Five-Year Longitudinal Follow-up of Restorative Neurostimulation Shows Durability of Effectiveness in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Associated With Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Adults with refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscle have few treatment options that provide long-term clinical benefit. This study hypothesized that restorative neurostimulation, a rehabilitative treatment that activates the lumbar multifidus muscles to overcome underlying dysfunction, is safe and provides relevant and durable clinical benefit to patients with this specific etiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective five-year longitudinal follow-up of the ReActiv8-B pivotal trial, participants (N = 204) had activity-limiting, moderate-to-severe, refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain, a positive prone instability test result indicating impaired multifidus muscle control, and no indications for spine surgery. Low back pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol's "EQ-5D-5L" index) were compared with baseline and following the intent-to-treat principle, with a supporting mixed-effects model for repeated measures that accounted for missing data. RESULTS: At five years (n = 126), low back pain VAS had improved from 7.3 to 2.4 cm (-4.9; 95% CI, -5.3 to -4.5 cm; p < 0.0001), and 71.8% of participants had a reduction of ≥50%. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 39.1 to 16.5 (-22.7; 95% CI, -25.4 to -20.8; p < 0.0001), and 61.1% of participants had reduction of ≥20 points. The EQ-5D-5L index improved from 0.585 to 0.807 (0.231; 95% CI, 0.195-0.267; p < 0.0001). Although the mixed-effects model attenuated completed-case results, conclusions and statistical significance were maintained. Of 52 subjects who were on opioids at baseline and had a five-year visit, 46% discontinued, and 23% decreased intake. The safety profile compared favorably with neurostimulator treatments for other types of back pain. No lead migrations were observed. CONCLUSION: Over a five-year period, restorative neurostimulation provided clinically substantial and durable benefits with a favorable safety profile in patients with refractory chronic low back pain associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354; registration date: October 15, 2016; principal investigator: Christopher Gilligan, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. The study was conducted in Australia (Broadmeadow, New South Wales; Noosa Heads, Queensland; Welland, South Australia; Clayton, Victoria), Belgium (Sint-Niklaas; Wilrijk), The Netherlands (Rotterdam), UK (Leeds, London, Middlesbrough), and USA (La Jolla, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Aurora, CO; Carmel, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Royal Oak, MI; Durham, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Cleveland, OH; Providence, RI; Spartanburg, SC; Spokane, WA; Charleston, WV).

Long-Term Outcomes of Restorative Neurostimulation in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Multifidus Dysfunction: Two-Year Results of the ReActiv8-B Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Impaired neuromuscular control and degeneration of the multifidus muscle have been linked to the development of refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP). An implantable restorative-neurostimulator system can override the underlying multifidus inhibition by eliciting episodic, isolated contractions. The ReActiv8-B randomized, active-sham-controlled trial provided effectiveness and safety evidence for this system, and all participants received therapeutic stimulation from four months onward. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the two-year effectiveness of this restorative neurostimulator in patients with disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Open-label follow-up of 204 participants implanted with a restorative neurostimulation system (ReActiv8, Mainstay Medical, Dublin, Ireland) was performed. Pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry disability index [ODI]), quality-of-life (EQ-5D-5L), and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after activation. RESULTS: At two years (n = 156), the proportion of participants with ≥50% CLBP relief was 71%, and 65% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5 cm); 61% had a reduction in ODI of ≥20 points, 76% had improvements of ≥50% in VAS and/or ≥20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 87% of participants had continued device use during the second year for a median of 43% of the maximum duration, and 60% (34 of 57) had voluntarily discontinued (39%) or reduced (21%) opioid intake. CONCLUSIONS: At two years, 76% of participants experienced substantial, clinically meaningful improvements in pain, disability, or both. These results provide evidence of long-term effectiveness and durability of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP, secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT02577354.

Three-Year Durability of Restorative Neurostimulation Effectiveness in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Restorative neurostimulation is a rehabilitative treatment for patients with refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with dysfunction of the lumbar multifidus muscle resulting in impaired neuromuscular control. The ReActiv8-B randomized, sham-controlled trial provided evidence of the effectiveness and safety of an implanted, restorative neurostimulator. The two-year analysis previously published in this journal demonstrated accrual of clinical benefits and long-term durability. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of three-year effectiveness and safety in patients with refractory, disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational follow-up of the 204 implanted trial participants. Low back pain visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol quality of life survey, and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, and one, two, and three years after activation. The mixed-effects model repeated measures approach was used to provide implicit imputations of missing data for continuous outcomes and multiple imputation for proportion estimates. RESULTS: Data were collected from 133 participants, and 16 patients missed their three-year follow-up because of coronavirus disease restrictions but remain available for future follow-up. A total of 62% of participants had a ≥ 70% VAS reduction, and 67% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5cm); 63% had a reduction in ODI of ≥ 20 points; 83% had improvements of ≥ 50% in VAS and/or ≥ 20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 71% (36/51) participants on opioids at baseline had voluntarily discontinued (49%) or reduced (22%) opioid intake. The attenuation of effectiveness in the imputed (N = 204) analyses was relatively small and did not affect the statistical significance and clinical relevance of these results. The safety profile remains favorable, and no lead migrations have been observed to date. CONCLUSION: At three years, 83% of participants experienced clinically substantial improvements in pain, disability, or both. The results confirm the long-term effectiveness, durability, and safety of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354.

Conversion of Schedule II Opioids to Buprenorphine Buccal Film: A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical data for the conversion of Schedule II opioids to buprenorphine buccal film and to demonstrate sustained analgesia and a reduction in morphine milligram equivalents after conversion. DESIGN: Retrospective review of electronic medical records. SETTING: Group clinical practice providing outpatient chronic pain management care in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. SUBJECTS: Patients who received opioids for chronic pain between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, were selected for chart review if they were converted to buprenorphine buccal film from a Schedule II opioid. METHODS: Patients who met inclusion criteria were stratified into subgroups on the basis of preconversion morphine milligram equivalents, whether they remained on opioids for breakthrough pain postconversion, and pre- and postconversion numerical rating scale pain scores. Outcomes of interest included the differences between pre- and postconversion numerical rating scale pain scores and daily morphine milligram equivalents for each subgroup. RESULTS: Of 157 patients reviewed, 87.9% were successfully converted to buprenorphine buccal film. Overall, numerical rating scale pain scores were stable after conversion. Statistically significant reductions were demonstrated in the <90 daily morphine milligram equivalent subgroup. Postconversion daily morphine milligram equivalents decreased by 85.4% from baseline. Change in daily morphine milligram equivalents is representative of patients who remained on breakthrough pain medication. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate continued analgesia after conversion to buprenorphine buccal film despite reductions in daily morphine milligram equivalents. Most patients were able to convert directly from their long-acting opioid to buprenorphine buccal film and stabilized without the use of concomitant opioids for breakthrough pain. Aggressive titration strategies were associated with greater success.

The Use of Contrast Agents in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multispecialty and Multisociety Practice Advisory on Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain, Encephalopathy After Unintentional Intrathecal Gadolinium Injection, and Hypersensitivity Reactions.

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

Understanding Buprenorphine for Use in Chronic Pain: Expert Opinion.

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel convened to reach a consensus on common misconceptions surrounding buprenorphine, a Schedule III partial µ-opioid receptor agonist indicated for chronic pain. The panel also provided clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of buprenorphine and conversion strategies for switching to buprenorphine from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist for chronic pain management. METHODS: The consensus panel met on March 25, 2019, to discuss relevant literature and provide recommendations on interpreting buprenorphine as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist, prescribing buprenorphine before some Schedule II, III, or IV options, perioperative/trauma management of patients taking buprenorphine, and converting patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine. RESULTS: The panel recommended that buprenorphine's classification as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist not be clinically translated to mean partial analgesic efficacy. The panel also recommended that buprenorphine be considered before some Schedule II, III, or IV opioids in patients with a favorable risk/benefit profile on the basis of metabolic factors, abuse potential, and tolerability and that buprenorphine be continued during the perioperative/trauma period. In addition, switching patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine should be considered with no weaning period at starting doses that are based on the previous opioid dose. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide a framework for clinicians to address most clinical scenarios regarding buprenorphine use. The overall consensus of the panel was that buprenorphine is a unique Schedule III opioid with favorable pharmacologic properties and a safety profile that may be desirable for chronic pain management.

Effectiveness and Safety of Intrathecal Ziconotide: Final Results of the Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management evaluated the long-term effectiveness and safety of intrathecal ziconotide. METHODS: The study was a prospective, multicenter observational study of intrathecal ziconotide in US clinical practice. Patients were adults with severe chronic pain that warranted intrathecal therapy. Ziconotide was initiated as the single agent in the pump; however, other intrathecal medications were permitted. The primary efficacy outcome was ≥30% reduction in numeric pain rating scale score from baseline at week 12. A secondary outcome was patient global impression of change. Adverse events were solicited at each visit. RESULTS: The registry enrolled 93 patients. Seventy-four and 28 patients completed 12 weeks and 18 months of treatment, respectively. In the overall patient population, 17.4% had ≥30% pain reduction from baseline at week 12, with a mean reduction in pain of 10.9%. At month 18, 38.5% of patients had ≥30% pain reduction from baseline, with a mean pain reduction of 24.7%. Patient-rated improvement was reported in 67% of patients at week 12 and 71% at month 18. Almost all patients experienced adverse events, the most common of which were nausea (25.8%), confusional state (22.6%), and dizziness (20.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Final study analyses showed that intrathecal ziconotide provided clinically meaningful pain relief in 17.4% and 38.5% of patients at week 12 and month 18, respectively. At these same time points, patient-rated improvement was reported in at least two-thirds of patients. The safety profile was consistent with that listed in the ziconotide prescribing information.

Long-term Safety and Tolerability of NKTR-181 in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain or Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Phase 3 Multicenter, Open-Label, 52-Week Study (SUMMIT-08 LTS).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety of NKTR-181, a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that may have reduced human abuse potential, in patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain (CLBP) or other chronic noncancer pain (CNP). DESIGN: Uncontrolled, multicenter, open-label, long-term study of NKTR-181 comprised of three periods: screening (≤21 days), treatment (52 weeks), and safety follow-up (∼14 days after the last dose of NKTR-181). SETTING: Multicenter, long-term clinical research study. METHODS: NKTR-181 administered at doses of 100-600 mg twice daily (BID) was evaluated in opioid-naïve and opioid-experienced patients. Patients were enrolled de novo or following completion of the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 efficacy study (SUMMIT-07). Safety assessments included adverse event documentation, measurements of opioid withdrawal, and clinical laboratory tests. Effectiveness was assessed using the modified Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (mBPI-SF). RESULTS: The study enrolled 638 patients. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were constipation (26%) and nausea (12%). Serious TEAEs, reported in 5% of patients, were deemed by investigators to be unrelated to NKTR-181. There were no deaths or reported cases of respiratory depression. A sustained reduction in mBPI-SF pain intensity and pain interference from baseline to study termination was observed throughout treatment. Only 2% of patients discontinued NKTR-181 due to lack of efficacy, and 11% discontinued due to treatment-related AEs. NKTR-181 doses of up to 600 mg BID were generally well tolerated, and patients experienced low rates of opioid-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support the premise that NKTR-181 is a safe and effective option for patients with moderate to severe CLBP or CNP.

Measuring Opioid Withdrawal in a Phase 3 Study of a New Analgesic, NKTR-181 (Oxycodegol), in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the SUMMIT-07 trial opioid withdrawal results of NKTR-181 (oxycodegol), a new molecular entity mu-opioid receptor agonist. DESIGN: Phase 3, enriched-enrollment, double-blind, randomized-withdrawal study in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SETTING: Conducted in the United States at multiple sites. METHODS: SUMMIT-07 was comprised of five periods: screening; NKTR-181 open-label titration (100 to 400 mg twice daily); 12-week randomized, double-blind study drug (NKTR-181 or placebo); one-week study drug taper; and two-week safety follow-up. Permitted rescue medication included hydrocodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 300 mg (two tablets daily) for two weeks after randomization, then acetaminophen 1.0 gm daily for the remainder of the trial. Signs and symptoms of drug withdrawal were evaluated using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS); Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS); Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS); and withdrawal-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1,190 patients entering titration, one patient had moderate withdrawal (COWS score 13/48 maximum) three days after discontinuing NKTR-181. Of 610 patients randomized (N = 309, NKTR-181; N = 301, placebo), no COWS scores indicating withdrawal at a moderate level or greater (i.e., score ≥13) were observed at any time point. At day 8 after randomization, week 12, and the end of tapering, COWS scores indicating mild withdrawal (<13) were observed in seven (2.4%), one (0.4%), and one (0.5%) placebo patients, respectively, and three (1.0%), one (0.4%), and five (2.3%) NKTR-181 patients, respectively. Mean SOWS scores in both arms were ≤2.8 of 64 possible points at all time points. During the randomized period, of 35 events identified by MADDERS, adjudicators identified 20 possible "withdrawal" events (9 [2.9%] NKTR-181 and 11 [3.7%] placebo). CONCLUSIONS: NKTR-181 exhibited a low rate and severity of opioid withdrawal in SUMMIT-07 patients with CLBP.

Redefining Spinal Cord Stimulation "Trials": A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Single-Stage Wireless Permanent Implantable Devices.

BACKGROUND: "Traditional" spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trials with percutaneous electrodes externalized to a pulse generator (PG) are typically limited in duration due to risk of infection. Newer miniaturized wireless SCS technology eliminates the percutaneous extension (as well as PGs implanted for chronic use), thus facilitating a single-stage implantation after which the device can remain indefinitely. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fully implanted wireless SCS devices during a 30-day screening trial in subjects with chronic low back pain and leg pain and a history of lumbosacral spine surgery. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial of single-stage wireless SCS using a wireless percutaneous system, 99 subjects received either 10 kHz high frequency stimulation (HFS) or lower frequency stimulation (LFS) below 1500 Hz (Bolash R, Creamer M, Rauck R, et al. Wireless high frequency spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz) compared to multi-waveform low frequency spinal cord stimulation in the management of chronic pain in failed back surgery syndrome subjects: preliminary results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz019). In this report, we assess the 30-day trial success rate (≥50% pain relief from baseline) and complications. RESULTS: The overall trial success rate was 88% (87/99): 92% (46/50) for HFS and 84% (41/49) for LFS (NS). The trial success rate in the 64 subjects with predominant low back pain was 92% (59/64) vs. 80% (28/35) in those with leg pain ≥ low back pain (NS). During the screening trial, one infection occurred (1%) and one subject withdrew and was explanted (1%). Electrode migrations were seen on routine follow-up x-rays in 10 cases (10%). CONCLUSION: Using wireless SCS devices that allow for an extended trial period and evaluation of various waveforms, we observed a high rate trial success rate with both HFS and LFS waveforms, with minimal incidence of infection. Long-term follow-up will address the cost-effectiveness and morbidity associated with this technology, which facilitates single-stage treatment.

Wireless High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (10 kHz) Compared with Multiwaveform Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Chronic Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Subjects: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the wireless Freedom Spinal Cord Stimulator (WSCS) System for the treatment of chronic back and/or leg pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to standard medical treatment utilizing 10-kHz stimulation (high-frequency [HF]) in comparison with 10-1,500-Hz stimulation (low-frequency [LF]) waveforms. METHODS: Ninety-nine subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HF or LF stimulation waveforms utilizing the same Freedom WSCS System. All subjects were implanted with two 8-electrode arrays in the exact same anatomical positions within the dorsal epidural spinal column, with the top electrode positioned at the T8 and T9 vertebrae levels, respectively, and the wireless receiver placed under the skin in a subcutaneous pocket. RESULTS: Seventy-two (HF: N = 38; LF: N = 34) subjects had completed the six-month follow-up after an initial 30-day trial period at the time of this report. For both the HF and LF arms, mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain decreased significantly: 77% and 76%, respectively, for the HF arm and 64% and 64%, respectively, for the LF arm. In addition, most subjects experienced significant improvements in VAS, Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life 5 Dimension questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Change, and sleep duration. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results demonstrate that WSCS devices can reduce FBSS chronic pain substantially with both LF and HF stimulation waveforms over a seven-month period (30-day trial period and six-month post-trial evaluation).

Mitigation of IV Abuse Through the Use of Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulations: An Overview of Current Technologies.

Providers who treat patients with chronic pain face a dual challenge: providing adequate access to opioid therapies for appropriate pain management while adopting strategies to minimize the risk for abuse. Commonly prescribed opioids have substantial abuse potential when administered intravenously, and extended-release (ER)/long-acting (LA) opioids may be targeted for IV abuse because of the higher per-dose medication level. The consequences of IV opioid abuse are severe and increase the risks for adverse outcomes, including mortality due to acute health events, serious infections, and deep vein thrombosis, to name a few. To reduce the potential for abuse of prescription opioids by both recreational and experienced drug abusers, abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) of opioid medications employ either physical/chemical barriers or agonist-antagonist combinations. Here we review the development and use of opioid ADFs as a harm-reduction strategy, and their potential for mitigating IV opioid abuse. The approved ER/LA opioids with ADF labeling in the United States include formulations of oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine. Findings from in vitro laboratory tests of abuse deterrence for opioid ADFs are described herein, as are data from human abuse potential studies for IV abuse of those ADF products, for which such studies are feasible (ie, abuse-deterrent agonist-antagonist formulations). The available ADF opioids may decrease both the attractiveness and the feasibility of IV abuse. The adoption of ADF opioids represents one tactic for providing access to needed medication for patients with chronic pain, while potentially reducing the risk for opioid abuse, in a comprehensive effort to combat the opioid epidemic.

Plasma N-glycome composition associates with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the symptom of a group of syndromes with heterogeneous underlying mechanisms and molecular pathologies, making treatment selection and patient prognosis very challenging. Moreover, symptoms and prognosis of LBP are influenced by age, gender, occupation, habits, and psychological factors. LBP may be characterized by an underlying inflammatory process. Previous studies indicated a connection between inflammatory response and total plasma N-glycosylation. We wanted to identify potential changes in total plasma N-glycosylation pattern connected with chronic low back pain (CLBP), which could give an insight into the pathogenic mechanisms of the disease. METHODS: Plasma samples of 1128 CLBP patients and 760 healthy controls were collected in clinical centers in Italy, Belgium and Croatia and used for N-glycosylation profiling by hydrophilic interaction ultra-performance liquid chromatography (HILIC-UPLC) after N-glycans release, fluorescent labeling and clean-up. Observed N-glycosylation profiles have been compared with a cohort of 126 patients with acute inflammation that underwent abdominal surgery. RESULTS: We have found a statistically significant increase in the relative amount of high-branched (tri-antennary and tetra-antennary) N-glycan structures on CLBP patients' plasma glycoproteins compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, relative amounts of disialylated and trisialylated glycan structures were increased, while high-mannose and glycans containing bisecting N-acetylglucosamine decreased in CLBP. CONCLUSIONS: Observed changes in CLBP on the plasma N-glycome level are consistent with N-glycosylation changes usually seen in chronic inflammation. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: To our knowledge, this is a first large clinical study on CLBP patients and plasma N-glycome providing a new glycomics perspective on potential disease pathology.

Effectiveness and Safety of Intrathecal Ziconotide: Interim Analysis of the Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM).

BACKGROUND: The Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM) evaluated long-term effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intrathecal ziconotide treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management was an open-label, long-term, multicenter, observational study of adult patients with severe chronic pain. This interim analysis (data through July 10, 2015) of ziconotide as the first vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump included change from baseline in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; primary efficacy measure) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. RESULTS: Enrollment closed at 93 patients; data collection was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. Fifty-one patients (54.8%) received ziconotide as the first agent in pump (FIP+), whereas 42 (45.2%) did not (FIP-). Mean (SD) baseline NPRS scores were 7.4 (1.9) and 7.9 (1.6) in FIP+ and FIP- patients, respectively. Mean (SEM) percentage changes in NPRS scores were -29.4% (5.5%) in FIP+ patients (n = 26) and +6.4% (7.7%) in FIP- patients (n = 17) at month 6 and -34.4% (9.1%) in FIP+ patients (n = 14) and -3.4% (10.2%) in FIP- patients (n = 9) at month 12. Improvement from baseline, measured by PGIC score, was reported in 69.2% of FIP+ (n = 26) and 35.7% of FIP- (n = 14) patients at month 6 and 85.7% of FIP+ (n = 7) and 71.4% of FIP- (n = 7) patients at month 12. The most common adverse events (≥ 10% of patients overall as of the data cut) were nausea (19.6% vs. 7.1% of FIP+ vs. FIP- patients, respectively), confusional state (9.8% vs. 11.9%), and dizziness (13.7% vs. 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed when ziconotide was initiated as first-line intrathecal therapy vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump. The adverse event profile was consistent with the ziconotide prescribing information.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: Two Clinical Case Reports of Sustained Pain Relief.

As the leading cause of disability among U.S. adults, chronic low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and challenging musculoskeletal conditions. Neuromodulation provides an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the use of opioids to treat chronic LBP, but the cost and invasiveness of existing methods have limited its broad adoption, especially earlier in the treatment continuum. The present case report details the results of a novel method of short-term percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in 2 subjects with chronic LBP. At the end of the 1-month therapy, stimulation was discontinued and the leads were withdrawn. PNS produced clinically significant improvements in pain (62% average reduction in Brief Pain Inventory Question #5, average pain), and functional outcomes (73% reduction in disability, Oswestry Disability Index; 83% reduction in pain interference, Brief Pain Inventory). Both subjects reduced nonopioid analgesic use by 83%, on average, and the one subject taking opioids ceased using all opioids. The only adverse event was minor skin irritation caused by a topical dressing. The clinically significant improvements were sustained at least 4 months after start of therapy (79% average reduction in pain; both reported minimal disability; 100% reduction in opioids; 74% reduction nonopioids). The results reveal the utility of this novel, short-term approach and its potential as a minimally invasive neuromodulation therapy for use earlier in the treatment continuum to produce sustained pain relief and reduce or eliminate the need for analgesic medications, including opioids, as well as more expensive and invasive surgical or therapeutic alternatives.

A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Safety and Efficacy Study of Lenalidomide in Lumbar Radicular Pain with a Long-Term Open-Label Extension Phase.

Objective: This phase II study assessed lenalidomide efficacy and safety. Design: Three-phase core study: 14-day prerandomization, 12-week treatment, and 52-week open-label extension. Setting: Fourteen US centers from July 2005 to July 2007. Subjects: Chronic lumbar radicular pain patients without history of nerve injury or deficit. Methods: Subjects were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with lenalidomide 10 mg or placebo once daily for 12 weeks, followed by a 52-week open-label extension. A 12-week, single-center, randomized-withdrawal (1:2, lenalidomide:placebo), exploratory study with open-label extension was undertaken in 12 subjects from the core extension who were naïve to neuropathic medications and with at least a two-point decrease from baseline average daily Pain Intensity-Numerical Rating Scale score. Results: Of 180 subjects enrolled, 176 had at least one postbaseline measure; 132 completed the 12-week treatment phase. In the core study, no statistically significant difference in Pain Intensity-Numerical Rating Scale mean change (-0.02, P = 0.958) was observed at week 12 between lenalidomide and placebo; proportions achieving pain reduction at week 12 and other secondary measures were comparable between lenalidomide and placebo. In the exploratory study, week 12 mean changes in Pain Intensity-Numerical Rating Scale scores were -0.05 (lenalidomide: N = 3) and 2.11 (placebo: N = 8). Mean changes in Brief Pain Inventory-short form interference scores were -3.33 and 8.38, respectively; scores at six months were maintained or decreased in 10 of 12 subjects. Conclusions: While this study does not support lenalidomide use in an unselected lumbar radicular pain population, an immunomodulating agent may relieve pain in select subjects naïve to neuropathic pain medications.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00120120.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.

Opioid-Induced Constipation Survey in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

Chronic pain patients relying on chronic opioid therapy are often challenged with opioid-induced constipation (OIC), a difficult condition to treat that has a significant psychosocial impact on those who are affected (Bruner et al., J Pain Res, 8, 2015, 289). Unlike other side effects of opioids, OIC does not resolve over time during chronic opioid use, and treatments used for functional constipation often fail to provide adequate symptom relief (Nelson and Camilleri, Therap Adv Gastroenterol, 8, 2015, 206). Estimates of the prevalence of OIC vary. It has been reported that 15% to 90% of opioid users are affected by OIC (Gaertner et al., J Clin Gastroenterol, 49, 2015, 9; Wan et al., Am Health Drug Benefits, 8, 2015, 93; Coyne et al., Clinicoecon Outcomes Res, 6, 2014, 269). In addition, a recent rise in opioid prescriptions by nonpain specialists has contributed to the increase in opioid-related side effects, such as OIC (Nelson and Camilleri, Therap Adv Gastroenterol, 8, 2015, 206; Tuteja et al., Neurogastroenterol Motil, 22, 2010, 424). We conducted a survey on OIC through PainPathways magazine in fall of 2014 and in spring of 2015. Survey results showed the prevalence of depression and the modification of opioid dosage were higher than previously thought. Additionally, we found that discussions with healthcare workers regarding OIC do not take place regularly. Our results re-emphasize the need for a consensus on OIC-specific diagnostic criteria, evidence-based treatment strategies, outcome metrics, and education about OIC for both prescribers and patients to improve clinical outcome as well as patient satisfaction.

Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Oral Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, improves opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain. An oral methylnaltrexone formulation has been developed. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, adults with chronic noncancer pain receiving opioid doses of ≥ 50 mg/day oral morphine equivalents with OIC were randomly assigned to oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg) or placebo once daily (QD) for 4 weeks followed by as-needed dosing for 8 weeks. Patients who had ≥ 3 rescue-free bowel movements (RFBMs)/week, with an increase of ≥ 1 RFBM/week from baseline for ≥ 3 of 4 weeks during the QD period, were responders. RESULTS: Overall, 803 patients were included in the analyses. A significantly greater percentage of patients had an increase in mean percentage of dosing days resulting in an RFBM within 4 hours of dosing during weeks 1 through 4 (QD period; primary endpoint) with methylnaltrexone (300 mg/day [24.6%; P = 0.002] and 450 mg/day [27.4%; P < 0.0001]) vs. placebo (18.2%). The percentage of responders (49.3% for 300 mg [P = 0.03] and 51.5% for 450 mg [P = 0.005] vs. 38.3% with placebo) and change from baseline in mean number of weekly RFBMs (difference vs. placebo, 0.5 for 300 mg [P = 0.03] and 0.5 for 450 mg [P = 0.02]) was significantly greater with methylnaltrexone 300 and 450 mg/day vs. placebo during the QD period. All dosages of oral methylnaltrexone were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Oral methylnaltrexone was efficacious and well tolerated for OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain, particularly the 450-mg dose.

Lubiprostone for Opioid-Induced Constipation Does Not Interfere with Opioid Analgesia in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lubiprostone 24 µg twice daily (BID), administered to relieve opioid-induced constipation (OIC), affects opioid analgesia in patients with chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Data were pooled from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lubiprostone in adults with chronic noncancer pain receiving stable opioid analgesia and who had documented OIC. In each study, lubiprostone 24 µg BID or placebo was administered for 12 weeks for relief of OIC using a common protocol. The Brief Pain Inventory short form (BPI-SF) was administered, and opioid use (expressed as morphine-equivalent daily dose [MEDD]) was recorded at baseline and months 1, 2, and 3. The BPI-SF provided patient scores for pain severity, the worst pain experienced in the past 24 hours, and pain interference with daily life. RESULTS: The pooled patient population (N = 1300) was predominately female (62.5%) and white (82.1%), with a mean age of 50.5 years. The MEDD was 97.5 mg (range, 5 to 3656 mg) in patients receiving placebo and 112.5 mg (range, 4 to 7605 mg) in patients treated with lubiprostone. Lubiprostone 24 µg BID treatment did not appear to affect opioid use or pain scores; changes from baseline were not significantly different with placebo vs. lubiprostone 24 µg BID at months 1, 2, and 3 for MEDD (P ≥ 0.435) and for BPI-SF scores for pain interference, pain severity, and worst pain (P ≥ 0.402). DISCUSSION: Lubiprostone 24 µg BID administered for relief of OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain does not interfere with opioid analgesia.