Search

Eric Grigsby,1 Richard Radnovich,2 Srinivas Nalamachu3 1Neurovations, Napa, CA, USA; 2Injury Care Medical Center, Boise, ID, USA; 3Mid America PolyClinic, Overland Park, KS, USACorrespondence: Eric Grigsby 3416 Valle Verde Drive, Napa, CA, 94558, USATel +1 707-252-9656Fax +1 707-258-2780Email eg@neurovations.comPurpose: Treatment of chronic pain associated with occipital neuralgia (ON) is complex, and no consensus statement or guidelines have been published for ON management. This pilot study evaluated the efficacy and safety of cryoneurolysis for management of ON-associated chronic pain.Patients and Methods: The study was a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized cohort study assessing the degree and duration of clinical effect of cryoneurolysis therapy for reducing pain in patients diagnosed with unilateral or bilateral ON. The primary outcome measure was improvement in pain due to ON from baseline to day 7, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale for pain. Secondary outcome measures included duration of treatment effects and safety events, including anticipated observations and adverse events. Treatment effect was assessed at days 7, 30, and 56 by asking the patient if they were continuing to experience a treatment effect, with potential responses of “effect,” “no effect,” or “no longer effective.” A posttreatment questionnaire evaluated patient satisfaction.Results: Twenty-six patients (9 men, 17 women) with a mean age of 49.1 years enrolled and completed the study. A total of 64% (16/25) of participants reported a clinically important improvement of ≥ 2 points in numeric rating scale pain scores at day 7; similar results persisted to day 30. Treatment effects were reported by 50% (13/26) of participants at day 30, with a continued effect reported by 35% (9/26) of participants at day 56. Overall, ∼ 70% of participants were satisfied with treatment at 7, 30, and 56 days. No serious anticipated observations, adverse events, or unanticipated ad

Srinivas R Nalamachu,1 Rebecca L Robinson,2 Lars Viktrup,3 Joseph C Cappelleri,4 Andrew G Bushmakin,4 Leslie Tive,5 Jennifer Mellor,6 Niall Hatchell,6 James Jackson6 1Mid America PolyClinic, Overland Park, KS, USA; 2Patient Outcomes and Real-World Evidence, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3Lilly Bio-Medicines Core Team, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 4Statistics, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 5Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 6Real World Research, Adelphi Real World, Bollington, Cheshire, UKCorrespondence: Rebecca L RobinsonEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Research Labs, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USATel +1 317-224-5833Fax +1 317-277-0490Email rlrobinson@lilly.comPurpose: The purpose of this study was to assess how patient-reported pain is related to osteoarthritis (OA) treatment patterns in routine clinical practice.Patients and Methods: Data were collected between February and May 2017 from 153 United States (US) primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons. Each invited up to nine consecutive patients to rate their OA pain in the last week. Physicians provided demographic, clinical, and treatment information for patients, including nonpharmacologic therapies ever recommended, currently recommended over-the-counter (OTC) medications, and currently and ever prescribed medications for the management of OA. Findings for patients with mild (0─3), moderate (4─6), and severe current pain (7─10) were compared using appropriate statistics.Results: Among the 841 patients (61% female; mean 65 years; 57% knee OA), 45% reported mild, 36% moderate, and 19% severe current OA pain. Current treatment modalities differed by pain severity (P< 0.05). Most patients (70%) had been recommended nonpharmacologic therapy and 40% were currently recommended OTC medications. More patients with moderate (81%) or severe pain (78%) currently received prescription medications, with or without nonpharmac

Srinivas Nalamachu,1,2 Richard L Rauck,3 Martin E Hale,4 Orlando G Florete Jr,5 Cynthia Y Robinson,6 Stephen J Farr,6 1International Clinical Research Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA; 2Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3Carolinas Pain Institute, Center for Clinical Research, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 4Gold Coast Research, LLC, Weston, FL, USA; 5Institute of Pain Management, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 6Zogenix, Inc., Emeryville, CA, USA Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of single-entity extended-release hydrocodone in opioid-experienced subjects with moderate to severe chronic pain not receiving adequate pain relief or experiencing intolerable side effects from their current opioid. Methods: This multicenter, open-label study started with a conversion/titration phase (≤6 weeks) where subjects (n=638) were converted to individualized doses (range 20–300 mg) of extended-release hydrocodone dosed every 12 hours, followed by a 48-week maintenance phase (n=424). The primary objective (safety and tolerability) and the secondary objective (long-term efficacy as measured by change in average pain score; 0= no pain, 10= worst imaginable pain) were monitored throughout the study. Results: Subjects were treated for a range of chronic pain etiologies, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic and musculoskeletal conditions. The mean hydrocodone equivalent dose at screening was 68.9±62.2 mg/day and increased to 139.5±81.7 mg/day at the start of the maintenance phase. Unlimited dose adjustments were permitted at the investigator's discretion during the maintenance phase, reflecting typical clinical practice. No unexpected safety issues were reported. Common adverse events during the conversion/titration and maintenance phases, respectively, were constipation (11.3% and 12.5%), nausea (10.7% and 9.9%), vomiting (4.1% a

Caroline Schaefer,1 Alesia Sadosky,2 Rachael Mann,3 Shoshana Daniel,4 Bruce Parsons,2 Michael Tuchman,5 Alan Anschel,6 Brett R Stacey,7 Srinivas Nalamachu,8 Edward Nieshoff9 1Covance Market Access Services Inc., Gaithersburg, MD, 2Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, 3Covance Market Access Services Inc., San Diego, CA, 4Covance Market Access Services Inc., Conshohocken, PA, 5Palm Beach Neurological Center, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, 6Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 7Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 8International Clinical Research Institute, Overland Park, KS, 9Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USABackground: As with many chronic conditions, patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) are high consumers of health care resources. However, limited literature exists on the economic burden of NeP, including its impact on productivity. The aim of this study was to characterize health care resource utilization, productivity, and costs associated with NeP by pain severity level in US adults.Methods: Subjects (n=624) with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, human immunodeficiency virus-related peripheral NeP, post-trauma/post-surgical NeP, spinal cord injury with NeP, chronic low back pain with NeP, and small fiber neuropathy were recruited during routine office visits to US community-based general practitioners and specialists. Clinicians captured clinical characteristics, NeP-related medications, and health care resource utilization based on 6-month retrospective medical chart review. Subjects completed questionnaires on demographics, pain/symptoms, costs, and productivity. Brief Pain Inventory pain severity scores were used to classify subjects by mild, moderate, or severe pain. Annualized NeP-related costs (adjusted for covariates) were estimated, and differences across pain severity groups were evaluated.Results: In total, 624 subjects were recruited (mean age 55.5±13.7 years; 55.4% male)