Methylene blue for intractable pain from oral mucositis related to cancer treatment: a randomized phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) in patients receiving cancer therapy is thus far not well managed with standard approaches. We aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of methylene blue (MB) oral rinse for OM pain in patients receiving cancer therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind phase 2 clinical trial, patients were randomized to one of four arms: MB 0.025%+conventional therapy (CTx) (n = 15), MB 0.05%+CTx (n = 14), MB 0.1%+CTx (n = 15), or CTx alone (n = 16). Intervention groups received MB oral rinse every 6 h for 2 days with outcomes measured at days 1-2; safety was evaluated up to 30 days. The primary outcome measured change in the pain numeric rating scale (0-10) from baseline to day 2. Secondary outcome measured change in oral function burden scores from baseline to day 2, World Health Organization OM grades, morphine equivalent daily doses, and adverse events. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03469284. RESULTS: Sixty patients (mean age 43, range 22-62 years) completed the study. Compared with those who received CTx alone, those who received MB had a significant reduction of pain scores at day 2 of treatment (mean ± SD); 0.025%: 5.2 ± 2.9, 0.05%: 4.5 ± 2.9, 0.1%: 5.15 ± 2.6) and reduction of oral function burden scores (0.025%: 2.5 ± 1.55, 0.05%: 2.8 ± 1.7, 0.1%: 2.9 ± 1.60). No serious adverse events were noted, but eight patients reported burning sensation of the oral cavity with the first dose, and this caused one patient to discontinue therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MB oral rinse showed significant pain reduction and improved oral functioning with minimal adverse effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03469284.

Methylene Blue for the Treatment of Intractable Pain Associated with Oral Mucositis.

Oral mucositis is a common and often debilitating complication among cancer patients receiving radiation therapy to the head and neck or chemotherapy agents, or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Pain and decreased oral function associated with oral mucositis may persist long after the conclusion of therapy. Although most patients respond to conservative management, a subset of patients develops intractable pain with severe consequences. For some, the use of total parenteral nutrition with insertion of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes is the only alternative. Current recommendations to treat mucositis and its related pain include basic oral care, bland oral rinses, topical anesthetics, and systemic analgesics. We believe that chemical neurolysis of the affected areas with methylene blue used as an oral rinse is a noninvasive, efficient, safe, and cost-effective alternative that can provide prolonged analgesia in patients with intractable pain of oral mucositis. The benefits of this therapy are reflected in its improvement of patients' quality of life by enabling oral feeding and controlling pain. We report a series of 5 consecutive patients with intractable oral mucositis-related pain despite conventional treatment with systemic opiates. All 5 patients responded well to the use of 0.05% methylene blue as mouth rinse, demonstrating sustained analgesia over 3 weeks. The treatment was tolerated well, and overall patient satisfaction was very high. We also observed that methylene blue rinse significantly reduced the total opioid requirement, as demonstrated by reductions in the patients' morphine equivalent daily dose scores after its use. Our case series suggests that 0.5% methylene blue oral rinse therapy is an effective and inexpensive modality that can be used safely to palliate intractable oral pain in patients with mucositis associated with cancer treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first report using this therapy to treat pain from oral mucositis.

Spinal cord stimulation for testicular pain.

OBJECTIVE: We report a case of malignancy-related testicular pain successfully treated by placement of spinal cord stimulator electrodes. Effective analgesia was provided by epidural lead placement over the dorsal columns. The rationale for our technique was based on contemporary understanding of spinal cord stimulation mechanism in conjunction with analysis of our patient's anatomical lesion location. CASE REPORT: A 57-year-old man with a history of prostate carcinoma status post a radical retropubic prostatectomy presented to our clinic with a 2-year history of progressive burning and stabbing left scrotal and inguinal pain. Given his inability to tolerate opioid analgesics, he underwent ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and ganglion impar nerve blocks, which relieved his inguinal pain. His testicular pain nevertheless persisted, and he therefore underwent a successful dual-lead trial of spinal cord stimulation prompting a permanent implant. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient's responses to the visual analog scale (VAS) were collected at 10 time points over the course of 2 years under two conditions: no stimulation and dual-lead stimulation. RESULTS: Our patient's VAS questionnaire responses indicate a sustained 80% decrease of pain at 6 weeks status post-permanent spinal cord stimulator implant with self-reported increase of function at work and complete weaning off oral analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Testicular pain may be difficult to treat particularly in patients unable to tolerate opioid analgesics. In cases that have failed conservative therapy, a trial of spinal cord stimulation should be explored.

Vertebral compression fracture treatment with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: experience in 407 patients with 1,156 fractures in a tertiary cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Painful vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), whether pathologic or osteoporotic, are a source of morbidity in cancer patients. At our tertiary cancer center, over the past decade we have used vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP) to treat painful VCFs. More data are needed on the treatment of VCFs in cancer patients with these techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of cancer patients with painful VCFs that had been treated at our institution between January 1, 2001 and May 31, 2008. Information was collected on demographic and clinical characteristics, features of the fractures, procedural details, and complications. Pre- and post-procedural pain and related symptoms were assessed using a subset of patients who had responded to the Brief Pain Inventory and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. RESULTS: A total of 407 cancer patients had 1,156 fractures that had been treated with VP or KP during 536 surgical procedures. Patients had an average of 2.8 fractures (range, 1-10). The majority of patients had pathologic fractures due to multiple myeloma (43%) or osteoporotic fractures (35%). Most fractures occurred in the thoracolumbar region. Adjacent-level fractures occurred in 18% of patients. Surgery provided significant relief from pain and several related symptoms. Symptomatic, serious complications requiring open surgery occurred in two cases (<0.01%) in our series. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-center experience revealed that a large number of cancer patients suffer from painful VCFs. The use of VP or KP in treating painful VCFs in cancer patients has good efficacy and an acceptably low complication rate.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain has been recognized as contributing to a significant proportion of chronic pain globally. Among these, spinal pain is of significance with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), generating considerable expense for the health care systems with increasing prevalence and health impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the role and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: The available literature on SCS was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM - QRB) criteria for randomized trials.The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources. OUTCOME MEASURES: RCTs of efficacy with a minimum 12-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. For trials of adaptive stimulation, high frequency stimulation, and burst stimulation, shorter follow-up periods were considered. RESULTS: Results showed 6 RCTs with 3 efficacy trials and 3 stimulation trials. There were also 2 cost effectiveness studies available. Based on a best evidence synthesis with 3 high quality RCTs, the evidence of efficacy for SCS in lumbar FBSS is Level I to II. The evidence for high frequency stimulation based on one high quality RCT is Level II to III. Based on a lack of high quality studies demonstrating the efficacy of adaptive stimulation or burst stimulation, evidence is limited for these 2 modalities. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review continue to require future studies illustrating effectiveness and also the superiority of high frequency stimulation and potentially burst stimulation. CONCLUSION: There is significant (Level I to II) evidence of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in lumbar FBSS; whereas, there is moderate (Level II to III) evidence for high frequency stimulation; there is limited evidence for adaptive stimulation and burst stimulation.

Complications after intrathecal drug delivery due to the underlying malignancy in two patients with intractable cancer pain.

Intrathecal drug delivery is a mode of analgesic delivery that can be considered in those experiencing both refractory pain and excessive side effects from opioid and adjuvant analgesic use. Delivery of analgesic agents directly to the cerebral spinal fluid allows binding of the drug to receptors at the spinal level. Therefore, a reduced analgesic dosage can be afforded, resulting in reduction of drug side effects due to decreased systemic absorption. Drug delivery into the intrathecal space provides this benefit, yet it does not eliminate the possibility of drug side effects or risks of complications. Complications from this route of administration may be seen in the perioperative period or beyond, including infection, inflammatory mass, bleeding, and catheter or pump dysfunction, among others. This may manifest as new/worsening pain or as a neurologic deficit, such as a sensorimotor change and bladder/bowel dysfunction. Urgent evaluation with a detailed physical examination, device interrogation, and other workup including imaging is called for if symptoms suspicious for device-related problems arise. For the cancer pain patient, the underlying malignancy should also be considered as a potential cause for these new symptoms after intrathecal system implantation. We present 2 such cases of complications in the cancer pain patient after intrathecal drug delivery due to progression of the underlying malignant process rather than to surgical or device-related problems. The first patient had a history of metastatic osteosarcoma who, shortly after undergoing an intrathecal drug delivery trial with external pump, presented with new symptoms of both pain and neurologic changes. The second patient with a history of chondrosarcoma developed new symptoms of pain and sensorimotor change several days after intrathecal drug delivery system implantation.

A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: In all recommended guidelines put forth for the treatment of cancer pain, opioids continue to be an important part of a physician's armamentarium. Though opioids are used regularly for cancer pain, there is a paucity of literature proving efficacy for long-term use. Cancer is no longer considered a "terminal disease"; 50% to 65% of patients survive for at least 2 years, and there are about 12 million cancer survivors in the United States. There is a concern about side effects, tolerance, abuse and addiction with long-term opioid use and a need to evaluate the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to look at the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized trials of opioids for cancer pain. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the current literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids for cancer pain was done. The literature search was done using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trials, national clearing house, Web of Science, previous narrative systematic reviews, and cross references. The studies were assessed using the modified Cochrane and Jadad criteria. Analysis of evidence was done utilizing the modified quality of evidence developed by United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures are quality of life (QoL) and side effects including tolerance and addiction. RESULTS: The level of evidence for pain relief based on the USPSTF criteria was fair for transdermal fentanyl and poor for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine. LIMITATIONS: Randomized trials in a cancer setting are difficult to perform and justify. There is a paucity of long-term trials and this review included a follow-up period of only 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of RCTs of opioids for cancer pain showed fair evidence for the efficacy of transdermal fentanyl and poor evidence for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine.