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding NRS scores when the subject described his or her pain as "a little less pain" or "a little more pain." The proportional minimum clinically significant difference was change in NRS in a 30-minute interval divided by the NRS at the beginning of the interval. We used generalized estimating equations to adjust for nonindependence of pain scores and to test trend over time. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled (mean age 74 years; 73% women; 51% Hispanic; 33% black). The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference averaged over all periods was 1.5 (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6), the proportional minimum clinically significant difference was 25% (95% confidence interval 20% to 29%). The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference unexpectedly decreased over time: 2.1 from baseline to 30 minutes, 1.4 from 30 to 60 minutes, 1.3 from 60 to 90 minutes, and 1.0 from 90 to 120 minutes (P<.001). In contrast, the proportional differences were more stable: 27% from baseline to 30 minutes, 22% from 30 to 60 minutes, 22% from 60 to 90 minutes, and 28% from 90 to 120 minutes (P=.89). CONCLUSION: The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference in older ED patients was 1.5 NRS units and decreased over time, whereas the proportional change was 25% and more stable.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravenous (IV) Acetaminophen as an Adjunct to IV Hydromorphone for Acute Severe Pain in Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental challenge for emergency department (ED) clinicians is to relieve severe, acute pain while simultaneously avoiding adverse events associated with opioid analgesics. Because there is evidence that intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is an effective adjuvant analgesic in postoperative settings, we examined whether it also has a role in the ED. METHODS: This was a two-arm, double-blind randomized clinical trial. All patients received 1 mg of IV hydromorphone. Patients were then randomized to receive 1 g of IV acetaminophen or placebo. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in pain from baseline (before treatment) to 60 minutes after administration of study drugs, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). RESULTS: Of 828 patients screened, 162 were enrolled and 159 had the primary outcome. Patients allocated to acetaminophen + hydromorphone had a mean decline in pain from baseline to 60 minutes of 6.2 NRS units; those receiving placebo + hydromorphone had a mean decline of 5.4, a difference of 0.8 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.01 to 1.8). Two patients in each group received additional analgesics in the first 60 minutes of the study. At 120 minutes the NRS pain difference was 0.6 (95% CI = -0.4 to 1.6). A total of 26.9% of patients who received acetaminophen wanted more analgesia versus 37.7% of those given placebo (difference = -10.8%, 95% CI = -24.3% to 4.4%). The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1 g of IV acetaminophen to 1 mg of IV hydromorphone provided neither clinically meaningful nor statistically superior analgesia than hydromorphone alone.

Disparities in Acute Pain Treatment by Cognitive Status in Older Adults With Hip Fracture.

BACKGROUND: We examined the disparities in emergency department (ED) pain treatment based on cognitive status in older adults with an acute hip fracture. METHODS: Observational study in an academic ED in the Bronx, New York. One hundred forty-four adults aged 65 years and older with acute hip fracture were administered the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) while in the ED. The primary outcome was receipt of any parenteral analgesic. The risk factor of interest was cognitive impairment (TICS ≤ 25). Secondary outcomes included receipt of any opioid, receipt of any analgesic, total dose of analgesics in intravenous morphine equivalent units (MEQ), and time to receiving first analgesic. RESULTS: Of the 87 (60%) study patients who were cognitively impaired, 60% received a parenteral analgesic compared to 79% of the 57 cognitively unimpaired patients (RR 0.76 [95% CI 0.61, 0.94]). The effect of cognitive impairment on receiving any opioids (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.67, 0.98) and any analgesic (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.01) was similar. The median analgesic dose in cognitively impaired patients was significantly lower than in cognitively unimpaired patients (4 MEQ vs 8 MEQ, p = .003). CONCLUSION: Among older adults presenting to the ED with acute hip fracture, cognitive impairment was independently associated with lower likelihood of receiving analgesia and lower amount of opioid analgesia.

Randomized clinical trial comparing a patient-driven titration protocol of intravenous hydromorphone with traditional physician-driven management of emergency department patients with acute severe pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We test the null hypothesis that the "1+1" hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is clinically and statistically equivalent in safety and efficacy to that of traditional physician-driven administration of opioids for emergency department (ED) treatment of acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of nonelderly adults presenting to an urban academic ED with acute pain of sufficient severity to warrant intravenous (IV) opioids in the judgment of the attending physician. Patients randomized to the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol received 1 mg IV hydromorphone followed by a second 1-mg dose 15 minutes later if the patient responded affirmatively to the question, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients in the physician-driven group received any IV opioid in the dose chosen by the ED attending physician, with any additional analgesia provided at the discretion of that physician. The primary outcome was the difference in improvement in pain between the 2 groups at 60 minutes, as measured by a validated and reproducible numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypoventilation, hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and use of naloxone. RESULTS: The mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain scores for the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group was 5.6 versus 4.5 in the physician-driven group. The difference of 1.1 numeric rating scale units (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 1.9) was statistically significant but fell 0.2 numeric rating scale units short of the 1.3 numeric rating scale unit threshold required to attain clinically significant efficacy. Safety profiles were similarly satisfactory in both groups. Ninety-four percent of the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group achieved adequate analgesia (as defined by the patient) within 60 minutes of protocol initiation. CONCLUSION: The 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is statistically superior and at least as clinically efficacious and safe as traditional physician-driven treatment of ED patients with acute severe pain. More than 9 of 10 patients randomized to the study protocol achieved satisfactory pain control, as defined by the patient, within an hour or less.

Safety and efficacy of rapid titration using 1mg doses of intravenous hydromorphone in emergency department patients with acute severe pain: the "1+1" protocol.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the safety and efficacy of a pain protocol using 1 mg intravenous (IV) hydromorphone followed by an optional dose of 1 mg IV hydromorphone 15 minutes later. METHODS: Prospective interventional study at an urban academic emergency department (ED). One milligram of IV hydromorphone was administered to adults 21 to 64 years of age who had acute severe pain. Fifteen minutes later, patients were asked whether they wanted more pain medication. If they answered yes, they received another 1 mg of IV hydromorphone and were again asked 15 minutes later whether they wanted more pain medication. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients who had adequate analgesia, defined as declining additional hydromorphone within 1 hour of entering the protocol. The primary safety outcome was incidence of oxygen desaturation less than 95%. Secondary outcomes included numeric rating scale pain scores and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 223 patients with complete data, 1 mg IV hydromorphone provided adequate analgesia for 77% (95% confidence interval 71% to 82%) within 15 minutes and 96% (95% confidence interval 92% to 98%) within 1 hour of entering the protocol. Eighty-six percent of patients reported pain scores that decreased by 2 or more numeric rating scale units. Five percent experienced transient oxygen desaturation below 95%, which was corrected promptly with oxygen. CONCLUSION: A rapid titration protocol using IV hydromorphone (1 mg hydromorphone followed by an optional 1 mg 15 minutes later) is efficacious in nonelderly ED patients with acute severe pain. There were no serious adverse events.