Iatrogenic Side Effects of Pain Therapies

Pain regimens, particularly for chronic cancer and noncancer pain, must balance the important analgesic benefits against potential risks. Many effective and frequently used pain control regimens are associated with iatrogenic adverse events. Interventional procedures can be associated with nerve injuries, vascular injuries, trauma to the spinal cord, and epidural abscesses. Although rare, these adverse events are potentially catastrophic. Pharmacologic remedies for pain must also consider potential side effects that can occur even at therapeutic doses of over-the-counter remedies such as paracetamol (acetaminophen) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Opioids are effective pain relievers but are associated with many side effects, some of which can be treatment limiting. A prevalent and distressing side effect of opioid therapy is constipation. Opioid-induced constipation is caused by binding to opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal system, making conventional laxatives ineffective. Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists are a new drug class that offers the benefits of preserving opioid analgesia without side effects in the gastrointestinal system. An important safety concern, particularly among geriatric patients is the increasingly prevalent condition of polypharmacy. Many senior patients take five or more medications, including some that may be contraindicated in geriatric patients, duplicative of other drugs, have potential pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, or may not be the optimal choice for the patient's age and condition. Careful assessment of medications in the elderly, including possibly deprescribing with tapering of certain drugs, may be warranted but should be done systematically and under clinical supervision.</p

Responsible, safe, and effective prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: American society of interventional pain physicians (ASIPP) guidelines

Background: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. Objectives: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (SIRIUS): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND: New treatment options are needed for patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. We assessed daratumumab, a novel CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody, in patients with refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial done in Canada, Spain, and the USA, patients (age ≥18 years) with multiple myeloma who were previously treated with at least three lines of therapy (including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), or were refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous daratumumab 8 mg/kg or 16 mg/kg in part 1 stage 1 of the study, to decide the dose for further assessment in part 2. Patients received 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or 16 mg/kg per week for 8 weeks (cycles 1 and 2), then every 2 weeks for 16 weeks (cycles 3-6), and then every 4 weeks thereafter (cycle 7 and higher). The allocation schedule was computer-generated and randomisation, with permuted blocks, was done centrally with an interactive web response system. In part 1 stage 2 and part 2, patients received 16 mg/kg dosed as in part 1 stage 1. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (partial response [PR] + very good PR + complete response [CR] + stringent CR). All patients who received at least one dose of daratumumab were included in the analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01985126. FINDINGS: The study is ongoing. In part 1 stage 1 of the study, 18 patients were randomly allocated to the 8 mg/kg group and 16 to the 16 mg/kg group. Findings are reported for the 106 patients who received daratumumab 16 mg/kg in parts 1 and 2. Patients received a median of five previous lines of therapy (range 2-14). 85 (80%) patients had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation, 101 (95%) were refractory to the most recent proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs used, and 103 (97%) were refractory to the last line of therapy. Overall responses were noted in 31 patients (29.2%, 95% CI 20.8-38.9)-three (2.8%, 0.6-8.0) had a stringent CR, ten (9.4%, 4.6-16.7) had a very good PR, and 18 (17.0%, 10.4-25.5) had a PR. The median time to first response was 1.0 month (range 0.9-5.6). Median duration of response was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.5-not estimable) and progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-4.6). The 12-month overall survival was 64.8% (95% CI 51.2-75.5) and, at a subsequent cutoff, median overall survival was 17.5 months (95% CI 13.7-not estimable). Daratumumab was well tolerated; fatigue (42 [40%] patients) and anaemia (35 [33%]) of any grade were the most common adverse events. No drug-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab monotherapy showed encouraging efficacy in heavily pretreated and refractory patients with multiple myeloma, with a favourable safety profile in this population of patients. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development

Bone Marrow Concentrate (BMC) Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders: Evidence-Based Policy Position Statement of American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

BACKGROUND: The use of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) for treatment of musculoskeletal disorders has become increasingly popular over the last several years, as technology has improved along with the need for better solutions for these pathologies. The use of cellular tissue raises a number of issues regarding the US Food and Drug Administration\u27s (FDA) regulation in classifying these treatments as a drug versus just autologous tissue transplantation. In the case of BMC in musculoskeletal and spine care, this determination will likely hinge on whether BMC is homologous to the musculoskeletal system and spine. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to describe the current regulatory guidelines set in place by the FDA, specifically the terminology around minimal manipulation and homologous use within Regulation 21 CFR Part 1271, and specifically how this applies to the use of BMC in interventional musculoskeletal medicine. METHODS: The methodology utilized here is similar to the methodology utilized in preparation of multiple guidelines employing the experience of a panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties from differing regions of the world. The collaborators who developed these position statements have submitted their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these position statements. The literature pertaining to BMC, its effectiveness, adverse consequences, FDA regulations, criteria for meeting the standards of minimal manipulation, and homologous use were comprehensively reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available and relevant literature. RESULTS/Summary of Evidence: In conjunction with evidence-based medicine principles, the following position statements were developed: Statement 1: Based on a review of the literature in discussing the preparation of BMC using accepted methodologies, there is strong evidence of minimal manipulation in its preparation, and moderate evidence for homologous utility for various musculoskeletal and spinal conditions qualifies for the same surgical exemption. Statement 2: Assessment of clinical effectiveness based on extensive literature shows emerging evidence for multiple musculoskeletal and spinal conditions. • The evidence is highest for knee osteoarthritis with level II evidence based on relevant systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. There is level III evidence for knee cartilage conditions. • Based on the relevant systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized studies, the evidence for disc injections is level III. • Based on the available literature without appropriate systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials, the evidence for all other conditions is level IV or limited for BMC injections. Statement 3: Based on an extensive review of the literature, there is strong evidence for the safety of BMC when performed by trained physicians with the appropriate precautions under image guidance utilizing a sterile technique. Statement 4: Musculoskeletal disorders and spinal disorders with related disability for economic and human toll, despite advancements with a wide array of treatment modalities. Statement 5: The 21st Century Cures Act was enacted in December 2016 with provisions to accelerate the development and translation of promising new therapies into clinical evaluation and use. Statement 6: Development of cell-based therapies is rapidly proliferating in a number of disease areas, including musculoskeletal disorders and spine. With mixed results, these therapies are greatly outpacing the evidence. The reckless publicity with unsubstantiated claims of beneficial outcomes having putative potential, and has led the FDA Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue multiple warnings. Thus the US FDA is considering the appropriateness of using various therapies, including BMC, for homologous use. Statement 7: Since the 1980\u27s and the description of mesenchymal stem cells by Caplan et al, (now called medicinal signaling cells), the use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders has been increasing in the management of pain and promoting tissue healing. Statement 8: The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) of the FDA requires minimal manipulation under same surgical procedure exemption. Homologous use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders is provided by preclinical and clinical evidence. Statement 9: If the FDA does not accept BMC as homologous, then it will require an Investigational New Drug (IND) classification with FDA (351) cellular drug approval for use. Statement 10: This literature review and these position statements establish compliance with the FDA\u27s intent and corroborates its present description of BMC as homologous with same surgical exemption, and exempt from IND, for use of BMC for treatment of musculoskeletal tissues, such as cartilage, bones, ligaments, muscles, tendons, and spinal discs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of all available and pertinent literature, multiple position statements have been developed showing that BMC in musculoskeletal disorders meets the criteria of minimal manipulation and homologous use. KEY WORDS: Cell-based therapies, bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, medicinal signaling cells, Food and Drug Administration, human cells, tissues, and cellular tissue-based products, Public Health Service Act (PHSA), minimal manipulation, homologous use, same surgical procedure exemption

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

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

The Role of Radiofrequency Ablation for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Meta‐Analysis

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147144/1/pmr2842.pd

Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections

BACKGROUND: Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient\u27s baseline pain. It is not well known how this provocation pain relates to treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between concordant versus discordant provocation during interlaminar epidural steroid injection and its effects on pain reduction at follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a single center, prospective randomized double-blind study. METHODS: Interlaminar epidural steroid injections under fluoroscopic guidance were performed on 48 patients with radicular lumbosacral pain. After injection with 80 mg methylprednisolone and 2 mL of normal saline at a single level, patients were asked to report if pain was provoked, and whether the pain was concordant or discordant with their baseline pain. The primary outcome measure was self-rated percentage of pain reduction from baseline at 2-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included improvement in activity level and decreased analgesic consumption. RESULTS: Provocation was observed in 37 out of 48 patients (77%). This was further classified as concordant (22/37, 60%) or discordant (15/37, 40%) pain. The concordant group achieved a significant decrease in self-reported pain as compared to the discordant group at 2-week follow-up (61%, t = 2.45, P \u3c 0.01). There were also significantly more patients in the concordant group who reported 75% pain reduction as compared to the discordant group (X = 6.44, df(1), P \u3c 0.05). There were no significant differences between concordant and discordant groups in regard to improvements in activity level (X = 2.56) and decreased analgesic use (X = 3.28). LIMITATIONS: The secondary analysis did not examine long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The concordant group demonstrated significantly higher pain reduction as compared to the discordant group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of improved function or reduced analgesic requirements. Concordant provocation during interlaminar epidural injection may be a predictor of outcome