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.

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.

Randomized Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine Versus Hydromorphone for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for "off-protocol" parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS: We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol "rescue" analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). CONCLUSION: Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.