• Srinivas R Banala, Osama K Khattab, Valda D Page, Carla L Warneke, Knox H Todd, and Yeung Sai-Ching Jim SJ 0000-0001-5170-0822 Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
• Plos One. 2020 Jan 1; 15 (7): e0235461.

ObjectiveIntranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsWe randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).ResultsAt T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (ConclusionsTwo of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964.

26 keywords...

hide…