IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intranasal sufentanil versus intravenous morphine for acute severe trauma pain: A double-blind randomized non-inferiority study

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Blancher
  • Maxime Maignan
  • Cyrielle Clapé
  • Jean-Louis Quesada
  • Roselyne Collomb-Muret
  • François Albasini
  • François-Xavier Ageron
  • Stephanie Fey
  • Audrey Wuyts
  • Jean-Jacques Banihachemi
  • Barthelemy Bertrand
  • Audrey Lehmann
  • Claire Bollart
  • Guillaume Debaty
  • Raphaël Briot
  • Damien Viglino

Abstract

Background: Intravenous morphine (IVM) is the most common strong analgesic used in trauma, but is associated with a clear time limitation related to the need to obtain an access route. The intranasal (IN) route provides easy administration with a fast peak action time due to high vascularization and the absence of first-pass metabolism. We aimed to determine whether IN sufentanil (INS) for patients presenting to an emergency department with acute severe traumatic pain results in a reduction in pain intensity non-inferior to IVM. Methods and findings: In a prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority trial conducted in the emergency departments of 6 hospitals across France, patients were randomized 1:1 to INS titration (0.3 μg/kg and additional doses of 0.15 μg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if numerical pain rating scale [NRS] > 3) and intravenous placebo, or to IVM (0.1 mg/kg and additional doses of 0.05 mg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if NRS > 3) and IN placebo. Patients, clinical staff, and research staff were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the total decrease on NRS at 30 minutes after first administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was −1.3 on the NRS. The primary outcome was analyzed per protocol. Adverse events were prospectively recorded during 4 hours. Among the 194 patients enrolled in the emergency department cohort between November 4, 2013, and April 10, 2016, 157 were randomized, and the protocol was correctly administered in 136 (69 IVM group, 67 INS group, per protocol population, 76% men, median age 40 [IQR 29 to 54] years). The mean difference between NRS at first administration and NRS at 30 minutes was −4.1 (97.5% CI −4.6 to −3.6) in the IVM group and −5.2 (97.5% CI −5.7 to −4.6) in the INS group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (p

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Blancher & Maxime Maignan & Cyrielle Clapé & Jean-Louis Quesada & Roselyne Collomb-Muret & François Albasini & François-Xavier Ageron & Stephanie Fey & Audrey Wuyts & Jean-Jacques Banihachemi & B, 2019. "Intranasal sufentanil versus intravenous morphine for acute severe trauma pain: A double-blind randomized non-inferiority study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002849
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002849
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002849&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.