American Society of Pain and Neuroscience Best Practice (ASPN) Guideline for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Disorders.

Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally.

Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools. OBJECTIVE: To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. FINDINGS: Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (ß 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (ß 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (ß -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023431155.

Medical Cannabis: A Review from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Cannabinoids have recently gained a renewed interest due to their potential applicability to various medical conditions, specifically the management of chronic pain conditions. Unlike many other medications, medical cannabis is not associated with serious adverse events, and no overdose deaths have been reported. However, both safety and efficacy data for medical cannabis treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are lacking. Therefore, representatives from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience summarize the evidence, according to level and grade, for medical cannabis treatment of several different pain conditions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has prospective evidentiary support for the use of medical cannabis. Although 3 large and well-designed randomized controlled trials investigated cannabis treatment of cancer-related pain, the evidence yielded only a grade D recommendation. Neuropathic pain has been investigated in prospective studies, but a lack of high-quality evidence renders cannabis treatment for this indication a grade C recommendation. Both safety and efficacy data are lacking for use of medical cannabis to treat chronic nonmalignant pain conditions.

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed

Antimicrobial therapies for chronic pain (part 1): analgesic mechanisms.

There is increasing evidence that the relationship between chronic pain and infections is complex and intertwined. Bacterial and viral infections can cause pain through numerous mechanisms such as direct tissue damage and inflammation, the induction of excessive immunologic activity, and the development of peripheral or central sensitization. Treating infections might relieve pain by attenuating these processes, but a growing body of literature suggests that some antimicrobial therapies confer analgesic effects, including for nociceptive and neuropathic pain symptoms, and affective components of pain. The analgesic mechanisms of antimicrobials are indirect, but might be conceptualized into two broad categories: 1) the reduction of the infectious burden and associated pro-inflammatory processes; and 2) the inhibition of signaling processes (e.g., enzymatic and cytokine activity) necessary for nociception and maladaptive neuroplastic changes via off-target effects (unintended binding sites). For the former, there is evidence that symptoms of chronic low back pain (when associated with Modic type 1 changes), irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic pelvic pain, and functional dyspepsia might be improved after antibiotic treatment, though significant questions remain regarding specific regimens and dose, and which subpopulations are most likely to benefit. For the latter, there is evidence that several antimicrobial classes and medications exert analgesic effects independent of their reduction of infectious burden, and these include cephalosporins, ribavirin, chloroquine derivatives, rapalogues, minocycline, dapsone, and piscidin-1. This article aims to comprehensively review the existing literature for antimicrobial agents that have demonstrated analgesic efficacy in preclinical or clinical studies.

Antimicrobial therapies for chronic pain (part 2): the prevention and treatment of chronic pain.

The discovery and development of antimicrobial therapies represents one of the most significant advancements in modern medicine. Although the primary therapeutic intent of antimicrobials is to eliminate their target pathogens, several antimicrobials have been shown to provide analgesia as a secondary benefit. Antimicrobials have demonstrated analgesic effects in conditions that involve dysbiosis or potential subclinical infection (e.g ., chronic low back pain with Modic type 1 changes; chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain; irritable bowel syndrome; inflammatory bowel disease; functional gastrointestinal disorders/dyspepsia; myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), and might even prevent the chronification of pain after acute infections that are associated with excessive systemic inflammation (e.g ., post COVID-19 condition/long Covid, rheumatic fever). Clinical studies often assess the analgesic effects of antimicrobial therapies in an observational manner, without the ability to identify causative relationships, and significant gaps in the understanding remain regarding the analgesic potential of antimicrobials. Numerous interrelated patient-specific, antimicrobial-specific, and disease-specific factors altogether contribute to the perception and experience of pain, and each of these requires further study. Given worldwide concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobials must continue to be used judiciously and are unlikely to be repurposed as primary analgesic medications. However, when equipoise exists among several antimicrobial treatment options, the potential analgesic benefits of certain antimicrobial agents might be a valuable aspect to consider in clinical decision-making. This article (the second in a two-part series) aims to comprehensively review the evidence on the prevention and treatment of chronic pain using antimicrobial therapies and suggest a framework for future studies on this topic.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Evidence-Based Advances in Concepts and Treatments.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review presents the most current information about the epidemiology of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), classification and diagnostic criteria, childhood CRPS, subtypes, pathophysiology, conventional and less conventional treatments, and preventive strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: CRPS is a painful disorder with multifactorial pathophysiology. The data describe sensitization of the central and peripheral nervous systems, inflammation, possible genetic factors, sympatho-afferent coupling, autoimmunity, and mental health factors as contributors to the syndrome. In addition to conventional subtypes (type I and type II), cluster analyses have uncovered other proposed subtypes. Prevalence of CRPS is approximately 1.2%, female gender is consistently associated with a higher risk of development, and substantial physical, emotional, and financial costs can result from the syndrome. Children with CRPS seem to benefit from multifaceted physical therapy leading to a high percentage of symptom-free patients. The best available evidence along with standard clinical practice supports pharmacological agents, physical and occupational therapy, sympathetic blocks for engaging physical restoration, steroids for acute CRPS, neuromodulation, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen as therapeutic approaches. There are many emerging treatments that can be considered as a part of individualized, patient-centered care. Vitamin C may be preventive. CRPS can lead to progressively painful sensory and vascular changes, edema, limb weakness, and trophic disturbances, all of which substantially erode healthy living. Despite some progress in research, more comprehensive basic science investigation is needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of the disease so that targeted treatments can be developed for better outcomes. Incorporating a variety of standard therapies with different modes of action may offer the most effective analgesia. Introducing less conventional approaches may also be helpful when traditional treatments fail to provide sufficient improvement.

Perioperative and anesthetic considerations for the management of neuromodulation systems.

The use of neuromodulation systems is increasing for the treatment of various pathologies ranging from movement disorders to urinary incontinence to chronic pain syndromes. While the type of neuromodulation devices varies, they are largely categorized as intracranial (eg, deep brain stimulation), neuraxial (eg, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, and intrathecal drug delivery systems), or peripheral (eg, sacral nerve stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation) systems. Given the increasing prevalence of these systems in the overall population, it is important for anesthesiologists, surgeons, and the perioperative healthcare team to familiarize themselves with these systems and their unique perioperative considerations. In this review, we explore and highlight the various neuromodulation systems, their general perioperative considerations, and notable special circumstances for perioperative management.

The Use of Scrambler Therapy in Treating Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Scrambler therapy (ST) is a noninvasive method of transcutaneous neuromodulation that has 510(K) clearance from the United States Food and Drug Administration for treating acute pain, postoperative pain, and intractable chronic pain. Since its inception, ST has been used to treat many chronic pain syndromes in a variety of patient populations. We synthesized the available literature for ST to delineate its overall evidence basis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review based on conventional Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methods by surveying multiple data sources from January 1950 through October 2021. Two review authors, independently and in a standardized, unblinded fashion, conducted a systematic review to identify relevant studies and extract the necessary outcome measures. A conservative search strategy was implemented to identify all ST studies for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. Primary outcome parameters collected were analgesic benefit, adverse effects, and other metrics such as sensorimotor testing. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the final criteria for study inclusion and comprised randomized controlled trials (n = 8), prospective observational studies (n = 10), and retrospective cohort studies (n = 3). Nearly all the reported studies explored the use of ST for the treatment of neuropathic pain, with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy being the most studied condition. Most studies were limited by small cohorts but reported ST being safe, well tolerated, and providing clinically meaningful pain reduction. The duration of posttreatment follow-up ranged from ten to 14 days (concordant with completion of typical ST protocols) to three months. Secondary benefits such as medication reduction and improvement of sensory and motor symptoms were noted by some studies. CONCLUSIONS: ST is regarded as a safe intervention with potential for significant analgesic benefit for neuropathic pain conditions. Although the available evidence is most robust for treating chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, ST has also been shown to be effective in treating other neuropathic pain syndromes. Evidence for ST use in nociceptive pain conditions is limited but appears promising. The favorable safety profile and increasing evidence basis for ST warrant more extensive recognition and consideration for use in clinical care.

North American Neuromodulation Society Educational Curriculum for Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems Implantation and Management.

OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) are used for the treatment of pain and spasticity. A wide range of educational criteria exist for these devices. The North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS) Education Committee developed a comprehensive IDDS curriculum to function as a standard for physician graduate education and assessment through training and into practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary and diverse task force gathered by the NANS Education Committee met in person and virtually over several sessions and developed an IDDS curriculum modeling their previous work on spinal cord stimulation and following the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones. There were iterative revisions and adaptations to the curriculum, and the final version was approved by the NANS Board of Directors. RESULTS: The curriculum was developed with distinction between implanting physicians and managing physician and physicians who perform both tasks. There is a lateral temporal progression from early learner to practitioner, with advanced learner in the middle. In addition, there is a modular vertical organization that divides the curriculum into the six educational competencies outlined by the ACGME. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive, modular, graduated, and segmented educational curriculum for IDDSs was developed by NANS. We propose the curriculum to be the standard for guidance and assessment of trainees and physicians pursuing training in implanting or managing IDDSs.

Incidence and Predictors of Inadvertent Dural Puncture After Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Inadvertent dural puncture (IDP) is a known complication associated with traditional neuraxial procedures; however, its characterization after percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) lead placement has yet to be clearly established in large population studies. This retrospective analysis aims to understand the incidence and associated characteristics of patients with IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner database of national all-payer claims was used to identify patients who received percutaneous SCS leads and had a claim for IDP (intraoperative IDP or postdural puncture headache [PDPH] claim) within 45 days. The primary outcome was to determine the overall incidence of IDP. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of associated risk factors for IDP and treatments used in symptomatic management. RESULTS: A total of 90,952 patients who underwent percutaneous lead SCS placement were included. The incidence of IDP was 0.48% (436/90,952 patients). Older age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97; p < 0.0001) and male sex (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.81; p < 0.001) had a lower odds of having a claim for IDP, whereas a history of IDP was associated with a higher OR (95% CI) by 13.72 times (10.72-17.58) (p < 0.0001). Of the IDP patients, 64% (277/436 patients) had a claim for a therapeutic blood patch. Discrepancy in type of claim for IDP was observed, with most being for PDPH. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement is an uncommon event; however, certain factors are associated with its development. Overall, early recognition of IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement is imperative to facilitate the delivery of targeted treatments and prevent further harmful consequences to the patient.

Emerging Evidence for Intrathecal Management of Neuropathic Pain Following Spinal Cord Injury.

A high prevalence of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) suffer from chronic neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, the precise pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon have yet to be clearly elucidated and targeted treatments are largely lacking. As an unfortunate consequence, neuropathic pain in the population with SCI is refractory to standard of care treatments and represents a significant contributor to morbidity and suffering. In recent years, advances from SCI-specific animal studies and translational models have furthered our understanding of the neuronal excitability, glial dysregulation, and chronic inflammation processes that facilitate neuropathic pain. These developments have served advantageously to facilitate exploration into the use of neuromodulation as a treatment modality. The use of intrathecal drug delivery (IDD), with novel pharmacotherapies, to treat chronic neuropathic pain has gained particular attention in both pre-clinical and clinical contexts. In this evidence-based narrative review, we provide a comprehensive exploration into the emerging evidence for the pathogenesis of neuropathic pain following SCI, the evidence basis for IDD as a therapeutic strategy, and novel pharmacologics across impactful animal and clinical studies.

An overview of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Diagnosis and treatment advancements.

Diabetes mellitus remains a public health problem, affecting 422 million people worldwide. Currently, there is no consensus around treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in a step-wise manner. Among the non-pharmacological interventions, neuromodulation has become a promising alternative. Over the past decade, significant clinical trials have paved the way for prompt inclusion of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation within the painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment algorithm. This article aims to provide an updated evidence-based approach for the management of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Intrathecal Baclofen Monotherapy and Polyanalgesia for Treating Chronic Pain in Patients with Severe Spasticity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Intrathecal drug delivery is a well evidenced strategy for the treatment of many chronic pain syndromes. While opioids, anesthetics, and ziconotide are the most commonly used agents, intrathecal baclofen (ITB), which is indicated to treat spasticity, is also thought to have some analgesic properties that are poorly understood. These analgesic benefits have been reported with ITB use in treating patients with central neurological disorders who suffer from severe spasticity and chronic pain. Our review aims to characterize ITB's effects on pain, function, and quality of life in patients with severe spasticity. We performed a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome parameters were analgesic relief and functional improvements. Secondarily, quality of life and adverse effects were also recorded. RECENT FINDINGS: After an initial survey identified 393 studies, 20 studies met final inclusion criteria. Of these, 16 utilized ITB monotherapy and 4 utilized ITB polyanalgesia. Overall, there was a paucity of high-powered studies. Mean titrated ITB doses ranged from 140 to 627.9 µg daily. Nineteen studies reported improved pain and spasticity. Seven studies reported improved functional outcomes and quality of life. Our results show that ITB may be an effective agent in treatingfor the treatment of chronic pain in patients with severe spasticity independent of its spasmolytic effects. Although this evidence was largely derived from studies lacking clearly defined outcomes of pain relief, ITB is reasonable to consider for concurrent spasticity and pain management. Well-designed studies are still needed to characterize ITB's analgesic efficacy when used in patients with severe spasticity.

Combination Intrathecal Drug Therapy Strategies for Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Numerous combination intrathecal drug therapy (CIDT) strategies exist and are utilized for varying pain syndromes, typically when monotherapy dose escalation or medication alternation is deemed untenable or unfeasible. Unfortunately, the supportive evidence basis for the use of these strategies and specific drug combinations is generally lacking and unclear, with many medications being used for off-label indications. OBJECTIVE: In this manuscript, we provide a robust exploration and analysis of the literature to provide an evidence-based narrative for the use of CIDT strategies in regard to clinical indications, pharmacologic parameters, specific drug combinations, safety profiles, and future directions. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: This was an evidence based narrative performed after extensive review of the literature. RESULTS: Variances in intrathecal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are utilized advantageously with CIDT strategies to achieve improved analgesic benefit; however, appropriate use may be limited by increased or compounded risk of adverse effects. The supportive evidence for CIDT use for chronic pain conditions is largely lacking and limited to small, uncontrolled, observational studies, with many having various confounding factors, including a lack of standardized dosing. The most evidenced CIDT strategies include polyanalgesia with morphine-ziconotide, opioid-clonidine, and morphine-bupivacaine. Notably, in addition to pain relief, morphine-bupivacaine has been shown to decrease early opioid escalation requirements. LIMITATIONS: The supportive evidence for CIDT use for chronic pain conditions is largely lacking and limited to small, uncontrolled, observational studies, with many having various confounding factors including a lack of standardized dosing. CONCLUSIONS: CIDT strategies and polyanalgesia combinations can be effective for treating various patient populations with chronic pain. The appropriate use of these strategies may be limited by increased or compounded risk of adverse effects, both of which are highly patient and scenario dependent. Therefore, practitioners should maintain a particularly low threshold of suspicion for adverse effects in patients with CIDT such that safety profiles associated with this therapy can be favorably maintained.