Nebulized versus intravenous morphine titration for the initial treatment of severe acute pain in the emergency department: study protocol for a multicenter, prospective randomized and controlled trial, CLIN-AEROMORPH

Virginie Eve Lvovschi, Justine Joly, Nicolas Lemaire, Maxime Maignan, Pauline Canavaggio, Anne-Marie Leroi, Marie-Pierre Tavolacci, Luc-Marie Joly, Virginie Eve Lvovschi, Justine Joly, Nicolas Lemaire, Maxime Maignan, Pauline Canavaggio, Anne-Marie Leroi, Marie-Pierre Tavolacci, Luc-Marie Joly

Abstract

Background: Intravenous morphine titration (IVMT) is the French gold standard for opioid treatment in the emergency department (ED). Nebulized morphine titration (NMT) may represent an alternative without venous access, but it has not been adequately studied in adults. We test the hypothesis that NMT is at least as effective as IVMT to initially manage severe acute pain in the ED.

Methods/design: We designed a multicenter (10 French EDs), single-blind, randomized and controlled trial. Adults between 18 and 75 years with visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 70/100 or numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 7/10 will be enrolled. We will randomize 850 patients into two groups to compare two routes of MT as long as VAS > 30 or NRS > 3. In group A (425), patients will receive an initial NMT for 5-25 min associated with titration of an intravenously (IV) administered placebo of physiologic serum (PS). In group B (425), patients will receive IVMT plus nebulized PS placebo. NMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 5-min nebulized boluses of 10 mg or 15 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 10-min fixed intervals. IVMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 boluses of 2 mg or 3 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 5-min fixed intervals. Nebulized placebo titration will be performed every 10 min. IV titration of PS will be performed every 5 min. In both groups, after 25 min, if VAS > 30/100 or NRS > 3/10, routine IVMT will be continued until pain relief. Pain severity, vital signs, bronchospasm, and Ramsay score will be recorded every 5 min. The primary outcome is the rate of relief obtained 1 h from the start of drug administration. Complete pain relief in both groups will be compared with a non-inferiority design. Secondary outcomes are pain relief at 30 min (the end of NMT) and at 2 h and median pain relief. We will compare final doses, and study the feasibility and tolerance of NMT (protocol deviations, respiratory or hemodynamic depression, sedation, and minor vegetative side effects). Co-analgesia will be recorded. Discharge criteria from the ED and hospital are defined.

Discussion: This trial is the first multicenter randomized and controlled NMT protocol for severe pain in the ED using the titration concept. We propose an original approach of combined titration with an endpoint at 1 h and a non-inferiority design.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03257319 . Registered on 22 August 2017.

Keywords: Analgesia; Morphine; Nebulized; Pain; Randomised controlled trial; Single blind.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol and patient-informed consent procedures received Ethics Committee approval (SUD-MEDITERRANEE1 approval number 17 32) on 17 May 2017 prior to registration (reference number 2014/009/HP).

Authorization for this protocol has also been granted by the ANSM (French Competent Authority) (art. L 1123-8 of French Public Health Code). Thanks to these two centralized procedures, this study has gained ethical approval at both central and local levels for all centers participating in the study. Any modifications to the protocol that may impact the conduct of the study, potential benefit to the patient, or that may affect patient safety will require a formal amendment to the protocol and new approval from the Ethics Committee according to local regulations and a request for authorization by the ANSM (art. L 1123-9). Approval by these two institutional committees is also required for new center recruiting.

Information has been provided to the directors and pharmacists of centers participating in the study before the research began (art. L 1123-13 of French Public Health Code).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

However, the authors VEL and NL disclose that they have individually received occasional travel grants for participation in national and international congresses from Mundipharma.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CLIN-AEROMORPH study flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Study design
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Monitoring sheet
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments

References

    1. Circulaire DGS/DH/DAS N° 99/84 du 11 février 1999, relative à la mise en place de protocole de prise en charge de la douleur aiguë par les équipes pluridisciplinaires médicales et soignantes des établissements de santé et institutions médico-sociales. . Accessed 1999.
    1. Décret N°2002-194 du 11 Février 2002. Décret relatif aux actes professionnels et à l’exercice de la profession d’infirmier. . Accessed 2002.
    1. DREES, Motifs et trajectoires de recours aux urgences hospitalières, Etudes et résultats janvier 2003. Accessed 2003.
    1. MEAH, Améliorer la prise en charge de la douleur aux urgences, rapport intermédiaire, nov. 2008. . Accessed 2008.
    1. Simon M, et al. Le traitement médicamenteux de la douleur dans un service d’accueil et d’urgence. IIIe conférence de consensus en médecine d’urgence. Reanim Urg. 1993;2(3):321–7.
    1. Société Française d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation. Conférence d’expert: modalités de la sédation et/ou de l’analgésie en situation extra-hospitalière. Elsevier, Paris, 2000. .
    1. Actualisation 2007 de la III Conférence de consensus en médecine d’urgence (Créteil, avril 1993): le traitement médicamenteux de la douleur de l’adulte dans le cadre de l’urgence.
    1. Ducasse JL, Bounes V, L’utilisation de la morphine, par l’urgentiste, analgésie sédation en urgence, SFMU, Urgences 2007.
    1. Ducasse JL, Fuzier R. La prise en charge de la douleur aiguë dans les services d’urgences en 1988. In: Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, editor. Actualités en réanimation et urgencies. Paris: Elsevier; 1999. pp. 255–269.
    1. Bijur PE, Kenny MK, Gallagher EJ. Intravenous morphine at 0.1 mg/kg is not effective for controlling severe acute pain in the majority of patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46:362–367. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.03.010.
    1. Boulard J.C., Sitruk F., Khodja S., Dagher H., Galichon B., Courret J.P., Daum-Morelon S., Brun-Ney D. 183 - Efficacité et sécurité de la titration morphinique aux urgences. Influence des délais entre les bolus. Journal Européen des Urgences. 2004;17:74. doi: 10.1016/S0993-9857(04)97193-2.
    1. Lvovschi V, Aubrun F, Bonnet P, et al. Intravenous morphine titration to treat severe pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26:676–682. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.10.025.
    1. Aubrun F, Monsel S, Langeron O, et al. Postoperative titration of intravenous morphine. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2001;18:159–165. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200103000-00004.
    1. Aubrun F, Valade N, Riou B. La titration intraveineuse de morphine. Ann Fr Anesth Réanim. 2004;23:973–985. doi: 10.1016/j.annfar.2004.08.010.
    1. Aubrun F, Langeron O, Quesnel C, Coriat P, Riou B. Relationships between measurement of pain using visual analog score and morphine requirements during postoperative intravenous morphine titration. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1415–1421. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200306000-00017.
    1. Aubrun F, Amour J, Rosenthal D, Coriat P, Riou B. Effects of a loading dose of morphine before intravenous morphine titration for postoperative pain relief. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:124–130. doi: 10.1093/bja/ael284.
    1. Boccard E, et al. Pain management in adult patients in emergency care units in France in 2010. Ann. Fr. Med. Urgence. 2011;1:312–319. doi: 10.1007/s13341-011-0094-4.
    1. Wilson JE, Pendelton JM. Oligoanalgesia in the emergency department. Am Emerg Med. 1989;7:620–623. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(89)90286-6.
    1. Rupp T, Delaney KA. Inadequate analgesia in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:494–503. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.11.019.
    1. Mura P, et al. Prospective study on prevalence, intensity, type, and therapy of acute pain in a second-level urban emergency department. J Pain Res. 2017;10:2781–2788. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S137992.
    1. Stephany T. Nebulized morphine: another point of view. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 1995;12(5):7. doi: 10.1177/104990919501200505.
    1. Ballas SK, Viscusi ER, Epstein KR. Management of acute chest wall sickle cell pain with nebulized morphine. Am J Hematol. 2004;76(2):190–191. doi: 10.1002/ajh.20064.
    1. Baydur A. Nebulized morphine: a convenient and safe alternative to dyspnea relief? Chest. 2004;125(2):363–365. doi: 10.1378/chest.125.2.363.
    1. Fulda GJ, Giberson F, Fagraeus L. A prospective randomized trial of nebulized morphine compared with patient-controlled analgesia morphine in the management of acute thoracic pain. J Trauma. 2005;59(2):383–388. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000179452.70520.1b.
    1. Lasheen W, Panneerselvam A, Davis MP. Can we really say that nebulized morphine works? J Pain Symptom Manag. 2006;32(2):101–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.03.006.
    1. Bruera E, Sala R, Spruyt O, Palmer JL, Zhang T, Willey J. Nebulized versus subcutaneous morphine for patients with cancer dyspnea: a preliminary study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2005;29(6):613–618. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.08.016.
    1. Furyk JS, Grabowski WJ, Black LH. Nebulized fentanyl versus intravenous morphine in children with suspected limb fractures in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Emerg Med Australas. 2009;21(3):203–209.
    1. Bounes V, Ducassé JL, Bona AM, Battefort F, Houze-Cerfon CH, Lauque D. Nebulized morphine for analgesia in an emergency setting. J Opioid Manag. 2009;5(1):23–26. doi: 10.5055/jom.2009.0003.
    1. Nejmi H, Fath K, Anaflous R, Sourour S, Samkaoui MA. A prospective randomized comparison of nebulized morphine versus thoracic epidural analgesia in the management of thoracic trauma. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2010;29(6):415–418. doi: 10.1016/j.annfar.2010.02.026.
    1. Grissa MH, et al. Efficacy and safety of nebulized morphine given at 2 different doses compared to IV titrated morphine in trauma pain. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(11):1557–1561. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.06.014.
    1. Thompson JP, Thompson DF. Nebulized fentanyl in acute pain: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother. 2016;50(10):882–891. doi: 10.1177/1060028016659077.
    1. Upton RN, Semple TJ, Macintyre PE. Pharmacokinetic optimisation of opioid treatment in acute pain therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997;33:225–244. doi: 10.2165/00003088-199733030-00005.
    1. Villesen HH, Kristensen K, Hansen SH, Jensen NH, Skram U, Christrup LL. Pharmacokinetics of morphine-6-glucuronide following oral administration in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(8):761–767. doi: 10.1007/s00228-007-0306-4.
    1. Lötsch J. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of opioids. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2005;29:S90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.01.012.
    1. Chrubasik J, Wüst H, Friedrich G, Geller E. Absorption and bioavailability of nebulized morphine. Br J Anaesth. 1988;61(2):228–230. doi: 10.1093/bja/61.2.228.
    1. Masood AR, Thomas SH. Systemic absorption of nebulized morphine compared with oral morphine in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;41(3):250–252. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1996.tb00192.x.
    1. Zebraski SE, Kochenash SM, Raffa RB. Lung opioid receptors: pharmacology and possible target for nebulized morphine in dyspnea. Life Sci. 2000;66(23):2221–2231. doi: 10.1016/S0024-3205(00)00434-3.
    1. Ward M. Elizabeth, Woodhouse Annie, Mather Laurence E., Farr Stephen J., Okikawa Jerry K., Lloyd Peter, Schuster Jeffrey A., Rubsamen Reid M. Morphine pharmacokinetics after pulmonary administration from a novel aerosol delivery system*. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 1997;62(6):596–609. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9236(97)90079-5.
    1. Lötsch J, Skarke C, Schmitt H, Grösch S, Geisslinger G. The transfer half-life of morphine-6-glucuronide from plasma to effect site assessed by pupil size measurement in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:1329–1338. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200112000-00009.
    1. Penson RT, Joel SP, Roberts M, Gloyne A, Beckwith S, Slevin ML. The bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous, nebulized and oral morphine-6-glucuronide. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53(4):347–354. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01554.x.
    1. Quigley C, Joel S, Patel N, Baksh A, Slevin M. A phase I/II study of nebulized morphine-6-glucuronide in patients with cancer-related breathlessness. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2002;23(1):7–9. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00381-5.
    1. Dershwitz M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled versus intravenous morphine in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:619–628. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200009000-00009.
    1. Macleod DB, Habib AS, Ikeda K, et al. Inhaled fentanyl aerosol in healthy volunteers: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Anesth Analg. 2012;115:1071–1077. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182691898.
    1. Ramsay MA, Savege TM, Simpson BR, Goodwin R. Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone. Br Med J. 1974;2:656–659. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5920.656.
    1. Paqueron X, Lumbroso A, Mergoni P, Aubrun F, Langeron O, Coriat P, Riou B. Is morphine-induced sedation synonymous with analgesia during intravenous morphine titration? Br J Anaesth. 2002;89:697–701. doi: 10.1093/bja/89.5.697.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner