ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03872700Updated Aug 15, 2023Results posted

Intranasal Fentanyl as an Adjunct to Lidocaine Infiltration in Adults Undergoing Abscess Incision and Drainage

A Phase 3 interventional study of Intranasal fentanyl and Placebo in Abscess, sponsored by Montefiore Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 64 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-08-15.

Sponsored by Montefiore Medical Center · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
49
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 64 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This randomized clinical trial aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of intranasal fentanyl to placebo as analgesic adjunct to conventional local anesthesia for the treatment of pain of the overall procedure in adult patients undergoing lidocaine infiltration and subsequent abscess incision and drainage in the Emergency Department (ED).

02

Conditions studied

  • Abscess

Browse trials for

03

In context

Abscess

152 studies on the registry are indexed under Abscess; 22 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 49 is below the median of 110 across 120 interventional studies indexed under Abscess.

Browse Abscess studies →

Lead sponsor

Montefiore Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 416 studies on the registry; 69 are open to participants now.

Of its 87 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 76 (87%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 64 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Presenting to the ED for an abscess requiring incision and drainage
  • ED attending physician's judgment that the patient has capacity to provide .
  • Patients must be able to understand English or Spanish.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Use of opioids or tramadol within past 7 days.
  • Prior adverse reaction or allergy to opioids.
  • Patients who are pregnant
  • Patients weight > 100kg
  • Chronic pain syndrome: frequently recurrent or daily pain for at least 3 months results in modulation of pain perception which is thought to be due to down-regulation of pain receptors. Examples of chronic pain syndromes include sickle cell anemia, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and peripheral neuropathies.
  • Medical condition that might affect metabolism or opioid analgesics such as cirrhosis ( A or worse) or kidney impairment (CKD 3 or worse)
  • Chronic malnutrition, severe hypovolemia (dehydration of blood loss) or hepatic disease
  • Alcohol intoxication: history of alcoholism or the presence of alcohol intoxication as judged by the treating physician may alter pain perception and has previously increased adverse events.
  • SBP \<100 mmHg: Opioids can produce peripheral vasodilation causing orthostasis.
  • HR \< 60/min: Opioids can cause bradycardia.
  • Oxygen saturation \< 95% on room air: For this study, oxygen saturation must be 95% or above on room air in order to be enrolled.
  • Use of MAO inhibitors in past 30 days: MAO inhibitors have been reported to intensify the effects of at least one opioid drug causing anxiety, confusion and significant respiratory depression or coma.
  • Patients using transdermal pain patches or oral opioid use > 10 days in the prior month: frequent opioid use may influence both the amount of pain patients report as well as the level of relief they obtain from other treatments.
  • Patients with a history of traumatic brain injury, seizures or hallucinations
  • Patients with anatomical anomalies or medical conditions precluding intranasal administration
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Child-Pugh class

A score of how well the liver works in people with liver disease such as cirrhosis: class A is mild, B moderate and C severe.

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator)
Enrollment
49 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Intranasal fentanyl

    2 mcg/kg INF, administered via intranasal route by atomizer syringe

    Drug: Intranasal fentanyl

  • Experimental
    Placebo

    0.04ml/kg of sterile water, administered via intranasal route by atomizer syringe

    Drug: Placebo

Interventions

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score at Baseline

    Patient reported pain scores at baseline. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Baseline

  2. NRS Pain Score After Lidocaine Injection

    Patient reported NRS pain scores after Lidocaine injection. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Following Lidocaine injection measured once anytime up to 12 minutes after intranasal administration

  3. NRS Pain Score Following Incision

    Patient reported NRS pain scores following Incision. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Measured once anytime up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration

  4. NRS Pain Score After Blunt Dissection

    Patient reported NRS pain scores after Blunt Dissection. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Measured once anytime up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration

  5. NRS Pain Score After Irrigation

    Patient reported NRS pain scores after Irrigation. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Measured once anytime up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration

  6. NRS Pain Score After Packing of Abscess

    Patient reported pain after Packing of abscess. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Measured once at the time of completion of application of the bandage, up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration

  7. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score for Overall Procedure

    Patient reported pain scores for overall Procedure assessed immediately after placement of dressing at the end of procedure. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

    Time frame: Measured once following placement of dressing at completion of procedure, up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient Satisfaction With Analgesia

    Patient reported outcomes were measured and reported using the Descriptive Scale below: Descriptive Scale: satisfied with analgesia, neutral, not satisfied with analgesia \*This is a non-numerical scale with 3 outcome response options as listed above. Satisfied is rated higher than neutral which is, in turn, rated higher than not satisfied.

    Time frame: 120 minutes

  2. Health Care Providers Reported Perception of Study Medication Compared to Usual Care

    Provider perception of better, same or worse treatment compared to usual care Descriptive Scale: better, same, worse \*This is a non-numerical scale with 3 outcome response options as listed above. Better is rated higher than same which is, in turn, rated higher than worse.

    Time frame: 120 minutes

07

Results

Posted Aug 15, 2023

Participant flow

Enrollment commenced in August 2019, was temporarily suspended from March 2020 through June 2020 due to COVID-19. Enrollment was permanently halted by the data safety monitoring committee in April 2021 due to inadequate accrual. During the 19 months in which the study was open for enrollment, 176 patients were screened for eligibility and 49 patients were enrolled.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
Started2425
Completed2425
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryNumerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score at Baseline

Patient reported pain scores at baseline. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Baseline
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score at Baseline
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score at Baseline8.3 ± 1.58.1 ± 2.9
PrimaryNRS Pain Score After Lidocaine Injection

Patient reported NRS pain scores after Lidocaine injection. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Following Lidocaine injection measured once anytime up to 12 minutes after intranasal administration
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
NRS Pain Score After Lidocaine Injection
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
NRS Pain Score After Lidocaine Injection8.4 ± 2.78.0 ± 2.2
PrimaryNRS Pain Score Following Incision

Patient reported NRS pain scores following Incision. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Measured once anytime up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
NRS Pain Score Following Incision
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
NRS Pain Score Following Incision3.9 ± 3.63.9 ± 3.8
PrimaryNRS Pain Score After Blunt Dissection

Patient reported NRS pain scores after Blunt Dissection. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Measured once anytime up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
NRS Pain Score After Blunt Dissection
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
NRS Pain Score After Blunt Dissection4.1 ± 4.04.4 ± 3.8
PrimaryNRS Pain Score After Irrigation

Patient reported NRS pain scores after Irrigation. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Measured once anytime up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
NRS Pain Score After Irrigation
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
NRS Pain Score After Irrigation3.4 ± 3.82.6 ± 3.4
PrimaryNRS Pain Score After Packing of Abscess

Patient reported pain after Packing of abscess. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Measured once at the time of completion of application of the bandage, up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
NRS Pain Score After Packing of Abscess
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
NRS Pain Score After Packing of Abscess4.5 ± 3.93.9 ± 3.8
PrimaryNumerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score for Overall Procedure

Patient reported pain scores for overall Procedure assessed immediately after placement of dressing at the end of procedure. The NRS for pain is a reliable and validated measure of pain intensity ranging from 0 - no pain, to 10 - worst pain imaginable.

Time frame:
Measured once following placement of dressing at completion of procedure, up to 60 minutes following intranasal administration
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score for Overall Procedure
score on a scaleIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain Score for Overall Procedure6.2 ± 3.37.0 ± 3.2
SecondaryPatient Satisfaction With Analgesia

Patient reported outcomes were measured and reported using the Descriptive Scale below: Descriptive Scale: satisfied with analgesia, neutral, not satisfied with analgesia \*This is a non-numerical scale with 3 outcome response options as listed above. Satisfied is rated higher than neutral which is, in turn, rated higher than not satisfied.

Time frame:
120 minutes
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Patient Satisfaction With Analgesia
ParticipantsIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
Not Satisfied with Analgesia14
Neutral (neither satisfied nor dis-satisifed)913
Satisfied with Analgesia148
SecondaryHealth Care Providers Reported Perception of Study Medication Compared to Usual Care

Provider perception of better, same or worse treatment compared to usual care Descriptive Scale: better, same, worse \*This is a non-numerical scale with 3 outcome response options as listed above. Better is rated higher than same which is, in turn, rated higher than worse.

Time frame:
120 minutes

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

Adverse events

Collected over Up to 60 minutes following initiation of treatment administration. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Intranasal Fentanyl0/24 (0%)0/24 (0%)3/24 (12.5%)
Placebo0/25 (0%)0/25 (0%)4/25 (16%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventIntranasal FentanylPlacebo
DizzinessNervous system disorders2/242/25
DrowsinessNervous system disorders2/240/25
HeadacheNervous system disorders0/241/25
SadnessPsychiatric disorders0/241/25

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Intranasal FentanylPlaceboTotal
Mean36.4 ± 1136.8 ± 10.336.6 ± 10.7
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Intranasal FentanylPlaceboTotal
Female101121
Male141428
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Intranasal FentanylPlaceboTotal
Count of participants——0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Intranasal FentanylPlaceboTotal
United States242549
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Montefiore Medical Center
    Bronx, New York 10467, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Halvorson GD, Halvorson JE, Iserson KV. Abscess incision and drainage in the emergency department--Part I. J Emerg Med. 1985;3(3):227-32. doi: 10.1016/0736-4679(85)90077-0. PubMed 4093575 ↗
  • Chudnofsky CR, Wright SW, Dronen SC, Borron SW, Wright MB. The safety of fentanyl use in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1989 Jun;18(6):635-9. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(89)80517-7. PubMed 2729688 ↗
  • Qualls ML, Mooney MM, Camargo CA Jr, Zucconi T, Hooper DC, Pallin DJ. Emergency department visit rates for abscess versus other skin infections during the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 1997-2007. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Jul;55(1):103-5. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis342. Epub 2012 Mar 28. PubMed 22460965 ↗
  • Rupp T, Delaney KA. Inadequate analgesia in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Apr;43(4):494-503. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.11.019. PubMed 15039693 ↗
  • Brown JC, Klein EJ, Lewis CW, Johnston BD, Cummings P. Emergency department analgesia for fracture pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Aug;42(2):197-205. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.275. PubMed 12883507 ↗
  • Lewis LM, Lasater LC, Brooks CB. Are emergency physicians too stingy with analgesics? South Med J. 1994 Jan;87(1):7-9. doi: 10.1097/00007611-199401000-00002. PubMed 8284721 ↗
  • Schmitz G, Goodwin T, Singer A, Kessler CS, Bruner D, Larrabee H, May L, Luber SD, Williams J, Bhat R. The treatment of cutaneous abscesses: comparison of emergency medicine providers' practice patterns. West J Emerg Med. 2013 Feb;14(1):23-8. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2011.9.6856. PubMed 23447753 ↗
  • Bourne CL, Brewer KL, House J. Injectable lidocaine provides similar analgesia compared to transdermal lidocaine/tetracaine patch for the incision and drainage of skin abscesses: a randomized, controlled trial. J Emerg Med. 2014 Sep;47(3):367-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.11.126. Epub 2014 May 14. PubMed 24835497 ↗
  • Chang AK, Bijur PE, Baccelieri A, Gallagher EJ. Efficacy and safety profile of a single dose of hydromorphone compared with morphine in older adults with acute, severe pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2009 Feb;7(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2009.02.002. PubMed 19281935 ↗
  • Chang AK, Bijur PE, Davitt M, Gallagher EJ. Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients. Drugs Aging. 2013 Sep;30(9):747-54. doi: 10.1007/s40266-013-0103-y. PubMed 23846749 ↗
  • Singer AJ, Richman PB, Kowalska A, Thode HC Jr. Comparison of patient and practitioner assessments of pain from commonly performed emergency department procedures. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Jun;33(6):652-8. PubMed 10339680 ↗
  • McNamara RM, Rousseau E, Sanders AB. Geriatric emergency medicine: a survey of practicing emergency physicians. Ann Emerg Med. 1992 Jul;21(7):796-801. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81024-8. PubMed 1610035 ↗
  • Potter M, Schafer S, Gonzalez-Mendez E, Gjeltema K, Lopez A, Wu J, Pedrin R, Cozen M, Wilson R, Thom D, Croughan-Minihane M. Opioids for chronic nonmalignant pain. Attitudes and practices of primary care physicians in the UCSF/Stanford Collaborative Research Network. University of California, San Francisco. J Fam Pract. 2001 Feb;50(2):145-51. PubMed 11219563 ↗
  • Petrack EM, Christopher NC, Kriwinsky J. Pain management in the emergency department: patterns of analgesic utilization. Pediatrics. 1997 May;99(5):711-4. doi: 10.1542/peds.99.5.711. PubMed 9113948 ↗
  • Borland M, Milsom S, Esson A. Equivalency of two concentrations of fentanyl administered by the intranasal route for acute analgesia in children in a paediatric emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Emerg Med Australas. 2011 Apr;23(2):202-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01391.x. Epub 2011 Feb 8. PubMed 21489168 ↗
  • Panagiotou I, Mystakidou K. Intranasal fentanyl: from pharmacokinetics and bioavailability to current treatment applications. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010 Jul;10(7):1009-21. doi: 10.1586/era.10.77. PubMed 20645689 ↗
  • Paech MJ, Lim CB, Banks SL, Rucklidge MW, Doherty DA. A new formulation of nasal fentanyl spray for postoperative analgesia: a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 2003 Aug;58(8):740-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03286.x. PubMed 12859464 ↗
  • Veldhorst-Janssen NM, Fiddelers AA, van der Kuy PH, Kessels AG, Theunissen HM, van der Hulst RR, Neef C, Marcus MA. Pharmacokinetics, analgesic effect, and tolerability of a single preprocedural dose of intranasal fentanyl in patients undergoing drain removal after breast reduction or augmentation surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Clin Ther. 2010 Jul;32(7):1427-36. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.07.001. PubMed 20678689 ↗
  • Toussaint S, Maidl J, Schwagmeier R, Striebel HW. Patient-controlled intranasal analgesia: effective alternative to intravenous PCA for postoperative pain relief. Can J Anaesth. 2000 Apr;47(4):299-302. doi: 10.1007/BF03020941. PubMed 10764171 ↗
  • Barrett MJ, Cronin J, Murphy A, McCoy S, Hayden J, an Fhaili S, Grant T, Wakai A, McMahon C, Walsh S, O'Sullivan R. Intranasal fentanyl versus intravenous morphine in the emergency department treatment of severe painful sickle cell crises in children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2012 May 30;13:74. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-74. PubMed 22647439 ↗
  • Sutter ME, Wintemute GJ, Clarke SO, Roche BM, Chenoweth JA, Gutierrez R, Albertson TE. The Changing Use of Intravenous Opioids in an Emergency Department. West J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;16(7):1079-83. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.10.28454. Epub 2015 Dec 14. PubMed 26759658 ↗
  • Imamoglu M, Aygun A, Bekar O, Erdem E, Cicek M, Tatli O, Karaca Y, Sahin A, Turkmen S, Turedi S. A retrospective analysis of nebulized versus intravenous fentanyl for renal colic. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 May;35(5):757-763. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.01.026. Epub 2017 Jan 15. PubMed 28119014 ↗
  • Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F. A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:565-90. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941. PubMed 17550344 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 15, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03872700
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 13, 2019
Start date
Aug 1, 2019
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2022
Completion
Dec 31, 2022
Results posted
Aug 15, 2023
Last update
Aug 15, 2023

Study contacts

Benjamin Friedman, MD
principal investigator · Montefiore Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Fentanyl

Start the discussion