Postoperative Medial Plantar and Sural Neuropathy With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

This case illustrates a distinct presentation of coexistent medial plantar and sural neuropathy leading to the development of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in a 49-year-old male patient. CRPS is a broad medical diagnosis describing prolonged and excessive pain that is out of proportion to exam and has historically been diagnosed according to the Budapest criteria. To our knowledge, this is a rare report of a case of medial plantar and sural neuropathy further complicated with CRPS, status-post calcaneal fracture, surgery, and post-surgical boot placement. The case highlights the complexity of diagnosing and managing multiple concurrent neuropathies and underscores the need for interdisciplinary approaches in treating CRPS to improve patient outcomes.

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of SI-6603 (condoliase) in patients with radicular leg pain associated with lumbar disc herniation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: SI-6603 (condoliase) is a chemonucleolytic agent approved in Japan in 2018 for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) associated with radicular leg pain. Condoliase, a mucopolysaccharidase with high substrate specificity for glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), offers a unique mechanism of action through the degradation of GAGs in the nucleus pulposus. As LDH management is currently limited to conservative approaches and surgical intervention, condoliase could offer a less invasive treatment option than surgery for patients with LDH. PURPOSE: The Discover 6603 study (NCT03607838) evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single-dose injection of SI-6603 (condoliase) vs sham for the treatment of radicular leg pain associated with LDH. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, phase 3 study conducted across 41 sites in the United States. PATIENT SAMPLE: Male and female participants (N=352; aged 30-70 years) with contained posterolateral LDH and unilateral radiculopathy/radicular leg pain for greater than 6 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) in average worst leg pain score at 13 weeks, assessed using the 100-mm visual analogue scale. Key secondary endpoints were CFB in average worst leg pain score at 52 weeks, herniation volume at 13 weeks, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 13 weeks. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs) and imaging findings. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive a single intradiscal injection of condoliase (1.25 units) or sham injection followed by 52 weeks of observation. The primary and key secondary endpoints were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis and a protocol-specified multiple imputation (MI) sensitivity analysis on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. A prespecified serial gatekeeping algorithm was used for multiple comparisons. Safety endpoints included AEs, laboratory tests, vital signs, imaging (by X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and occurrence of posttreatment lumbar surgery. RESULTS: Of the 352 randomized participants, 341 constituted the mITT population (condoliase n=169; sham n=172) and the safety population (condoliase n=167; sham n=174). For the primary endpoint, the condoliase group showed significantly greater improvement in CFB in worst leg pain at Week 13 (least squares mean [LSM] CFB: -41.7) compared with sham injection (-34.2; LSM difference: -7.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.1, -0.9; p=.0263) based on the MMRM analysis. CFB in worst leg pain at Week 52 favored condoliase vs sham, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=.0558), which halted the serial gatekeeping testing algorithm and dictated that the CFB in herniation volume and ODI scores at Week 13 would be considered nonsignificant, regardless of their p-values. Treatment group differences in CFB in herniation volume and ODI score favored the condoliase group vs sham at all timepoints. The MI sensitivity analysis showed differences in CFB in worst leg pain at Week 13 (p=.0223) and Week 52 (p=.0433) in favor of the condoliase group. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were more common in the condoliase group (≥1 TEAE: 71.9%; ≥1 treatment-related TEAE: 28.1%) compared with the sham group (≥1 TEAE: 60.3%; ≥1 treatment-related TEAE: 10.3%). Of the TEAEs, spinal MRI abnormalities and back pain occurred most frequently. No treatment-related serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Condoliase met its primary endpoint of significantly improving radicular leg pain at Week 13 and was generally well tolerated in patients with LDH. Chemonucleolysis with condoliase has the potential to provide a less invasive treatment option than surgery for those unresponsive to conservative treatment strategies.

An Observational, Prospective Cohort Pilot Study to Compare the Use of Subepidermal Moisture Measurements Versus Ultrasound and Visual Skin Assessments for Early Detection of Pressure Injury.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are detected by visual skin assessment (VSA). Evidence suggests ultrasound (US) and subepidermal moisture (SEM) scanner technology can measure tissue damage before it is visible. PURPOSE: A pilot study was conducted to evaluate consistency between SEM and US examinations of suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI). METHOD: Using an observational, prospective cohort study design, patients >55 years of age were recruited. VSA, SEM, and US assessments were performed daily for a minimum of 3 and maximum of 10 consecutive days following enrollment. US results were considered indicative of sDTI if hypoechoic lesions were present. SEM readings were considered abnormal when ∆ ≥0.6 was noted for at least 2 consecutive days. Boolean analysis was utilized to systematically determine consistency between US and SEM where sDTI was the clinical judgment. RESULTS: Among the 15 participants (10 women, mean age 74 ± 10.9 years), there was consistent agreement between SEM and US when sDTIs existed. For 1 patient who developed a heel sDTI during the study, SEM readings were abnormal 2 days before VSA indicated tissue damage and 3 days before the appearance of a hypoechoic lesion in the US. CONCLUSION: US and SEM results were similar, and in an evolving sDTI case, SEM detected a lesion earlier than US.

Low-dose cyclobenzaprine versus combination therapy with ibuprofen for acute neck or back pain with muscle spasm: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, community-based study was conducted to compare cyclobenzaprine 5 mg three times daily (TID) orally (CYC5) given for 7 days as monotherapy or in combination with ibuprofen 400 mg TID (CYC5/IBU400) or 800 mg TID (CYC5/IBU800) in adults with acute neck or back pain with muscle spasm. STUDY DESIGN: Eligible patients were 18-65 years old, had cervical or thoracolumbar pain and spasm for < or = 14 days, and, aside from the prescribed study medications, discontinued treatment with all analgesics, anti-inflammatory agents, and skeletal muscle relaxants during the study period. Randomization was 1:1:1 to the three treatment groups. Treatment outcome was assessed after 3 and 7 days of therapy using five patient-rated scales: spasm, pain, patient global impression of change (PGIC), medication helpfulness, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: A total of 867 patients provided postbaseline data and were included in the intent-to-treat population (CYC5, n = 288; CYC5/IBU400, n = 286; CYC5/IBU800, n = 293). All three treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements from baseline in PGIC, spasm, pain, ODI, and medication helpfulness (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) after 3 and 7 days of therapy. There were no significant differences in mean PGIC among groups after 3 days of therapy (p = 0.65 for treatment effect) or after 7 days of therapy (primary endpoint; p = 0.41). A PGIC responder analysis of changes from baseline showed that 88% and 93% of patients reported at least mild improvement after 3 and 7 days of therapy, respectively. All three treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences between treatments regarding the number of adverse events (AEs) reported or number of patients reporting AEs. The most common AEs in all groups were fatigue, somnolence, dizziness, sedation, and nausea. Limitations of this study include an unblinded design and possible introduction of bias into efficacy and safety results by use of a voluntary telephone reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, community-based clinical trial demonstrated that combination therapy with cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID plus ibuprofen was not superior to cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID alone in adult patients with acute neck and back pain with muscle spasm. All treatments were well tolerated.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing once-a-day AVINZA (morphine sulfate extended-release capsules) versus twice-a-day OxyContin (oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release tablets) for the treatment of chronic, moderate to severe low back pain: improved physical functioning in the ACTION trial.

This multicenter trial compared the efficacy, safety, and effect on quality of life and work limitation of once-daily extended-release morphine sulfate capsules (AVINZA, A-MQD) and twice-daily controlled-release oxycodone HCI tablets (OxyContin, O-ER) in subjects with chronic, moderate to severe low back pain. After randomization and a period of opioid dose titration, subjects (n=266) underwent an eight-week evaluation phase and an optionalf our-month extension phase (n=174 in extension phase). Subjects were assessed using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ). In both groups, significant improvements were observed in the SF-12 mean scores forp hysicalf unctioning (p < 0.001), role physical (p < 0.0001), bodilyp ain (p < 0.0001), physical summary (p < 0.001), and mental component summary (p < 0.005). At the end of the titration period, greater relative improvements from baseline were seen in the SF-12 section on physical components in the A-MQD group versus the O-ER group, with significant differences observed for physical functioning (p = 0.0374), role physical (p = 0.0341), bodily pain (p = 0.0001), andp hysical summary (p = 0.0022). In both groups, SF-12 mean scores improved significantly for mental health (p < 0.01), role emotional (p < 0.01), socialfunctioning (p < 0.0005), vitality (p < 0.005), and the mental component summary (p < 0.005), but no significant differences were noted between the two groups. Both groups reported improvement from baseline in WLQ physical demands scores, with no significant differences noted between the two groups. At the end of the evaluation phase, fewer subjects were unable to work due to illness or treatment in the A-MQD group than in the O-ER group (8.5 percent versus 19.4 percent, respectively; p = 0.0149). In conclusion, compared to twice-daily OxyContin, once-daily A VINZA resulted in significantly better and earlier improvement ofp hysicalf unction and ability to work.

The ACTION study: a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing once-a-day extended-release morphine sulfate capsules (AVINZA) to twice-a-day controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride tablets (OxyContin) for the treatment of chronic, moderate to severe low back pain.

This large, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study compared two oral sustained-release opioids (SROs)--AVINZA (A-MQD), morphine sulfate extended-release capsules given once a day, and OxyContin (O-ER), oxycodone modified-release tablets given twice a day--in SRO-naive subjects ages 30 to 70 with chronic, moderate to severe low back pain. Of the 392 subjects enrolled and randomized, 266 (132 in the A-MQD group and 134 in the O-ER group) completed the opioid dose titration phase and entered an eight-week evaluation phase. During the evaluation phase, A-MQD achieved significantly better pain control than O-ER, as demonstrated by a greater decrease from baseline in pain scores obtained four times daily during weeks one, four, and eight (p = 0.002). The number of breakthrough-pain rescue medication doses adjusted for the number of patient days was significantly lower in the A-MQD group (p < 0.0001). Better pain control with A-MQD was achieved with a significantly lower daily opioid dose than with O-ER (mean 69.9 mg and 91 mg morphine equivalents, respectively; p = 0.0125). Quality of sleep was significantly better with A-MQD for the entire evaluation phase (p = 0.0026). The incidence and severity of elicited opioid side effects were similar in the two groups. This trial demonstrated that once-daily A-MQD provides consistent around-the-clock pain relief in patients with low back pain. In patients who completed opioid dose titration, A-MQD was significantly better than O-ER for reducing pain and improving sleep, while requiring a lower daily opioid dose.

A randomized, open-label study of once-a-day AVINZA (morphine sulfate extended-release capsules) versus twice-a-day OxyContin (oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release tablets) for chronic low back pain: the extension phase of the ACTION trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVE: The ACTION trial, an open-label, randomized, multicenter, two-part study, compared the efficacy and safety of two sustained-release opioids (SROs), A VINZA (A-MQD), morphine sulfate extended-release capsules given once a day, and OxyContin (O-ER), oxycodone modified-release tablets given twice a day, in subjects with chronic, moderate to severe low back pain. The first part of the study, the evaluation phase, was followed by an optional four-month extension phase aimed at evaluating the long-term stability of pain control, SRO dose, and quality of sleep. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-two subjects were enrolled in the study; 220 completed the evaluation phase, and 174 entered the extensionphase. During the latterphase, subjects in the A-MQD group (n=79) continued to report lower pain scores, better quality of sleep, lower daily morphine-equivalent doses (means of 86 mg versus 119 mg), and a comparable usage of ibuprofen compared to subjects in the O-ER group (n=95). The incidence and severity of elicited opioid side effects were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both study drugs resulted in significant pain relief and improved sleep in SRO-naive patients with chronic low back pain, and this outcome was attained with a stable daily SRO dose. In patients who completed opioid dose titration, A VINZA performed significantly better than OxyContin in reducing pain scores and improving sleep-with a lower morphine-equivalent daily dose-during both the evaluation and extension phases.