RESUMEN
The treatment of pain remains a critical, unmet public health challenge. According to the CDC, in 2021, an estimated 20.9% of US adults (51.6 million people) endured chronic pain, and 6.9% (17.1 million people) endured high-impact chronic pain. Additionally, the impact of the social determinants of health on pain treatment are beginning to emerge. Treating pain addresses its control and relief, enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life. However, current treatment options have limitations, creating a significant need for innovative solutions. This raises the role of innovation in identifying new pain medicines. Thus, the clinical development of novel pain medicines is an unmet need to address public health worldwide.
[Box: see text].
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Manejo del Dolor , Humanos , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Manejo del Dolor/tendencias , Analgésicos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest. RESULTS: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes , Atención Perioperativa , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria , Humanos , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/uso terapéutico , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Atención Perioperativa/métodos , Atención Perioperativa/normas , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Manejo del Dolor/normas , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Sociedades Médicas/normasRESUMEN
ABSTRACT: Many medications commonly used to treat neuropathic pain are associated with significant, dose-limiting adverse effects, including sedation, dizziness, and fatigue. These adverse effects are due to the activity of these medications within the central nervous system. The objective of this work was to investigate the interactions between peripherally restricted cannabinoid receptor and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists on ongoing and evoked neuropathic pain behaviors in mouse models. RNAscope analysis of cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R) and MOR mRNA demonstrated that the mRNA of both receptors is colocalized in both mouse and human dorsal root ganglion. Single-cell RNAseq of dorsal root ganglion from chronic constriction injury mice showed that the mRNA of both receptors (Cnr1 and Oprm1) is coexpressed across different neuron clusters. Myc-CB1R and FLAG-MOR were cotransfected into immortalized HEK-293T cells and were found to interact at a subcellular level. We also find that CB-13 (a peripherally restricted dual CB1R and cannabinoid receptor type 2 agonist) and DALDA (a peripherally restricted MOR agonist) both attenuate mechanical hypersensitivity in a murine model of neuropathic pain. Using isobolographic analysis, we demonstrate that when coadministered, these agents synergistically attenuate mechanical hypersensitivity. Importantly, combination dosing of these agents does not cause any detectable preferential behaviors or motor impairment. However, repeated dosing of these agents is associated with the development of tolerance to these drugs. Collectively, these findings suggest that leveraging synergistic pain inhibition between cannabinoid receptor and MOR agonists in peripheral sensory neurons may be worth examining in patients with neuropathic pain.
RESUMEN
Objective: To examine the immediate effects of a comprehensive pain course on medical students' pre-existing perceptions and attitudes toward pain patients and opioid management. Methods: First-year medical students at a major academic medical center enrolled in a required pre-clerkship pain course in June 2020 and completed pre- and post-course online surveys with Likert-scale questions about their attitudes toward pain management and opioid-related issues. Additionally, the surveys included a free-text question where the students listed the first five words that came to mind when hearing the word "opioids". These words were categorized as "professional" or "lay" words and further as having "positive", "negative", or "neutral" connotations. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, as well as non-parametric and parametric tests. Results: Fifty-four of the 119 students responded to pretest and posttest surveys and were included in paired analyses. There was a significant difference between the number of professional words used before (M=1.21, SD=0.97) and after the course (M=2.40 SD=1.33); t(52)=-6.39, P<0.001. Students also used more lay-positive words after the course (M=0.81, SD=0.63) than they used pre-course (M=0.23, SD=0.43); t(51)=-5.98, P<0.001. Students' post-course responses to several key Likert-scale questions showed significant shifts toward more positive attitudes about caring for patients with pain. For example, students acknowledged greater comfort in providing opioids for chronic pain (P<0.001) where appropriate, and enhanced interest in handling complex pain cases (P<0.001). Conclusion: Results showed that a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary pain course could greatly enhance first-year medical students' attitudes toward pain management, chronic pain patients, and the complex issues surrounding opioids.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Humanos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Fentanilo , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , PrescripcionesRESUMEN
Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed