A systematic review and network meta-analysis of pharmaceutical interventions used to manage chronic pain.

It is estimated 1.5 billion of the global population suffer from chronic pain with prevalence increasing with demographics including age. It is suggested long-term exposure to chronic could cause further health challenges reducing people's quality of life. Therefore, it is imperative to use effective treatment options. We explored the current pharmaceutical treatments available for chronic pain management to better understand drug efficacy and pain reduction. A systematic methodology was developed and published in PROSPERO (CRD42021235384). Keywords of opioids, acute pain, pain management, chronic pain, opiods, NSAIDs, and analgesics were used across PubMed, Science direct, ProQuest, Web of science, Ovid Psych INFO, PROSPERO, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and EMBASE. All randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs), epidemiology and mixed-methods studies published in English between the 1st of January 1990 and 30th of April 2022 were included. A total of 119 studies were included. The data was synthesised using a tri-partied statistical methodology of a meta-analysis (24), pairwise meta-analysis (24) and network meta-analysis (34). Mean, median, standard deviation and confidence intervals for various pain assessments were used as the main outcomes for pre-treatment pain scores at baseline, post-treatment pain scores and pain score changes of each group. Our meta-analysis revealed the significant reduction in chronic pain scores of patients taking NSAID versus non-steroidal opioid drugs was comparative to patients given placebo under a random effects model. Pooled evidence also indicated significant drug efficiency with Botulinum Toxin Type-A (BTX-A) and Ketamine. Chronic pain is a public health problem that requires far more effective pharmaceutical interventions with minimal better side-effect profiles which will aid to develop better clinical guidelines. The importance of understanding ubiquity of pain by clinicians, policy makers, researchers and academic scholars is vital to prevent social determinant which aggravates issue.

Long-term safety of spinal cord stimulation systems in a prospective, global registry of patients with chronic pain.

Aim: The availability of long-term (>2 years) safety outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. We evaluated safety in a global SCS registry for chronic pain. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled globally at 79 implanting centers and followed out to 3 years after device implantation. Results: Of 1881 participants enrolled, 1289 received a permanent SCS implant (1776 completed trial). The annualized rate of device explant was 3.5% (all causes), and 1.1% due to inadequate pain relief. Total incidence of device explantation >3 years was 7.6% (n = 98). Of these, 32 subjects (2.5%) indicated inadequate pain relief as cause for removal. Implant site infection (11 events) was the most common device-related serious adverse event (<1%). Conclusion: This prospective, global, real-world study demonstrates a high-level of safety for SCS with low rate of explant/serious adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01719055 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital application use in clinical research in pain medicine.

Importance: Pain is a silent global epidemic impacting approximately a third of the population. Pharmacological and surgical interventions are primary modes of treatment. Cognitive/behavioural management approaches and interventional pain management strategies are approaches that have been used to assist with the management of chronic pain. Accurate data collection and reporting treatment outcomes are vital to addressing the challenges faced. In light of this, we conducted a systematic evaluation of the current digital application landscape within chronic pain medicine. Objective: The primary objective was to consider the prevalence of digital application usage for chronic pain management. These digital applications included mobile apps, web apps, and chatbots. Data sources: We conducted searches on PubMed and ScienceDirect for studies that were published between 1st January 1990 and 1st January 2021. Study selection: Our review included studies that involved the use of digital applications for chronic pain conditions. There were no restrictions on the country in which the study was conducted. Only studies that were peer-reviewed and published in English were included. Four reviewers had assessed the eligibility of each study against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Out of the 84 studies that were initially identified, 38 were included in the systematic review. Data extraction and synthesis: The AMSTAR guidelines were used to assess data quality. This assessment was carried out by 3 reviewers. The data were pooled using a random-effects model. Main outcomes and measures: Before data collection began, the primary outcome was to report on the standard mean difference of digital application usage for chronic pain conditions. We also recorded the type of digital application studied (e.g., mobile application, web application) and, where the data was available, the standard mean difference of pain intensity, pain inferences, depression, anxiety, and fatigue. Results: 38 studies were included in the systematic review and 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The digital interventions were categorised to web and mobile applications and chatbots, with pooled standard mean difference of 0.22 (95% CI: -0.16, 0.60), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.60) and -0.02 (95% CI: -0.47, 0.42) respectively. Pooled standard mean differences for symptomatologies of pain intensity, depression, and anxiety symptoms were 0.25 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.46), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.43) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.69), respectively. A sub-group analysis was conducted on pain intensity due to the heterogeneity of the results (I 2 = 82.86%; p = 0.02). After stratifying by country, we found that digital applications were more likely to be effective in some countries (e.g., United States, China) than others (e.g., Ireland, Norway). Conclusions and relevance: The use of digital applications in improving pain-related symptoms shows promise, but further clinical studies would be needed to develop more robust applications. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021228343.

Best practice in radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints: a consensus technique.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency denervation is used to treat selected people with low back pain. Recent trials have been criticised for using a sub-optimal intervention technique. OBJECTIVES: To achieve consensus on a best practice technique for administering radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints to selected people with low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: A consensus of expert professionals in the area of radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints. METHODS: We invited a clinical member from the 30 most active UK departments in radiofrequency pain procedures and two overseas clinicians with specific expertise to a 1 day consensus meeting. Drawing on the known anatomy of the medial branch, the theoretical basis of radiofrequency procedures, a survey of current practice and collective expertise, delegates were facilitated to reach consensus on the best practice technique. RESULTS: The day was attended by 24 UK and international clinical experts. Attendees agreed a best practice technique for the conduct of radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints. LIMITATIONS: This consensus was based on a 1 day meeting of 24 clinical experts who attended and took part in the discussions. The agreed technique has not been subject to input from a wider community of experts. CONCLUSIONS: Current best practice for radiofrequency denervation has been agreed for use in a UK trial. Group members intend immediate implementation in their respective trusts. We propose using this in a planned Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of radiofrequency denervation for selected people with low back pain.