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

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

Cultivating emergency physician behavioral empathy to improve emergency department care for pain and prescription opioid misuse.

Clinical empathy is the ability to understand the patient's experience, communicate that understanding, and act on it. There is evidence that patient and physician benefits are associated with more empathic communications. These include higher patient and physician satisfaction, improved quality of life, and decreased professional burnout for physicians, as well as increased patient compliance with care plans. Empathy appears to decline during medical school, residency training, and early professional emergency medicine practice; however, brief training has the potential to improve behavioral measures of empathy. Improvements in emergency department physician empathy seems especially important in managing patients at elevated risk for opioid-related harm. We describe our conceptual approach to identifying and designing a practice improvement curriculum aimed to cultivate and improve behavioral empathy among practicing emergency physicians. Emergent themes from our preliminary study of interviews, focus groups, and workshops were identified and analyzed for feasibility, sensitivity to change, and potential impact. A conceptual intervention will address the following key categories: patient stigmatization, identification of problematic pain-subtypes, empathic communication skills, interactions with family and friends, and techniques to manage inappropriate patient requests. The primary outcomes will be the changes in behavioral empathy associated with training. An assessment battery was chosen to measure physician psychosocial beliefs, attitudes and behavior, communication skills, and burnout magnitude. Additional outcomes will include opioid prescribing practice, naloxone prescribing, and referrals to addiction treatment. A pilot study will allow an estimation of the intervention impact to help finalize a curriculum suitable for web-based national implementation.

Drug Enforcement Administration Rescheduling of Hydrocodone Combination Products Is Associated With Changes in Physician Pain Management Prescribing Preferences.

Due to rising misuse, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moved hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) from DEA Schedule III to DEA Schedule II in October 2014. Aside from increasing regulatory scrutiny, rescheduling may have increased the administrative burden surrounding HCP prescribing. This study explored how HCP rescheduling and associated administrative barriers may have affected physician treatment of acute (aNCP) and chronic (cNCP) noncancer pain. To this end, physician members of the Texas Medical Association completed a self-administered online questionnaire. Pharmacotherapy treatment plan was measured with two questions asking physicians whether they were more likely to recommend HCPs, acetaminophen/codeine (APAP/codeine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, or other agents for the treatment of aNCP and cNCP. Two Likert-scaled items were used to assess administrative burden. In total, 1365 physicians responded (response rate = 15.39%). Physicians more frequently selected APAP/codeine (37%) for aNCP and tramadol (44%) for cNCP. A majority (78.8%) of physicians agreed that rescheduling led to modified prescribing, and those in agreement were significantly less likely than those who disagreed to prescribe HCPs for aNCP (24.2% vs. 56.4%; χ2 = 68.6, P < .001) and cNCP (16.9% vs. 37%; χ2 = 36.1, P < .001). Rescheduling and associated administrative burden are both associated with modified physician HCP prescribing in both aNCP and cNCP.

Depression and survival outcomes after emergency department cancer pain visits.

OBJECTIVES: Pain and depression frequently co-occur in patients with cancer. Although pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation by these patients, depression frequently goes unrecognised during an ED visit. In this study, we assessed the risk for depression in patients with cancer presenting to the ED for uncontrolled pain and assessed the extent to which the risk for depression was associated with survival in this population. METHODS: Participants were consecutive patients with cancer taking Schedule II opioids (n=209) who presented to the ED of a tertiary cancer centre for uncontrolled pain. Risk for depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), excluding the somatic symptoms. Survival was calculated from date of ED visit to date of death/last follow-up. RESULTS: The CES-D was completed by 197 of 209 participants (94.3%); of these, 81 of 197 (41.1%) had high risk for depression (CES-D ≥10). The mean survival time for the entire sample was 318 days (SD=33), with 84 deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling showed that risk for depression and disease stage (CES-D ≥10: HR=1.75, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78, p=0.016; disease stage: HR=2.52, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.30, p<0.001) were significant factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for depression was prevalent and associated with survival outcomes in patients with cancer presenting to the ED with uncontrolled pain. Screening for risk for depression in the ED may identify patients who need referral for clinical assessment of depression. Diagnosis and adequate treatment could improve health outcomes and survival rates for these patients.

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care.

We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients.

A Review of Current and Emerging Approaches to Pain Management in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the most common symptom prompting an emergency department visit and emergency physicians are responsible for managing both acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain resulting from a broad range of illnesses and injuries. The responsibility to treat must be balanced by the duty to limit harm resulting from analgesics. In recent years, opioid-related adverse effects, including overdose and deaths, have increased dramatically in the USA. In response to the US opioid crisis, emergency physicians have broadened their analgesic armamentarium to include a variety of non-opioid approaches. For some of these therapies, sparse evidence exists to support their efficacy for emergency department use. The purpose of this paper is to review historical trends and emerging approaches to emergency department analgesia, with a particular focus on the USA and Canada. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative review of past and current descriptive studies of emergency department pain practice, as well as clinical trials of emerging pain treatment modalities. The review considers the increasing use of non-opioid and multimodal analgesic therapies, including migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, subdissociative-dose ketamine, nitrous oxide, intravenous lidocaine and gabapentinoids, as well as broad programmatic initiatives promoting the use of non-opioid analgesics and nonpharmacologic interventions. RESULTS: While migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, nitrous oxide and subdissociative-dose ketamine are supported by a relatively robust evidence base, data supporting the emergency department use of intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids and various non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions remain sparse. CONCLUSION: Additional research on the relative safety and efficacy of non-opioid approaches to emergency department analgesia is needed. Despite a limited research base, it is likely that non-opioid analgesic modalities will be employed with increasing frequency. A new generation of emergency physicians is seeking additional training in pain medicine and increasing dialogue between emergency medicine and pain medicine researchers, educators and clinicians could contribute to better management of emergency department pain.

Advance Directives, Hospitalization, and Survival Among Advanced Cancer Patients with Delirium Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p < .0001 each). CONCLUSION: Delirium assessed by either CAM or MDAS was associated with worse survival and more hospitalization in patients with advanced cancer in an oncologic ED. Many advanced cancer patients with delirium in ED lack advance directives. Delirium should be assessed regularly and should trigger discussion of goals of care and advance directives. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Delirium is a devastating condition among advanced cancer patients. Early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED) should improve management of this life-threatening condition. However, delirium is frequently missed by ED clinicians, and the outcome of patients with delirium is unknown. This study finds that delirium assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method or the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale is associated with poor survival and more hospitalization among advanced cancer patients visiting the ED of a major cancer center, many of whom lack advance directives. Therefore, delirium in ED patients with cancer should trigger discussion about advance directives.

Discharge or admit? Emergency department management of incidental pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization and early anticoagulation therapy remain standard care for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with pulmonary embolism (PE). For PEs discovered incidentally, however, optimal therapeutic strategies are less clear-and all the more so when the patient has cancer, which is associated with a hypercoagulable state that exacerbates the threat of PE. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a historical cohort of patients with cancer and incidental PE who were referred for assessment to the ED in an institution whose standard of care is outpatient treatment of selected patients and use of low-molecular-weight heparin for anticoagulation. Eligible patients had received a diagnosis of incidental PE upon routine contrast enhanced chest CT for cancer staging. Survival data was collected at 30 days and 90 days from the date of ED presentation and at the end of the study. RESULTS: We identified 193 patients, 135 (70%) of whom were discharged and 58 (30%) of whom were admitted to the hospital. The 30-day survival rate was 92% overall, 99% for the discharged patients and 76% for admitted patients. Almost all (189 patients, 98%) commenced anticoagulation therapy in the ED; 170 (90%) of these received low-molecular-weight heparin. Patients with saddle pulmonary artery incidental PEs were more likely to die within 30 days (43%) than were those with main or lobar (11%), segmental (6%), or subsegmental (5%) incidental PEs. In multivariate analysis, Charlson comorbidity index (age unadjusted), hypoxemia, and incidental PE location (P = 0.004, relative risk 33.5 (95% CI 3.1-357.4, comparing saddle versus subsegmental PE) were significantly associated with 30-day survival. Age, comorbidity, race, cancer stage, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and incidental PE location were significantly associated with hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Selected cancer patients presenting to the ED with incidental PE can be treated with low-molecular-weight heparin anticoagulation and safely discharged. Avoidance of unnecessary hospitalization may decrease in-hospital infections and death, reduce healthcare costs, and improve patient quality of life. Because the natural history and optimal management of this condition is not well described, information supporting the creation of straightforward evidence-based practice guidelines for ED teams treating this specialized patient population is needed.

Physicians' intention to prescribe hydrocodone combination products after rescheduling: A theory of reasoned action approach.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduled hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) in an attempt to mitigate the prescription opioid epidemic. Many in the medical and pharmacy community expressed concerns of unintended consequences as a result of rescheduling. OBJECTIVES: This study examined physicians' intentions to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling using the framework of the theory of reasoned action (TRA). METHODS: A cover letter containing a link to the online questionnaire was sent to physicians of the Texas Medical Association who were likely to prescribe opioids. The questionnaire assessed physicians' intentions to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling. Predictor variables included attitude toward rescheduling, subjective norm toward HCP prescribing, and past prescribing behavior of schedule II prescriptions. All variables were measured on a 7-point, Likert-type scale. Intention to prescribe as a dependent variable was regressed over TRA variables and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1176 usable responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of 13.3%. Mean (M) age was 53.07 ± 11 and most respondents were male (70%) and Caucasian (75%). Physicians held a moderately positive intention to prescribe HCPs (M = 4.36 ± 2.08), held a moderately negative attitude towards rescheduling, M = 4.68 ± 1.51 (reverse coded). Subjective norm was moderately low, M = 3.06 ± 1.78, and past prescribing behavior M = 2.43 ± 1.21. The linear regression analysis indicated that attitude (ß = 0.10; P = 0.006), subjective norm (ß = 0.35; P < 0.0001) and past prescribing behavior (ß = 0.59; P < 0.0001) were significant predictors of intention to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling. CONCLUSIONS: TRA was shown to be a predictive model of physicians' intentions to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling. Overall, physicians held a moderately positive intention to prescribe HCPs. Past behavior concerning schedule II prescribing was found to be the most significant predictor of intention. Understanding the impact of federal rule changes on pain management care and patient satisfaction is necessary to determine whether this change has produced the intended consequences without harming patients in need of HCPs.

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

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

Regional Nerve Blocks Improve Pain and Functional Outcomes in Hip Fracture: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compared outcomes of regional nerve blocks with those of standard analgesics after hip fracture. DESIGN: Multisite randomized controlled trial from April 2009 to March 2013. SETTING: Three New York hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with hip fracture (N = 161). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided, single-injection, femoral nerve block administered by emergency physicians at emergency department (ED) admission followed by placement of a continuous fascia iliaca block by anesthesiologists within 24 hours (n = 79) or conventional analgesics (n = 82). MEASUREMENTS: Pain (0-10 scale), distance walked on Postoperative Day (POD) 3, walking ability 6 weeks after discharge, opioid side effects. RESULTS: Pain scores 2 hours after ED presentation favored the intervention group over controls (3.5 vs 5.3, P = .002). Pain scores on POD 3 were significantly better for the intervention than the control group for pain at rest (2.9 vs 3.8, P = .005), with transfers out of bed (4.7 vs 5.9, P = .005), and with walking (4.1 vs 4.8, P = .002). Intervention participants walked significantly further than controls in 2 minutes on POD 3 (170.6 feet, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 109.3-232 vs 100.0 feet, 95% CI = 65.1-134.9; P = .04). At 6 weeks, intervention participants reported better walking and stair climbing ability (mean Functional Independence Measure locomotion score of 10.3 (95% CI = 9.6-11.0) vs 9.1 (95% CI = 8.2-10.0), P = .04). Intervention participants were significantly less likely to report opioid side effects (3% vs 12.4%, P = .03) and required 33% to 40% fewer parenteral morphine sulfate equivalents. CONCLUSION: Femoral nerve blocks performed by emergency physicians followed by continuous fascia iliaca blocks placed by anesthesiologists are feasible and result in superior outcomes.

Addressing the Challenge of Emergency Department Analgesia: Innovation in the Use of Opioid Alternatives.

The current epidemic of opioid toxicity and deaths has led clinicians and policy-makers to explore alternatives to opioids for management of moderate to severe pain. One environment in which opioid use has been questioned is the emergency department (ED). This commentary addresses the proposal for "opioid-free EDs" and discusses the risk-to-benefit ratios of opioid and alternative pharmacotherapy for acutely injured patients requiring analgesia. The authors recognize that a truly opioid-free ED is not practical and that alternative analgesic approaches also carry risks. Innovations in managing pain in the ED are needed. But excessive restriction on opioid pharmacotherapy in emergency medicine carries the risk of replacing overprescribing with underprescribing of opioids. The commentary supports the need to establish a core of evidence to support efforts to increase the use of nonopioid and nonpharmacologic modalities for those suffering from pain.

Delirium frequency among advanced cancer patients presenting to an emergency department: A prospective, randomized, observational study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of delirium among patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine delirium frequency and recognition by ED physicians among patients with advanced cancer presenting to the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS: The study population was a random sample of English-speaking patients with advanced cancer who presented to the ED and met the study criteria. All patients were assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) to screen for delirium and with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) to measure delirium severity (mild, ≤15; moderate, 16-22; and severe, ≥23). ED physicians were also asked whether their patients were delirious. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the 243 enrolled patients (9%) had CAM-positive delirium, and their median MDAS score was 14 (range, 9-21 [30-point scale]). The median age of the enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 19-89 years). Patients with delirium had a poorer performance status than patients without delirium (P < .001); however, the 2 groups did not differ in other characteristics. Ten of the 99 patients who were 65 years old or older (10%) had CAM-positive delirium, whereas 12 of the 144 patients younger than 65 years (8%) did (P = .6). According to the MDAS scores, delirium was mild in 18 patients (82%) and moderate in 4 patients (18%). Physicians correctly identified delirium in 13 of the CAM-positive delirious patients (59%). CONCLUSIONS: Delirium is relatively frequent and is underdiagnosed by physicians in patients with advanced cancer who are visiting the ED. Further research is needed to identify the optimal screening tool for delirium in ED. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2918-2924. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Consensus-Based Recommendations for an Emergency Medicine Pain Management Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Increased prescribing of opioid pain medications has paralleled the subsequent rise of prescription medication-related overdoses and deaths. We sought to define key aspects of a pain management curriculum for emergency medicine (EM) residents that achieve the balance between adequate pain control, limiting side effects, and not contributing to the current public health opioid crisis. METHODS: We convened a symposium to discuss pain management education in EM and define the needs and objectives of an EM-specific pain management curriculum. Multiple pertinent topics were identified a priori and presented before consensus work. Subgroups then sought to define perceived gaps and needs, to set a future direction for development of a focused curriculum, and to prioritize the research needed to evaluate and measure the impact of a new curriculum. RESULTS: The group determined that an EM pain management curriculum should include education on both opioid and nonopioid analgesics as well as nonpharmacologic pain strategies. A broad survey is needed to better define current knowledge gaps and needs. To optimize the impact of any curriculum, a modular, multimodal, and primarily case-based approach linked to achieving milestones is best. Subsequent research should focus on the impact of curricular reform on learner knowledge and patient outcomes, not just prescribing changes. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus group offers a path forward to enhance the evidence, knowledge, and practice transformation needed to improve emergency analgesia.

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

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

Integrating palliative care in oncologic emergency departments: Challenges and opportunities.

Although visiting the emergency departments (EDs) is considered poor quality of cancer care, there are indications these visits are increasing. Similarly, there is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) to cancer patients in EDs. However, this integration is not without major challenges. In this article, we review the literature on why cancer patients visit EDs, the rates of hospitalization and mortality for these patients, and the models for integrating PC in EDs. We discuss opportunities such integration will bring to the quality of cancer care, and resource utilization of resources. We also discuss barriers faced by this integration. We found that the most common reasons for ED visits by cancer patients are pain, fever, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of the patients are admitted to hospitals, about 13% of the admitted patients die during hospitalization, and some patients die in ED. Patients who receive PC at an ED have shorter hospitalization and lower resource utilization. Models based solely on increasing PC provision in EDs by PC specialists have had modest success, while very limited ED-based PC provision has had slightly higher impact. However, details of these programs are lacking, and coordination between ED based PC and hospital-wide PC is not clear. In some studies, the objectives were to improve care in the communities and reduce ED visits and hospitalizations. We conclude that as more patients receive cancer therapy late in their disease trajectory, more cancer patients will visit EDs. Integration of PC with emergency medicine will require active participation of ED physicians in providing PC to cancer patients. PC specialist should play an active role in educating ED physicians about PC, and provide timely consultations. The impact of integrating PC in EDs on quality and cost of cancer care should be studied.

Risk for Opioid Misuse Among Emergency Department Cancer Patients.

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

Patient-reported Outcomes from A National, Prospective, Observational Study of Emergency Department Acute Pain Management With an Intranasal Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug, Opioids, or Both.

OBJECTIVES: Patient compliance and satisfaction with analgesics prescribed after emergency department (ED) care for acute pain are poorly understood, largely because of the lack of direct patient follow-up with the ED provider. Our objective was to compare patient satisfaction with three analgesia regimens prescribed for post-ED care-a nasally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an opioid, or combination therapy-by collecting granular follow-up on analgesic use, pain scores, side effects, work activity levels, and overall satisfaction directly from patients. METHODS: We designed a prospective registry linking ED assessment and analgesic management for acute pain of specific musculoskeletal or visceral etiologies with self-reported automated telephonic follow-up daily for the 4 days post-ED discharge. Patients were prescribed a specific NSAID (SPRIX, ketorolac tromethamine for nasal instillation) only, an oral opioid only, or both with the opioid clearly defined as rescue therapy, at the ED provider's discretion. RESULTS: There were 824 evaluable subjects. Maximum pain scores improved day to day more effectively with a ketorolac-based approach. Self-reported rates of return to work and work effectiveness were higher with SPRIX than with opioids or combination therapy. Adverse effects of nausea, constipation, drowsiness, and abdominal pain were higher each day among patients taking an opioid; nasal irritation was more common with SPRIX. Overall satisfaction at the end of the follow-up period was higher with SPRIX-based treatment than with opioid monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Automated telephonic follow-up of ED patients prescribed short-term analgesia is feasible. Ketorolac-based analgesia after an ED visit for many acute pain syndromes was associated with favorable patient outcomes and higher satisfaction than opioid-based therapy. SPRIX, an NSAID that is not available over the counter and has a novel delivery approach, may be useful for short-term post-ED outpatient analgesia.

Research design considerations for single-dose analgesic clinical trials in acute pain: IMMPACT recommendations.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.