Prednisone for Emergency Department Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Although oral corticosteroids are commonly given to emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP), there is little evidence of benefit.

Objective

To determine if a short course of oral corticosteroids benefits LBP ED patients.

Methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Suburban New Jersey ED with 80,000 annual visits. Participants: 18–55-year-olds with moderately severe musculoskeletal LBP from a bending or twisting injury ≤ 2 days prior to presentation. Exclusion criteria were suspected nonmusculoskeletal etiology, direct trauma, motor deficits, and local occupational medicine program visits. Protocol: At ED discharge, patients were randomized to either 50 mg prednisone daily for 5 days or identical-appearing placebo. Patients were contacted after 5 days to assess pain on a 0–3 scale (none, mild, moderate, severe) as well as functional status.

Results

The prednisone and placebo groups had similar demographics and initial and discharge ED pain scales. Of the 79 patients enrolled, 12 (15%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 32 and 35 patients in the prednisone and placebo arms, respectively. At follow-up, the two arms had similar pain on the 0–3 scale (absolute difference 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.2, 0.6) and no statistically significant differences in resuming normal activities, returning to work, or days lost from work. More patients in the prednisone than in the placebo group sought additional medical treatment (40% vs. 18%, respectively, difference 22%, 95% CI 0, 43%).

Conclusion

We detected no benefit from oral corticosteroids in our ED patients with musculoskeletal LBP.     

Intranasal Lidocaine for the Treatment of Migraine Headache: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of intranasal lidocaine for immediate relief (5 minutes) of migraine headache pain. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial at two university-affiliated community teaching hospitals enrolled patients 18-50 years old with migraine headache as defined by the International Headache Society. Patients who were pregnant, lactating, known to abuse alcohol or drugs, or allergic to one of the study drugs, those who used analgesics within two hours, or those with a first headache were excluded. Statistical significance was assessed by using chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. Patients rated their pain on a 10-centimeter visual analog scale (VAS) prior to drug administration and at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after the initial dose. Medication was either 1 mL of 4% lidocaine or normal saline (placebo) intranasally in split doses 2 minutes apart and intravenous prochlorperazine. Medications were packaged so physicians and patients were unaware of the contents. Successful pain relief was achieved if there was a 50% reduction in pain score or a score below 2.5 cm on the VAS. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients received lidocaine and 22 placebo. No significant difference was observed between groups in initial pain scores, 8.4 (95% CI = 7.8 to 9.0) lidocaine and 8.6 (95% CI = 8.0 to 9.2) placebo (p = 0.75). Two of 27 patients (7.4%, 95% CI = 0.8, 24.3) in the lidocaine group and three of 22 patients (13.6%, 95% CI = 2.8 to 34.9) in the placebo group had immediate successful pain relief (p = 0.47), with average pain scores of 6.9 (95% CI = 5.9 to 7.8) and 7.0 (95% CI = 5.8 to 8.2), respectively. No difference in pain relief was detected at subsequent measurements. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that intranasal lidocaine provided rapid relief for migraine headache pain in the emergency department setting.     

Intranasal Sufentanil Versus Intravenous Morphine for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Pilot Trial

Background

Patients in the United States frequently seek medical attention in the emergency department (ED) to address their pain. The intranasal (i.n.) route provides a safe, effective, and painless alternative method of drug administration. Sufentanil is an inexpensive synthetic opioid with a high therapeutic index and rapid onset of action, making it an attractive agent for management of acute pain in the ED.

A Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine on the Pain and Allodynia of Postherpetic Neuralgia

This study investigated the effect of intravenous lidocaine at two doses (1 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg over 2 hours) and an intravenous saline placebo on the pain and allodynia of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Twenty-four patients were studied using a randomized, double-blind, within-patient crossover design. Each patient received normal saline, lidocaine 0.5 mg/kg/h, and lidocaine 2.5 mg/kg/h for a 2-h period. The McGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form, visual analogue scores (VAS), and area of allodynia were measured at intervals during the infusions. Free plasma lidocaine levels were also measured. The results were statistically analyzed using Student’s t-test for paired data. The VAS for ongoing pain showed a significant reduction after all the infusions (P < 0.05). For dynamic pressure-provoked pain, the VAS was unaffected by placebo but showed a reduction at an equal level of significance with both lidocaine infusions (P < 0.05). The area of allodynia of PHN, as mapped by brush stroke, declined in association with intravenous lidocaine (0.5 mg/kg/h = P < 0.05; 2.5 mg/kg/h = P < 0.001). Placebo had no significant effect on the area of allodynia. These findings demonstrate a positive effect on pain and allodynia following a brief intravenous infusion of lidocaine. The higher dose infusion may produce plasma levels in the toxic range, with no significant clinical increase in response.     

Comparison of Valdecoxib and an Oxycodone–Acetaminophen Combination for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Oral opioids are potent analgesics that are used to treat acute pain in the emergency department (ED). However, they are associated with adverse events such as sedation that may delay safe patient discharge. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a new cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, valdecoxib, with those of an oxycodone-acetaminophen combination in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at an immediate care section of a suburban university-based ED with an annual census of 75,000. Adults with acute musculoskeletal pain without contraindications to the study medications were included. After recording their initial pain scores, patients were randomized to either oral valdecoxib 40 mg or oxycodone 10 mg with acetaminophen 650 mg. Pain scores were recorded at 30 and 60 minutes, and patients who requested additional pain relief were given an oral analgesic at the physician's discretion. Twenty-four-hour telephone follow-up was performed. The pain severity was recorded at 0, 30, and 60 minutes using a validated 100-mm visual analog scale marked "most" at the high end. The need for rescue medications and the occurrence of adverse events were determined. Study outcomes were compared with Student's t-test, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and chi(2) tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were randomized to valdecoxib (26) or oxycodone (25). Mean (+/- SD) age was 36 (+/- 14.7) years; 49% were women. Pain locations included extremities (49%), neck (29%), and back (22%). Baseline patient characteristics and pain severities were similar. There was no between-group difference in pain scores at 30 and 60 minutes. The changes in pain scores over time were also similar in the two study groups (repeated-measures ANOVA, p = 0.32). Patients treated with valdecoxib were less likely to experience sedation/dizziness (15% vs. 44%, p = 0.03) and to require rescue medications within the next 24 hours (44% vs. 74%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Valdecoxib is as effective as an oxycodone-acetaminophen combination in treating ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain at 30 minutes and less likely to cause sedation or the need for rescue analgesia over the next day.     

Intramuscular Ketorolac vs Oral Ibuprofen in Emergency Department Patients with Acute Pain

Objective: To determine whether IM ketorolac is superior to oral ibuprofen in patients presenting to an ED in moderate to severe pain.
Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study involved a convenience sample of 119 patients aged a 18 years who presented to an urban teaching hospital ED with a self-assessed pain intensity score of 5, 6, 7, or 8 (on a numerical rating scale of 0–10). Patients were randomized to receive either 60 mg of IM ketorolac and a placebo capsule or 800 mg of oral ibuprofen and a saline injection. Pain scores were measured at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after dosing. Supplemental analgesics were allowed in accordance with standard medical practice.
Results: There were 18 patients excluded who did not remain in the ED for the full 2-hour study period. Of those completing the trial, 53 patients received ketorolac and 48 patients received ibuprofen. There were no significant differences in pain scores between ketorolac and ibuprofen at any time during the study. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in pain over time in both treatment groups. Yet, 40% of the patients continued to report pain intensity scores of 5–8 at 2 hours after treatment.
Conclusions: IM ketorolac and oral ibuprofen provide comparable levels of analgesia in ED patients presenting with moderate to severe pain. Unfortunately, 40% of all the patients had inadequate pain relief (pain score ≥5) from either ketorolac or ibuprofen.     

Pulsed Radiofrequency for Radicular Pain Due to a Herniated Intervertebral Disc—An Initial Report

Abstract: Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) has been used for the treatment of radicular pain, due to a herniated intervertebral disc, but so far the data are anecdotal. This is a retrospective study on 13 consecutive patients with this type of pain, at levels L3 to S1. All patients had a diagnosis confirmed by imaging, all had neurological abnormalities, and all were scheduled for surgical intervention. All 12 patients who had a profession had stopped working. Treatment consisted of application of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion of the affected segmental nerve, or in the case of S1 to the segmental nerve at the level of the S1 foramen. One patient underwent disc surgery, and one other patient underwent a spinal fusion 1 year following PRF treatment. He had no leg pain at the time of operation. The remaining patients did not require surgical intervention. The numeric rating scale (NRS) score fell from 7.83 to 2.25 over the first 2 weeks, followed by a gradual further fall to 0.27 at the final follow‐up, 15.8 (11 to 23) months after the procedure. Compared with the initial NRS score the data were significant (P < 0.01) from 4 weeks after the procedure. Neurological abnormalities resolved except in one patient, who had decreased sensibility in a small area in the L3 dermatome at the last follow‐up. All professionally active patients went back to work after 0.49 months (0.1 to 1). It is concluded that PRF may potentially be a viable alternative for epidural steroid injections in the treatment of acute radicular pain, due to a herniated intervertebral disc, and that further studies, including a control group, should be carried out to establish the value of this method.     

Continuous Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion for the Management of Pain Uncontrolled by Opioid Medications

Limited data exist describing the outcomes of patients receiving continuous lidocaine infusions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of use of continuous lidocaine infusions for pain management at a community teaching hospital. A retrospective chart review was performed that included adult patients receiving continuous systemic lidocaine infusions for the treatment of pain. Twenty-one patients were included in the analysis. Dosing ranged from 0.25 to 2.8 mg/kg/h, with a median infusion time of 64 hours. Eight patients (38%) experienced a response (≥20% reduction in pain score during the infusion compared with prior to the infusion). Among responding patients, there was a decrease in pain scores at rest after starting lidocaine (compared with prior to lidocaine) (6.5 vs. 3.7, P = .001) that was maintained 24 hours after lidocaine discontinuation. There were no differences in pain scores before, during, or after lidocaine in the entire study sample. A difference in oral morphine equivalent intake was present comparing usage during the infusion vs. day +1 (P = .006) and day +2 (P < .001). Similarly, a difference was present comparing morphine equivalent usage on day ?2 with day +2 (P = .008) and day ?1 with day +1 (P = .006). Continuous infusions of systemic lidocaine appear to be beneficial in some patients experiencing uncontrolled pain and may improve pain scores while decreasing opioid requirements. Overall beneficial effects of systemic lidocaine may last longer than the infusion itself.     

Ketorolac vs Meperidine for the Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective: To compare the pain relief, sedation, and common side effect profiles of ketorolac tromethamine and meperidine for the management of acute pain in the emergency department (ED).
Methods: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted over a 12-month period using consecutive adult patients presenting to a university teaching hospital ED (annual census: 32,000), who required IM analgesia for acute pain. Adult patients with acute pain of various etiologies were randomly assigned to receive a single fixed IM dose of ketorolac (60 mg) or meperidine (100 mg).
Results: Ninety-three patients were enrolled in the study; 46 were randomized to meperidine and 47 to ketorolac. Using a visual analog scale, there was no difference in pain relief between the ketorolac and meperidine groups even after adjusting for baseline pain level. Ketorolac caused significantly (p < 0.005) less sedation than did meperidine at one hour. Rescue analgesia was required for seven of the 46 (15.2%) patients receiving meperidine and five of the 47 (10.6%) patients receiving ketorolac (p = NS). Seventeen of 45 (38%) patients receiving meperidine experienced side effects compared with eight of the 47 (17%) patients receiving ketorolac (p = 0.0452).
Conclusions: When used to treat patients who had acute pain states, 60 mg of IM ketorolac produced analgesia similar to that produced by 100 mg of IM meperidine; however, the ketorolac produced fewer subjective side effects and less sedation than did the meperidine.     

Pain Neurophysiology Education and Therapeutic Exercise for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To assess the effect of a pain neurophysiology education (PNE) program plus therapeutic exercise (TE) for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient-controlled Analgesia Compared with Boluses of Analgesia for the Control of Acute Traumatic Pain in the Emergency Department

Background

The use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been reported to provide effective pain relief, often resulting in less opioid consumption, and is associated with greater patient satisfaction when it is compared to other techniques of analgesia delivery.

Objectives

This study was done to compare the effectiveness of pain relief and patient satisfaction between PCA and the conventional method of administering boluses of analgesia for acute pain of traumatic origin in the Emergency Department (ED).

Methods

Study patients were randomized into two groups after being given a bolus of morphine. The PCA group was then given morphine via the PCA system, whereas the control group was given the conventional boluses of morphine via titration method. Pain levels were measured using the visual analogue scale at intervals of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min. Any adverse events were also noted. Finally, within 24 h, these patients completed questionnaires regarding their experience with regard to the pain relief they experienced.

Results

The PCA group experienced faster and greater pain relief. No life-threatening events were encountered. The satisfaction questionnaire revealed that the PCA group was more satisfied using the PCA method of pain relief than those receiving standard boluses for delivery of analgesia.

Conclusion

PCA provides more effective pain relief and more patient satisfaction when compared to the conventional method of titrated bolus intravenous injection for the relief of traumatic pain in the ED setting.     

内热针治疗寒湿型腰痛的随机对照研究

目的:观察内热式针灸针治疗寒湿腰痛的临床疗效。方法:60例寒湿腰痛患者随机分为内热针组和温针组,每组30例。内热针组采用内热针治疗,温针组采用温针灸治疗。结果:内热针组治疗后总有效率为93.3%,温针组为70.0%;治疗后内热针组JOA评分、VAS评分及中医症状体征积分与温针组比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05),内热针效果较佳。结论:内热针与温针灸相比能够更加明显地改善寒湿腰痛患者的疼痛及各项功能,且更为安全、环保。     

Intravenous Lidocaine as an Adjuvant for Pain Associated with Sickle Cell Disease

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant intravenous (IV) lidocaine in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). This was a retrospective review. Adults with SCD receiving at least one IV lidocaine infusion from 2004 to 2014 were included. Patient demographics, lidocaine treatment parameters, pain scores, pain medications, and adverse effects were recorded. Eleven patients were identified, yielding 15 IV lidocaine trials. Clinical improvement in pain scores from pre-lidocaine challenge to 24 hours post-lidocaine challenge, defined by ≥20% reduction in pain scores, was achieved in 53.3% (8 of 15) of IV lidocaine challenges. Of the 8 clinically successful trials, the mean reduction in morphine dose equivalents (MDE) from 24 hours pre-lidocaine challenge to 24 hours post-lidocaine challenge was 32.2%. Additionally, clinically successful trials had a mean initial and a maximum dose of 1 mg/kg/h (range: 0.5–2.7 mg/kg/h) and 1.3 mg/kg/h (range: 0.5–1.9 mg/kg/h), respectively. On average, these patients underwent 3 dose titrations (range: 1–8) and received lidocaine infusions for 4.4 days (range: 2–8 days). Two patients experienced disorientation and dizziness. The authors conclude that adjuvant IV lidocaine provided pain relief and a mean reduction in MDE during sickle cell pain crisis. These results provide preliminary insight into the use of IV lidocaine for treating pain in patients with SCD, although prospective studies are needed to determine efficacy, dosing, and tolerability of IV lidocaine in this patient population.