Search

Background: There are limited therapeutic options to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation are proven therapies for treating chronic low limb pain in CRPS patients. There is limited evidence that stimulation of dorsal nerve roots can also provide relief of lower limb pain in these patients., Objectives: To demonstrate that electrical stimulation of dorsal nerve roots via epidural lead placement provides relief of chronic lower limb pain in patients suffering from CRPS., Study Design: Prospective, open label, single arm, multi-center study., Setting: The study was performed at the Center for Interventional Pain and Spine (Exton, PA), Millennium Pain Center (Bloomington, IL), and the Carolinas Pain Center (Huntersville, NC). It was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board-Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board and is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03954080)., Methods: Sixteen patients with intractable chronic severe lower limb pain associated with CRPS were enrolled in the study. A standard trial period to evaluate a patients' response to stimulation of the dorsal nerve roots was conducted over 3 to 10-days. Patients that obtained 50% or greater pain relief during the trial period underwent permanent implantation of a neurostimulation system. The primary outcome was the evaluated pain level after 3 months of device activation, based on NRS pain score relative to baseline. Patients were followed up for 6 months after activation of the permanently implanted system., Results: At the primary endpoint, patients reported a significant (P = 0.0006) reduction in pain of 3.3 points, improvement in quality of life, improved neuropathic pain characteristics, improved satisfaction, and an overall perception of improvement with the therapy. Improvements were sustained throughout the duration of the study up to the final 6-month visit., Limitations: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic occurring during patient enrollment, only 16 patients were enrolled and trialed, with 12 being permanently implanted. Nine were able to complete the end of study evaluation at 6 months., Conclusions: The results of this short feasibility study confirm the functionality, effectiveness, and safety of intraspinal stimulation of dorsal nerve roots in patients with intractable chronic lower limb pain due to CRPS using commercially approved systems and conventional parameters.

Introduction: Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide, with sacroiliac joint pain comprising up to 30% of cases of axial lower back pain. Conservative therapies provide only modest relief. Although placebo-controlled trials show efficacy for sacral lateral branch cooled radiofrequency ablation, there are no comparative effectiveness studies., Methods: In this randomized, multicenter comparative effectiveness study, 210 patients with clinically suspected sacroiliac joint pain who obtained short-term benefit from diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections and prognostic lateral branch blocks were randomly assigned to receive cooled radiofrequency ablation of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-S3 lateral branches or standard medical management consisting of pharmacotherapy, injections and integrative therapies. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in low back pain score on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included measures of quality of life and function., Results: 3 months post-treatment, the mean Numeric Rating Scale pain score for the cooled radiofrequency ablation group was 3.8±2.4 (mean reduction 2.5±2.5) compared with 5.9±1.7 (mean reduction 0.4±1.7) in the standard medical management group (p<0.0001). 52.3% of subjects in the cooled radiofrequency ablation group experienced > 2 points or 30% pain relief and were deemed responders versus 4.3% of standard medical management patients (p<0.0001). Comparable improvements favoring cooled radiofrequency ablation were noted in Oswestry Disability Index score (mean 29.7±15.2 vs 41.5+13.6; p<0.0001) and quality of life (mean EuroQoL-5 score 0.68±0.22 vs 0.47±0.29; p<0.0001)., Conclusions: In patients with sacroiliac joint pain, cooled radiofrequency ablation provided statistically superior improvements across the spectrum of patient outcomes compared with standard medical management., Trial Registration Number: NCT03601949., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors received institutional research funding. SPC, LKa, LKo, SL, DPB and MJD are consultants for Avanos (which makes radiofrequency equipment). Currently, SPC is the editorial board member of RAPM., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Spinal cord stimulation is an effective treatment for those experiencing chronic back and leg pain but requires a temporary evaluation period (SCSeval) before permanent implantation. We present real-world data from 7,000 patients who underwent SCSeval while utilizing a mobile digital health platform for education, feedback, and outcomes collection during their surgical journey. We analyzed preoperative patient demographics, characterized patient pain profiles using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-29 surveys, and calculated the rates of conversion from temporary to permanent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implantation. Between August 1, 2021, and March 2, 2023, 7,000 patients (mean age 59.1, 59.6% female) underwent SCSeval procedures while utilizing a mobile application. Patients commonly experienced aching, sharp, stabbing, tingling, numb, and burning pain. Patients had tried multiple prior therapies and wanted to reduce their use of opioids and pain medications. Overall, 90.1% of the patients had a successful SCSeval, and 80.4% of those converted to permanent implant, with the highest rates among those who underwent SCSeval in a hospital setting. There was a significant improvement in all domains of pain as evaluated by pre and postoperative patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-29 surveys. This study supports the use of digital health technology as part of the SCS journey to improve the patient experience and allow for robust patient-reported outcomes collection. The overall rate of SCSeval to permanent SCS in our study of 72.4% was higher than national rates of 64%, suggesting that an app may allow clinicians to better quantify changes in chronic pain and provide more insight into choosing to implant SCS permanently. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents real-world evidence from a digital health platform for therapy education and outcomes collection from patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation evaluation procedures. Such tools could allow for better pain characterization and allow for more nuanced tracking of patient outcomes among those with chronic pain., (Copyright © 2023 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic foot pain (CFP) is a widespread condition worldwide; however, few studies that relate CFP and foot health-related quality of life have been reported., Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the impact of foot health and health in general in a sample of adult people with CFP compared with a control group., Study Design: This study was designed as a retrospective case-control study., Setting: Podiatric section of a care center., Methods: Two hundred adults were included in the study. Patients were divided into CFP patient (n = 100) and control groups (n = 100). All of them regularly attended a private podiatric clinic to take care of their foot health. Self-reported data and medical histories for people with and without CFP were evaluated. All findings were compared with quality of life (QoL) scores based on the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, Spanish version., Results: Adults with CFP (compared to the control group) showed reductions in QoL linked to overall health and foot health in particular and were statistically significant with respect to several domains: (1) foot pain, (2) foot function, (3) general health, and (4) physical activity. These differ-ences were evaluated with a t-test for independent samples, and statistical significance was consid-ered a P value of P < 0.05., Limitations: The study was not a randomized controlled trial. Although primary outcome data were self-reported, the assessor was not blinded., Conclusions: CFP patients, regardless of gender, recorded a negative influence on QoL-related foot health that seems to be linked with the presence of this chronic condition.

Introduction: The field of neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is a rapidly developing area of medicine. Although neurostimulation therapies have advanced significantly as a result of technologic improvements, surgical planning, device placement, and postoperative care are of equal importance to optimize outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for these often-overlooked areas of neurostimulation practice., Materials and Methods: Authors were chosen based on their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from the last NACC publication in 2017 to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on evidence strength and consensus when evidence was scant., Results: This NACC project provides guidance on preoperative assessment, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative management in the form of consensus points with supportive evidence. These results are based on grade of evidence, strength of consensus, and expert opinion., Conclusions: The NACC has given guidance for a surgical plan that encompasses the patient journey from the planning stage through the surgical experience and postoperative care. The overall recommendations are designed to improve efficacy and the safety of patients undergoing these neuromodulation procedures and are intended to apply throughout the international community., (Copyright © 2021 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP)., Methods: This prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up., Results: One hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups., Conclusion: Superiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP., (© 2021 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Aim: It is argued that chronic pain patients who reduce/eliminate their opioids may have compromised pain relief. This study therefore aimed to analyze if reduced opioid consumption associated with 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation adversely affected pain relief. Methods: Post hoc analysis was performed on data from two prospective studies in subjects with upper limbs and neck pain conducted in USA. Results & conclusion: A 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation treatment was associated with reduction in mean visual analog scale scores for upper limbs and neck pain and mean daily opioid consumption. Pain scores decreased in subjects who decreased opioid use and in those who maintained/increased use. Opioid reduction and pain relief was also achieved in subjects taking >90 mg morphine equivalents of opioids at baseline.

Purpose of Review: The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action., Recent Findings: Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.

Objective: This prospective, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the feasibility of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy programming for chronic low back pain that uses multiple electrical pulsed signals (Differential Target Multiplexed)., Methods: Twenty-five SCS candidates with low back pain equal to or greater than lower limb pain were enrolled at 7 sites in the United States. The subjects evaluated standard and Differential Target Multiplexed programs, each for 4 ± 1 days. A commercially available SCS trial system was used for standard SCS therapy programming. During the trialing of the multiplexed programs, implanted temporary leads were connected to an investigational external trial stimulator system., Results: Twenty subjects concluded the study. The mean baseline numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) score for low back pain was 7.4, with a mean age of 62.4 years and mean pain duration of 18.0 years. Significant relief in back pain was observed for both treatments, with significantly better response with multiplexed programming. At the end of the trial period, subjects reported a reduction in their mean NPRS score from baseline to 4.2 after standard programming and to 2.4 after Differential Target Multiplexed programming. The difference between standard and multiplexed programming was significant. The responder rate for low back pain relief was 50% for standard programming and 80% for Differential Target Multiplexed programming. Eighty-five percent of subjects who evaluated both programming approaches preferred Differential Target Multiplexed SCS., Conclusion: In this difficult-to-treat patient population, subjects reported significant reduction in chronic back pain when using multiplexed programming. A randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm the results from this feasibility study., (© 2020 World Institute of Pain.)

Background: Haemophilia is considered as a chronic genetic disease related with alteration in coagulation mechanism which affects to health related quality of life (HQoL). Purpose: The goal compared marks of HQoL, in haemophiliacs with respect non haemophilic subjects. Methods: A population of 74 subjects, were recruited from association of haemophilic illness separated in haemophilic subjects (n = 37) and no haemophilic (n = 37). For subjects who suffered haemophilia were enlisted from the association of haemophilic illness after a seminar of 45 minutes to them and to their relatives about foot health. Control subjects, were recruited from their relatives who live with the patient. The marks of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire Spanish S&#95;FHSQ sub-scales were recompiled. Results: All S&#95;FHSQ domains as foot pain, foot function, tootwear, general foot health, general health, physical activity and social capacity showed lower scores in the haemophilic than non-haemophilic group ( P <0.01) except for vigour ( P = 0.173). Regarding the rest sub-scale marks of S&#95;FHSQ, showed no significant difference P <0.01. Conclusion: Subjects with a haemophilia showed significant worse foot QoL in all S&#95;FHSQ domains except vigour domain compared with non-haemophilic subjects., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists., (© The author(s).)

Objective: To compare central sensitization symptoms, presence of central sensitivity syndrome (CSS), catastrophism, rumination, magnification, and helplessness symptoms between athletes with gastrocnemius myofascial pain and healthy athletes. Furthermore, to predict central sensitization symptoms based on sociodemographic and descriptive data, catastrophism features, and presence of gastrocnemius myofascial pain in athletes., Design: Case-control study., Setting: Outpatient clinic., Subjects: Fifty matched paired athletes were recruited and divided into patients with chronic (more than three months) gastrocnemius myofascial pain (N = 25) and healthy subjects (N = 25)., Methods: Central sensitization symptoms and CSS presence (≥40 points) were determined by the Central Sensitization Questionnaire (CSQ). Catastrophism symptoms and rumination, magnification, and helplessness domains were measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Statistical significance was set at P < 0.01 for a 99% confidence interval., Results: Statistically significant differences (P ≤ 0.001) with a large effect size (d = 1.05-1.19) were shown for higher CSQ scores and PCS total and domain scores in athletes with gastrocnemius myofascial pain vs healthy athletes. Nevertheless, CSS presence (CSQ ≥ 40 points) did not show statistically significant differences (P = 0.050) between groups. A linear regression model (R2 = 0.560, P < 0.01) predicted higher CSQ scores based on PCS total score (R2 = 0.390), female sex (R2 = 0.095), and myofascial pain presence (R2 = 0.075)., Conclusions: Greater symptoms of central sensitization, catastrophism, rumination, magnification, and helplessness were shown in athletes with gastrocnemius myofascial pain compared with healthy athletes. Nevertheless, there was not a statistically significant presence of CSS comparing both groups. Greater central sensitization symptoms were predicted by catastrophism symptoms, female sex, and presence of gastrocnemius myofascial pain in athletes., (© 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective : In the treatment of chronic diseases, remission is commonly used as a meaningful treatment goal, synonymous with the absence of significant clinical signs and symptoms of a disease, but not representing a cure. The objective of this paper is to propose a definition for remission for use as an outcome to evaluate the long-term efficacy of therapies for chronic pain. Methods : Data from a randomized clinical trial (NCT01609972) testing the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in low back and leg pain subjects was used to evaluate the association between pain and functional outcomes and identify the cut-off value to predict remission. Available data over 24-month assessment period included visual analog score (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), patient and clinician global impression of change (PGIC and CGIC), and patient satisfaction. Cluster analysis, Pearson's correlation coefficients, sensitivity, and specificity analyses were used to evaluate its utility in predicting higher patient functionality and satisfaction. Results : Though the term remission has been used in the chronic pain field, a consistent definition has not been previously established. Based on the analysis of the clinical data, we propose that a sustained (≥6 months) pain score of ≤3.0 cm out of 10 cm on VAS be defined as remission. Applying this definition to the clinical trial data: subjects in remission at 24 months versus non-remitters were significantly more likely to be in the highest functional category of minimally disabled according to the ODI (31.5 vs. 8.2%, respectively, p = 0.001), and be 'very satisfied' (75.7 vs 22.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions : The validity of the proposed definition of remission is supported by the persistence of remission in this study group, and its correspondence with patient satisfaction, and reduced disability. Further evaluation of the definition using clinical data from other long-term studies is needed.

Purpose: Chronic axial low-back pain is a debilitating disorder that impacts all aspects of an afflicted individual's life. Effective, durable treatments have historically been elusive. Interventional therapies, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), have shown limited efficacy at best. Recently, a novel treatment, 10 kHz SCS, has demonstrated superior pain relief compared with traditional SCS in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In this manuscript, we report on the long-term improvements in quality of life (QoL) outcomes for subjects enrolled in this study., Methods: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-RCT) was conducted. Patients with both chronic back and leg pain were enrolled and randomized (1:1) into 10 kHz SCS or traditional SCS treatment groups. A total of 171 subjects received a permanent SCS device implant. QoL and functionality measures were collected up to 12 months. The device remote control utilization, which is an indication of patient interaction with the device for adjustments, was collected at 24-month post-implantation., Results: At 12 months, a higher proportion of 10 kHz SCS subjects had marked improvement of their disability (Oswestry Disability Index) to a "moderate" or "minimal" impact on their daily function versus the control group. The subjects also reported better improvement in the Global Assessment of Functioning, Clinician Global Impression of Change, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, compared to traditional SCS subjects. The 10 kHz SCS subjects also reported far higher rates of both driving and sleeping with their device turned on, as well as reduced reliance on their programmers to adjust therapy settings., Conclusions: In addition to superior pain relief, 10 kHz SCS provides long-term improvements in quality of life and functionality for subjects with chronic low-back and leg pain., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01609972).

Objective: Despite the high prevalence of chronic multisite pain, there is little consensus on methods to characterize it. Commonly used assessments report only one dimension of pain, that is, intensity, thus ignoring the spatial aspect of pain. We developed a novel pain quantification index, the Integrated Pain Quantification Index (IPQI), on a scale of 0 to 1 that integrates multiple distinct pain measures into a single value, thus representing multidimensional pain information with a single value., Design: Single-visit, noninterventional, epidemiological study., Setting: Fourteen outpatient multidisciplinary pain management programs., Patients: Patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs for at least six months with average overall pain intensity of at least 5 on the numeric rating scale., Methods: Development of IPQI was performed in a large population (N = 810) of chronic pain patients from the Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) study., Results: Prevalence of two or more noncontiguous painful areas was at 88.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-0.90), with a mean of 6.3 areas (SD = 5.57 areas). Prevalence of more than 10% body area in pain was at 52.8% (95% CI = 0.49-0.56), with a mean at 16.1% (17.16%). On average, IPQI values were near the middle of the scale, with mean and median IPQI at 0.52 (SD = 0.13) and 0.55, respectively. The IPQI was generalizable and clinically relevant across all domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials., Conclusions: IPQI provided a single pain score for representing complex, multidimensional pain information on one scale and has implications for comparing pain populations across longitudinal clinical trials., (© 2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Design: Literature review., Objective: A review of the literature that presents a perspective on mechanisms of actions behind spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for chronic pain., Summary of Background Data: SCS is an effective therapeutic alternative for the treatment of intractable chronic pain. Its application has been mostly based on the gate control theory of pain. Computational models have been fundamental on the understanding of clinical observations and the design of therapies that provide optimal neuromodulation. Research has provided insight into the involvement of specific neurotransmitters that support segmental and supraspinal mechanisms of action., Methods: A literature review was performed with emphasis on mechanisms of action for SCS including the effects of electrical fields on spinal cord structures based on computational models and preclinical and clinical explorations., Results: This review provides background on the development of SCS, which has been driven around a paresthesia-based paradigm as a result of the gate control theory. A review of computational models emphasizes their importance on our current understanding of the mechanism of action and clinical optimization of therapy. Electrophysiology and molecular biology have provided a closer, yet narrow, view of the effect of SCS on neurotransmitters and their receptors, which have led to the formulation of segmental and supraspinal mechanisms. Literature supporting the involvement of glial cells in chronic pain and their characteristic response to electrical fields should motivate further investigation of mechanisms involving neuroglia. Finally, a review of recent results paresthesia-free strategies should encourage research on mechanisms of action., Conclusion: The mechanisms of SCS have been extensively studied and several consistent phenomena have emerged. The activation of A-beta fibers to induce paresthesia also involve neurotransmitter release via segmental and supraspinal pathways. Despite advancements, much remains to be understood, particularly as new stimulation strategies are developed., Level of Evidence: N /A.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been successfully used to treat chronic intractable pain for over 40 years. Successful clinical application of SCS is presumed to be generally dependent on maximizing paresthesia-pain overlap; critical to achieving this is positioning of the stimulation field at the physiologic midline. Recently, the necessity of paresthesia for achieving effective relief in SCS has been challenged by the introduction of 10 kHz paresthesia-free stimulation. In a large, prospective, randomized controlled pivotal trial, HF10 therapy was demonstrated to be statistically and clinically superior to paresthesia-based SCS in the treatment of severe chronic low back and leg pain. HF10 therapy, unlike traditional paresthesia-based SCS, requires no paresthesia to be experienced by the patient, nor does it require paresthesia mapping at any point during lead implant or post-operative programming., Objectives: To determine if pain relief was related to technical factors of paresthesia, we measured and analyzed the paresthesia responses of patients successfully using HF10 therapy., Study Design: Prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, non-controlled interventional study., Setting: Outpatient pain clinic at 10 centers across the US and Italy., Methods: Patients with both back and leg pain already implanted with an HF10 therapy device for up to 24 months were included in this multicenter study. Patients provided pain scores prior to and after using HF10 therapy. Each patient's most efficacious HF10 therapy stimulation program was temporarily modified to a low frequency (LF; 60 Hz), wide pulse width (~470 mus), paresthesia-generating program. On a human body diagram, patients drew the locations of their chronic intractable pain and, with the modified program activated, all regions where they experienced LF paresthesia. Paresthesia and pain drawings were then analyzed to estimate the correlation of pain relief outcomes to overlap of pain by paresthesia, and the mediolateral distribution of paresthesia (as a surrogate of physiologic midline lead positioning)., Results: A total of 61 patients participated across 11 centers. Twenty-eight men and 33 women with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years of age participated in the study. The average duration of implantable pulse generator (IPG) implant was 19 ± 9 months. The average predominant pain score, as measured on a 0 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), prior to HF10 therapy was 7.8 ± 1.3 and at time of testing was 2.5 ± 2.1, yielding an average pain relief of 70 ± 24%. For all patients, the mean paresthesia coverage of pain was 21 ± 28%, with 43% of patients having zero paresthesia coverage of pain. Analysis revealed no correlation between percentage of LF paresthesia overlap of predominant pain and HF10 therapy efficacy (P = 0.56). Exact mediolateral positioning of the stimulation electrodes was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of pain relief outcomes., Limitations: Non-randomized/non-controlled study design; short-term evaluation; certain technical factors not investigated., Conclusion: Both paresthesia concordance with pain and precise midline positioning of the stimulation contacts appear to be inconsequential technical factors for successful HF10 therapy application. These results suggest that HF10 therapy is not only paresthesia-free, but may be paresthesia-independent.

Objective: This report conveys 12-month outcomes of subjects treated with intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB) and conservative medical management (CMM) for chronic low back pain of discogenic origin, and results for subjects who elected to receive IDB + CMM 6 months after CMM-alone., Methods: Sixty-three subjects were originally randomized to the IDB + CMM group (N = 29) or CMM-alone (N = 34). Six months following continuous CMM-alone treatment, participants in this study group were permitted to "cross-over" to IDB + CMM (N = 25), and followed for an additional 6 months. The original IDB + CMM study subjects were followed for a total of 12 months (N = 22)., Results: Pain reduction at 12 months was statistically significant and clinically meaningful in the original IDB + CMM group compared to baseline. Functional and disability outcomes were also improved statistically and clinically. Fifty-five percent of the IDB + CMM patients responded to treatment with a mean VAS reduction of 2.2 points at 12 months. Furthermore, 50% and 64% of subjects reported clinically significant improvements in SF36-PF and in ODI, respectively. There was a 1.7-point reduction (improvement) on a 7-point PGIC scale, and a 0.13-point increase (improvement) in the EQ-5D Health Index. Fifty-percent of cross-over subjects responded to IDB + CMM intervention. Mean outcome scores for cross-over subjects were similar to those of the originally-treated subjects, and functional and disability endpoints were improved statistically and clinically compared to respective baseline values., Conclusions: The study demonstrated long-term clinical effectiveness of IDB + CMM for treating chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Furthermore, the cross-over study subjects experienced similar improvements in pain, function, disability, and satisfaction., (© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

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).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Background and Objectives: Osteoarthrosis is a main cause of knee pain in the elderly. Pain associated with this condition is often refractory to conservative treatment. Total knee replacement may be the best option for severe pathologies; however, the occurrence of a chronic pain state after knee replacement has been well documented in the literature. The previous descriptions of the genicular nerves have been considered somewhat inaccurate. This innervation is complex and exhibits significant interindividual variability. A precise description of these nerves will increase our knowledge on different patterns and targets, to guide treatment and improve outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine sensory innervation patterns of the knee joint and correlate them with dynamic visualization via ultrasound imaging., Methods: Systematic cadaveric dissections were performed to determine different patterns of sensory innervation of the knee followed by ultrasonographic correlation. A short-axis ultrasound view of the nerves was used to inject India ink at several points along their course to facilitate the anatomic dissection and confirm their location among adjacent structures., Results: The visualized structures were the following: infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve, the branches to vastus medialis, intermedius, and lateralis muscles; obturator nerve; and lateral retinacular and recurrent peroneal nerves., Conclusions: We conclude that reproducible correlations showing the sensory innervations for the knee are linked to muscular structures. However, high variability among individuals makes it difficult to predict their paths. Our systematic approach, using direct visualization via ultrasound, allows a more accurate placement of the needle for therapeutic purposes.

Background: Pain relief with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has focused historically on paresthesias overlapping chronically painful areas. A higher level evidence supports the use of SCS in treating leg pain than supports back pain, as it is difficult to achieve adequate paresthesia coverage, and then pain relief, in the low back region. In comparison, 10-kHz high-frequency (HF10 therapy) SCS therapy does not rely on intraoperative paresthesia mapping and remains paresthesia-free during therapy., Objective: To compare long-term results of HF10 therapy and traditional low-frequency SCS., Methods: A pragmatic randomized, controlled, pivotal trial with 24-month follow-up was conducted across 11 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Subjects had Visual Analog Scale scores of ≥5.0/10.0 cm for both back and leg pain, and were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive HF10 therapy or low-frequency SCS. The primary end point was a responder rate, defined as ≥50% back pain reduction from baseline at 3 months with a secondary end point at 12 months (previously reported). In this article, 24-month secondary results are presented. Non-inferiority was first assessed, and if demonstrated the results were tested for superiority., Results: In the study, 198 subjects were randomized (101 HF10 therapy, 97 traditional SCS). One hundred seventy-one subjects (90 HF10 therapy, 81 traditional SCS) successfully completed a short-term trial and were implanted. Subjects averaged 54.9 ± 12.9 years old, 13.6 ± 11.3 years since diagnosis, 86.6% had back surgery, 88.3% were taking opioid analgesics. At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < .001 for both back and leg pain comparisons, non-inferiority and superiority). At 24 months, more subjects were responders to HF10 therapy than traditional SCS (back pain: 76.5% vs 49.3%; 27.2% difference, 95% CI, 10.1%-41.8%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority; leg pain: 72.9% vs 49.3%; 23.6% difference, 95% CI, 5.9%-38.6%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .003 for superiority). Also at 24 months, back pain decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (66.9% ± 31.8%) than traditional SCS (41.1% ± 36.8%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority). Leg pain also decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (65.1% ± 36.0%) than traditional SCS (46.0% ± 40.4%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .002 for superiority)., Conclusion: This study demonstrates long-term superiority of HF10 therapy compared with traditional SCS in treating both back and leg pain. The advantages of HF10 therapy are anticipated to impact the management of chronic pain patients substantially., Abbreviations: IPG, implantable pulse generatorMCID, minimal clinically important differencePI, permanent implantODI, Oswestry Disability IndexSCS, spinal cord stimulationVAS, Visual Analog Scale.

Background: Perioperative management of patients on anticoagulant therapy prior to interventional pain procedures creates a challenge when balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolic events., Case Report: We report a case of epidural hematoma formation in the cervical spine following interlaminar epidural steroid injection in an elderly woman with chronic neck and arm pain, who was on clopidogrel therapy., Conclusions: This is the first reported case of hematoma formation immediately following an epidural steroid injection possibly associated with clopidogrel, even though established guidelines on the timing of the discontinuation of clopidogrel prior to the procedure were exceeded. Severe pain appears to be the first symptom of hematoma formation, and therefore immediate diagnostic workup and evacuation of hematoma are essential in preventing neurological damage. It may be advisable to carry out a test specific for clopidogrel such as the P2Y12 to ensure that there is no residual action on platelet aggregation function, particularly in patients who may be slow metabolizers of clopidogrel. Caution is advised prior to administering analgesics with antiplatelet effects such as ketorolac.

Background: Chronic neuropathic pain has been recognized as contributing to a significant proportion of chronic pain globally. Among these, spinal pain is of significance with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), generating considerable expense for the health care systems with increasing prevalence and health impact., Objective: To assess the role and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS in chronic spinal pain., Methods: The available literature on SCS was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM - QRB) criteria for randomized trials.The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources., Outcome Measures: RCTs of efficacy with a minimum 12-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. For trials of adaptive stimulation, high frequency stimulation, and burst stimulation, shorter follow-up periods were considered., Results: Results showed 6 RCTs with 3 efficacy trials and 3 stimulation trials. There were also 2 cost effectiveness studies available. Based on a best evidence synthesis with 3 high quality RCTs, the evidence of efficacy for SCS in lumbar FBSS is Level I to II. The evidence for high frequency stimulation based on one high quality RCT is Level II to III. Based on a lack of high quality studies demonstrating the efficacy of adaptive stimulation or burst stimulation, evidence is limited for these 2 modalities., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review continue to require future studies illustrating effectiveness and also the superiority of high frequency stimulation and potentially burst stimulation., Conclusion: There is significant (Level I to II) evidence of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in lumbar FBSS; whereas, there is moderate (Level II to III) evidence for high frequency stimulation; there is limited evidence for adaptive stimulation and burst stimulation.

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results., Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain., Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level III for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level III in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level III with cervical interlaminar epidural injections., Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence., Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions.

Background: Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and commonly known side effects. Given the prevalence and burden of intractable pain, additional therapeutic approaches are desired. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivered at 10 kHz (as in HF10 therapy) may provide pain relief without the paresthesias typical of traditional low-frequency SCS. The objective of this randomized, parallel-arm, noninferiority study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of SCS therapies in patients with back and leg pain., Methods: A total of 198 subjects with both back and leg pain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a treatment group across 10 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Of these, 171 passed a temporary trial and were implanted with an SCS system. Responders (the primary outcome) were defined as having 50% or greater back pain reduction with no stimulation-related neurological deficit., Results: At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < 0.001 for both back and leg pain comparisons). The relative ratio for responders was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) for back pain and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9) for leg pain. The superiority of HF10 therapy over traditional SCS for leg and back pain was sustained through 12 months (P < 0.001). HF10 therapy subjects did not experience paresthesias., Conclusion: HF10 therapy promises to substantially impact the management of back and leg pain with broad applicability to patients, physicians, and payers.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral lubiprostone for relieving symptoms of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain., Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Seventy-nine US and Canadian centers., Subjects: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with OIC, defined as <3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week., Methods: Patients received lubiprostone 24 mcg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in SBM frequency at week 8., Results: Among randomized patients (N=418; lubiprostone, N=210; placebo, N=208), most completed the study (lubiprostone, 67.1%; placebo, 69.7%). The safety and efficacy (intent-to-treat) populations included 414 (lubiprostone, N=208; placebo, N=206) and 413 (lubiprostone, N=209; placebo, N=204) patients, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) age was 50.4 (10.9) years; most patients were female (64.4%) and white (77.7%). Changes from baseline in SBM frequency rates were significantly higher at week 8 (P=0.005) and overall (P=0.004) in patients treated with lubiprostone compared with placebo. Pairwise comparisons showed significantly greater overall improvement for abdominal discomfort (P=0.047), straining (P<0.001), constipation severity (P=0.007), and stool consistency (P<0.001) with lubiprostone compared with placebo. Moreover, patients rated the effectiveness of lubiprostone as significantly (P<0.05) better than placebo for 11 of 12 weeks. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with lubiprostone and placebo were nausea (16.8% vs 5.8%, respectively), diarrhea (9.6% vs 2.9%), and abdominal distention (8.2% vs 2.4%). No lubiprostone-related serious AEs occurred., Conclusion: Lubiprostone effectively relieved OIC and associated signs and symptoms and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00595946)., (© 2014 The Authors. Pain Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain., Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature., Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events., Conclusions: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed., Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Results: Part 2 of the guidelines on responsible opioid prescribing provides the following recommendations for initiating and maintaining chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer. 1. A) Comprehensive assessment and documentation is recommended before initiating opioid therapy, including documentation of comprehensive history, general medical condition, psychosocial history, psychiatric status, and substance use history. (, Evidence: good) B) Despite limited evidence for reliability and accuracy, screening for opioid use is recommended, as it will identify opioid abusers and reduce opioid abuse. (, Evidence: limited) C) Prescription monitoring programs must be implemented, as they provide data on patterns of prescription usage, reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. (, Evidence: good to fair) D) Urine drug testing (UDT) must be implemented from initiation along with subsequent adherence monitoring to decrease prescription drug abuse or illicit drug use when patients are in chronic pain management therapy. (, Evidence: good) 2. A) Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available prior to initiating opioid therapy. (, Evidence: good) B) Caution must be exercised in ordering various imaging and other evaluations, interpretation and communication with the patient, to avoid increased fear, activity restriction, requests for increased opioids, and maladaptive behaviors. (, Evidence: good) C) Stratify patients into one of the 3 risk categories - low, medium, or high risk. D) A pain management consultation, may assist non-pain physicians, if high-dose opioid therapy is utilized. (, Evidence: fair) 3. Essential to establish medical necessity prior to initiation or maintenance of opioid therapy. (, Evidence: good) 4. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (, Evidence: good) 5. A) Long-acting opioids in high doses are recommended only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain that is not amenable to short-acting or moderate doses of long-acting opioids, as there is no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids for their effectiveness or adverse effects. (, Evidence: fair) B) The relative and absolute contraindications to opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain must be evaluated including respiratory instability, acute psychiatric instability, uncontrolled suicide risk, active or history of alcohol or substance abuse, confirmed allergy to opioid agents, coadministration of drugs capable of inducing life-limiting drug interaction, concomitant use of benzodiazepines, active diversion of controlled substances, and concomitant use of heavy doses of central nervous system depressants. (, Evidence: fair to limited) 6. A robust agreement which is followed by all parties is essential in initiating and maintaining opioid therapy as such agreements reduce overuse, misuse, abuse, and diversion. (, Evidence: fair) 7. A) Once medical necessity is established, opioid therapy may be initiated with low doses and short-acting drugs with appropriate monitoring to provide effective relief and avoid side effects. (, Evidence: fair for short-term effectiveness, limited for long-term effectiveness) B) Up to 40 mg of morphine equivalent is considered as low dose, 41 to 90 mg of morphine equivalent as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 mg of morphine equivalence as high dose. (, Evidence: fair) C) In reference to long-acting opioids, titration must be carried out with caution and overdose and misuse must be avoided. (, Evidence: good) 8. A) Methadone is recommended for use in late stages after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in the risks and uses. (, Evidence: limited) B) Monitoring recommendation for methadone prescription is that an electrocardiogram should be obtained prior to initiation, at 30 days and yearly thereafter. (, Evidence: fair) 9. In order to reduce prescription drug abuse and doctor shopping, adherence monitoring by UDT and PMDPs provide evidence that is essential to the identification of those patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs. (, Evidence: fair) 10. Constipation must be closely monitored and a bowel regimen be initiated as soon as deemed necessary. (, Evidence: good) 11. Chronic opioid therapy may be continued, with continuous adherence monitoring, in well-selected populations, in conjunction with or after failure of other modalities of treatments with improvement in physical and functional status and minimal adverse effects. (, Evidence: fair)., Disclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Background: Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since the 1990 s. As documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, available evidence suggests a wide variance in chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer in chronic non-cancer pain. Part 1 describes evidence assessment., Objectives: The objectives of opioid guidelines as issued by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to produce consistency in the application of an opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. The focus of these guidelines is to curtail the abuse of opioids without jeopardizing non-cancer pain management with opioids., Results: 1) There is good evidence that non-medical use of opioids is extensive; one-third of chronic pain patients may not use prescribed opioids as prescribed or may abuse them, and illicit drug use is significantly higher in these patients. 2) There is good evidence that opioid prescriptions are increasing rapidly, as the majority of prescriptions are from non-pain physicians, many patients are on long-acting opioids, and many patients are provided with combinations of long-acting and short-acting opioids. 3) There is good evidence that the increased supply of opioids, use of high dose opioids, doctor shoppers, and patients with multiple comorbid factors contribute to the majority of the fatalities. 4) There is fair evidence that long-acting opioids and a combination of long-acting and short-acting opioids contribute to increasing fatalities and that even low-doses of 40 mg or 50 mg of daily morphine equivalent doses may be responsible for emergency room admissions with overdoses and deaths. 5) There is good evidence that approximately 60% of fatalities originate from opioids prescribed within the guidelines, with approximately 40% of fatalities occurring in 10% of drug abusers. 6) The short-term effectiveness of opioids is fair, whereas the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited due to a lack of long-term (> 3 months) high quality studies, with fair evidence with no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids. 7) Among the individual drugs, most opioids have fair evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term due to a lack of quality studies. 8) The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy in the elderly for chronic non-cancer pain is fair for short-term and limited for long-term due to lack of high quality studies; limited in children and adolescents and patients with comorbid psychological disorders due to lack of quality studies; and the evidence is poor in pregnant women. 9) There is limited evidence for reliability and accuracy of screening tests for opioid abuse due to lack of high quality studies. 10) There is fair evidence to support the identification of patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs through urine drug testing and prescription drug monitoring programs, both of which can reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping., Disclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."