Impact of vitamin C on the reduction of opioid consumption after an emergency department visit for acute musculoskeletal pain: a double-blind randomised control trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence has shown that vitamin C has some analgesic properties in addition to its antioxidant effect and can, therefore, reduce opioid use during recovery time. Vitamin C analgesic effect has been explored mostly during short-term postoperative context or in disease-specific chronic pain prevention, but never after acute musculoskeletal injuries, which are often seen in the emergency department (ED). The protocol's primary aim is to compare the total morphine 5 mg pills consumed during a 2-week follow-up between patients receiving vitamin C or a placebo after ED discharge for an acute musculoskeletal pain complaint. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial with 464 participants distributed in two arms, one group receiving 1000 mg of vitamin C two times a day for 14 days and another one receiving a placebo. Participants will be ≥18 years of age, treated in ED for acute musculoskeletal pain present for less than 2 weeks and discharged with an opioid prescription for home pain management. Total morphine 5 mg pills consumed during the 2-week follow-up will be assessed via an electronic (or paper) diary. In addition, patients will report their daily pain intensity, pain relief, side effects and other types of pain medication or other non-pharmacological approach used. Three months after the injury, participants will also be contacted to evaluate chronic pain development. We hypothesised that vitamin C, compared with a placebo, will reduce opioid consumption during a 14-day follow-up for ED discharged patients treated for acute musculoskeletal pain. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee from the 'Comité d'éthique de la recherche du CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (No 2023-2442)'. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journal publication. The data sets generated during the study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05555576 ClinicalTrials.Gov PRS.

Evaluation of Interventions to Reduce Opioid Prescribing for Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Limiting opioid overprescribing in the emergency department (ED) may be associated with decreases in diversion and misuse. Objective: To review and analyze interventions designed to reduce the rate of opioid prescriptions or the quantity prescribed for pain in adults discharged from the ED. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases and the gray literature were searched from inception to May 15, 2020, with an updated search performed March 6, 2021. Study Selection: Intervention studies aimed at reducing opioid prescribing at ED discharge were first screened using titles and abstracts. The full text of the remaining citations was then evaluated against inclusion and exclusion criteria by 2 independent reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers who also assessed the risk of bias. Authors were contacted for missing data. The main meta-analysis was accompanied by intervention category subgroup analyses. All meta-analyses used random-effects models, and heterogeneity was quantified using I2 values. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the variation in opioid prescription rate and/or prescribed quantity associated with the interventions. Effect sizes were computed separately for interrupted time series (ITS) studies. Results: Sixty-three unique studies were included in the review, and 45 studies had sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. A statistically significant reduction in the opioid prescription rate was observed for both ITS (6-month step change, -22.61%; 95% CI, -30.70% to -14.52%) and other (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70) study designs. No statistically significant reduction in prescribed opioid quantities was observed for ITS studies (6-month step change, -8.64%; 95% CI, -17.48% to 0.20%), but a small, statistically significant reduction was observed for other study designs (standardized mean difference, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.09). For ITS studies, education, policies, and guideline interventions (6-month step change, -33.31%; 95% CI, -39.67% to -26.94%) were better at reducing the opioid prescription rate compared with prescription drug monitoring programs and laws (6-month step change, -11.18%; 95% CI, -22.34% to -0.03%). Most intervention categories did not reduce prescribed opioid quantities. Insufficient data were available on patient-centered outcomes such as pain relief or patients' satisfaction. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that most interventions reduced the opioid prescription rate but not the prescribed opioid quantity for ED-discharged patients. More studies on patient-centered outcomes and using novel approaches to reduce the opioid quantity per prescription are needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020187251.

Association between fentanyl treatment for acute pain in the emergency department and opioid use two weeks after discharge.

BACKGROUND: Analgesia with fentanyl can be associated with hyperalgesia (higher sensitivity to pain) and can contribute to escalating opioid use. Our objective was to assess the relationship between emergency department (ED) acute pain management with fentanyl compared to other opioids, and the quantity of opioids consumed two-week after discharge. We hypothesized that the quantity of opioids consumed would be higher for patients treated with fentanyl compared to those treated with other opioids. METHODS: Patients were selected from two prospective cohorts assessing opioids consumed after ED discharge. Patients ≥18 years treated with an opioid in the ED for an acute pain condition (≤2 weeks) and discharged with an opioid prescription were included. Patients completed a 14-day paper or electronic diary of pain medication use. Quantity of 5 mg morphine equivalent tablets consumed during a 14-day follow-up by patients treated with fentanyl compared to those treated with other opioids during their ED stay were analyzed using a multiple linear regression and propensity scores. RESULTS: We included 707 patients (mean age ± SD: 50 ± 15 years, 47% women) in this study. During follow-up, patients treated with fentanyl (N = 91) during their ED stay consumed a median (IQR) of 5.8 (14) 5 mg morphine equivalent pills compared to 7.0 (14) for those treated with other opioids (p = 0.05). Results were similar using propensity score sensitivity analysis. However, after adjusting for confounding variables, ED fentanyl treatment showed a trend, but not a statistically significant association with a decreased opioid consumption during the 14-day follow-up (B = -2.4; 95%CI = -5.3 to 0.4; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with fentanyl during ED stay did not consume more opioids after ED discharge, compared to those treated with other opioids. If fentanyl does cause more hyperalgesia compared to other opioids, it does not seem to have a significant impact on opioid consumption after ED discharge.

Opioid and non-opioid pain relief after an emergency department acute pain visit.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of acute pain after emergency department (ED) discharge remains a challenge in the opioid crisis context. Our objective was to determine the proportion of patients using opioid vs non-opioid pain medication following discharge from the ED with acute pain, and the association of type of pain medication with average pain intensity before pain medication intake and report of pain relief. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of ED patients aged ≥ 18 years with an acute pain (≤ 2 weeks) who were discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day diary assessing daily pain intensity level before each pain medication intake (0-10 numeric rating scale), type of pain medication use (opioid vs non-opioid), and if pain was relieved by the medication used that day. Multilevel analyses were used to compare the effect of type of analgesic used on pain intensity and relief. RESULTS: A total of 381 participants completed the 14-day diary; 50% were women and median age was 54 years (IQR = 43-66). Average daily pain intensity before pain medication intake was significantly higher for patients who used opioids (5.9; 95% CI 5.7-6.2) as compared to non-opioid analgesics (4.2; 95% CI 4.0-4.5) or no pain medication (2.2; 95% CI 1.9-2.5). Controlling for pain intensity, patients using opioids were more likely to report a pain relief (OR = 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.8) as compared to those who used non-opioid analgesics. CONCLUSION: Overall, opioids appear to be effective and used as intended by the prescribing physician.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Le traitement de la douleur aiguë après la sortie des départements d'urgence (DU) reste un défi dans le contexte de la crise des opioïdes. Notre objectif était de déterminer la proportion de patients utilisant des analgésiques opioïdes par rapport aux analgésiques non opioïdes après leur sortie des urgences avec une douleur aiguë, et l'association du type d'analgésique avec l'intensité moyenne de la douleur avant la prise d'analgésiques et le soulagement de la douleur rapporté. LES MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte prospective de patients (DU) âgés de ≥18 ans souffrant de douleurs aiguës (≤ 2 semaines) et ayant reçu une ordonnance d'opioïdes à leur sortie de l'hôpital. Les patients ont rempli un journal de 14 jours évaluant le niveau d'intensité de la douleur quotidienne avant chaque prise de médicaments anti-douleur (échelle d'évaluation numérique de 0 à 10), le type d'utilisation des médicaments anti-douleur (opioïdes contre non opioïdes), et si la douleur était soulagée par les médicaments utilisés ce jour-là. Des analyses multiniveaux ont été utilisées pour comparer l'effet du type d'analgésique utilisé sur l'intensité et le soulagement de la douleur. RéSULTATS: Au total, 381 participants ont rempli le journal de 14 jours; 50% étaient des femmes et l'âge médian était de 54 ans (EI = 43­66). L'intensité moyenne de la douleur quotidienne avant la prise d'analgésiques était significativement plus élevée chez les patients qui prenaient des opioïdes (5.9; 95% IC: 5.7­6.2) par rapport aux analgésiques non opioïdes (4.2; 95% IC: 4.0­4.5) ou à l'absence d'analgésiques (2.2; 95% IC: 1.9­2.5). En contrôlant l'intensité de la douleur, les patients utilisant des opioïdes étaient plus susceptibles de déclarer un soulagement de la douleur (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1−1.8) par rapport à ceux qui utilisaient des analgésiques non opioïdes. CONCLUSION: Dans l'ensemble, les opioïdes semblent être efficaces et utilisés comme prévu par le médecin prescripteur.

Oxygen Therapy and Risk of Infection for Health Care Workers Caring for Patients With Viral Severe Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. Health care workers face significant risk of infection when treating patients with a viral severe acute respiratory infection. To ensure health care worker safety and limit nosocomial transmission of such infection, it is crucial to synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 1, 2020, for studies describing the risk of infection associated with the modalities of oxygen therapy used for patients with severe acute respiratory infection. The study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by independent reviewers. The primary outcome measure was the infection of health care workers with a severe acute respiratory infection. Random-effect models were used to synthesize the extracted data. RESULTS: Of 22,123 citations, 50 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 16 for meta-analysis. Globally, the quality of the included studies provided a very low certainty of evidence. Being exposed or performing an intubation (odds ratio 6.48; 95% confidence interval 2.90 to 14.44), bag-valve-mask ventilation (odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 5.36), and noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio 3.96; 95% confidence interval 2.12 to 7.40) were associated with an increased risk of infection. All modalities of oxygen therapy generate air dispersion. CONCLUSION: Most modalities of oxygen therapy are associated with an increased risk of infection and none have been demonstrated as safe. The lowest flow of oxygen should be used to maintain an adequate oxygen saturation for patients with severe acute respiratory infection, and manipulation of oxygen delivery equipment should be minimized.

beta-Blockers for the treatment of cardiac arrest from ventricular fibrillation?

More than 160,000 people suffer sudden cardiac death each year in the US. It is estimated that ventricular fibrillation (VF) is the initial rhythm in approximately 30% of these cases. Ventricular fibrillation that does not respond to the first few defibrillation attempts is associated with mortality rates of up to 97%. Currently, no pharmacological intervention has been shown to increase long-term survival in patients with shock-refractory VF. The purpose of this review article is to evaluate whether beta-blocker administration during the resuscitation of cardiac arrest from VF or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) improves outcome. We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for human clinical trials, animal experimental trials, review articles, case reports and abstracts published between 1966 and September 2006. No human prospective randomized controlled trial has studied the effects of beta-blocker administration during VF directly. Prospective trials of anti-arrhythmics with beta-blocking properties have been published, as well as several case reports/case series and experimental animal studies. The evidence thus far suggests that beta-blockade during resuscitation from VF may be associated with increasing rates of resuscitation, greater post-resuscitation survival, and improved post-resuscitation myocardial function. These positive effects on outcome may be mediated by a decrease in the oxygen requirements of the fibrillating heart, thus improving the overall balance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand during resuscitation. While no significant detrimental effects directly related to low dose beta-blockade during VF have been reported in the studies reviewed, concerns relating to possible loss of myocardial contractility and hypotension remain. To this day, high quality human trials are lacking. Preliminary human studies are needed to assess the effects of beta-blockers in the treatment of cardiac arrest from ventricular fibrillation or pulseless VT further.