Pain medicine: The case for an independent medical specialty and training programs.

Over the last 30 years, pain has become one of the most dynamic areas of medicine and a public health issue. According to a recent Institute of Medicine report, pain affects approximately 100 million Americans at an estimated annual economic cost of $560 to $635 billion and is poorly treated overall. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) recognizes a pain subspecialty, but pain care delivery has struggled with increasing demand and developed in an inconsistent and uncoordinated fashion. Pain education is insufficient and highly variable. Multiple pain professional organizations have led to fragmentation of the field and lack of interdisciplinary agreement, resulting in confusion regarding who speaks for pain medicine. In this Perspective, the authors argue that ABMS recognition of pain medicine as an independent medical specialty would provide much needed structure and oversight for the field and would generate credibility for the specialty and its providers among medical peers, payers, regulatory and legislative agencies, and the public at large. The existing system, managed by three ABMS boards, largely excludes other specialties that contribute to pain care, fails to provide leadership from a single professional organization, provides suboptimal training exposure to pain medicine, and lengthens training, which results in inefficient use of time and educational resources. The creation of a primary ABMS conjoint board in pain medicine with its own residency programs and departments would provide better coordinated training, ensure the highest degree of competence of pain medicine specialists, and improve the quality of pain care and patient safety.

American academy of pain medicine ethics council statement on conflicts of interest: interaction between physicians and industry in pain medicine.

New concerns have appeared recently in regard to the increasingly complex relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical or devices industry. The American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) Council on Ethics has discussed the issue, especially focusing on the implication of conflicts of interest for Pain Medicine, and published several recommendations for specific professional situations that the Pain Medicine physician may encounter.

Mortality associated with implantation and management of intrathecal opioid drug infusion systems to treat noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the authors observed a cluster of three deaths, which circumstances suggested were opioid-related, within 1 day after placement of intrathecal opioid pumps for noncancer pain. Further investigation suggested that mortality among such patients was higher than previously appreciated. The authors performed investigations to quantify that mortality and compare the results to control populations, including spinal cord stimulation and low back surgery. METHODS: After analyzing nine index cases--three sentinel cases and six identified by a prospective strategy--the authors used epidemiological methods to investigate whether mortality rates reflected patient- or therapy-related differences. Mortality rates after intrathecal opioid therapy and spinal cord stimulation were derived by correlating Medtronic device registration data with de-identified data from the Social Security Death Master File. Aggregate demographic and comorbidity data were obtained from Medicare and United Healthcare population databases to examine the influence of demographics and comorbidities on mortality. RESULTS: Device registration and Social Security analyses revealed an intrathecal opioid therapy mortality rate of 0.088% at 3 days after implantation, 0.39% at 1 month, and 3.89% at 1 yr-a higher mortality than after spinal cord stimulation implants or after lumbar diskectomy in community hospitals. Demographic, illness profile, and mortality analyses of large databases suggest, despite limitations, that excess mortality was related to intrathecal opioid therapy, and could not be fully explained by other factors. These findings were consistent with the nine index cases that revealed that respiratory arrest caused or contributed to death in all patients. No device malfunctions associated with overinfusion were identified among cases where data were available. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with noncancer pain treated with intrathecal opioid therapy experience increased mortality compared to similar patients treated by using other therapies. Respiratory depression as a consequence of intrathecal drug overdosage or mixed intrathecal and systemic drug interactions is one plausible, but hypothetical mechanism. The exact causes for patient deaths and the proportion of those deaths attributable to intrathecal opioid therapy remain to be determined. These findings, although based on incomplete information, suggest that it may be possible to reduce mortality in noncancer intrathecal opioid therapy patients.