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.

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.

Post-severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Hospitalizations as a Sentinel for Emergence of Viral Variants in New York City.

We partnered with the US Department of Health and Human Services to treat high-risk, nonadmitted coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with bamlanivimab in the Bronx, New York per Emergency Use Authorization criteria. Increasing posttreatment hospitalizations were observed monthly between December 2020 and March 2021 in parallel to the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants in New York City.

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.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen as an Analgesic Adjunct for Older Adults With Acute Severe Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are at risk for undertreatment of pain. We examined intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an analgesic adjunct to IV opioids in the care of older emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, New York. Eligible adults aged 65 years and older with acute severe pain were randomized to 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 1 g of IV acetaminophen or 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 100 mL of normal saline placebo. The primary outcome was the between group difference in improvement of numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 60 minutes. Secondary outcomes were the between-group differences in the proportion of patients who chose to forgo additional pain medications at 60 minutes; the proportion who developed side effects; the proportion who required rescue analgesia; and between-group differences in NRS pain scores at 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were allocated to each arm. Eighty patients in the IV acetaminophen arm and 79 patients in the placebo arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group improved by 5.7 NRS units while those in the hydromorphone + placebo group improved by 5.2 NRS units, for a difference of 0.6 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.4 to 1.5). A total of 28.7% of patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group wanted more analgesia at 60 minutes versus 29.1% in the hydromorphone + placebo group, for a difference of -0.4% (95% CI = -14.3% to 13.5%). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. Safety profiles were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of IV acetaminophen to IV hydromorphone as an adjunctive analgesic for acute, severe, pain in older adults provided neither clinically nor statistically superior pain relief when compared to hydromorphone alone within the first hour of treatment.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen Versus Intravenous Hydromorphone for the Treatment of Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: As clinicians look to nonnarcotic analgesics in the emergency department (ED), it is essential to understand the effectiveness and adverse effects of nonopioid medications in comparison with existing opioid treatments. Studies of intravenous acetaminophen for acute pain in the ED demonstrate mixed results and suffer from small sample sizes and methodological limitations. This study compares intravenous hydromorphone with intravenous acetaminophen in adult ED patients presenting with acute pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing 1 g intravenous acetaminophen with 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone for treatment of adults with severe, acute pain in the ED. The primary outcome was between-group difference in change in numeric rating scale from baseline to 60 minutes postadministration of study medication. Secondary outcomes included the difference in proportion of patients in each group who declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes, received additional medication before 60 minutes, and developed nausea, vomiting, or pruritus. RESULTS: Of 220 subjects randomized, 103 patients in each arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, the mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain score was 5.3 in the hydromorphone arm and 3.3 in the acetaminophen arm, a difference of 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 2.7) favoring hydromorphone. A greater proportion of patients in the hydromorphone arm also declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes (65% versus 44%; difference 21%; (95% CI 8% to 35%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients receiving rescue analgesia before 60 minutes. Significantly more subjects in the hydromorphone group developed nausea (19% versus 3%; difference 16%; 95% CI 4% to 28%) and vomiting (14% versus 3%; difference 11%; 95% CI 0% to 23%). CONCLUSION: Although both 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 1 g intravenous acetaminophen provided clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores, treatment with hydromorphone provided both clinically and statistically greater analgesia than acetaminophen, at the cost of a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Pain One Week After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Low Back Pain Is Associated With Poor Three-month Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 million visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) annually. Nearly 30% of patients who present to an ED with acute LBP report functional impairment or pain 3 months later. These patients are at risk of chronic LBP, a highly debilitating condition. In this study, we assessed whether three variables assessable shortly after symptom onset could independently predict poor 3-month outcomes among LBP patients who present to an ED. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of data from two randomized comparative effectiveness studies of patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP. Patients were enrolled during an ED visit, contacted by telephone 1 week after the ED visit, and then followed up by telephone 3 months later. The coprimary 3-month outcomes were LBP-related functional impairment and persistent moderate or severe LBP. Two of the three hypothesized predictor variables were assessed during the index visit: 1) the STarT Back Screening Tool score, a nine-item, multidimensional tool validated and widely used in the outpatient setting, and 2) the patient's own anticipated duration of LBP. The third hypothesized predictor was presence of pain assessed by phone 1 week after the ED visit. We then determined whether these three predictor variables were independently associated with poor outcomes at 3 months, after controlling for medication received, age, and sex. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were enrolled. Of these, 309 (87%) provided 3-month impairment data and 311 (88%) provided 3-month pain data. At 3 months, 122 of 309 (39%) patients reported functional impairment and 51 of 311(16%) patients reported moderate or severe LBP. Among the three hypothesized predictor variables, 58 of 352 (16%) patients with available data reported a moderate or high STarT Back Screening Tool score, 35 of 321 (11%) patients with available data reported anticipated duration of LBP > 1 week, and 235 of 346 (68%) patients reported pain at 1-week telephone follow-up. After age, sex, and medication received were controlled for in a multivariable logistic regression model, only pain at 1 week was independently associated with 3-month impairment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.39-4.22) and 3-month moderate or severe pain (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 1.53-9.58). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of patients reported functional impairment 3 months after an ED visit for acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP. Moderate or severe LBP was less common, reported in about half as many patients (16%). Of the three hypothesized predictor variables, only persistent pain at 1 week was independently associated with poor outcomes at 3 months. Despite its important role in the outpatient setting, the STarT Back Tool was not associated with poor outcomes in this ED cohort.

Opioid-Induced "Likeability" and "Feeling Good" Are Not Associated With Return Visits to an ED Among Migraine Patients Administered IV Hydromorphone.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral opioids are used in more than 50% of emergency department (ED) visits for migraine. Use of opioids for migraine has been associated with subsequent ED visits, perhaps because of opioid-induced euphoria. In this study, we quantify the extent to which nontherapeutic effects of opioids influence migraine outcomes. We hypothesized that "feeling good" and medication likeability would in fact be associated with receipt of opioids (rather than relief of migraine pain) and that receipt of opioids (rather than relief of migraine pain) would be associated with return visits to the ED. METHODS: During an ED-based clinical trial, migraine patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone 1 mg or prochlorperazine 10 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg IV. Thirty minutes after medication administration, we asked, (1) How much did you like the medication you received? and (2) How good did the medication make you feel? Participants were asked to provide answers on a 0-10 scale. We also determined 0-10 pain scores at baseline and 1 hour and number of return visits for headache during the subsequent month. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients received prochlorperazine and 64 hydromorphone. Prochlorperazine pain scores improved by 6.8 (SD: 2.6), hydromorphone by 4.7 (SD: 3.3) (95%CI for difference of 2.1: 1.0, 3.2). On the 0-10 likeability scale, prochlorperazine patients reported a mean of 7.2 (SD: 2.8), hydromorphone 6.9 (SD: 2.9) (95% CI for difference of 0.3: -0.7, 1.3). On the 0-10 feeling good scale, prochlorperazine patients reported a mean of 7.5 (SD: 2.3), hydromorphone 6.8 (SD: 2.8) (95%CI: for difference of 0.7: -0.2, 1.6). In the hydromorphone group, 8/57 (14%, 95%CI: 7, 26%) returned to the ED vs 5/63 (8%, 95%CI: 3,18%) in the prochlorperazine group. In regression modeling, feeling good was independently associated with pain relief (P < .01) but not with medication received (P = .67) or return visits (P = .12). Similarly, medication likeability was independently associated with pain relief (P < .01) but not medication received (P = .12) or return visits (P = .16). CONCLUSION: We did not detect an association between hydromorphone and medication likeability, feeling good, or return visits to the ED. Headache relief was associated with medication likeability and feeling good.

A randomized trial of intravenous ketorolac versus intravenous metoclopramide plus diphenhydramine for tension-type and all nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headaches.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously, combined with diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously, with ketorolac 30 mg intravenously in adults with tension-type headache and all nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headaches. METHODS: In this emergency department (ED)-based randomized, double-blind study, we enrolled adults with nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headaches. Patients with tension-type headache were a subgroup of special interest. Our primary outcome was a comparison of the improvement in pain score between baseline and 1 hour later, assessed on a 0 to 10 verbal scale. We defined a between-group difference of 2.0 as the minimum clinically significant difference. Secondary endpoints included need for rescue medication in the ED, achieving headache freedom in the ED and sustaining it for 24 hours, and patient's desire to receive the same medication again. RESULTS: We included 120 patients in the analysis. The metoclopramide/diphenhydramine arm improved by a median of 5 (interquartile range 3, 7) scale units, whereas the ketorolac arm improved by a median of 3 (IQR 2, 6) (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference 0 to 3). Metoclopramide+diphenhydramine was superior to ketorolac for all 3 secondary outcomes: the number needed to treat for not requiring ED rescue medication was 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); for sustained headache freedom, 6 (95% CI 3 to 20); and for wish to receive the same medication again, 7 (95% CI 4 to 65). Tension-type headache subgroup results were similar. CONCLUSION: For adults who presented to an ED with tension-type headache or with nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headache, intravenous metoclopramide+diphenhydramine provided more headache relief than intravenous ketorolac.

A randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive migraine intervention prior to discharge from an emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Patients who use an emergency department (ED) for acute migraine headaches have higher migraine disability scores, lower socioeconomic status, and are unlikely to have used a migraine-specific medication prior to presentation to the ED. The objective was to determine if a comprehensive migraine intervention, delivered just prior to ED discharge, could improve migraine impact scores 1 month after the ED visit. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive migraine intervention versus typical care among patients who presented to an ED for management of acute migraine. At the time of discharge, for patients randomized to comprehensive care, the research team reinforced their diagnosis, shared a migraine education presentation from the National Library of Medicine, provided them with six tablets of sumatriptan 100 mg and 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, and if they wished, provided them with an expedited free appointment to the institution's headache clinic. Patients randomized to typical care received the care their attending emergency physicians (EPs) felt was appropriate. The primary outcome was a between-group comparison of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score, a validated headache assessment instrument, 1 month after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included an assessment of satisfaction with headache care and use of migraine-specific medication within that 1-month period. RESULTS: Over a 19-month period, 50 migraine patients were enrolled. One-month follow-up was successfully obtained in 92% of patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-month HIT-6 scores in the two groups were nearly identical (59 vs. 56, 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3 = -5 to 11), as was dissatisfaction with overall headache care (17% vs. 18%, 95% CI for difference of 1% = -22% to 24%). Patients randomized to the comprehensive intervention were more likely to be using triptans or migraine-specific therapy (43% vs. 0%, 95% CI for difference of 43% = 20 to 63%) 1 month later. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive migraine intervention, when compared to typical care, did not improve HIT-6 scores (a validated measure of the effect of migraine on one's daily life) 1 month after ED discharge. Future work is needed to define a migraine intervention that is practical and useful in an ED, where many underserved patients, of necessity, present for care.

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.

A randomized controlled trial of prochlorperazine versus metoclopramide for treatment of acute migraine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare prochlorperazine 10 mg intravenously versus metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously for the emergency department (ED) treatment of acute migraine. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 parenteral dopamine antagonists. Both drugs were administered during 15 minutes with 25 mg intravenous diphenhydramine. Pain scores on a numeric rating scale were assessed at baseline, every 30 minutes for 2 hours, and by telephone 24 hours after discharge. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in change in numeric rating scale from baseline to 1 hour postbaseline. Secondary endpoints included mean differences in change in numeric rating scale at 2 and 24 hours, headache relief, adverse effects, and desire to receive the same treatment for future migraines. RESULTS: Of 152 patients screened, 97 were eligible and 77 were randomized. The mean change in numeric rating scale scores at 1 hour was 5.5 and 5.2 in subjects receiving prochlorperazine and metoclopramide, respectively (difference=0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.0 to 1.6). Findings were similar at 2 hours and 24 hours. Forty-six percent (18/39) of prochlorperazine and 32% (12/38) of metoclopramide subjects reported adverse events (difference=15%; 95% CI -6% to 36%). Seventy-seven percent (26/34) of prochlorperazine and 73% (27/37) of metoclopramide subjects wanted to receive the same medication in future ED visits (difference=4%; 95% CI -16% to 24%). CONCLUSION: Either prochlorperazine 10 mg intravenously or metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously, combined with diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously, is an efficacious treatment for ED patients with acute migraine. Three quarters of subjects in both arms would want the same medication for their next migraine.