ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess changes in validated patient-reported outcome measures after initiation of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) and the safety of CBMPs in patients with inflammatory arthritis. A prospective case series from the UK Medical Cannabis Registry was analyzed. The primary outcomes changes were in Brief Pain Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire, EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire, and Single-Item Sleep Quality Scale at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up compared with baseline. Adverse events were analyzed in accordance with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v.4.0. Statistical significance was defined as a P-value less than 0.050. Eighty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Initiation of CBMP treatment was associated with improvements in Brief Pain Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire, and Single-Item Sleep Quality Scale at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months compared with baseline (Pâ <â 0.050). There were 102 (44.35%) mild adverse events, 97 (42.17%) moderate adverse events, and 31 (13.48%) severe adverse events recorded by 21 (25.61%) participants. This study suggests that CBMP treatment is associated with pain improvement and increased health-related quality of life for inflammatory arthritis patients. While causality cannot be inferred in this observational study, the results support the development of randomized control trials for inflammatory arthritis pain management with CBMPs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, may reduce pulmonary complications in older patients. Known barriers to recruiting older patients in emergency settings necessitate a feasibility trial. We aimed to establish whether a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fracture(s) was feasible. METHODS: This was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, feasibility RCT in seven hospitals in England and Scotland. Patients aged ≥65 years, presenting to ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring hospital admission were randomised to receive up to 3×700 mg lidocaine patches (Ralvo), first applied in ED and then once daily for 72 hours in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, retention and adherence. Clinical end points (pulmonary complications, pain and frailty-specific outcomes) and patient questionnaires were collected to determine feasibility of data collection and inform health economic scoping. Interviews and focus groups with trial participants and clinicians/research staff explored the understanding and acceptability of trial processes. RESULTS: Between October 23, 2021 and October 7, 2022, 206 patients were eligible, of whom 100 (median age 83 years; IQR 74-88) were randomised; 48 to lidocaine patches and 52 to standard care. Pulmonary complications at 30 days were determined in 86% of participants and 83% of expected 30-day questionnaires were returned. Pulmonary complications occurred in 48% of the lidocaine group and 59% in standard care. Pain and some frailty-specific outcomes were not feasible to collect. Staff reported challenges in patient compliance, unfamiliarity with research measures and overwhelming the patients with research procedures. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of older patients with rib fracture(s) in an emergency setting for the evaluation of lidocaine patches is feasible. Refinement of data collection, with a focus on the collection of pain, frailty-specific outcomes and intervention delivery are needed before progression to a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14813929.
ABSTRACT
Background: Topical lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, have been suggested as a non-invasive method of local anaesthetic delivery to improve respiratory function, reduce opioid consumption and consequently reduce pulmonary complications. Older patients may gain most benefit from improved analgesic regimens yet lidocaine patches are untested as an early intervention in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this trial is to investigate uncertainties around trial design and conduct, to establish whether a definitive randomised trial of topical lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fractures is feasible. Methods: RELIEF is an open label, multicentre, parallel group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial with economic scoping and nested qualitative study. Patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring admission will be randomised 1:1 to lidocaine patches (intervention), in addition to standard clinical management, or standard clinical management alone. Lidocaine patches will be applied immediately after diagnosis in ED and continued daily for 72 hours or until discharge. Feasibility outcomes will focus on recruitment, adherence and follow-up data with a total sample size of 100. Clinical outcomes, such as 30-day pulmonary complications, and resource use will be collected to understand feasibility of data collection. Qualitative interviews will explore details of the trial design, trial acceptability and recruitment processes. An evaluation of the feasibility of measuring health economics outcomes data will be completed. Discussion: Interventions to improve outcomes in elderly patients with rib fractures are urgently required. This feasibility trial will test a novel early intervention which has the potential of fulfilling this unmet need. The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF) feasibility trial will determine whether a definitive trial is feasible. ISRCTN Registration: ISRCTN14813929 (22/04/2021).
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patches containing a numbing medication (lidocaine), put on the skin over broken ribs, may help to improve outcomes in older people. We will carry out a clinical trial of these patches, to see whether this research would work in Accident and Emergency (A&E) and whether patients will take part. DESIGN: We will ask 100 older people who need to stay in hospital with broken ribs to take part in this research. We will ask permission from relatives to include people with dementia. We will put those who agree to take part into one of two groups by chance. One group will have the patch put over their broken ribs in A&E for up to 3 days, along with usual pain killers if needed. We will treat people in the other group in the normal way, without a patch. We will track how many people are willing to take part. We will collect information on patient recovery in the 30 days after going to A&E and ask people to complete questionnaires about their health. We will interview patients and clinicians to get feedback. Patient and Public Involvement: Patient volunteers helped us design this research and will provide advice throughout. They agreed that including older people was appropriate, people with dementia and their carers should take part, and side-effects of strong pain killers are important to patients. FINDINGS: We will use the research findings to develop a larger trial to see if lidocaine patches help patients with broken ribs. We will write up results for scientific journals, speak at conferences and to our patient group.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: To develop a questionnaire to identify Intensive Care survivor needs at key transitions during the recovery process, and assess its validity and reliability in a group of ICU survivors. METHODS: Development of the Support Needs After ICU (SNAC) questionnaire was based on a systematic scoping review, and analysis of patient interviews (n = 22). Face and content validity were assessed by service users (n = 12) and an expert panel of healthcare professionals (n = 6). A pilot survey among 200 ICU survivors assessed recruitment at one of five different stages after ICU discharge [(1) in hospital, (2) < 6 weeks, (3) 7 weeks to 6 months, (4) 7 to 12 months, or (5) 12 to 24 months post-hospital discharge]; to assess reliability of the SNAC questionnaire; and to conduct exploratory data analysis. Reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency; intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability. We explored correlations with sociodemographic variables using Pearson's correlation coefficient; differences between questionnaire scores and patient demographics using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The SNAC questionnaire consisted of 32 items that assessed five categories of support needs (informational, emotional, instrumental [e.g. practical physical help, provision of equipment or training], appraisal [e.g. clinician feedback on recovery] and spiritual needs). ICU survivors were recruited from Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. From a total of 375 questionnaires distributed, 202 (54%) were returned. The questionnaire had high internal consistency (0.97) and high test-retest reliability (r = 0.8) with subcategories ranging from 0.3 to 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAC questionnaire appears to be a comprehensive, valid, and reliable questionnaire. Further research will enable more robust examination of its properties e.g. factor analysis, and establish its utility in identifying whether patients' support needs evolve over time. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The SNAC questionnaire has the potential to be used to identify ICU survivors' needs and inform post-hospital support services.
