The effectiveness of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with migraine presenting to emergency settings: A systematic review and network analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with acute migraine. BACKGROUND: Parenteral agents have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness of different approaches is unclear. METHODS: Nine electronic databases and gray literature sources were searched to identify randomized clinical trials assessing parenteral agents to treat acute migraine pain in emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment, with differences being resolved by adjudication. The protocol of the review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018100096). RESULTS: A total of 97 unique studies were included, with most studies reporting a high or unclear risk of bias. Monotherapy, as well as combination therapy, successfully reduced pain scores prior to discharge. They also increased the proportion of patients reporting pain relief and being pain free. Across the pain outcomes assessed, combination therapy was one of the higher ranked approaches and provided robust improvements in pain outcomes, including lowering pain scores (mean difference -3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.64 to -2.08) and increasing the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (risk ratio [RR] 2.83, 95% CI 1.74-4.61). Neuroleptics and metoclopramide also ranked high in terms of the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (neuroleptics RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.12-3.60; metoclopramide RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.90-3.49) and being pain free before emergency department discharge (neuroleptics RR 4.8, 95% CI 3.61-6.49; metoclopramide RR 4.1, 95% CI 3.02-5.44). Most parenteral agents were associated with increased adverse events, particularly combination therapy and neuroleptics. CONCLUSIONS: Various parenteral agents were found to provide effective pain relief. Considering the consistent improvements across various outcomes, combination therapy, as well as monotherapy of either metoclopramide or neuroleptics are recommended as first-line options for managing acute migraine pain. There are risks of adverse events, especially akathisia, following treatment with these agents. We recommend that a shared decision-making model be considered to effectively identify the best treatment option based on the patient's needs.

The 2023 protocol for update to acute treatment of adults with migraine in the emergency department: The American Headache Society evidence assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this proposed guideline is to update the prior 2016 guideline on parenteral pharmacotherapies for the management of adults with a migraine attack in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We will conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis using the 2016 guideline methodology to provide clinical recommendations. The same search strategy will be used for studies up to 2023, with a new search strategy added to capture studies of nerve blocks and sphenopalatine blocks. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform will be searched. Our inclusion criteria consist of studies involving adults with a diagnosis of migraine, utilizing medications administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously in a randomized controlled trial design. Two authors will perform the selection of studies based on title and abstract, followed by a full-text review. A third author will intervene in cases of disagreements. Data will be recorded in a standardized worksheet and subjected to verification. The risk of bias will be assessed using the American Academy of Neurology tool. When applicable, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The efficacy of medications will be evaluated, categorizing them as "highly likely," "likely", or "possibly effective" or "ineffective." Subsequently, clinical recommendations will be developed, considering the risk associated with the medications, following the American Academy of Neurology recommendation development process. RESULTS: The goal of this updated guideline will be to provide guidance on which injectable medications, including interventional approaches (i.e., nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion), should be considered effective acute treatment for adults with migraine who present to an ED. CONCLUSIONS: The methods outlined in this protocol will be used in the design of a future systematic review and meta-analysis-informed guideline, which will then be assessed by and submitted for endorsement by the American Headache Society.

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.

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.

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.

Barriers and Best Practices for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Emergency Medicine.

Patient-reported outcome measures are commonly used in clinical trials and have been incorporated into routine clinical care in select specialties but have not been widely implemented in emergency medicine research and clinical care. We describe measurement-related barriers to patient-reported outcome measure use in the emergency department; administrative and practical considerations; implications of developing novel emergency medicine-specific patient-reported outcome measures; and key considerations for the use of patient-reported outcome measures in emergency medicine research and clinical care. Despite the unique barriers of the ED environment, potential solutions include the use of ED-validated patient-reported outcome measures when available; adapting existing short-form, multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures previously validated in diverse populations, ideally using computer-adapted testing; and collecting responses during anticipated wait times. With this work, we aim to inform barriers and best practices to the use of patient-reported outcome measures in emergency medicine research and clinical care to support future, more widespread implementation of patient-reported outcome measures within emergency care. The successful adoption of patient-reported outcome measures for diverse ED patient populations within the unique constraints of the acute care environment may help researchers, clinicians, and policymakers improve the quality and patient-centeredness of acute care.

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.

Oxycodone induced euphoria in ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. A secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Some opioid-naïve patients with acute musculoskeletal pain who are treated with opioids develop persistent opioid use. The impact of opioid-induced euphoria on this transition to persistent use has not been explored. We determined whether opioid-induced euphoria could be measured as a phenomenon distinct from relief of pain. METHODS: Patients with acute pain were randomized to receive oxycodone/acetaminophen (Oxy) or acetaminophen (APAP). We measured pain using a 0-10 verbal scale. To assess euphoria, participants provided a 0-10 response to each of these: 1) How good did the medication make you feel?; 2) How high did the medication make you feel?; 3) How blissful did the medication make you feel? We analyzed these data using successive multivariable linear regression models, in which each of these items was the dependent variable, and improvement in pain and medication were the independent variables, while controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: 75 were randomized to Oxy, 76 to APAP. Mean "how good" scores were 6.3 (SD 3.3) in the Oxy group and 4.8 (3.3) in the APAP group. Mean "how high" scores were 3.8 (3.7) in the Oxy group and 2.0 (3.0) in the APAP group. Mean "how blissful" scores were 4.9 (3.7) in the Oxy group and 3.1 (3.4) in the APAP group. After controlling for improvement in pain, age, and sex, the between-group difference in "how good" was 1.0 (95%CI: -0.1, 2.0), "how high" 1.5 (95% CI 0.4, 2.6), and "how blissful" 1.5 (95%CI: 0.4, 2.7). DISCUSSION: "How high" and "how blissful" but not "how good" were associated with opioid use after controlling for improvement in pain.

Should COVID-19 symptoms be used to cohort patients in the emergency department? A retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how cohorting patients based on presenting complaints affects risk of nosocomial infection in crowded Emergency Departments (EDs) under conditions of high and low prevalence of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of presenting complaints and PCR tests collected during the COVID-19 epidemic from 4 EDs from a large hospital system in Bronx County, NY, from May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) were calculated for a symptom screen based on the CDC list of COVID-19 symptoms: fever/chills, shortness of breath/dyspnea, cough, muscle or body ache, fatigue, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, nasal congestion/runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. PPV was calculated for varying values of prevalence. RESULTS: There were 80,078 visits with PCR tests. The sensitivity of the symptom screen was 64.7% (95% CI: 63.6, 65.8), specificity 65.4% (65.1, 65.8). PPV was 16.8% (16.5, 17.0) and NPV was 94.5% (94.4, 94.7) when the observed prevalence of COVID-19 in the ED over the year was 9.7%. The PPV of fever/chills, cough, body and muscle aches and nasal congestion/runny nose were each approximately 25% across the year, while diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and headache were less predictive, (PPV 4.7%-9.6%) The combinations of fever/chills, cough, muscle/body aches, and shortness of breath had PPVs of 40-50%. The PPV of the screen varied from 3.7% (3.6, 3.8) at 2% prevalence of COVID-19 to 44.3% (44.0, 44.7) at 30% prevalence. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients with a chief complaint of COVID-19 symptoms and confirmed COVID-19 infection was exceeded by the proportion without actual infection. This was true when prevalence in the ED was as high as 30%. Cohorting of patients based on the CDC's list of COVID-19 symptoms will expose many patients who do not have COVID-19 to risk of nosocomially acquired COVID-19. EDs should not use the CDC list of COVID-19 symptoms as the only strategy to minimize exposure.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Intranasal Fentanyl as an Analgesic Adjunct For Incision and Drainage of Abscess.

BACKGROUND: Incision and drainage (I&D) of abscesses is one of the most painful procedures performed in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVE: We tested the following hypothesis: The addition of intranasal fentanyl to the standard practice of local infiltration with lidocaine would provide better pain control than lidocaine alone for adult ED patients undergoing I&D. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind study. Participants received 2 µg/kg of intranasal fentanyl or a comparable amount of intranasal water in addition to local lidocaine infiltration. The primary outcome, which we assessed immediately after the I&D was completed, was a summary 0-10 pain score for which we asked study subjects to provide a number depicting their entire experience with the procedure. RESULTS: During a 19-month enrollment period, we screened 176 patients for eligibility and enrolled 49; 25 received placebo and 24 received fentanyl. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mean (standard deviation) summary pain scores were as follows: fentanyl 6.2 (3.3) and placebo 7.0 (3.2). The 95% confidence interval for a rounded between-group difference of 0.9 was -1.1 to 2.6. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, the addition of intranasal fentanyl did not substantially impact the pain scores of ED patients undergoing I&D.

The Relative Efficacy of Seven Skeletal Muscle Relaxants. An Analysis of Data From Randomized Studies.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) causes 2.6 million visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) annually. These patients are often treated with skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs). OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether efficacy of SMRs is associated with age, sex, or baseline LBP severity. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of data from 4 randomized studies of patients with acute nonradicular LBP. Patients were enrolled during an ED visit and followed-up 1 week later. The primary outcome was improvement in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and the 1-week follow-up. We compared the change in RMDQ among 8 groups: placebo, baclofen, metaxalone, tizanidine, diazepam, orphenadrine, methocarbamol, and cyclobenzaprine. All patients also received a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. We performed analysis of variance to determine statistically significant differences between medications and linear regression to determine the association of age, sex, and baseline severity with the primary outcome. RESULTS: The mean improvement in RMDQ per group was placebo 10.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-11.5), baclofen 10.6 (95% CI 8.6-12.7), metaxalone 10.3 (95% CI 8.1-12.4), tizanidine 11.5 (95% CI 9.5-13.4), diazepam 11.1 (95% CI 9-13.2), orphenadrine 9.5 (95% CI 7.4-11.5), methocarbamol 8.1 (95% CI 6.1-10.1), and cyclobenzaprine 10.1 (95% CI 8.3-12). The between-group differences were not statistically significantly different. Results were similar regardless of age, sex, and baseline severity. Higher baseline RMDQ was associated with greater clinical improvement (B coefficient 5.7, p < 0.01). Adverse medication effects were more common with cyclobenzaprine than with placebo (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ED with acute LBP treated with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMRs do not improve outcomes more than placebo. Neither age, sex, nor baseline impairment impacts these results.

A randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine versus IV hydromorphone for migraine-associated symptoms: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized trial among emergency department patients with migraine to determine the relative impact on migraine-associated symptoms of hydromorphone, an opioid, versus prochlorperazine, an antidopaminergic antiemetic. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind study registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02389829). Patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for migraine without aura or for probable migraine without aura were eligible for participation. Participants received either hydromorphone 1 mg IV or prochlorperazine 10 mg IV plus diphenhydramine 25 mg IV and could receive a second dose of the same medication 1 h later if needed. The outcomes were sustained relief of nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients were enrolled, of whom 63 received prochlorperazine and 64 received hydromorphone. Of 49 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported nausea at baseline, 34 (69.4%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 15/49 (30.6%) in the hydromorphone arm (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 38.8%, 95% CI: 20.5%-57.0%, p < 0.001). Of 55 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported photophobia at baseline, 23 (41.8%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 13/62 (20.9%) patients treated with hydromorphone (ARR = 20.8%, 95% CI: 4.3%-37.3%, p = 0.014). Of 56 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported phonophobia at baseline, 25 (44.6%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 16/59 (27.1%) in the hydromorphone arm (ARR = 17.5%, 95% CI: 0.3%-34.8%, p = 0.049). For adverse events, three patients in the prochlorperazine arm reported anxiety or restlessness, and nine patients in the hydromorphone arm reported dizziness or weakness. CONCLUSIONS: Prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine is more efficacious than hydromorphone for the treatment of migraine-associated symptoms.

Second-line interventions for migraine in the emergency department: A narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: Millions of patients present to US emergency departments (ED) annually for the treatment of migraine. First-line treatments, including metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan, fail to provide sufficient relief in up to one-third of treated patients. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of injectable (intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous) medications for patients in the ED who fail to improve sufficiently after treatment with first-line medication. METHODS: We used the American Headache Society's guideline, "Management of Adults with Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Parenteral Pharmacotherapies," published in 2016, to identify first-line medications for migraine. We then conducted a PubMed search to determine whether any evidence supported the use of these medications as second-line therapy and whether any evidence existed to support the use of injectable therapies not discussed in the guideline as second-line therapy. RESULTS: We identified only scant high-quality randomized data of second-line therapy. Therefore, we based our recommendations on medications that have reliably demonstrated efficacy as first-line treatment of migraine. These medications include injectable non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. Dihydroergotamine and valproic acid have some data supporting efficacy. More recently, greater occipital nerve blocks (GONBs) have been shown to be efficacious. With the exception of meperidine, opioids have been shown to be not efficacious. Most data published to date demonstrate no role for propofol and ketamine. CONCLUSIONS: There are no evidence-based second-line treatments of migraine in the ED setting. For patients with migraine, who fail to improve after treatment with a first-line medication, it is reasonable to use an intravenous NSAID or intravenous acetaminophen. Alternatively, clinicians adept at performing a GONB may offer this treatment.

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.

Clinical predictors of poor 30-day headache outcomes after an emergency department visit for acute post-traumatic headache.

PURPOSE: We investigated clinical risk factors that predict poor 30-day headache outcomes among patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED) for post-traumatic headache (PTH). METHODS: This was an analysis of data from a randomized, placebo-controlled study of IV metoclopramide + diphenhydramine for acute PTH. Patients were enrolled during an ED visit and received telephone follow-up with a structured questionnaire 30 days later. The primary outcome was frequency of headaches 30 days after ED discharge. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine which clinical variables were associated with frequent headaches at 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 160 patients were enrolled in the study. 134 (84%) patients completed the 30-day questionnaire and were included in the analysis, including 90 females and 44 males. 30 patients (22%, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.30) reported frequent headaches at 30-day follow-up. In the multivariable analysis, female sex (OR = 4.03, 95% CI = 1.23±13.13), patients who blamed themselves for their injury (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04±0.45), and patients who were unsure if they sustained loss of consciousness during the traumatic incident (OR = 5.63, 95% CI = 1.89±16.78) were found to be associated with poor 30-day outcomes. Medication received in the ED and age were not associated. CONCLUSIONS: More than 1 out of five patients treated in the ED for acute PTH experienced frequent headaches 30 days later. Women and patients who were uncertain as to whether they had experienced loss of consciousness were at increased risk of frequent PTH. Blaming oneself for the head trauma was associated with less frequent PTH.

Inflammatory markers are poorly predictive of clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory markers are often elevated in patients with COVID-19. The objective of this study is to assess the prognostic capability of these tests in predicting clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study including all patients at least 16 years old with COVID-19 who were admitted from one of five Emergency Departments between March 6th and April 4th, 2020. We included 1123 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19. We analyzed white blood cell count (WBC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), D-dimer, ferritin, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We looked at clinical outcomes including death, the need for endotracheal intubation (ETT), the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU admission. We report Spearman's ρ2 and statistical significance for each correlation with outcomes. We also report positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, and negative likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The mean age of our patient population was 62 (SD 16). Thirty-seven percent of patients self-reported Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 47% reported their race as Black or African-American, and 10% reported their race as non-Hispanic white. Inter-rater reliability was 96%. There was no laboratory value that had both sensitivity and specificity of at least 0.90, or that had a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of at least 0.90, or that had likelihood ratios that could reliably predict a severe course of disease. CONCLUSION: Inflammatory markers drawn within 48 h of arrival, though often correlated with clinical outcomes, are not individually highly predictive of which patients in a predominantly older and minority population will die or require intubation, RRT, or ICU admission.

Under Treatment of High-Risk TIA Patients with Clopidogrel-Aspirin in the Emergency Setting.

BACKGROUND: Treating high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces subsequent ischemic stroke risk yet current rates of clopidogrel-aspirin treatment are uncertain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive TIA patients who presented to any of the four emergency departments (ED) of a single urban health system from 1/1/2018-3/1/2020. Medical record review was used to describe the cohort and assess clopidogrel-aspirin treatment. Patient eligibility for clopidogrel-aspirin was determined using relevant criteria from the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) Trial. Comparisons among eligible patients who received versus did not receive clopidogrel-aspirin were conducted using t-test, chi-squared, and Mann-Whitney as indicated. RESULTS: We identified 248 TIA patients of whom 95 met eligibility criteria for clopidogrel-aspirin treatment. Among these 95 patients, mean age was 69.5 (SD: 12), 68.4% were women, and median ABCD2 score was 5 (IQR: 4-6). A total of 26/95 (27.4%) eligible patients received clopidogrel-aspirin within 24 hours of symptom onset. Appropriate clopidogrel-aspirin use was associated with having a stroke code called upon ED arrival (88.5% vs. 34.8%; P<0.001), being evaluated by a vascular neurologist (88.5% vs. 21.1%; P<0.001), and not presenting to the community ED site wherein only a single patient received clopidogrel-aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: In a multisite, single health system study, nearly three-fourths of high-risk TIA patients eligible for clopidogrel-aspirin treatment did not receive it. Appropriate clopidogrel-aspirin use was highest among patients seen by vascular neurologists and lowest at the community ED, though under treatment was evident at all sites.

A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Emergency Department-Based Study of Greater Occipital Nerve Block With Bupivacaine vs Intravenous Metoclopramide for Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Greater occipital nerve blocks (GONB) are used increasingly to treat acute migraine. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether GONB was as effective as intravenous metoclopramide for migraine. METHODS: This was a double-dummy, double-blind, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study conducted in 2 emergency departments (EDs). Patients with migraine of moderate or severe intensity were randomized to receive bilateral GONB with each side administered 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% or metoclopramide 10 mg IV, the putative standard of care. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on a 0-10 scale between time 0 and 1 hour later. To reject the null hypothesis that metoclopramide would be more efficacious in relieving pain, we required that the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in pain improvement between those randomized to GONB vs those randomized to metoclopramide be >-1.3, a validated minimum clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included sustained headache relief, defined as achieving and maintaining for 48 hours a headache level of mild or none without the use of additional analgesic medication, and the use of rescue medication in the ED. RESULTS: Over a 2.5-year study period, 1358 patients were screened for participation and 99 were randomized, 51 to GONB and 48 to metoclopramide. All of these patients were included in the primary analysis. Patients who received the GONB reported mean improvement of 5.0 (95% CI: 4.1, 5.8) while those who received metoclopramide reported a larger mean improvement of 6.1 (95% CI: 5.2, 6.9). The 95% CI for the between group difference of -1.1 was -2.3, 0.1. Sustained headache relief was reported by 11/51 (22%) GONB and 18/47 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: -1, 35%). Of the 51 GONB patients, 17 (33%) required rescue medication in the ED vs 8/48 (17%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: 0, 33%). An adverse event was reported by 16/51 (31%) GONB patients and 18/48 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for (rounded) difference of 6%: -13, 25%). CONCLUSION: GONB with bupivacaine was not as efficacious as IV metoclopramide for the first-line treatment of migraine in the ED.

Opioid Use During the Six Months After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Despite the frequent use of opioids to treat acute pain, the long-term risks and analgesic benefits of an opioid prescription for an individual emergency department (ED) patient with acute pain are still poorly understood and inadequately quantified. Our objective was to determine the frequency of recurrent or persistent opioid use during the 6 months after the ED visit METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of opioid-naive patients presenting to 2 EDs for acute pain who were prescribed an opioid at discharge. Patients were followed by telephone 6 months after the ED visit. Additionally, we reviewed the statewide prescription monitoring program database. Outcomes included frequency of recurrent and persistent opioid use and frequency of persistent moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit. Persistent opioid use was defined as filling greater than or equal to 6 prescriptions during the 6-month study period. RESULTS: During 9 months beginning in November 2017, 733 patients were approached for participation. Four hundred eighty-four met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Four hundred ten patients (85%) provided 6-month telephone data. The prescription monitoring database was reviewed for all 484 patients (100%). Most patients (317/484, 66%; 95% confidence interval 61% to 70%) filled only the initial prescription they received in the ED. One in 5 patients (102/484, 21%; 95% confidence interval 18% to 25%) filled at least 2 prescriptions within the 6-month period. Five patients (1%; 95% confidence interval 0% to 2%) met criteria for persistent opioid use. Of these 5 patients, all but 1 reported moderate or severe pain in the affected body part 6 months later. CONCLUSION: Although 1 in 5 opioid-naive ED patients who received an opioid prescription for acute pain on ED discharge filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 6 months, only 1% had persistent opioid use. These patients with persistent opioid use were likely to report moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of Urgent Care Visits and Revisits for Headache/Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Increasingly, patients are seeking same-day care at urgent care (UC) facilities. Little is known about the health care utilization patterns of patients who visit UC facilities for headache and migraine. We examined the frequency of headache and migraine visits and revisits at UC facilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of headache not otherwise specified (NOS) and migraine visits from 67 NYC UC facilities over an eight-month period. We report descriptive analyses, the frequency of headache NOS revisits, and the elapsed time to revisits. RESULTS: There were 10,240 patients who visited UC facilities for headache NOS or migraine within the eight-month period. The majority of patients, 6,994 (68.3%), were female, and the mean age (SD) was 35.1 (15.0) years. Most (93.9%) patients (N = 9,613) lived within 60 miles of NYC; 5.5% (N = 564) had at least one revisit, and among re-visitors, there was an average (SD) of 2.2 (0.7) visits to UC facilities during the study period and an average time to revisit (SD) of 61.3 (55.2) days. CONCLUSIONS: In just eight months, there were >10,000 headache NOS and migraine visits to UC facilities in NYC, with half of revisits occurring within 90 days. Future work should examine headache management in UC facilities.