Methoxyflurane is an inhaled analgesic administered via a disposable inhaler which has been used in Australia for over 40 years for the management of pain associated with trauma and for medical procedures in children and adults. Now available in 16 countries worldwide, it is licensed in Europe for moderate to severe pain associated with trauma in conscious adults, although additional applications are being made to widen the range of approved indications. Considering these ongoing developments, we reviewed the available evidence on clinical usage and safety of inhaled analgesic methoxyflurane in trauma pain and in medical procedures in both adults and children. Published data on methoxyflurane in trauma and procedural pain show it to be effective, well tolerated, and highly rated by patients, providing rapid onset of analgesia. Methoxyflurane has a well-established safety profile; adverse events are usually brief and self-limiting, and no clinically significant effects on vital signs or consciousness levels have been reported. Nephrotoxicity previously associated with methoxyflurane at high anesthetic doses is not reported with low analgesic doses. Although two large retrospective comparative studies in the prehospital setting showed inhaled analgesic methoxyflurane to be less effective than intravenous morphine and intranasal fentanyl, this should be balanced against the administration, supervision times, and safety profile of these agents. Given the limitations of currently available analgesic agents in the prehospital and emergency department settings, the ease of use and portability of methoxyflurane combined with its rapid onset of effective pain relief and favorable safety profile make it a useful nonopioid option for pain management. Except for the STOP! study, which formed the basis for approval in trauma pain in Europe, and a few smaller randomized controlled trials (RCTs), much of the available data are observational or retrospective, and further RCTs are currently underway to provide more robust data.

IntroductionLaxatives are commonly used to treat opioid-induced constipation, the commonest and most bothersome complication of opioids. However, laxatives have a nonspecific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of opioid-induced constipation; their use is associated with abdominal symptoms that negatively impact quality of life.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of laxatives in patients taking opioids for chronic pain.MethodsOne hundred ninety-eight UK patients who had taken opioid analgesics for at least one month completed a cross-sectional online or telephone survey. Questions addressed their pain condition, medication, and laxative use (including efficacy and side effects). The survey also assessed bowel function using the Bowel Function Index.ResultsSince starting their current opioid, 134 of 184 patients (73%) had used laxatives at some point and 122 (91%) of these were currently taking them. The most common laxatives were osmotics and stimulants. Laxative side effects were reported in 75%, most commonly gas, bloating/fullness, and a sudden urge to defecate. Side effects were more common in patients less than 40 years of age. Approximately half of patients said laxatives interfered with work and social activities, and one-fifth needed an overnight hospital stay because of their pain condition and/or constipation. Laxatives did not improve the symptoms of constipation, as assessed by the Bowel Function Index. Constipation was not related to opioid strength, dose of opioid, or number of laxatives taken.ConclusionsUse of laxatives to treat opioid-induced constipation is often ineffective and associated with side effects. Instead of relieving the burden of opioid-induced constipation, laxative use is associated with a negative impact.

Evidence from clinical trials and observational studies confirms that for selected patients OXN PR significantly improves moderate-to-severe chronic pain and provides relief from OIC. Treatment should be tailored to individual patients to establish the lowest effective dose. An absence of analgesic ceiling effect was seen across the clinically relevant dose range investigated (≤ 160/80 mg/day).

Trauma pain represents a large proportion of admissions to emergency departments across Europe. There is currently an unmet need in the treatment of trauma pain extending throughout the patient journey in emergency settings. This review aims to explore these unmet needs and describe barriers to the delivery of effective analgesia for trauma pain in emergency settings. A comprehensive, qualitative review of the literature was conducted using a structured search strategy (Medline, Embase and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews) along with additional Internet-based sources to identify relevant human studies published in the prior 11 years (January 2006–December 2017). From a total of 4325 publications identified, 31 were selected for inclusion based on defined criteria. Numerous barriers to the effective treatment of trauma pain in emergency settings were identified, which may be broadly defined as arising from a lack of effective pain management pan-European and national guidelines, delayed or absent pain assessment, an aversion to opioid analgesia and a delay in the administration of analgesia. Several commonly used analgesics also present limitations in the treatment of trauma pain due to the routes of administration, adverse side effect profiles, pharmacokinetic properties and suitability for use in pre-hospital settings. These combined barriers lead to the inadequate and ineffective treatment of trauma pain for patients. An unmet need therefore exists for novel forms of analgesia, wider spread use of available analgesic agents which overcome some limitations associated with several treatment options, and the development of protocols for pain management which include patient assessment of pain.Funding: Mundipharma International Ltd.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40122-018-0101-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundLow-dose methoxyflurane and nitrous oxide (N2O; 50:50 with oxygen) are both self-administered, self-titrated, rapid-acting, nonnarcotic, and noninvasive inhalational agents with similar onset times of pain relief. The aim of this review was to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these analgesics in emergency care.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search and review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were performed using Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, several clinical trial registers, and emergency-medicine conference material.ResultsAlthough both compounds have been used for many years in emergency care, the search found only a few controlled studies and no head-to-head trials performed in this setting. Two double-blind, randomized studies comparing their respective study medication (low-dose methoxyflurane or N2O) to placebo were identified that could be compared in an indirect approach by using placebo as a bridging comparator. Both agents provided rapid pain relief to trauma patients, with no significant differences between them; both treatments were generally well tolerated.ConclusionBoth low-dose methoxyflurane and N2O are suitable options for the pain treatment of trauma patients in the emergency setting. Due to the ease of administration and portability, inhaled low-dose methoxyflurane, however, may not only offer advantages in emergency situations in remote or difficult-to-reach locations and mass-casualty situations but also be of significant value in urban and rural environments.