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.

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

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Evidence-Based Advances in Concepts and Treatments.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review presents the most current information about the epidemiology of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), classification and diagnostic criteria, childhood CRPS, subtypes, pathophysiology, conventional and less conventional treatments, and preventive strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: CRPS is a painful disorder with multifactorial pathophysiology. The data describe sensitization of the central and peripheral nervous systems, inflammation, possible genetic factors, sympatho-afferent coupling, autoimmunity, and mental health factors as contributors to the syndrome. In addition to conventional subtypes (type I and type II), cluster analyses have uncovered other proposed subtypes. Prevalence of CRPS is approximately 1.2%, female gender is consistently associated with a higher risk of development, and substantial physical, emotional, and financial costs can result from the syndrome. Children with CRPS seem to benefit from multifaceted physical therapy leading to a high percentage of symptom-free patients. The best available evidence along with standard clinical practice supports pharmacological agents, physical and occupational therapy, sympathetic blocks for engaging physical restoration, steroids for acute CRPS, neuromodulation, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen as therapeutic approaches. There are many emerging treatments that can be considered as a part of individualized, patient-centered care. Vitamin C may be preventive. CRPS can lead to progressively painful sensory and vascular changes, edema, limb weakness, and trophic disturbances, all of which substantially erode healthy living. Despite some progress in research, more comprehensive basic science investigation is needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of the disease so that targeted treatments can be developed for better outcomes. Incorporating a variety of standard therapies with different modes of action may offer the most effective analgesia. Introducing less conventional approaches may also be helpful when traditional treatments fail to provide sufficient improvement.

Scrambler Therapy for Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Case Series.

Complex regional pain syndrome is a chronic debilitating pain disorder that is difficult to manage, in part due to its heterogeneous clinical presentation and lack of clearly defined pathophysiology. Patients usually require a multidisciplinary approach to treatment, which can entail pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, behavioral therapy, and interventional pain procedures, such as sympathetic nerve blocks, spinal cord stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation. However, many patients continue to experience pain refractory to these multimodal strategies. Scrambler therapy (ST) is a noninvasive method of neuromodulation that is applied through cutaneous electrodes, and can alleviate chronic neuropathic pain by stimulating C-fibers and replacing endogenous pain signals with synthetic non-nociceptive signals. Although the use of ST has been reported for several types of refractory central and peripheral neuropathic pain, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of ST for complex regional pain syndrome. We present two patients with complex regional pain syndrome of the right lower extremity, who each underwent ST and experienced significant pain relief and improvement in function and quality of life.

The Sigma Enigma: A Narrative Review of Sigma Receptors.

The sigma-1 and sigma-2 receptors were first discovered in the 1960s and were thought to be a form of opioid receptors initially. Over time, more was gradually learned about these receptors, which are actually protein chaperones, and many of their unique or unusual properties can contribute to a range of important new therapeutic applications. These sigma receptors translocate in the body and regulate calcium homeostasis and mitochondrial bioenergetics and they also have neuroprotective effects. The ligands to which these sigma receptors respond are several and dissimilar, including neurosteroids, neuroleptics, and cocaine. There is controversy as to their endogenous ligands. Sigma receptors are also involved in the complex processes of cholesterol homeostasis and protein folding. While previous work on this topic has been limited, research has been conducted in multiple disease states, such as addiction, aging. Alzheimer's disease, cancer, psychiatric disorders, pain and neuropathic pain, Parkinson's disease, and others. There is currently increasing interest in sigma-1 and sigma-2 receptors as they provide potential therapeutic targets for many disease indications.

Self-Guided Smartphone Application to Manage Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an auricular point acupressure smartphone app (mAPA) to self-manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal, randomized, controlled pilot trial was conducted using a three-group design (self-guided mAPA (n = 14); in-person mAPA (n = 12); and control (n = 11)). The primary outcomes included physical function and pain intensity. RESULTS: After a 4-week APA intervention, participants in the in-person mAPA group had improved physical function of 32% immediately post-intervention and 29% at the 1M follow-up. Participants in the self-guided mAPA group had higher improvement (42% at post-intervention and 48% at the 1M follow-up). Both mAPA groups had similar degrees of pain intensity relief at post-intervention (45% for in-person and 48% for the self-guided group) and the 1M follow-up (42% for in-person and 45% for the self-guided group). Over 50% of the participants in each group reached at least 30% reduced pain intensity at post-intervention, and this was sustained in the mAPA groups at the 1M follow-up. Approximately 80% of the participants in both mAPA groups were satisfied with the treatment outcomes and adhered to the suggested APA practice; however, participants in the self-guided group had higher duration and more frequency in APA use. The attrition rate was 16% at the 1M follow-up. No adverse effects of APA were reported, and participants found APA to be beneficial and the app to be valuable. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that participants effectively learned APA using a smartphone app, whether they were self-guided or received in-person training. They were able to self-administer APA to successfully manage their pain. Participants found APA to be valuable in their pain self-management and expressed satisfaction with the intervention using the app.

Exploring the Feasibility of Virtually Delivered Auricular Point Acupressure in Self-Managing Chronic Pain: Qualitative Study.

Background: Chronic pain remains highly prevalent. Current pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies have not adequately managed chronic pain which has contributed to disability and high healthcare costs. With existing challenges in providing adequate pain care and access, we tested vAPA, a virtually delivered, self-management intervention using Auricular Point Acupressure (APA) by mobile app and virtual consultations (telehealth). Our key purpose was to evaluate the feasibility of the vAPA in self-managing chronic pain in preparation for a future randomized controlled trial. Methods: We conducted a descriptive, qualitative study evaluating our 4-week vAPA intervention among 18 participants. We used directed qualitative content analysis. Results and Conclusion. Participants perceived that vAPA was feasible (acceptable, useable, practical, and beneficial). In addition, the following themes were gathered: better control of pain, less use of pain medications, self-management and motivation in pain, and expectations for pain relief. Refinements were recommended for the app, content, and delivery to improve study interventions. Findings are relevant in moving forward to a future randomized controlled trial and for wider implementation in a pragmatic clinical trial.

Why paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a suitable first choice for treating mild to moderate acute pain in adults with liver, kidney or cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, or who are older.

Acute pain is among the most common reasons that people consult primary care physicians, who must weigh benefits versus risks of analgesics use for each patient. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a first-choice analgesic for many adults with mild to moderate acute pain, is generally well tolerated at recommended doses (≤4 g/day) in healthy adults and may be preferable to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that are associated with undesirable gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular effects. Although paracetamol is widely used, many patients and physicians still have questions about its suitability and dosing, especially for older people or adults with underlying comorbidities, for whom there are limited clinical data or evidence-based guidelines. Inappropriate use may increase the risks of both overdosing and inadequate analgesia. To address knowledge deficits and augment existing guidance in salient areas of uncertainty, we have researched, reviewed, and collated published evidence and expert opinion relevant to the acute use of paracetamol by adults with liver, kidney, or cardiovascular diseases, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, or/and who are older. A concern is hepatotoxicity, but this is rare among adults who use paracetamol as directed, including people with cirrhotic liver disease. Putative epidemiologic associations of paracetamol use with kidney or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorders, and asthma largely reflect confounding biases and are of doubtful relevance to short-term use (<14 days). Paracetamol is a suitable first-line analgesic for mild to moderate acute pain in many adults with liver, kidney or cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, and/or who are older. No evidence supports routine dose reduction for older people. Rather, dosing for adults who are older and/or have decompensated cirrhosis, advanced kidney failure, or analgesic-induced asthma that is known to be cross-sensitive to paracetamol, should be individualized in consultation with their physician, who may recommend a lower effective dose appropriate to the circumstances.

Potential neurological manifestations of COVID-19: a narrative review.

Neurological manifestations are increasingly reported in a subset of COVID-19 patients. Previous infections related to coronaviruses, namely Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) also appeared to have neurological effects on some patients. The viruses associated with COVID-19 like that of SARS enters the body via the ACE-2 receptors in the central nervous system, which causes the body to balance an immune response against potential damage to nonrenewable cells. A few rare cases of neurological sequelae of SARS and MERS have been reported. A growing body of evidence is accumulating that COVID-19, particularly in severe cases, may have neurological consequences although respiratory symptoms nearly always develop prior to neurological ones. Patients with preexisting neurological conditions may be at elevated risk for COVID-19-associated neurological symptoms. Neurological reports in COVID-19 patients have described encephalopathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myopathy, neuromuscular disorders, encephalitis, cephalgia, delirium, critical illness polyneuropathy, and others. Treating neurological symptoms can pose clinical challenges as drugs that suppress immune response may be contraindicated in COVID-19 patients. It is possible that in some COVID-19 patients, neurological symptoms are being overlooked or misinterpreted. To date, neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been described largely within the disease trajectory and the long-term effects of such manifestations remain unknown.

Pharmacologic agents directed at the treatment of pain associated with maladaptive neuronal plasticity.

INTRODUCTION: The definition of nociplastic pain in 2016 has changed the way maladaptive chronic pain is viewed in that it may emerge without neural lesions or neural disease. Many endogenous and pharmacologic substances are being investigated for their role in treating the pain associated with neuronal plasticity. AREAS COVERED: The authors review promising pharmacologic agents for the treatment of pain associated with maladaptive neuronal plasticity. The authors then provide the reader with their expert opinion and provide their perspectives for the future. EXPERT OPINION: An imbalance between the amplification of ascending pain signals and the poor activation of descending inhibitory signals may be at the root of many chronic pain syndromes. The inhibitory activity of noradrenaline reuptake may play a role in neuropathic and nociplastic analgesia. A better understanding of the brain's pain matrix, its signaling cascades, and the complex bidirectional communication between the immune system and the nervous system may help meet the urgent and unmet medical need for safe, effective chronic pain treatment, particularly for pain with a neuropathic and/or nociplastic component.

Evaluation and Management of Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome with an Overview of Surgical Approaches: A Comprehensive Review.

Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (NTOS) represents a disorder believed to involve compression of one or more neurovascular elements as they exit the thoracic outlet. This comprehensive literature review will focus on the occurrence, classification, etiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic measures, and both nonoperative and operative therapies for NTOS. NTOS represents the most common subtype of thoracic outlet syndrome and can significantly impair quality of life. Botulinum toxin injection into the anterior scalene muscle, or even the middle scalene or pectoralis minor muscles, can reduce the symptoms of this syndrome. The best available evidence for botulinum toxin therapy to the cervicothoracic muscles supports the value of this treatment for reducing pain in the affected extremity, and for an approximate duration of 2 months or more. Surgical approaches and newer minimally invasive surgical approaches offer high rates of improvement in select centers.

Review of the Current State of Urine Drug Testing in Chronic Pain: Still Effective as a Clinical Tool and Curbing Abuse, or an Arcane Test?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Therapeutic use, misuse, abuse, and diversion of controlled substances in managing chronic non-cancer pain remain a major concern for physicians, the government, payers, and patients. The challenge remains finding effective diagnostic tools that can be clinically validated to eliminate or substantially reduce the abuse of controlled prescription drugs, while still assuring the proper treatment of those patients in pain. Urine drug testing still remains an important means of adherence monitoring, but questions arise as to its relevance and effectiveness. This review examines the role of UDT, determines its utility in current clinical practice, and investigates its relevance in current chronic pain management. RECENT FINDINGS: A review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature was searched from year 2000 to present examining the relevance and role of UDT in monitoring chronic opioid therapy along with reliability and accuracy, appropriate use, overuse, misuse, and abuse. There are only a limited number of reviews and investigations on UDT, despite the fact that clinicians who prescribe controlled medications for chronic states commonly are expected to utilize UDT. Therefore, despite highly prevalent use, there is a limited publication base from which to draw in this present study. Regardless of experience or training background, physicians and healthcare providers can much more adequately assess opioid therapy with the aid of UDT, which often requires confirmatory testing by a laboratory for clinical and therapeutic prescribing decisions. It has become a strongly recommended aspect of pain care with controlled substances locally, regionally, and nationally. Incorporating UDT for all patients in whom chronic opioid therapy is undertaken is consistent with state and national guidelines and best practice strategies. Practice standards vary as to the frequency of UDT locally, regionally, and nationally, however.

Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: An Update with Emphasis on Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

Musculoskeletal pain is a challenging condition for both patients and physicians. Many adults have experienced one or more episodes of musculoskeletal pain at some time of their lives, regardless of age, gender, or economic status. It affects approximately 47% of the general population. Of those, about 39-45% have long-lasting problems that require medical consultation. Inadequately managed musculoskeletal pain can adversely affect quality of life and impose significant socioeconomic problems. This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It briefly explores the background, classifications, patient assessments, and different tools for management according to the recently available evidence. Multimodal analgesia and multidisciplinary approaches are fundamental elements of effective management of musculoskeletal pain. Both pharmacological, non-pharmacological, as well as interventional pain therapy are important to enhance patient's recovery, well-being, and improve quality of life. Accordingly, recent guidelines recommend the implementation of preventative strategies and physical tools first to minimize the use of medications. In patients who have had an inadequate response to pharmacotherapy, the proper use of interventional pain therapy and the other alternative techniques are vital for safe and effective management of chronic pain patients.

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

Opioid Therapy in Cancer Patients and Survivors at Risk of Addiction, Misuse or Complex Dependency.

A clinical conundrum can occur when a patient with active opioid use disorder (OUD) or at elevated risk for the condition presents with cancer and related painful symptoms. Despite earlier beliefs that cancer patients were relatively unaffected by opioid misuse, it appears that cancer patients have similar risks as the general population for OUD but are more likely to need and take opioids. Treating such patients requires an individualized approach, informed consent, and a shared decision-making model. Tools exist to help stratify patients for risk of OUD. While improved clinician education in pain control is needed, patients too need to be better informed about the risks and benefits of opioids. Patients may fear pain more than OUD, but opioids are not always the most effective pain reliever for a given patient and some patients do not tolerate or want to take opioids. The association of OUD with mental health disorders (dual diagnosis) can also complicate delivery of care as patients with mental health issues may be less adherent to treatment and may use opioids for "chemical coping" as much as for pain control.

Opioids May be Appropriate for Chronic Pain.

Patients living with chronic pain require appropriate access to opioid therapy along with improved access to pain care and additional therapeutic options. It's both medically reasonable and ethical to consider opioid therapy as a treatment option in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain for a subset of patients with severe pain that is unresponsive to other therapies (e.g., injections, other medications, integrative strategies), negatively impacts function or quality of life, and will likely outweigh the potential harms. This paper will examine opioid therapy in the setting of the opioid epidemic, why critics feel that the CDC guideline has resulted in harsh consequences for patients and their physicians, and the rationale for opioid therapy as a means of providing ethical and compassionate pain care.

Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines Facet Joint Interventions 2020 Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.

Treatment of Déjerine-Roussy syndrome pain with scrambler therapy.

Aim: Déjerine-Roussy syndrome or central thalamic pain can be devastating, and treatment with drugs and even deep brain stimulation can be unsatisfactory. Scrambler therapy is a form of neuromodulation that uses external skin electrodes to send a 'non-pain' signal to the brain, with some success in difficult-to-treat syndromes such as neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. We used scrambler therapy to treat a patient with 6 years of disabling Déjerine-Roussy syndrome pain. Methods: A 56-year-old man received multiple daily then monthly treatments with electrode pairs placed just above the area of distal pain. Each treatment was for 40 min. Results: His allodynia and hyperalgesia resolved within 10 min, and his pain score fell to almost zero after 30 min. Months later, he resumed normal activity and is off all his pain medications. No side effects were noted. Conclusion: Scrambler therapy appeared to reverse 6 years of disabling pain safely and economically, and continues to be effective. Further multi-institutional trials are warranted for this rare syndrome.

Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for facet joint interventions in the management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines

Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.

The Use of Peripheral µ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists (PAMORA) in the Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation: An Update on Their Efficacy and Safety.

Peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) constitute a class of drugs which reverse opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with similar opioid analgesic effects. OIC differs from other forms of constipation in that it is an iatrogenic condition that occurs when an opioid acts on the dense network of µ-opioid receptors in the enteric system, which affect a variety of functions including gastrointestinal motility, secretion, and other factors that can cause bowel dysfunction. Unfortunately, laxative products, bowel regimens, dietary changes, and lifestyle modifications have limited effectiveness in preventing OIC, Opioid-associated adverse effect which occurs in 40% to 80% of opioid patients and may led to cessation of the treatment. PAMORAs are µ-receptor opioid antagonists specifically developed so that they have very limited ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and thus they are able to antagonize peripheral but not central µ-opioid receptors. PAMORAs are designed to have no effect on the analgesic benefits of opioid pain relievers but to relieve but antagonizing the effects of the opioid in the gastrointestinal system. The three main PAMORAS are methyltrexone (oral or parenteral), naldemedine (oral only), and naloxegol (oral only). Clinical studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of these agents for alleviating constipation without diminishing the analgesic effect of opioid therapy. The aim of this narrative review to update the current status of PAMORAs for treating OIC in terms of safety and efficacy.