MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405047598 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-202145

Feasibility, Safety and Effectiveness of Intranasal Fentanyl in the Treatment of Acute Pain Episodes Among Adults with Sickle Cell Disease: A Retrospective Single Center Study

2024· article· en· W4405047598 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren Arena, J. A. Colin Bergeron, Bernard Lemieux, Jules M. Ross, Nazila Bettache, Denis Soulières, Stéphanie Forté

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFentanylSingle CenterRetrospective cohort studyNasal administrationAcute painSickle cell anemiaDiseaseAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The management of acute moderate to severe pain episodes (APE) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) involves the rapid administration of opioid analgesia within 60 minutes of presentation, as recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology. Intranasal fentanyl (INF) is therefore an appealing option for its non-invasive administration, bypassing the need for IV access, as well as for its rapid onset of action (<10 min). The use of INF has been widely adopted in the pediatric SCD population, where it has been associated with more rapid administration of analgesia and early discharge from the ED. Despite this, there is currently a paucity of evidence to support its use in adults with SCD. Since 2020, the CHUM (Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) has instituted a standardized INF protocol for the management of patients with severe non-complicated APE referred to the medical day hospital (MDH). Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of INF in managing APE in adults with SCD at our center. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted at the CHUM (Montréal, Canada), a tertiary care center treating 586 patients with SCD. An administrative list was used to identify patients with at least one visit to the MDH for management of APE between March 2020 and June 2024, and patients who were managed with INF were identified. Electronic medical records were accessed to extract patient characteristics, variables pertaining to the process (time to first dose of analgesia, duration of stay in MDH), safety (respiratory depression, hypotension, or bradycardia) and effectiveness (serial pain scores and admission rate). Results: Between March 2020 and June 2024, 23 patients with SCD were treated with INF in the MDH over a total of 38 visits. INF was administered as a fixed dose of 100 mcg, via a Mucosal Atomizer Device. Seventeen (74%) patients were female, and the median age at presentation was 26 years (range: 18-58). Genotype distribution was as follows: 15 (66%) of patients with HbSS, 5 (21%) with HbSC, and 3 (13%) with HbSβ+. Twenty (86%) patients were receiving treatment with hydroxyurea, and 5 (21%) were undergoing regular erythrapheresis. Virtually all patients had previous exposure to opioids, and 3 (13%) patients had chronic exposure to long-acting opioids. On presentation, all patients received co-analgesia with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and all received subsequent doses of parenteral opioids, with a median dose of 12.5 mg (5-50 mg) morphine equivalents. The median time to administration of INF from presentation was 48 minutes (10-125 min). The median duration of stay in MDH was 4 hours (1.5-6.7 hours). No patients experienced cardiorespiratory adverse events, nor alterations in mental status. The most common side effects reported were nausea and pruritus resulting in the administration of antiemetics or antihistamines in 7 (18%) and 4 (10%) of visits, respectively. The median pain score on presentation was 7 (4-10) and pain scores at 1 hour after INF and at discharge from MDH were 6 (1-8) and 3 (0-8), respectively. This represented a median 60% (0-100%) reduction in pain score at the time of discharge and only 4 (11%) visits resulted in hospital admission due to inadequate pain control. Ten patients (43%) had more than 1visit during the observation period, and 50% of these patients received INF again on their subsequent visits. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting on the use of INF in adults with SCD in a MDH setting. In this small cohort, INF appeared to be feasible, safe, and effective in the management of APE in adults with SCD presenting to the MDH and was acceptable among patients. Administration of INF was rapid, respecting recommended delays, and very few visits required admission or ED referral for additional analgesia. The use of INF has been widely accepted in the pediatric population with SCD and it has been shown to be effective in adults with chronic and cancer related pain. Standardized protocols which incorporate INF should therefore be considered in the management of adults with SCD, and further research on its relative effectiveness compared to traditional parenteral routes of administration, as well as patient preferences, are needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207