Biological medications for interventional pain have a lot of clinical data behind them. It is fair to assume they will replace steroid-based interventional techniques, providing patients with longer relief

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moataz Dowaidar

This overview of current studies on the use and effectiveness of stem cell therapy for chronic pain should serve as a reminder of the growing body of data that supports these therapies, particularly Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections. Due to a scarcity of high-quality randomized controlled trials on the subject, the great majority of evidence for chronic pain treatment is graded as level II to level IV. While there are no new panaceas in pain management described in this study, the level of evidence for PRP intra-articular knee injections in terms of pain management should be particularly remarkable. This is a landmark event in the field of interventional pain, and it should serve as evidence that these biological medications have a lot of clinical data behind them.With increasing clinical data and future experimental data into more targeted gene modulation therapies, it is fair to assume that these treatments will ultimately replace present steroid-based interventional techniques, providing patients with longer relief and higher clinical benefit. Furthermore, similar to many other medical areas that have strived to stress the need for preventive medicine, pain management doctors may one day harness the regenerative potential of these medicines to better treat their patients and battle the mounting socioeconomic consequences of this illness.

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines


Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kacper Lechowicz ◽  
Igor Karolak ◽  
Sylwester Drożdżal ◽  
Maciej Żukowski ◽  
Aleksandra Szylińska ◽  
...  

Background and objectives: Adequate pain management is a major challenge of public health. The majority of students graduating from medical schools has insufficient education and experience with patients suffering pain. Not enough is being taught regarding pain in non-verbal patients (children, critically ill in the intensive care unit, demented). Chronic pain is the most difficult to optimize and requires appropriate preparation at the level of medical school. Our aim was to evaluate attitudes, expectations and the actual knowledge of medical students at different levels of their career path regarding the assessment and treatment of acute and chronic pain. Materials and Methods: We performed an observational cross-sectional study that was based on a survey distributed among medical students of pre-clinical and post-clinical years at the Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Poland. The survey included: demographic data, number of hours of formal pain teaching, actual knowledge of pain assessment, and pain treatment options in adults and children. Results: We received responses from 77/364 (21.15%) students and 79.2% of them rated the need to obtain knowledge regarding pain as very important (10/10 points). Post-clinical group declared having on average 11.51 h of acute pain teaching as compared to the 7.4 h reported by the pre-clinical group (p = 0.012). Graduating students also reported having significantly more classes regarding the treatment of chronic pain (6.08 h vs. 3.79 h, p = 0.007). The average level of comfort in the post-clinical group regarding treatment of acute pain was higher than in the pre-clinical group (6.05 vs. 4.26, p = 0.006), similarly with chronic pain treatment in adults (4.33 vs. 2.97, p = 0.021) and with pain treatment in children (3.14 vs. 1.97, p = 0.026). Conclusions: This study shows that education about pain management is a priority to medical students. Despite this, there continues to be a discrepancy between students’ expectations and the actual teaching and knowledge regarding effective pain management, including the vulnerable groups: chronic pain patients, children, and critically ill people.


Ból ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Magdalena Kocot-Kępska ◽  
Renata Zajączkowska ◽  
Jan Dobrogowski ◽  
Anna Przeklasa-Muszyńska

Understanding the neurobiological mechanisms underlying chronic pain syndromes is a significant progress in modern pain medicine. Understanding the basic differences between acute and chronic pain processes, learning about the mechanisms of transition from acute to chronic pain, allows us to change the approach to pain management from commonly used empirical approach to more rational mechanism-oriented pain treatment. In many patients with chronic pain, empiric therapy, which does not consider the mechanisms of pain, is not fully effective. Often, when planning pharmacotherapy, current knowledge about the pain etiology and mechanisms of pain chronification is not considered. Management based on already known mechanisms of pain, using rational pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological methods, may improve the quality and effectiveness of pain management.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Author(s):  
W. Schmelling ◽  
J.N. Poulsen ◽  
L. Christrup ◽  
P. Gazerani

Abstract Aims A fast-track based surgical treatment reduces morbidity and hospital stay by providing early mobilization. Sufficient postoperative pain management is mandatory for early mobilization and optimal utilization of rehabilitation measures. Insufficient postoperative pain management is however a widespread problem. Lack of knowledge about pain and pain treatment among health care professionals and general community has been considered as a major potential contributor in insufficient pain management. It has been suggested that severe postoperative pain might imply a potential risk of developing chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to examine this problem in acute and elective surgical patients in department of orthopedic surgery at Bispebjerg Hospital in order to identify obstacles and possibilities for future improvement. Methods Questionnaires were developed and distributed to patients consisted of 10 acute admitted and 10 elective orthopedic patients. The patients’ pain scores were recorded with a 0–10 NRS scale. The scores were obtained for current pain in rest, current pain in activity, and the highest and lowest pain intensity for the last 24 hours. Data were handled using descriptive statistics. Results The goal for sufficient pain treatment was patients with pain score at ≤ 3 NRS at rest and ≤ 5 in activity. For pain at rest 45% of the patients were within the goal range and 55% for the current pain in activity. For the mildest pain experienced in the last 24 h, 75% and for the worst pain experienced 30% of the patients reached the goal. Conclusions Corresponding to similar studies, half of the patients received a sufficient pain treatment at the time of examination. The consequences for insufficient pain management would be reduced effect of the physiotherapy, reduced ability to handle every day activity, sleep disturbances, and potential risk of developing chronic pain.


10.2196/13170 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. e13170
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hoffmann ◽  
Corinna A Faust-Christmann ◽  
Gregor Zolynski ◽  
Gabriele Bleser

Background The use of health apps to support the treatment of chronic pain is gaining importance. Most available pain management apps are still lacking in content quality and quantity as their developers neither involve health experts to ensure target group suitability nor use gamification to engage and motivate the user. To close this gap, we aimed to develop a gamified pain management app, Pain-Mentor. Objective To determine whether medical professionals would approve of Pain-Mentor’s concept and content, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of the app’s first prototype with experts from the field of chronic pain management and to discover necessary improvements. Methods A total of 11 health professionals with a background in chronic pain treatment and 2 mobile health experts participated in this study. Each expert first received a detailed presentation of the app. Afterward, they tested Pain-Mentor and then rated its quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS) in a semistructured interview. Results The experts found the app to be of excellent general (mean 4.54, SD 0.55) and subjective quality (mean 4.57, SD 0.43). The app-specific section was rated as good (mean 4.38, SD 0.75). Overall, the experts approved of the app’s content, namely, pain and stress management techniques, behavior change techniques, and gamification. They believed that the use of gamification in Pain-Mentor positively influences the patients’ motivation and engagement and thus has the potential to promote the learning of pain management techniques. Moreover, applying the MARS in a semistructured interview provided in-depth insight into the ratings and concrete suggestions for improvement. Conclusions The experts rated Pain-Mentor to be of excellent quality. It can be concluded that experts perceived the use of gamification in this pain management app in a positive manner. This showed that combining pain management with gamification did not negatively affect the app’s integrity. This study was therefore a promising first step in the development of Pain-Mentor.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. E183-S204
Author(s):  
Christopher Gharibo

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of “elective” interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures. Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. Objectives: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. Results: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included emergent, urgent, and elective procedures. Examples of emergent and urgent procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, urgent procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. Limitations: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Key words: Coronavirus, COVID-19, interventional pain management, COVID risk factors, elective surgeries, interventional techniques, chronic pain, immunosuppression


2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 9-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Recent reports of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) expressed significant concern with overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and exponential increase in costs for interventional pain management techniques. Interventional pain management (IPM) is an evolving specialty amenable to multiple influences. Evaluation and isolation of appropriate factors for increasing growth patterns have not been performed. Study Design: Analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques. Methods: The standard 5% national sample of the CMS carrier claim record data for 1997, 2002, and 2006 was utilized. This data set provides information on Medicare enrollees in the feefor-service Medicare program. Current procedural technology (CPT) codes for 1997, 2002, and 2006 were used to identify the number of procedures performed each year, and trends in expenditures. Results: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Overall, there was an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services with an increase of 197% in IPM services, per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The majority of the increases were attributed to exponential growth in the performance of facet joint interventions. There was a 13.9-fold difference in the increase between the state with the lowest rate and the state with the highest rate in utilization patterns of interventional techniques (California 37% vs. Connecticut 514%), with an 11.6-fold difference between Florida and California (431% vs. 37% increase). In 2006, Florida showed a 12.7-fold difference compared to Hawaii with the lowest utilization rate. Hospital outpatient department (HOPD) expenses constituted the highest increase with fewer patients treated either in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or in-office setting. Overall HOPD payments constituted 5% of total 2006 Medicare payments, in contrast to 57% of total IPM payments, an 11.4-fold difference. Limitations: The limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans and potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: This study shows an overall increase of IPM services of 197% compared to an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services from 1997 to 2006. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), hospital outpatient department (HOPD)


2012 ◽  
Vol 6;15 (6;12) ◽  
pp. E969-E982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Reports from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continue to express significant concern with the overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and the exponential increase in costs for chronic pain management. Study Design: The study is an analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques in chronic pain management. Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2011. Results: Interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically from 2000 to 2011. Overall, the increase of interventional pain management (IPM) procedures from 2000 to 2011 went up 228%, with 177% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with a total increase of 386% and 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, followed by 168% and 127% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, 150% and 111% for other types of nerve blocks and finally, 28% and 8% increases for percutaneous disc procedures. The geometric average of annual increases was 9.7% overall with 13.7% for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks and 7.7% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 177% in the utilization of IPM services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 9.7%. The study also showed an exponential increase in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hoffmann ◽  
Corinna A Faust-Christmann ◽  
Gregor Zolynski ◽  
Gabriele Bleser

BACKGROUND The use of health apps to support the treatment of chronic pain is gaining importance. Most available pain management apps are still lacking in content quality and quantity as their developers neither involve health experts to ensure target group suitability nor use gamification to engage and motivate the user. To close this gap, we aimed to develop a gamified pain management app, Pain-Mentor. OBJECTIVE To determine whether medical professionals would approve of Pain-Mentor’s concept and content, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of the app’s first prototype with experts from the field of chronic pain management and to discover necessary improvements. METHODS A total of 11 health professionals with a background in chronic pain treatment and 2 mobile health experts participated in this study. Each expert first received a detailed presentation of the app. Afterward, they tested Pain-Mentor and then rated its quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS) in a semistructured interview. RESULTS The experts found the app to be of excellent general (mean 4.54, SD 0.55) and subjective quality (mean 4.57, SD 0.43). The app-specific section was rated as good (mean 4.38, SD 0.75). Overall, the experts approved of the app’s content, namely, pain and stress management techniques, behavior change techniques, and gamification. They believed that the use of gamification in Pain-Mentor positively influences the patients’ motivation and engagement and thus has the potential to promote the learning of pain management techniques. Moreover, applying the MARS in a semistructured interview provided in-depth insight into the ratings and concrete suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS The experts rated Pain-Mentor to be of excellent quality. It can be concluded that experts perceived the use of gamification in this pain management app in a positive manner. This showed that combining pain management with gamification did not negatively affect the app’s integrity. This study was therefore a promising first step in the development of Pain-Mentor. CLINICALTRIAL


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarina R. Isenberg, MA ◽  
Allysha C. Maragh-Bass, MPH, PhD ◽  
Kathleen Ridgeway, MSPH ◽  
Mary Catherine Beach, MD, MPH ◽  
Amy R. Knowlton, MPH, ScD

Objective: The study explored high-risk participants' experiences with pain management regarding clinical access to and use of prescription opioids.Design: Qualitative semistructured interviews and focus groups.Setting: Data were collected August 2014 to May 2015 at an urban community-based research facility in Baltimore City, MD.Participants: HIV participants with chronic pain and a history of illicit drug use.Methods: Qualitative coding and analysis used an iterative, inductive, and thematic approach and coders achieved inter-coder consistency.Results: The authors identified two major themes. First, participants had positive and negative interactions with healthcare providers regarding chronic pain treatment. Participants perceived that providers lacked empathy for their pain and/or were not adequately managing their pain. These interactions resulted in participants seeking new providers or mistrusting the medical system. Further, providers’ surveillance of participants’ pain treatment regimen contributed to distress surrounding pain management. The second theme centered on participants’ pain management experiences with prescribed opioid analgesics. Participants felt they were receiving dosages and classes of analgesics that did not sufficiently address their pain, and consequently modified their dosages or rationed prescription opioids. Other participants were reluctant to take analgesics due to their history of illicit drug use. Some participants relapsed to illicit drug use when they felt their prescription opioids did not adequately address their pain needs.Conclusions: Participant struggles with receiving and managing prescribed opioid analgesics suggest a need for: therapies beyond these medications; guidelines for providers specific to this population; and harm reduction trainings for providers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document