Search

Ian Kudel,1 Markay Hopps,2 Joseph C Cappelleri,3 Alesia Sadosky,2 Kristen King-Concialdi,1 Ryan Liebert,1 Bruce Parsons,2 Patrick Hlavacek,2 Andrea H Alexander,2 Marco D DiBonaventura,4 John D Markman,5 John T Farrar,6 Brett R Stacey7 1Health Outcomes Practice, Kantar Health, New York, NY, USA; 2Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 3Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 4Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 5University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA; 6Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 7UW Center for Pain Relief, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Background: The aim of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics, treatment usage, and health outcomes of US adults diagnosed with neuropathic pain (NeP) by experienced physicians. Methods: Adults with scores exceeding the threshold for probable NeP (painDETECT ≥19) and diagnosed with NeP by a qualified physician completed a questionnaire that included comorbid conditions, pain symptoms and experiences, medication use, health status (3-level EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-3L]: health utilities index and visual analog scale), pain severity and interference with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory), and work and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire). Descriptive analyses were performed for each NeP subtype. Results: Participants (n=295) were predominantly female (64.4%), middle-aged (53.9%), and white (51.5%). Chronic low back pain was the most frequently diagnosed major NeP syndrome (n=166), followed by diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n=58), post-trauma neuropathy (n=47), post-surgical neuropathy (n=28), and central NeP (n=23). An additional 45 participants were diagnosed, but did not meet the criteria for the aforementioned subtypes. Participants could be diagnosed with multiple subtypes. Across each NeP subtype, patients reported high rates of comorbid disease, including arthritis (range: 39.1%–64.3%) and high blood pressure (range: 26.1%–69.0%), as well as symptomology that included numbness (range: 68.1%–91.4%) and changes in muscular strength (range: 24.1%–65.2%). The majority of patients reported back pain (range: 77.8%–95.7%) and arthritis/joint pain (range: 68.1%–78.6%). The most commonly reported types of NeP pain medication were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (range: 43.1%–70.2%), weak opioids (range: 22.2%–39.3%), and strong opioids (range: 8.7%–28.6%). All six NeP groups generally reported similar levels of dysfunction on all self-report measures. The most notable finding was that the EuroQol-5D-3L health utilities index scores for each of the six groups were lower than the US norms by a clinically important amount. Conclusion: These exploratory findings indicate that patients with NeP across different etiologies are medically complex and experience impaired function across multiple domains. Keywords: activity impairment, functional status, health-related quality of life, neuropathic pain, pain medication use, physician diagnosis, work impairment

Marco D DiBonaventura,1 Alesia Sadosky,2 Kristen Concialdi,1 Markay Hopps,2 Ian Kudel,1 Bruce Parsons,2 Joseph C Cappelleri,3 Patrick Hlavacek,2 Andrea H Alexander,2 Brett R Stacey,4 John D Markman,5 John T Farrar6 1Health Outcomes Practice, Kantar Health, 2Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, 3Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, 4University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 5University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, 6University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, US Background: The prevalence of neuropathic pain (NeP) has been estimated within specific health conditions; however, there are no published data on its broad prevalence in the US. The current exploratory study addresses this gap using the validated PainDetect questionnaire as a screener for probable NeP in a general-population health survey conducted with a multimodal recruitment strategy to maximize demographic representativeness. Materials and methods: Adult respondents were recruited from a combination of Internet panels, telephone lists, address lists, mall-based interviews, and store-receipt invitations using a random stratified-sampling framework, with strata defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Older persons and minorities were oversampled to improve prevalence estimates. Results were weighted to match the total adult US population using US Census data. Demographic information was collected, and respondents who experienced physical pain in the past 12 months completed the PainDetect and provided additional pain history. A cutoff score of 19 or greater on the PainDetect was used to define probable NeP. Results: A total of 24,925 respondents (average response rate 2.5%) provided demographic data (52.2% female, mean age 51.5 years); 15,751 respondents reported pain (63.7%), of which 2,548 (15.7%, 95% confidence interval 14.9%–16.5%) had probable NeP based on the PainDetect, which was 10% (95% confidence interval 9.5%–10.5%) of all respondents. Among those reporting pain, the prevalence of probable NeP among Blacks and Hispanics was consistently higher than Whites in each age- and sex group. The highest prevalence among those with pain was among male Hispanics 35–44 years (32.4%) and 45–54 years (24.2%) old. The most commonly used medications reported by those with probable NeP were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (44.2%), followed by weak opioids (31.7%), antiepileptics (10.9%), and strong opioids (10.9%). Conclusion: This is the first study to provide an estimate of the prevalence of probable NeP in the US, showing significant variation by age and ethnicity. Keywords: neuropathic pain, prevalence, pain types, epidemiology

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on the treatment of veterans at risk for suicide recommends considering caring contacts interventions after a psychiatric hospitalization for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt. This quality improvement project examined the implementation of the recommendation at a large VA health care system. The project enrolled 29% of hospitalized veterans (N=135 of 462). Enrollment barriers included lack of staff availability and veteran ineligibility due to homelessness or housing instability. Opportunities to improve the reach of the intervention in future quality improvement processes are discussed, especially because acceptability of the intervention was high among veterans., Competing Interests: The contents of this column do not represent the views of the VA or the U.S. government.The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A recent phase 3, randomized, placebo- and tramadol-controlled trial (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up) demonstrated efficacy of tanezumab 10 mg in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and a history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics. Here, we report on the clinical meaningfulness of treatment response in this study, focused on secondary measures of pain, interference with daily functions, overall disease status, and satisfaction with treatment., Methods: Patients received placebo (up to week 16; n = 406), subcutaneously administered (SC) tanezumab 5 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), SC tanezumab 10 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), or orally administered tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day; n = 605) for 56 weeks. Patient's global assessment of low back pain (PGA-LBP), Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-sf), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and modified Patient-Reported Treatment Impact (mPRTI) were assessed at weeks 16 and 56., Results: At week 16, significant (p < 0.05) improvements over placebo were evident with tanezumab for the PGA-LBP (10 mg) and most BPI-sf (both doses), TSQM (both doses), and mPRTI (both doses) items assessed. Improvements over baseline persisted for the PGA-LBP and BPI-sf at week 56. However, the magnitude of improvements was modestly lower at week 56 relative to week 16. Tramadol did not improve PGA-LBP or BPI-sf scores versus placebo at week 16. Most differences between tanezumab and tramadol at week 56 did not reach the level of statistical significance for all endpoints., Conclusions: The totality of the evidence as captured by measures of pain, interference with daily function, patient overall assessment of disease status, and satisfaction with treatment demonstrates the clinically meaningful benefit of tanezumab for some patients with CLBP compared with placebo., Clinicaltrials: gov: NCT02528253., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aim & methods: This trial investigated long-term (56-week treatment/24-week follow-up) use of subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks) or oral celecoxib (200 mg/day) in Japanese patients with chronic low back pain. Results & conclusion: Tanezumab safety was consistent with previous studies, except overall adverse events (tanezumab 5 mg = 63.0%, tanezumab 10 mg = 54.8%, celecoxib = 67.4%) and events of abnormal peripheral sensation (tanezumab 5 mg = 9.8%, tanezumab 10 mg = 4.3%, celecoxib = 4.3%) were more frequent with 5 mg than 10 mg tanezumab. Joint safety event rates were 1.1% for tanezumab 5 mg, 2.2% for tanezumab 10 mg and 0% for celecoxib. All treatments improved pain and function throughout the treatment period. Clinical trial registration number: NCT02725411.

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials., Competing Interests: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, none of whom have financial conflicts of interest specifically related to the issues discussed in this article. At the time of the meeting on which this article is based, several authors were employed by pharmaceutical companies, and others had received consulting fees or honoraria from one or more pharmaceutical or device companies. Authors of this article who were not employed by industry or government at the time of the meeting received travel stipends, hotel accommodations, and meals during the meeting from the University of Rochester Office of Continuing Professional Education with funds from unrestricted grants to support the activities of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) provided by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Preparation of background literature reviews and draft manuscripts was supported by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the US FDA, which has received research contracts, grants, or other revenue from the FDA, multiple pharmaceutical and device companies, and other sources. No official endorsement by the FDA, US Department of Veterans Affairs, US National Institutes of Health, or the pharmaceutical and device companies that have provided unrestricted grants to support the activities of IMMPACT and ACTTION should be inferred.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) conditions are highly prevalent and constitute the leading cause of disability worldwide. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations Innovations Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration and the American Pain Society (APS), have combined to create the ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy (AAPT). The AAPT initiative convened a working group to develop diagnostic criteria for CLBP. The working group identified 3 distinct low back pain conditions which result in a vast public health burden across the lifespan. This article focuses on: 1) the axial predominant syndrome of chronic musculoskeletal low back pain, 2) the lateralized, distally-radiating syndrome of chronic lumbosacral radicular pain 3) and neurogenic claudication associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. This classification of CLBP is organized according to the AAPT multidimensional framework, specifically 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) common medical and psychiatric comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors. PERSPECTIVE: An evidence-based classification of CLBP conditions was constructed for the AAPT initiative. This multidimensional diagnostic framework includes: 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) medical and psychiatric comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Mistreatment in medical school is an enduring problem in medical education. Little is known about the concept of 'public humiliation,' one of the most common forms of mistreatment as identified on the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire. The objective of this study was to further investigate 'public humiliation' and to understand the underpinnings and realities of 'public humiliation' in medical education., Method: Focus groups of medical students on clinical rotation at the University of Washington School of Medicine were conducted over one and a half years. Qualitative analysis of responses identified emergent themes., Results: Study results included responses from 28 third year and one fourth-year medical student obtained over five different focus groups. Participants defined the term 'public humiliation' as negatively, purposefully induced embarrassment. Risk factors for the experience of public humiliation in educational settings were found to include the perceived intent and tone of the teacher, as well as situations being 'public' to patients and taking place during a medical or surgical procedure. Socratic teaching or 'pimping' was not found to be a risk factor as long as learners were properly oriented to the teaching practice., Discussion: This study investigated and defined 'public humiliation' in the setting of medical student mistreatment. More subtle forms of mistreatment, like public humiliation, may be amenable to interventions focused on teaching educators about the importance of orientation and clear communication of intent during the teaching process.

Introduction: With changes in duty hours and supervision requirements, educators have raised concerns about erosion of patient care ownership by resident physicians. However, the definition of ownership is unclear. This qualitative study investigated definitions of ownership in medicine and psychiatry faculty and residents., Methods: The authors distributed an anonymous online survey regarding definitions of ownership to faculty and residents at the psychiatry and internal medicine residency programs at the University of Washington and the Harvard Longwood psychiatry residency and conducted a qualitative analysis of free-text responses to identify emergent themes., Results: 225 faculty (48.6%) and 131 residents (43.8%) across the three programs responded. Responses yielded themes in five domains: Physician Actions, Physician Attitudes, Physician Identity, Physician Qualities, and Quality of Patient Care. All groups identified themes of advocacy, communication and care coordination, decision-making, follow through, knowledge, leadership, attitudes of going 'above and beyond' and 'the buck stops here', responsibility, serving as primary provider, demonstrating initiative, and providing the best care as central to ownership. Residents and faculty had differing perspectives on 'shift work' and transitions of care and on resident decision-making as elements of ownership., Discussion: This study expanded and enriched the definition of patient care ownership. There were more similarities than differences across groups, a reassuring finding for those concerned about a decreasing understanding of ownership in trainees. Findings regarding shared values, shift work, and the decision-making role can inform educators in setting clear expectations and fostering ownership despite changing educational and care models.

Objectives: Interpretation of CIs in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with treatment effects that are not statistically significant can distinguish between results that are 'negative' (the data are not consistent with a clinically meaningful treatment effect) or 'inconclusive' (the data remain consistent with the possibility of a clinically meaningful treatment effect). This interpretation is important to ensure that potentially beneficial treatments are not prematurely abandoned in future research or clinical practice based on invalid conclusions., Design: Systematic review of RCT reports published in 2014 in Annals of Internal Medicine , New England Journal of Medicine , JAMA , JAMA Internal Medicine and The Lancet (n=247)., Results: 85 of 99 articles with statistically non-significant results reported CIs for the treatment effect. Only 17 of those 99 articles interpreted the CI. Of the 22 articles in which CIs indicated an inconclusive result, only four acknowledged that the study could not rule out a clinically meaningful treatment effect., Conclusions: Interpretation of CIs is important but occurs infrequently in study reports of trials with treatment effects that are not statistically significant. Increased author interpretation of CIs could improve application of RCT results. Reporting recommendations are provided., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Valid and reliable biomarkers can play an important role in clinical trials as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or as a signal of treatment response. Currently, there are no biomarkers for pain qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for use in clinical trials. This article summarizes an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting in which 3 potential biomarkers were discussed for use in the development of analgesic treatments: 1) sensory testing, 2) skin punch biopsy, and 3) brain imaging. The empirical evidence supporting the use of these tests is described within the context of the 4 categories of biomarkers: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) predictive, and 4) pharmacodynamic. Although sensory testing, skin punch biopsy, and brain imaging are promising tools for pain in clinical trials, additional evidence is needed to further support and standardize these tests for use as biomarkers in pain clinical trials., Perspective: The applicability of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and brain imaging as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers for use in analgesic treatment trials is considered. Evidence in support of their use and outlining problems is presented, as well as a call for further standardization and demonstrations of validity and reliability., (Copyright © 2017 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is among the leading indications for the prescription of opioid analgesics in clinical practice. There is increasing evidence suggesting that these agents may have diminished efficacy in the treatment of LBP., Objectives: We evaluated the relationship between depression, the probability of receiving an opioid prescription, and the amount of morphine equivalent amounts prescribed per year among patients with LBP using nationwide data., Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed on existing data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data set from the period 2004 to 2009. Demographic, medical condition, Patient Health Questionnaire-2 responses, and prescription drug information were obtained on 56,811,864 weighted person-years of data from individuals aged 18 to 65 with an ICD-9 code specific to LBP., Results: Increases in PHQ-2 score, as well a positive screen for depression, were associated with an increased probability of being prescribed opioid therapy and more morphine equivalents per year., Conclusion: Analysis of a nationwide sample of patients with LBP shows an association between depression and higher rates of opioid prescribing after controlling for several known cofounders. Clinicians prescribing opioids in LBP populations that rely on clinical trial results that exclude depressed patients may misjudge the risks and benefits of this class of therapy., Competing Interests: Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Barriers to clinical trial recruitment can delay study completion, potentially resulting in increased costs and an unrepresentative sample. In the current study of 150 participants with chronic pain, we used a computerized adaptive choice-based conjoint survey that included 8 characteristics that may affect enrollment in pharmacologic pain treatment trials (ie, treatment allocation, frequency of pain ratings, treatment administration method, current medications, number of study visits, availability of evening and weekend visits, invasiveness of laboratory procedures, payment). These data were analyzed using Sawtooth Software ver. 8.4.8 (Sawtooth Software, Inc, Orem, UT), which identifies the characteristics that dominate participants' decisions across multiple sets of potential trials. Three characteristics had the largest relative importance in participants' trial preferences: 1) invasiveness of required laboratory procedures (ie, 22%), with no procedures or blood tests preferred over ice-water sensory testing or skin biopsy; 2) ability to continue current pain medications (21%); and 3) payment for study participation (21%), with higher payment preferred. The fourth most important characteristic was number of study visits (13%), with participants preferring fewer in-person visits and more phone contacts. Understanding the preferences of potential participants is an important step toward enhancing enrollment in pain treatment trials., Perspective: This article presents the preferences of individuals with chronic pain conditions regarding modifiable pain treatment trial characteristics (eg, number of study visits, payment, treatment allocation). These findings may help to improve enrollment into analgesic clinical trials and in turn accelerate the development of new pain treatments., (Copyright © 2016 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Acupuncture is a form of Eastern medicine that has been practiced for centuries. Despite its long history and worldwide application, the biological mechanisms of acupuncture in relieving pain have been poorly defined. Recent studies in mice, however, demonstrate that acupuncture triggers increases in interstitial adenosine, which reduces the severity of chronic pain through adenosine A1 receptors, suggesting that adenosine-mediated antinociception contributes to the clinical benefits of acupuncture. We asked here whether acupuncture in human subjects is also linked to a local increase in interstitial adenosine concentration. We collected microdialysis samples of interstitial fluid before, during, and after delivering 30 minutes of conventional acupuncture in the Zusanli point in human subjects. The interstitial adenosine concentration increased significantly during acupuncture and remained elevated for 30 minutes after the acupuncture. Acupuncture-mediated adenosine release was not observed if acupuncture was not delivered in the Zusanli point or if the acupuncture needle was inserted, but not rotated. This study strengthens the role of adenosine in acupuncture-mediated antinociception by directly providing such evidence in humans., Perspective: This article presents further evidence of the role of adenosine in acupuncture-mediated antinociception by demonstrating that local adenosine concentrations increase in the acupoint in human subjects receiving traditional acupuncture., (Copyright © 2012 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Chronic neuropathic pain due to injury or dysfunction of the nervous system remains a formidable treatment challenge in spite of a growing range of medication choices. We review current clinical research supporting the use of ion channel modulators for neuropathic pain states. New modes of local drug delivery, novel Ca2+ channel targets, and increased choices for drugs with activity at Na+channels are transforming this longstanding therapeutic strategy. Clinical decision making is increasingly informed by a more nuanced understanding of the role of voltage-gated Na+channels (VGSCs) and Ca2+ channels (VGCCs) in the pathophysiology of nerve injury. Although holding great promise for the future, mechanism-based approaches to treatment will require greater understanding of the analgesic mechanisms of drug action and of the relationships between pathophysiologic mechanisms and clinical presentation., Perspective: Treatment options for neuropathic pain targeting ion channels have grown rapidly in the past decade. An evolving body of clinical research supports the widespread use of this longstanding therapeutic strategy. Improved efficacy of ion channel modulators hinges upon further elucidation of the relationship between signs and symptoms of pain and underlying pathophysiology.