Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundThe past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial.MethodsAfter approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4–5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached.Results17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary).ConclusionsLumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the risk of prolonged opioid use in patients receiving tramadol compared with other short acting opioids.DesignObservational study of administrative claims data.SettingUnited States commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance claims (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2018.ParticipantsOpioid-naive patients undergoing elective surgery.Main outcome measureRisk of persistent opioid use after discharge for patients treated with tramadol alone compared with other short acting opioids, using three commonly used definitions of prolonged opioid use from the literature: additional opioid use (defined as at least one opioid fill 90-180 days after surgery); persistent opioid use (any span of opioid use starting in the 180 days after surgery and lasting ≥90 days); and CONSORT definition (an opioid use episode starting in the 180 days after surgery that spans ≥90 days and includes either ≥10 opioid fills or ≥120 days’ supply of opioids).ResultsOf 444 764 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 357 884 filled a discharge prescription for one or more opioids associated with one of 20 included operations. The most commonly prescribed post-surgery opioid was hydrocodone (53.0% of those filling a single opioid), followed by short acting oxycodone (37.5%) and tramadol (4.0%). The unadjusted risk of prolonged opioid use after surgery was 7.1% (n=31 431) with additional opioid use, 1.0% (n=4457) with persistent opioid use, and 0.5% (n=2027) meeting the CONSORT definition. Receipt of tramadol alone was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of additional opioid use relative to people receiving other short acting opioids (incidence rate ratio 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.13; risk difference 0.5 percentage points; P=0.049), 47% increase in the adjusted risk of persistent opioid use (1.25 to 1.69; 0.5 percentage points; P<0.001), and 41% increase in the adjusted risk of a CONSORT chronic opioid use episode (1.08 to 1.75; 0.2 percentage points; P=0.013).ConclusionsPeople receiving tramadol alone after surgery had similar to somewhat higher risks of prolonged opioid use compared with those receiving other short acting opioids. Federal governing bodies should consider reclassifying tramadol, and providers should use as much caution when prescribing tramadol in the setting of acute pain as for other short acting opioids.

Abstract Background A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. Observations A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. Conclusions and Relevance The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Chronic pain and mental health disorders are common in the general population, and epidemiological studies suggest that a bidirectional relationship exists between these 2 conditions. The observations from functional imaging studies suggest that this bidirectional relationship is due in part to shared neural mechanisms. In addition to depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, individuals with chronic pain are at risk of other mental health problems including suicide and cigarette smoking and many have sustained sexual violence. Within the broader biopsychosocial model of pain, the fear-avoidance model explains how behavioral factors affect the temporal course of chronic pain and provides the framework for an array of efficacious behavioral interventions including cognitive-behavioral therapy, acceptance-based therapies, and multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation. Concomitant pain and mental health disorders often complicate pharmacological management, but several drug classes, including serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants, have efficacy for both conditions and should be considered first-line treatment agents.

Abstract Background It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for. Methods To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period. Results In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization. Conclusions The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

Objective: Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency (OIAI) may develop in patients treated with chronic opioids due to suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Our objective was to describe the clinical manifestations, biochemical presentation, and clinical course of OIAI. Methods: A retrospective study of adults diagnosed with OIAI between 2006 and 2018 at an academic center. Opioid daily dose was converted into morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Results: Forty patients (women, n = 29 [73%]) taking chronic opioids at a daily median MME dose of 105 (60 to 200) mg and median duration of 60 (3 to 360) months were diagnosed with OIAI. Patients reported fatigue (n = 29, 73%), musculoskeletal pain (n = 21, 53%), and weight loss (n = 17, 53%) for a median of 12 (range, 1 to 132) months prior to diagnosis, and only 7.5% (n = 3) of patients were identified with OIAI through case detection. Biochemical diagnosis of OIAI was based on (1) low morning cortisol, baseline adrenocorticotropic hormone and/or dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate in 59% (n = 26) of patients or (2) abnormal cosyntropin stimulation test in 41% (n = 14) of patients. With glucocorticoid replacement, 16/23 (70%) patients with available follow-up experienced improvement in symptoms. Opioids were tapered or discontinued in 15 patients, of whom 10 were followed for adrenal function and of which 7 (70%) recovered from OIAI. Conclusion: Minimum daily MME in patients diagnosed with OIAI was 60 mg. OIAI causes significant morbidity, and recognition requires a high level of clinical suspicion. Appropriate glucocorticoid treatment led to improvement of symptoms in 70%. Resolution of OIAI occurred following opioid cessation or reduction.

Several cognitive-affective constructs, including pain catastrophizing and pain-related anxiety, have been implicated in the onset and progression of chronic pain, and both constructs have been identified as key targets for multidisciplinary pain treatment. Both neuroticism and depression have been linked to these constructs (and to each other), but how each may contribute to the pain experience is unknown. This study tested associations between neuroticism, depression, and indices of catastrophizing and pain-related anxiety among persons seeking treatment for chronic non-malignant pain. We hypothesized, as a higher-order personality trait, neuroticism would remain uniquely associated with both pain catastrophizing and pain-related anxiety, even after accounting for current symptoms of depression. A retrospective study design assessed depression (as measured by the Centers for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale), neuroticism (measured with the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Pain Anxiety Symptom Score in a consecutive series of patients (n=595) admitted to a 3-week outpatient pain treatment program from March 2009 through January 2011. Hierarchical regression indicated that neuroticism was independently associated with greater pain catastrophizing and pain-related anxiety, above-and-beyond the contributions of sociodemographic characteristics, pain severity, and depression. A depression by neuroticism interaction was not observed, suggesting that associations between neuroticism and cognitive-affective pain constructs remained stable across varying levels of current depression. These findings represent an early but important step towards the clarification of complex associations between trait neuroticism, current depression, and tendencies toward catastrophic and anxiety-provoking appraisals of pain among persons seeking treatment for chronic pain.

Neck pain imposes a considerable personal and socioeconomic burden—it is one of the top five chronic pain conditions in terms of prevalence and years lost to disability—yet it receives a fraction of the research funding given to low back pain. Although most acute episodes resolve spontaneously, more than a third of affected people still have low grade symptoms or recurrences more than one year later, with genetics and psychosocial factors being risk factors for persistence. Nearly half of people with chronic neck pain have mixed neuropathic-nociceptive symptoms or predominantly neuropathic symptoms. Few clinical trials are dedicated solely to neck pain. Muscle relaxants and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective for acute neck pain, and clinical practice is mostly guided by the results of studies performed for other chronic pain conditions. Among complementary and alternative treatments, the strongest evidence is for exercise, with weaker evidence supporting massage, acupuncture, yoga, and spinal manipulation in different contexts. For cervical radiculopathy and facet arthropathy, weak evidence supports epidural steroid injections and radiofrequency denervation, respectively. Surgery is more effective than conservative treatment in the short term but not in the long term for most of these patients, and clinical observation is a reasonable strategy before surgery.

An urgent need exists to better understand the transition from short-term opioid use to unintended prolonged opioid use (UPOU). The purpose of this work is to propose a conceptual framework for understanding UPOU that posits the influence of 3 principal domains that include the characteristics of (1) individual patients, (2) the practice environment, and (3) opioid prescribers. Although no standardized method exists for developing a conceptual framework, the process often involves identifying corroborative evidence, leveraging expert opinion to identify factors for inclusion in the framework, and developing a graphic depiction of the relationships between the various factors and the clinical problem of interest. Key patient characteristics potentially associated with UPOU include (1) medical and mental health conditions; (2) pain etiology; (3) individual affective, behavioral, and neurophysiologic reactions to pain and opioids; and (4) sociodemographic factors. Also, UPOU could be influenced by structural and health care policy factors: (1) the practice environment, including the roles of prescribing clinicians, adoption of relevant practice guidelines, and clinician incentives or disincentives, and (2) the regulatory environment. Finally, characteristics inherent to clinicians that could influence prescribing practices include (1) training in pain management and opioid use; (2) personal attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding the risks and benefits of opioids; and (3) professionalism. As the gatekeeper to opioid access, the behavior of prescribing clinicians directly mediates UPOU, with the 3 domains interacting to determine this behavior. This proposed conceptual framework could guide future research on the topic and allow plausible hypothesis-based interventions to reduce UPOU.