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.

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.

Predicting the Transition to Chronic Pain 6 Months After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain can transition to chronic pain, a potentially debilitating illness. OBJECTIVE: We determined how often acute pain transitions to chronic pain among patients in the emergency department (ED) and whether persistent pain 1 week after the ED visit was associated with chronic pain. METHODS: An observational cohort study conducted in two EDs. We included adults with acute pain (≤10 days) if an oral opioid was prescribed. Exclusion criteria were recent opioid use and use of any analgesics regularly prior to onset of the pain. Research associates interviewed patients during the ED visit and 1 week and 6 months later. The primary outcome, chronic pain, was defined as pain on > 50% of days since ED discharge. We constructed logistic regression models to evaluate the association between persistent pain 1 week after an ED visit and chronic pain, while adjusting for demographic and treatment variables. RESULTS: During a 9-month period, we approached 733 patients for participation and enrolled 484; 450 of 484 (93%) provided 1-week outcomes data and 410 of 484 (85%) provided 6-month outcomes data. One week after the ED visit, 348 of 453 (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73-80%) patients reported pain in the affected area. New-onset chronic pain at 6 months was reported by 110 of 408 (27%; 95% CI 23-31%) patients. Presence of pain 1 week after ED visit was associated with chronic pain (odds ratio 3.6; 95% CI 1.6-8.5). CONCLUSIONS: About one-quarter of ED patients with acute pain transition to chronic pain within 6 months. Persistence of pain 1 week after the ED visit can identify patients at risk of transition.

Opioid-induced Euphoria Among Emergency Department Patients With Acute Severe Pain: An Analysis of Data From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral opioids are commonly used to treat acute severe pain. We measured pleasurable sensations in patients administered intravenous analgesics to determine if these sensations were associated with receipt of an opioid, after controlling for relief of pain. Pleasurable sensations not accounted for by relief of pain were considered opioid-induced euphoria. METHODS: These data were from a randomized study of 1 mg of hydromorphone versus 120 mg of lidocaine for abdominal pain. To assess euphoria, participants were asked to provide a 0 to 10 response to each of these questions: 1) How good did the medication make you feel? 2) How high did the medication make you feel? and 3) How happy did the medication make you feel? Pain at baseline and 30 minutes was also measured on a 0 to 10 scale. To determine the relative importance of pain relief versus medication type, we built three linear regression models in which each euphoria question was the dependent variable and pain relief, medication type, and medication-induced side effects were the independent variables. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients received lidocaine and 77 hydromorphone. Hydromorphone patients reported greater pain improvement than lidocaine patients (mean difference = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 2.3) and higher scores on all three euphoria questions ("feeling good" difference = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.8 to 3.0; "feeling high" difference = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.7; "feeling happy" difference = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.6 to 2.8). In the regression models, hydromorphone administration (ß-coefficient = 0.16, p = 0.03) and pain relief (ß-coefficient = 0.45, p < 0.01) were both associated with "feeling good." "Feeling high" and "feeling happy" were associated with pain improvement (p < 0.01) but not with hydromorphone administration (p = 0.07 for "high" and p = 0.06 for "happy"). Medication-induced side effects were not associated with these measures of euphoria. CONCLUSION: Among emergency department patients with acute pain, hydromorphone-induced euphoria, though measurable, was generally less important for patients than relief of pain.

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.

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.

Emergent management of primary headache: a review of current literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current article reviews recent data on treatment of acute headache patients in the acute care setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Intravenous fluid hydration, a common component of emergency department (ED) migraine therapy, does not improve pain outcomes and leads to longer ED lengths of stay. Therefore, intravenous fluids should be administered only to migraine patients with clinical evidence of dehydration. Similarly, intravenous ketamine has garnered interest as a treatment for acute pain but does not provide substantial relief to migraine patients. New studies on the serotonin (5-HT3; 5-hydroxytryptamine-3) antagonist granisetron, intranasal lidocaine, and high-flow oxygen have reported conflicting results for migraine patients. Finally, although experts recommend avoiding opioids in migraine treatment, opioid administration remains prevalent in the ED. A new study has demonstrated that patients who receive intravenous hydromorphone in the ED are much less likely to attain acute headache relief. Standardized headache protocols may decrease opioid use and provide significant pain relief for patients. SUMMARY: Recent data have clarified the role of opioids and ketamine in the ED (do not use!). The role of treatment protocols and intravenous fluids is still ill-defined. Subpopulations of migraine patients may benefit from high-flow oxygen and intranasal lidocaine.

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: An Overview of Self-Report Measures Used Across 19 International Research Studies.

Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. Little is known, however, about the key features of self-report measures currently used to assess SCD. The Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) Working Group is an international consortium established to develop a conceptual framework and research criteria for SCD (Jessen et al., 2014, Alzheimers Dement 10, 844-852). In the current study we systematically compared cognitive self-report items used by 19 SCD-I Working Group studies, representing 8 countries and 5 languages. We identified 34 self-report measures comprising 640 cognitive self-report items. There was little overlap among measures- approximately 75% of measures were used by only one study. Wide variation existed in response options and item content. Items pertaining to the memory domain predominated, accounting for about 60% of items surveyed, followed by executive function and attention, with 16% and 11% of the items, respectively. Items relating to memory for the names of people and the placement of common objects were represented on the greatest percentage of measures (56% each). Working group members reported that instrument selection decisions were often based on practical considerations beyond the study of SCD specifically, such as availability and brevity of measures. Results document the heterogeneity of approaches across studies to the emerging construct of SCD. We offer preliminary recommendations for instrument selection and future research directions including identifying items and measure formats associated with important clinical outcomes.