PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)—patientcontrolled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with pain from traumatic injuries: Randomised trial

Objective To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries.Design Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.Setting Five English hospitals.Participants 200 adults (71% (n=142) male), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours.Interventions PCA (n=99) or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual; n=101).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant’s hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate/severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management.Results 200 participants were included in the primary analyses. Mean total pain experienced was 47.2 (SD 21.9) for the treatment as usual group and 44.0 (24.0) for the PCA group. Adjusted analyses indicated slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower total pain experienced in the PCA group than in the routine care group (mean difference 2.7, 95% confidence interval −2.4 to 7.8). Participants allocated to PCA used more morphine in total than did participants in the treatment as usual group (mean 44.3 (23.2) v 27.2 (18.2) mg; mean difference 17.0, 11.3 to 22.7). PCA participants spent, on average, less time in moderate/severe pain (36.2% (31.0) v 44.1% (31.6)), but the difference was not statistically significant. A higher proportion of PCA participants reported being perfectly or very satisfied compared with the treatment as usual group (86% (78/91) v 76% (74/98)), but this was also not statistically significant.Conclusions PCA provided no statistically significant reduction in pain compared with routine care for emergency department patients with traumatic injuries.Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280

Urinary Volatile Organic Compound Testing in Fast-Track Patients with Suspected Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal symptoms are common but only infrequently represent serious pathology, including colorectal cancer (CRC). A large number of invasive tests are presently performed for reassurance. We investigated the feasibility of urinary volatile organic compound (VOC) testing as a potential triage tool in patients fast-tracked for assessment for possible CRC. A prospective, multicenter, observational feasibility study was performed across three sites. Patients referred to NHS fast-track pathways for potential CRC provided a urine sample that underwent Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), Field Asymmetric Ion Mobility Spectrometry (FAIMS), and Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometry (SIFT-MS) analysis. Patients underwent colonoscopy and/or CT colonography and were grouped as either CRC, adenomatous polyp(s), or controls to explore the diagnostic accuracy of VOC output data supported by an artificial neural network (ANN) model. 558 patients participated with 23 (4%) CRC diagnosed. 59% of colonoscopies and 86% of CT colonographies showed no abnormalities. Urinary VOC testing was feasible, acceptable to patients, and applicable within the clinical fast track pathway. GC-MS showed the highest clinical utility for CRC and polyp detection vs. controls (sensitivity = 0.878, specificity = 0.882, AUROC = 0.896) but it is labour intensive. Urinary VOC testing and analysis are feasible within NHS fast-track CRC pathways. Clinically meaningful differences between patients with cancer, polyps, or no pathology were identified suggesting VOC analysis may have future utility as a triage tool

PAin SoluTions in the Emergency Setting (PASTIES); A protocol for two open-label randomised trials of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus routine care in the emergency department

Introduction: Pain is the commonest reason that patients present to an emergency department (ED), but it is often not treated effectively. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is used in other hospital settings but there is little evidence to support its use in emergency patients. We describe two randomised trials aiming to compare PCA to nurse titrated analgesia (routine care) in adult patients who present to the ED requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain and are subsequently admitted to hospital. Methods and analysis: Two prospective multicentre open-label randomised trials of PCA versus routine care in emergency department patients who require intravenous opioid analgesia followed by admission to hospital; one trial involving patients with traumatic musculoskeletal injuries and the second involving patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. In each trial, 200 participants will be randomised to receive either routine care or PCA, and followed for the first 12 h of their hospital stay. The primary outcome measure is hourly pain score recorded by the participant using a visual analogue scale (VAS) over the 12 h study period, with the primary statistical analyses based on the area under the curve of these pain scores. Secondary outcomes include total opioid use, side effects, time spent asleep, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay and incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by the South Central-Southampton A Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 11/SC/0151). Data collection will be completed by August 2013, with statistical analyses starting after all final data queries are resolved. Dissemination plans include presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings held by relevant Colleges and societies. Publications should be ready for submission during 2014. A lay summary of the results will be available to study participants on request, and disseminated via a publically accessible website

Chewing gum vs. ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial - the effect of anxiety.

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. An objective of this study, part of a large previously reported RCT on pain and analgesic use, was to determine the effect of anxiety on perceived pain and use of analgesia