27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Methoxyflurane Analgesia in Adult Patients in the Emergency Department: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study (STOP!)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Acute pain remains highly prevalent in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled UK study investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane analgesia for the treatment of acute pain in the ED in the adult population of the STOP! trial.

          Methods

          Patients presenting to the ED requiring analgesia for acute pain (pain score of 4–7 on the Numerical Rating Scale) due to minor trauma were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive methoxyflurane (up to 6 mL) or placebo (normal saline), both via a Penthrox ® (Medical Developments International Limited, Scoresby, Australia) inhaler. Rescue medication (paracetamol/opioids) was available immediately upon request. Change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity was the primary endpoint.

          Results

          300 adult and adolescent patients were randomized; data are presented for the adult subgroup ( N = 204). Mean baseline VAS pain score was ~66 mm in both groups. The mean change from baseline to 5, 10, 15 and 20 min was greater for methoxyflurane (−20.7, −27.4, −33.3 and −34.8 mm, respectively) than placebo (−8.0, −11.1, −12.3 and −15.2 mm, respectively). The primary analysis showed a highly significant treatment effect overall across all four time points (−17.4 mm; 95% confidence interval: −22.3 to −12.5 mm; p < 0.0001). Median time to first pain relief was 5 min with methoxyflurane [versus 20 min with placebo; (hazard ratio: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.63, 3.30; p < 0.0001)]; 79.4% of methoxyflurane-treated patients experienced pain relief within 1–10 inhalations. 22.8% of placebo-treated patients requested rescue medication within 20 min compared with 2.0% of methoxyflurane-treated patients ( p = 0.0003). Methoxyflurane treatment was rated ‘Excellent’, ‘Very Good’ or ‘Good’ by 77.6% of patients, 74.5% of physicians and 72.5% of nurses. Treatment-related adverse events (mostly dizziness/headache) were reported by 42.2% of patients receiving methoxyflurane and 14.9% of patients receiving placebo; none caused withdrawal and the majority were mild and transient.

          Conclusion

          The results of this study support the evidence from previous trials that low-dose methoxyflurane administered via the Penthrox inhaler is a well-tolerated, efficacious and rapid-acting analgesic.

          Funding

          Medical Developments International (MDI) Limited and Mundipharma Research GmbH & Co.KG.

          Trial registration

          Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01420159, EudraCT number: 2011-000338-12.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity.

          To determine the amount of change in pain severity, as measured by a visual analog scale, that constitutes a minimum clinically significant difference. Patients 18 years of age or older who presented with acute pain resulting from trauma were enrolled in this prospective, descriptive study. The setting was an urban county hospital emergency department with a Level 1 trauma center. In the course of a brief interview, patients were asked to indicate their current pain severity with a single mark through a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. At intervals of 20 minutes for the next 2 hours, patients were asked to repeat this measurement and, in addition, to contrast their present pain severity with that at the time of the previous measurement. They were to indicate whether they had "much less," "a little less," "about the same," "a little more," or "much more" pain. All contrasts were made without reference to prior visual analog scale measurements. A maximum of six measurements of pain change were recorded per patient. Measurements ended when the patient left the ED or when the patient reported a pain score of zero. The minimum clinically significant change in visual analog scale pain score was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding visual analog scale scores when the subject noted a little less or a little more pain. Forty-eight subjects were enrolled, and 248 pain contrasts were recorded. Of these contrasts, 41 were rated as a little less and 39 as a little more pain. The mean difference between current and preceding visual analog scale scores in these 80 contrasts was 13 mm (95% confidence interval, 10 to 17 mm). The minimum clinically significant change in patient pain severity measured with a 100-mm visual analog scale was 13 mm. Studies of pain experience that report less than a 13-mm change in pain severity, although statistically significant, may have no clinical importance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The high prevalence of pain in emergency medical care.

            Although there is a widely held belief that pain is the number 1 complaint in emergency medical care, few studies have actually assessed the prevalence of pain in the emergency department (ED). We conducted an analysis of secondary data by using explicit data abstraction rules to determine the prevalence of pain in the ED and to classify the location, origin, and duration of the pain. This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at an urban teaching hospital in Indianapolis, IN. Charts from 1,665 consecutive ED visits during a 7-day period were reviewed. Pain was defined as the word pain or a pain equivalent word (including aching, burning, and discomfort) recorded on the chart. Of the 1,665 visits, 61.2% had pain documented anywhere on the chart, 34.1% did not have pain, and 4.7% were procedures. Pain was a chief complaint for 52.2% of the visits. This high prevalence of pain has important implications for the allocation of resources as well as educational and research efforts in emergency medical care. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              WHO guidelines for the use of analgesics in cancer pain.

              The growing incidence of cancer pathology all over the world implies not only problems of prevention and cure, but also of pain control. Pain appears in more than 50% of cancer patients, mainly because analgesic opioids are not available or adequately administered. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) has created a Collaborating Centre for Cancer Pain Relief at the Division of Pain Therapy of the National Cancer Institute, Milan. Experts in pain therapy have drafted guidelines on the sequential use of analgesic drugs by identifying three steps: non-narcotics, weak narcotics, narcotics, all in association with adjuvant drugs. After a positive pilot trial, field testing will be conducted in developed and developing countries. The first step of the analgesic ladder is represented by the use of non-narcotics; the adequate use of these substances in advanced cancer patients does not exceed 6 months of treatment. Treatment is then either discontinued or changed to a following step because of side-effects (40%) or inefficacy (44%). The reduction in the use of non-narcotics corresponds to a successive increase in the use of opioids, particularly direct agonists. Through an adequate use of the analgesic ladder, pain can be relieved in the great majority of cancer patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 (0) 115 9249924 , frank.coffey@nottingham.ac.uk
                Journal
                Adv Ther
                Adv Ther
                Advances in Therapy
                Springer Healthcare (Cheshire )
                0741-238X
                1865-8652
                27 August 2016
                27 August 2016
                2016
                : 33
                : 11
                : 2012-2031
                Affiliations
                [1 ]DREEAM: Department of Research and Education in Emergency Medicine, Acute Medicine and Major Trauma, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH UK
                [2 ]Academic Department of Emergency Medicine, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
                [3 ]Accident and Emergency Department, Colchester Hospital University Foundation NHS Trust, Colchester, UK
                [4 ]Mundipharma Research Limited, Cambridge, UK
                Article
                405
                10.1007/s12325-016-0405-7
                5083764
                27567918
                19db0a16-e430-4da6-b5cc-8652039da004
                © The Author(s) 2016
                History
                : 4 July 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Mundipharma
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Healthcare 2016

                acute pain,analgesic,emergency department,inhaled analgesic,methoxyflurane,pain,penthrox, pre-hospital,trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article