Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

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

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

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.

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part I: introduction and general considerations.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) re-engineered its definition of clinical guidelines as follows: "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." This new definition departs from a 2-decade old definition from a 1990 IOM report that defined guidelines as "systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances." The revised definition clearly distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. The IOM committee acknowledged that for many clinical domains, high quality evidence was lacking or even nonexistent. Even though the guidelines are important decision-making tools, along with expert clinical judgment and patient preference, their value and impact remains variable due to numerous factors. Some of the many factors that impede the development of clinical practice guidelines include bias due to a variety of conflicts of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Consequently, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence, as recently recommended by the IOM. Chronic pain is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon associated with significant economic, social, and health outcomes. Interventional pain management is an emerging specialty facing a disproportionate number of challenges compared to established medical specialties, including the inappropriate utilization of ineffective and unsafe techniques. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 5 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance; dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably; and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payers.

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODOLOGY: Systematic assessment of the literature. EVIDENCE: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. DISCLAIMER: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

An update of the systematic appraisal of the accuracy and utility of lumbar discography in chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The intervertebral disc has been implicated as a major cause of chronic lumbar spinal pain based on clinical, basic science, and epidemiological research. There is, however, a lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis and treatment of intervertebral disc disorders. Based on controlled evaluations, lumbar intervertebral discs have been shown to be the source of chronic back pain without disc herniation in 26% to 39% of patients. Lumbar provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is often used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Despite the extensive literature, intense debate continues about lumbar discography as a diagnostic tool. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar provocation and analgesic discography literature. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess and re-evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography. METHODS: The available literature on lumbar discography was reviewed. A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. However, studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and critically analyzed. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: Over 160 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, 33 studies compared discography with other diagnostic tests, 30 studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of discography, 22 studies assessed surgical outcomes for discogenic pain, and 3 studies assessed the prevalence of lumbar discogenic pain. The quality of the overall evidence supporting provocation discography based on the above studies appears to be fair. The prevalence of internal disc disruption is estimated to be 39% to 42%, whereas the prevalence of discogenic pain without assessing internal disc disruption is 26%. CONCLUSION: This systematic review illustrates that lumbar provocation discography performed according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic lumbar discogenic pain.