↓ Skip to main content

Intermittent versus continuous esketamine infusions for long-term pain modulation in complex regional pain syndrome: protocol of a randomized controlled non-inferiority study (KetCRPS-2)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intermittent versus continuous esketamine infusions for long-term pain modulation in complex regional pain syndrome: protocol of a randomized controlled non-inferiority study (KetCRPS-2)
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12891-023-06258-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas J. P. Mangnus, Maaike Dirckx, Krishna D. Bharwani, Sara J. Baart, Theodora A. M. Siepman, Ken Redekop, Willem A. Dik, Cecile C. de Vos, Frank J. P. M. Huygen

Abstract

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition of an extremity. While achieving pain relief in CRPS is challenging, esketamine infusions can accomplish pain relief for several weeks post-infusion in a subgroup of CRPS patients. Unfortunately, CRPS esketamine protocols are very heterogeneous in advice on dosage, administration and treatment setting. Currently, no trials are available that study differences between intermittent and continuous esketamine infusions for CRPS. With the current situation of bed shortages, it is difficult to admit patients for several consecutive days for inpatient esketamine treatments. In this study, we investigate whether 6 intermittent outpatient esketamine treatments are not inferior to a continuous 6-day inpatient esketamine treatment in establishing pain relief. In addition, several secondary study parameters will be assessed in order to investigate mechanisms responsible for pain relief by esketamine infusions. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness will be analyzed. In this RCT, the primary objective is to demonstrate that an intermittent esketamine dosing regimen is non-inferior to a continuous esketamine dosing regimen at 3 months follow-up. We will include 60 adult CRPS patients. The inpatient treatment group receives a continuous intravenous esketamine infusion for 6 consecutive days. The outpatient treatment group receives a 6-hour intravenous esketamine infusion every 2 weeks for 3 months. Esketamine dose will be individually tailored and is started at 0.05 mg/kg/h and can be increased to a maximum of 0.2 mg/kg/h. Each patient will be followed for 6 months. The primary study parameter is perceived pain intensity, measured by an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary study parameters are conditioned pain modulation, quantitative sensory testing, adverse events, thermography, blood inflammatory parameter, questionnaires about functionality, quality of life and mood and costs per patient. If our study reveals non-inferiority between intermittent and continuous esketamine infusions, these findings can be beneficial to increase the availability and flexibility of esketamine infusions through outpatient treatments. Furthermore, the costs of outpatient esketamine infusions could be lower than inpatient esketamine infusions. In addition, secondary parameters may predict response to esketamine treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05212571 , date of registration 01-28-2022. Version 3, February 2022.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,824,506
of 23,504,445 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,531
of 4,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,779
of 241,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.