Efficacy of aprepitant for refractory pruritus in patients with epidermolysis bullosa and atopic dermatitis: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: At a single-center pediatric hospital, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant was used to treat refractory pruritus in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) and atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were included (24 EB patients, 13 AD patients), ages 10 months to 37 years. RESULTS: 58% (14/24) of patients with EB and 85% (11/13) of patients with AD reported aprepitant was effective in decreasing their pruritus, with age-related differences in efficacy observed in EB patients, and access to the medication by insurance denial or availability of the drug as a barrier to use. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant shows promise in controlling refractory pruritus in pediatric EB and AD patients and deserves further study.

Post-thoracotomy analgesia.

Thoracotomy is considered one of the most painful operative procedures. Due to anatomical complexity, post-thoracotomy pain requires multimodal perioperative treatment to adequately manage to ensure proper postoperative recovery. There are several different strategies to control post-thoracotomy pain including interventional techniques, such as neuraxial and regional injections, and conservative treatments including medications, massage therapy, respiratory therapy, and physical therapy. This article describes different strategies and evidence base for their use.

Comparative Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Pain Program for Chronic Low Back Pain, Compared to Physical Therapy Alone.

STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of PT to an interdisciplinary treatment approach in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP is a costly and potentially disabling condition. Physical therapy (PT), cognitive behavioral therapy, and interdisciplinary pain programs (IPPs) are superior to usual care. Empirical evidence is lacking to clearly support one treatment approach over another in patients with CLBP. METHODS: One hundred seventeen adult patients who completed an IPP for individuals with ≥3 months of back pain were compared to 214 adult patients with similar characteristics who completed PT. The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire was the primary outcome measure. Additional measures included: PROMIS physical function, global health, social role satisfaction, pain interference, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and Patient Health Questionnaire. Patients who completed the IPP were matched by propensity score to a historical control group of patients who completed a course of PT. Change in functional disability was compared between IPP patients and matched controls. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed pre to post participation in the IPP using paired t test and by calculating the proportion with clinically meaningful improvement. RESULTS: Propensity score matching generated 81 IPP and 81 PT patients. Patients enrolled in the IPP had significantly greater improvement in MDQ scores upon completion compared to patients in PT (15.8 vs. 7.1, P < 0.001). The majority of IPP patients reached the threshold for clinically meaningful change of ≥10 point reduction (60.5%) compared to 34.6% of PT patients, P < 0.01. Patients in the IPP also showed statistically and clinically significant improvement in social role satisfaction, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. CONCLUSION: CLBP patients in an IPP demonstrated greater functional improvements compared to similar patients participating in PT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.