Browsing by Author "Glassberg, Jeffrey"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A randomized controlled trial comparing two vaso-occlusive episode (VOE) protocols in sickle cell disease (SCD).
    (American journal of hematology, 2018-02) Tanabe, Paula; Silva, Susan; Bosworth, Hayden B; Crawford, Regina; Paice, Judith A; Richardson, Lynne D; Miller, Christopher N; Glassberg, Jeffrey
    Limited evidence guides opioid dosing strategies for acute Sickle Cell (SCD) pain. We compared two National Heart, Lung and Blood (NHBLI) recommended opioid dosing strategies (weight-based vs. patient-specific) for ED treatment of acute vaso-occlusive episodes (VOE). A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in two ED's. Adults ≥ 21 years of age with SCD disease were eligible. Among the 155 eligible patients, 106 consented and 52 had eligible visits. Patients were pre-enrolled in the outpatient setting and randomized to one of two opioid dosing strategies for a future ED visit. ED providers accessed protocols through the electronic medical record. Change in pain score (0-100 mm VAS) from arrival to ED disposition, as well as side effects were assessed. 52 patients (median age was 27 years, 42% were female, and 89% black) had one or more ED visits for a VOE (total of 126 ED study visits, up to 5 visits/patient were included). Participants randomized to the patient-specific protocol experienced a mean reduction in pain score that was 16.6 points greater than patients randomized to the weight-based group (mean difference 95% CI = 11.3 to 21.9, P = 0.03). Naloxone was not required for either protocol and nausea and/or vomiting was observed less often in the patient-specific protocol (25.8% vs 59.4%, P = 0.0001). The hospital admission rate for VOE was lower for patients in the patient-specific protocol (40.3% vs 57.8% P = 0.05). NHLBI guideline-based analgesia with patient-specific opioid dosing resulted in greater improvements in the pain experience compared to a weight-based strategy, without increased side effects.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: management of acute and chronic pain.
    (Blood advances, 2020-06) Brandow, Amanda M; Carroll, C Patrick; Creary, Susan; Edwards-Elliott, Ronisha; Glassberg, Jeffrey; Hurley, Robert W; Kutlar, Abdullah; Seisa, Mohamed; Stinson, Jennifer; Strouse, John J; Yusuf, Fouza; Zempsky, William; Lang, Eddy
    BACKGROUND:The management of acute and chronic pain for individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD) is a clinical challenge. This reflects the paucity of clinical SCD pain research and limited understanding of the complex biological differences between acute and chronic pain. These issues collectively create barriers to effective, targeted interventions. Optimal pain management requires interdisciplinary care. OBJECTIVE:These evidence-based guidelines developed by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in pain management decisions for children and adults with SCD. METHODS:ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including 2 patient representatives, that was thoroughly vetted to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic reviews. Clinical questions and outcomes were prioritized according to importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS:The panel reached consensus on 18 recommendations specific to acute and chronic pain. The recommendations reflect a broad pain management approach, encompassing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions and analgesic delivery. CONCLUSIONS:Because of low-certainty evidence and closely balanced benefits and harms, most recommendations are conditional. Patient preferences should drive clinical decisions. Policymaking, including that by payers, will require substantial debate and input from stakeholders. Randomized controlled trials and comparative-effectiveness studies are needed for chronic opioid therapy, nonopioid therapies, and nonpharmacological interventions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Exploring Emergency Department Provider Experiences With and Perceptions of Weight-Based Versus Individualized Vaso-Occlusive Treatment Protocols in Sickle Cell Disease.
    (Advanced emergency nursing journal, 2019-01) Knight, LaʼKita MJ; Onsomu, Elijah O; Bosworth, Hayden B; Crawford, Regina D; DeMartino, Theresa; Glassberg, Jeffrey; Paice, Judith A; Miller, Christopher N; Richardson, Lynne; Tanabe, Paula
    Treatment of vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs) is the most common reason for emergency department (ED) treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD). We (1) compared perceptions of the usability and ability to manage VOE pain between ED nurses and other ED provider types, ED sites, and VOE protocols (individualized vs. weight-based), and (2) identified ED nurse and other provider protocol suggestions. A secondary analysis of provider survey data collected immediately after caring for a patient enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing weight-based versus individualized opioid dosing for VOE. Research staff asked the ED nurses and other ED providers (nurse practitioners [NPs], physician assistants [PAs], residents, and attending physicians) 5 questions related to the protocol's ease of use and ability to manage pain. There were 236 surveys completed. Attending physicians (n = 15), residents (n = 88), PAs (n = 21), and NPs (n = l) were more satisfied than nurses (n = 111) with the clarity of the analgesic ordering (97.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001) and ability to manage the patient's VOE pain (91% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001). When comparing both protocols with the usual ED strategy in their ED to manage VOE, more nurses than other ED providers perceived the study patients' pain management protocol as better (100% vs. 35.2%, p = 0.0001). Other ED providers perceived the individualized versus weight-based protocol as better at managing pain than their usual ED strategy (70.3% vs. 59.5%, p = 0.04). The individualized protocol was perceived as better in managing VOE than the weight-based ED strategy. While physicians were satisfied with the clarity of the protocols, nurses were not. Improved protocol usability is required for widespread ED implementation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Time to pain relief: A randomized controlled trial in the emergency department during vaso-occlusive episodes in sickle cell disease.
    (European journal of haematology, 2023-05) Tanabe, Paula; Bosworth, Hayden B; Crawford, Regina D; Glassberg, Jeffrey; Miller, Christopher N; Paice, Judith A; Silva, Susan

    Objective

    Compare time to pain relief (minimum of a 13 mm and 30% reduction) during an Emergency Department (ED) visit among patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) experiencing severe pain associated with a vaso-occlusive episode who were randomized to receive either an individualized or weight-based pain protocol.

    Methods

    A randomized controlled trial in two EDs. Adults with sickle cell disease. Research staff recorded pain scores every 30 min during an ED visit (up to 6 h in the ED) using a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. Analysis included 122 visits, representing 49 patients (individualized: 61 visits, 25 patients; standard: 61 visits, 24 patients).

    Results

    Pain reduction across 6-h was greater for the individualized compared to the standard protocol (protocol-by-time: p = .02; 6-h adjusted pain score comparison: Individualized: M = 29.2, SD = 38.8, standard: M = 45.3, SD = 35.6; p = .03, Cohen d = 0.43). Hazards models indicated a greater probability of 13 mm (HR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.05, 2.27, p = .03) and 30% (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.11, 2.63, p = .01) reduction in the individualized relative to the standard protocol.

    Conclusions

    Patients who received treatment with an individualized protocol experienced a more rapid reduction in pain, including a 13 mm and 30% reduction in pain scores when compared to those that received weight-based dosing.