12. vascular pain Ischemic pain in the extremities and Raynaud's syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral artery diseases (PAD) and Raynaud's syndrome are associated with substantial morbidity. PAD, through the restriction of blood flow to the extremities, may lead to critical limb ischemia with symptoms of pain at rest which may eventually progress to severe limb ischemia with gangrene. This serious and painful clinical condition requires extensive medical care, is limb-threatening and, in case of delayed or unsuccessful treatment, is associated with a high mortality rate. In Raynaud's syndrome, the blood supply to certain parts of the body, usually the fingers and toes and less frequently the nose or ears, is restricted because of vasculopathy of the smaller vessels at acral sites. Under certain circumstances, with cold as the most well-known provoking factor, blood flow restriction occurs, leading to demarcated color changes and symptoms such as pain, paresthesia, and numbness. In severe cases of Raynaud syndrome tissue ischemia may lead to necrosis and the need for amputation of the affected area. METHODS: In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and interventional pain treatment of PAD and Raynaud's syndrome was updated and summarized. OBJECTIVES: This review focused on interventional pain treatment. In PAD, the effects of the intervention on limb salvage, ulcer healing, and ischemic pain were summarized. Additionally, results with respect to skin microcirculation and quality of life were reported if available. In Raynaud's syndrome, we focused on the effect of the intervention on peripheral blood flow metrics and pain intensity during attacks. RESULTS: In PAD, prevention and treatment of risk factors are important. Initially, conservative treatment and pharmacological therapy are preferred first-line therapies. However, when disease progression occurs, interventional management may be considered. The literature search yielded conflicting evidence for sympathectomy as a treatment for PAD. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for advanced PAD had high-quality evidence for limb salvage in subgroups of patients but conflicting evidence for other outcome measures such as pain, wound healing, and quality of life. The literature search for interventional pain management in Raynaud's syndrome was limited to only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying the effect of thoracic sympathectomy. This study had several limitations and hence the level of evidence for this interventional treatment is very low. No RCTs studying SCS in patients with Raynaud's syndrome were found. CONCLUSIONS: In both PAD and Raynaud's syndrome, additional RCTs are needed to substantiate interventional (pain) management and bolster the evidence base for sympathectomy and SCS as treatment options.

Do Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Pain Influence the Efficacy of Adenovirus Vector-Based COVID-19 Vaccines?

MYTH: Corticosteroid injection for the treatment of pain is known to decrease the efficacy of the adenovirus vector-based vaccines for COVID-19. FACT: There is currently no direct evidence to suggest that a corticosteroid injection before or after the administration of an adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccine decreases the efficacy of the vaccine. However, based on the known timeline of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression following epidural and intraarticular corticosteroid injections, and the timeline of the reported peak efficacy of the Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines, physicians should consider timing an elective corticosteroid injection such that it is administered no less than 2 weeks prior to and no less than 2 weeks following a COVID-19 adenovirus vector-based vaccine dose, whenever possible. We emphasize the importance of risk/benefit analysis and shared decision making in determining the timing of corticosteroid injections for pain indications in relation to receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine given that patient-specific factors will vary.

Do Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Pain Influence the Efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines?

MYTH: Corticosteroid injection for the treatment of pain and inflammation is known to decrease the efficacy of the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). FACT: There is currently no direct evidence to suggest that a corticosteroid injection before or after the administration of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine decreases the efficacy of the vaccine.However, based on the known timeline of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression following epidural and intraarticular corticosteroid injections, and the timeline of the reported peak efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, physicians should consider timing an elective corticosteroid injection such that it is administered no less than 2 weeks prior to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose and no less than 1 week following a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose, whenever possible.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain. DESIGN: Comprehensive systematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery. RESULTS: For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58-68%) at one month, 74% (68-80%) at three months, 64% (59-69%) at six months, and 64% (57-71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43-55%) at one month, 48% (35-61%) at three months, 43% (33-53%) at six months, and 59% (45-73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

Pain Management Best Practices from Multispecialty Organizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Crises.

BACKGROUND: It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for. METHODS: To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period. RESULTS: In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

Guidelines for Composing and Assessing a Paper on the Treatment of Pain: A Practical Application of Evidence-Based Medicine Principles to the Mint Randomized Clinical Trials.

Objective: To perform a thorough assessment of the recently published Mint Trials in order to illustrate how to read and analyze a study critically, according to principles of evidence-based medicine. Design: Narrative review. Method: We have applied the recently published guidelines for composing and assessing studies on the treatment of pain to a recently published article describing a large study that claimed its "findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain." These guidelines describe the critical components of a high-quality manuscript that allows communication of all relevant information from authors to readers. Results: Application of evidence-based medicine principles to the publication describing the Mint Trials reveals significant issues with the methodology and conclusions drawn by the authors. A thorough assessment demonstrates issues with inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnostic block protocols, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis, study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up. A failure to definitively establish a diagnosis, combined with use of an inadequate technique for radiofrequency neurotomy and numerous other methodological flaws, leaves the reader unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the study data. Conclusions: Critical analysis, rooted in principles of evidence-based medicine, must be employed by writers and readers alike in order to encourage transparency and ensure that appropriate conclusions are drawn from study data.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Non-Image-Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and risks of non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. DESIGN: Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS: Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence. RESULTS: The searches yielded 92 primary publications addressing non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of these injections for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. This procedure may provide short-term benefit in the first 3-6 weeks. The small number of case reports on significant risks suggests these injections are relatively safe. In accordance with GRADE, the quality of evidence is very low. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available.