Search

Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks.Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis.The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain.Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined.Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions.There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies.This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00455-0.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world and catapulted the United States into one of the deepest recessions in history. While this pandemic rages, the opioid crisis worsens. During this period, the pandemic has resulted in the decimation of most conventional medical services, including those of chronic pain management, with the exception of virtual care and telehealth. Many chronic pain patients have been impacted in numerous ways, with increases in cardiovascular disease, mental health problems, cognitive dysfunction, and early death. The epidemic has also resulted in severe economic and physiological consequences for providers. Drug deaths in America, which fell for the first time in 25 years in 2018, rose to record numbers in 2019 and are continuing to climb, worsened by the coronavirus pandemic. The opioid epidemic was already resurfacing with a 5% increase in overall deaths from 2018; however, the preliminary data show that prescription opioid deaths continued to decline, while at the same time deaths due to fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine climbed, with some reductions in heroin deaths. The health tracker data also showed that along with an almost 88% decline in elective surgeries, pain-related prescriptions declined 15.1%. Despite increases in telehealth, outpatient services declined and only began returning towards normal at an extremely slow pace, accompanied by reduced productivity and increased practice costs. This review, therefore, emphasizes the devastating consequences of concurrent epidemics on chronic pain management and the need to develop best practice efforts to preserve access to treatment for chronic pain.

Multiple publications have shown the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare and increasing costs over the recent years in managing low back and neck pain as well as other musculoskeletal disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many modalities of treatments, including those related to chronic pain management, including both interventional techniques and opioids. While there have not been assessments of utilization of interventional techniques specific to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, previous analysis published with data from 2000 to 2018 demonstrated a decline in utilization of interventional techniques from 2009 to 2018 of 6.7%, with an annual decline of 0.8% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) in the Medicare population. During that same time, the Medicare population has grown by 3% annually.The objectives of this analysis include an evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an updated assessment of the utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2010 to 2019, 2010 to 2020, and 2019 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States.Utilization patterns and variables of interventional techniques with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic pain were assessed from 2000 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States.The data for the analysis was obtained from the master database from the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020.The results of the present investigation revealed an 18.7% decrease in utilization of all interventional techniques per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2019 to 2020, with a 19% decrease for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, a 17.5% decrease for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, and a 25.4% decrease for disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks. The results differed from 2000 to 2010 with an annualized increase of 10.2% per 100,000 Medicare population compared to an annualized decrease of 0.4% from 2010 to 2019, and a 2.5% decrease from 2010 to 2020 for all interventional techniques. For epidural and adhesiolysis procedures decreases were more significant and annualized at 3.1% from 2010 to 2019, increasing the decline to 4.8% from 2010 to 2020. For facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, the reversal of growth patterns was observed but maintained at an annualized rate increase of 2.1% from 2010 to 2019, which changed to a decrease of 0.01% from 2010 to 2020. Disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks showed similar patterns as epidurals with an 0.8% annualized reduction from 2010 to 2019, which was further reduced to 3.6% from 2010 to 2020 due to COVID-19.Data for the COVID-19 pandemic impact were available only for 2019 and 2020 and only the FFS Medicare population was utilized; utilization patterns in Medicare Advantage Plans, which constitutes almost 40% of the Medicare enrollment in 2020 were not available. Moreover, this analysis shares the limitations present in all retrospective reviews of claims based datasets.The decline driven by the COVID-19 pandemic was 18.7% from 2019 to 2020. Overall decline in utilization in interventional techniques from 2010 to 2020 was 22.0% per 100,000 Medicare population, with an annual diminution of 2.5%, despite an increase in the population rate of 3.3% annualized (38.9% overall) and Medicare enrollees of 33.4% and 2.9% annually.

Background: Although only a small percentage of patients with COVID-19 deteriorate to a critical condition, because of the associated high mortality rate and the sheer number of cases, it imposes a tremendous burden on the society and unprecedented strains the health care resources. Albeit lung is the primary organ involved resulting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), many patients additionally present with secondary multiorgan failure. Unfortunately, there is no definitive or curative treatment for this condition, and the management has been predominantly confined to supportive care, which necessitates an urgent need for novel therapies. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has a vast array of preclinical data and early, preliminary clinical data that suggests its potential to regenerate and restore the function of damaged tissues and organs. To date, there has been no review of all the clinical trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in organ failure commonly seen in seriously complicated COVID-19 patients. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure, utilizing currently available literature. Study Design: A review of human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the role of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1990 through May 2020. Studies that included embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, differentiated MSCs into specific lineage cells, and hematopoietic stem cells were excluded. Trials with intraorgan infiltration of MSC were also excluded. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome evaluated the improvement in clinical assessment scores and indices of organ function. The secondary outcome assessed the safety of MSC therapy in the clinical trials. Results: Based on search criteria, 12 studies were found for lung, 52 for heart, 23 for liver, 16 for stroke, and 9 for kidney. Among the 6 studies that specifically assessed the effectiveness of MSC therapy in ARDS, 4 showed positive outcomes. Forty-one of the 52 trials that examined ischemic and nonischemic heart failure reported beneficial effects. Twenty of 23 trials for liver failure from different etiologies revealed favorable outcomes. Nine out of the 15 studies evaluating stroke had satisfactory effects. However, only 3 out of the 9 studies for kidney failure showed positive results. Nonexpanded bone marrow mononuclear cells were used in most of the negative studies. The incidence of disease worsening or major complications was extremely rare from MSC therapy. Limitations: Among the studies evaluated, although there were many RCTs, there were also numerous case series. Additionally, most recruited a small number of patients. Conclusions: MSC therapy seems to be promising to treat multiorgan failure from COVID-19. More studies are urgently needed to assess both safety and efficacy. Key words: Mesenchymal stem cell, multiorgan failure, randomized controlled trial

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

Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome Measures: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. Results: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. Limitations: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids. Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, lidocaine, steroids, active control trials, placebo effect

Background: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. Objective: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations. Summary of Evidence and Recommendations: Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) . Interventional Diagnosis: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥ 80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥ 80% pain relief.Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. Conclusions: These facet joint interventions guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations Key words: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis

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

Background: Interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, from conservative modalities to surgical interventions, are thought to have been growing rapidly. Interventional techniques take center stage in managing chronic spinal pain. Specifically, facet joint interventions experienced explosive growth rates from 2000 to 2009, with a reversal of these growth patterns and in some settings, a trend of decline after 2009. Objectives: The objectives of this assessment of utilization patterns include providing an update of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population of the United States from 2000 to 2018. Study Design: The study was designed to assess utilization patterns and variables of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States. Methods: Data for the analysis were obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. Results: Facet joint interventions increased 1.9% annually and 18.8% total from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 FFS Medicare population compared with an annual increase of 17% and overall increase of 309.9% from 2000 to 2009. Lumbosacral facet joint nerve block sessions or visits decreased at an annual rate of 0.2% from 2009 to 2018, with an increase of 15.2% from 2000 to 2009. In contrast, lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis sessions increased at an annual rate of 7.4% from 2009 to 2018, and the utilization rate also increased at an annual rate of 23.0% from 2000 to 2009. The proportion of lumbar facet joint blocks sessions to lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis sessions changed from 6.7 in 2000 to 1.9 in 2018. Cervical and thoracic facet joint injections increased at an annual rate of 0.5% compared with cervicothoracic facet neurolysis sessions of 8.7% from 2009 to 2018. Cervical facet joint injections increased to 4.9% from 2009 to 2018 compared with neurolysis procedures of 112%. The proportion of cervical facet joint injection sessions to neurolysis sessions changed from 8.9 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2018. Limitations: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. The utilization data for individual states also continues to be sparse and may not be accurate. Conclusions: Utilization patterns of facet joint interventions increased 1.9% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. This results from an annual decline of - 0.2% lumbar facet joint injection sessions but with an increase of facet joint radiofrequency sessions of 7.4%. Key words: Interventional techniques, facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, data has shown that age-adjusted overdose death rates involving synthetic opioids, psychostimulants, cocaine, and heroin have been increasing, including prescription opioid deaths, which were declining, but, recently, reversing the trends. Contrary to widely held perceptions, the problem of misuse, abuse, and diversion of prescription opioids has been the least of all the factors in recent years. Consequently, it is important to properly distinguish between the role of illicit and prescription opioids in the current opioid crisis. Multiple efforts have been based on consensus on administrative policies for certain harm reduction strategies for individuals actively using illicit drugs and reducing opioid prescriptions leading to curbing of medically needed opioids, which have been ineffective. While there is no denial that prescription opioids can be misused, abused, and diverted, the policies have oversimplified the issue by curbing prescription opioids and the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of severely limiting prescription opioids, without acknowledgement that opioids have legitimate uses for persons suffering from chronic pain. Similar to the opioid crisis, interventional pain management procedures have been affected by various policies being applied to reduce overuse, abuse, and finally utilization. Medical policies have been becoming more restrictive with reduction of access to certain procedures, with the pendulum swinging too far in the direction of limiting interventional techniques. Recent utilization assessments have shown a consistent decline for most interventional techniques, with a 18.7% decrease from 2019 to 2020. The causes for these dynamic changes are multifactorial likely including the misapplication of the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain, the relative ease of access to illicit synthetic opioids and more recently issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, recent publications have shown association of dose tapering with overdose or mental health crisis among patients prescribed long-term opioids. These findings are leading to the hypothesis that federal guidelines may inadvertently be contributing to an increase in overall opioid deaths and diminished access to interventional techniques. Together, these have resulted in a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic.A narrative review.The fourth wave results from a confluence of multiple factors, including misapplication of CDC guidelines, the increased availability of illicit drugs, the COVID-19 pandemic, and policies reducing access to interventional procedures. The CDC guidelines and subsequent regulatory atmosphere have led to aggressive tapering up to and including, at times, the overall reduction or stoppage of opioid prescriptions. Forced tapering has been linked to an increase of 69% for overdoses and 130% for mental health crisis. The data thus suggests that the diminution in access to opioid prescriptions may be occurring simultaneously with an increase in illicit narcotic use.Combined with CDC guidelines, the curbing of opioid prescriptions to medically needed individuals, among non-opioid treatments, interventional techniques have been affected with declining utilization rates and medical policies reducing access to such modalities.The opioid overdose waves over the past three decades have resulted from different etiologies. Wave one was associated with prescription opioid overdose deaths and wave two with the rise in heroin and overdose deaths from 1999 to 2013. Wave three was associated with a rise in synthetic opioid overdose deaths. Sadly, wave four continues to escalate with increasing number of deaths as a confluence of factors including the CDC guidelines, the COVID pandemic, increased availability of illicit synthetic opioids and the reduction of access to interventional techniques, which leads patients to seek remedies on their own.

Regenerative medicine interventions are applied to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous/allogenic biologics and it continues to expand. The anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and regenerative properties of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), and investigation into their therapeutic efficacy and safety in patients with severe chronic low back pain, have not been demonstrated in controlled studies. Multiple pain generators have been hypothesized to be responsible in severe spinal degeneration and it is difficult to identify a single pain generator; consequently, resulting in inadequate therapeutic results.The study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of autologous bone marrow MSCs in the treatment of chronic low back pain due to severe lumbar spinal degeneration with involvement of multiple structures.Prospective, open-label, nonrandomized, parallel-controlled, 2-arm exploratory study.A private, specialized, interventional pain management and regenerative medicine clinic.The treatment group patients received a one-time bone marrow concentrate injection into spinal structures (i.e., discs, facets, spinal nerves, and sacroiliac joints), along with conventional treatment, whereas, the control group received conventional treatment with nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, over-the-counter drugs, structured exercise programs, physical therapy, spinal injections and opioids, etc., as indicated.Outcomes were assessed utilizing multiple instruments, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), EuroQOL 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), Global Mental Health (GMH), and Global Physical Health (GPH). Multiple outcomes were assessed with primary outcomes being minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in ODI scores between the groups and/or a 2-point reduction in pain scores. In the study group, total nucleated cells, colony forming units-fibroblast, CD34-positive cell numbers and platelets were also recorded, along with post-procedure magnetic resonance imaging changes. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.Significant improvement was achieved in functional status measured by ODI, pain relief measured by NRS-11, and other parameters measured by EQ-5D-3L, GMH, and GPH, in the study group relative to the control group at all time periods. The results showed significant improvements at 12-month follow-up with 67% of the patients in the study group achieving MCID utilizing ODI when compared to 8% in the control group. Greater than 2-point pain reduction was seen in 74% of the patients at 3 months, 66% of the patients at 6 months, and 56% of the patients at 12 months. Both MCID and pain relief of 2 points were significantly different compared to the control group. Opioid use decreased in the investigational group, whereas, there was a slight increase in the control group. Age, gender, opioid use, and body mass index did not affect the outcomes in the stem cell group.Single center, nonrandomized study.The first available controlled study utilizing BM-MSCs in severe degenerative spinal disease with interventions into multiple structures simultaneously, including disc, facet joints, nerve roots, and sacroiliac joint based on symptomatology, showed promising results.

Complex regional pain syndrome is a rare, neuropathic disorder that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States annually. Current treatments often focus on pain management and fall short of relieving symptoms of pain and dystonia in patients.The goal of this systematic qualitative review is to evaluate the evidence for the use of low-dose naltrexone in the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.This is a systematic review.PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles containing the keywords "low-dose naltrexone" AND ("pain" OR "chronic pain" OR "fibromyalgia" OR "complex regional pain syndrome" OR "neuropathic pain" OR "nociceptive pain") between 1950 and July 17, 2020. A total of 30 publications were systematically reviewed. Exclusion criteria were articles that were unavailable in English, focused on acute pain only, and evaluated only animal models. Case studies were included for the purposes of our qualitative review.Out of 29 articles, we reviewed 11 prospective studies, 10 case studies, 3 systematic reviews, 2 retrospective studies, 2 simulation models, and one combination study. Articles focused on chronic pain syndromes as well as painful rheumatologic disorders and neurological disorders. We found that low-dose naltrexone treatment was positively associated with symptom relief in patients experiencing chronic pain, dystonia, and sleep disturbances.Due to the limited number of available articles focusing on the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome with low-dose naltrexone, the majority of studies analyzed focused on other chronic pain syndromes.There is a need for additional prospective and interventional studies addressing the use of low-dose naltrexone in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome symptoms.

The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." The revised definition distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria.To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain.A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations.Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews.Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques.This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies.

Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain.To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions.The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions.The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy.These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations.Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.

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

Background: Several cell-based therapies have been proposed in recent years the management of low back pain, including the injection of medicinal signaling cells or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there is only emerging clinical evidence to support their use at this time. Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of MSCs or PRP injections in the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain. Study Design: A systematic review and metaanalysis of the effectiveness of PRP and MSCs injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. The literature search was performed from 1966 through June 2018. Study Selection: Randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of injections of biologics into the disc, epidural space, facet joints, or sacroiliac joints. Data Extraction: Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data Synthesis: Twenty-one injection studies met inclusion criteria. There were 12 lumbar disc injections, 5 epidural, 3 lumbar facet joint, and 3 sacroiliac joint studies Results: Evidence synthesis based on a single-arm metaanalysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies, disc injections of PRP and MSCs showed Level 3 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V). Evidence for epidural injections based on single-arm metaanalysis, a single randomized controlled trial and other available studies demonstrated Level 4 (on a scale of Level I through V) evidence. Similarly, evidence for lumbar facet joint injections and sacroiliac joint injections without metaanalysis demonstrated Level 4 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V).. Limitations: Lack of high quality RCTs. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and single-arm metaanalysis shows that MSCs and PRP may be effective in managing discogenic low back pain, radicular pain, facet joint pain, and sacroiliac joint pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of these techniques. Key Words: Chronic low back pain, regenerative therapy, medicinal signaling or mesenchymal stem cells, platelet-rich plasma, disc injection, lumbar facet joint injections, sacroiliac joint injections

The opioid epidemic has been called the “most consequential preventable public health problem in the United States.” Though there is wide recognition of the role of prescription opioids in the epidemic, evidence has shown that heroin and synthetic opioids contribute to the majority of opioid overdose deaths. It is essential to reframe the preventive strategies in place against the opioid crisis with attention to factors surrounding the illicit use of fentanyl and heroin. Data on opioid overdose deaths shows 42,000 deaths in 2016. Of these, synthetic opioids other than methadone were responsible for over 20,000, heroin for over 15,000, and natural and semisynthetic opioids other than methadone responsible for over 14,000. Fentanyl deaths increased 520% from 2009 to 2016 (increased by 87.7% annually between 2013 and 2016), and heroin deaths increased 533% from 2000 to 2016. Prescription opioid deaths increased by 18% overall between 2009 and 2016. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) mandated reductions in opioid production by 25% in 2017 and 20% in 2018. The number of prescriptions for opioids declined significantly from 252 million in 2013 to 196 million in 2017 (9% annual decline over this period), falling below the number of prescriptions in 2006. In addition, data from 2017 shows significant reductions in the milligram equivalence of morphine by 12.2% and in the number of patients receiving high dose opioids by 16.1%. This manuscript describes the escalation of opioid use in the United States, discussing the roles played by drug manufacturers and distributors, liberalization by the DEA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), licensure boards and legislatures, poor science, and misuse of evidencebased medicine. Moreover, we describe how the influence of pharma, improper advocacy by physician groups, and the promotion of literature considered peer-reviewed led to the explosive use of illicit drugs arising from the issues surrounding prescription opioids. This manuscript describes a 3-tier approach presented to Congress. Tier 1 includes an aggressive education campaign geared toward the public, physicians, and patients. Tier 2 includes facilitation of easier access to non-opioid techniques and the establishment of a National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (NASPER). Finally, Tier 3 focuses on making buprenorphine more available for chronic pain management as well as for medication-assisted treatment. Key words: Opioid epidemic, fentanyl and heroin epidemic, prescription opioids, National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (NASPER), Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs)

Bone marrow concentrate (BMC) is growing in popularity as an alternative treatment option in orthopaedics. The regenerative capacity of BMC has been linked to the number of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) present in the graft at the time of its clinical application. MSC counts in bone marrow aspirate (BMA) are affected by harvest technique, but controversy exists over which aspiration method optimizes cellular yield while taking patient comfort and risk into consideration.To compare a single- versus multiple-site bone marrow aspiration technique to determine which would generate a sufficient volume of high-quality BMA for concentration into a BMC graft. The level of pain experienced by the patient was monitored, since patient comfort should be included in the determination of a safe and effective aspiration technique.Controlled laboratory study and cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.BMC samples from 6 patients were sent to an outside source for laboratory analysis. All 6 participants underwent bilateral bone marrow aspiration. Each patient received both techniques at the posterior iliac crest: one side underwent a multiple-site aspiration technique, and the contralateral side underwent a single-site technique with needle redirection. BMA and BMC samples were analyzed for concentrations white blood cells, total nucleated cells, red blood cells, neutrophils, and hematopoietic stem cells. One BMC sample was cultured, and MSC analysis was performed via flow cytometry. All patients underwent monitoring of pain scores during and after the procedure through a visual analog pain scale at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days after BMA.No significant difference was found between the cell ratios of the single- and multiple-site groups. Both aspiration techniques were found to provide ample colony-forming units without a marked difference in appearance. Additionally, no significant difference was found between groups with regard to MSC numbers. Pain during and 24 hours after the procedure was significantly greater with the multiple-site method than the single-insertion method.The single-insertion method produced final cellular concentrations and culture results that were not significantly different from those of a multiple-insertion method. Additionally, the single-insertion site technique was significantly less painful to the patient at the time of the procedure as well as 24 hours after aspiration.The results of this study indicated that a high-quality bone marrow aspirate is possible with a single-stick aspiration method.

Background: Interventional pain management involves diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. This specialty utilizes minimally invasive procedures to target therapeutics to the central nervous system and the spinal column. A subset of patients encountered in interventional pain are medicated using anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs to mitigate thrombosis risk. Since these drugs target the clotting system, bleeding risk is a consideration accompanying interventional procedures. Importantly, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs exposes underlying thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. This review summarizes the literature and provides guidelines based on best evidence for patients receiving anti-clotting therapy during interventional pain procedures. Study Design: Best evidence synthesis. Objective: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding an assessment of the bleeding risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic medications. Methods: A review of the available literature published on bleeding risk during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was conducted. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of EMBASE and PubMed from 1966 through August 2018 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results: 1. There is good evidence for risk stratification by categorizing multiple interventional techniques into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk. Also, their risk should be upgraded based on other risk factors. 2. There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic events in patients who interrupt antithrombotic therapy. 3. There is good evidence supporting discontinuation of low dose aspirin for high risk and moderate risk procedures for at least 3 days, and there is moderate evidence that these may be continued for low risk or some intermediate risk procedures.4. There is good evidence that discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, heparin, dabigatran (Pradaxa®), argatroban (Acova®), bivalirudin (Angiomax®), lepirudin (Refludan®), desirudin (Iprivask®), hirudin, apixaban (Eliquis®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), edoxaban (Savaysa®, Lixiana®), Betrixaban(Bevyxxa®), fondaparinux (Arixtra®) prior to interventional techniques with individual consideration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs and individual risk factors increases safety. 5. There is good evidence that diagnosis of epidural hematoma is based on severe pain at the site of the injection, rapid neurological deterioration, and MRI with surgical decompression with progressive neurological dysfunction to avoid neurological sequelae. 6. There is good evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high, low molecular weight heparin bridge therapy can be instituted during cessation of the anticoagulant, and the low molecular weight heparin can be discontinued 24 hours before the pain procedure. 7. There is fair evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events is higher than that of epidural hematoma formation with the interruption of antiplatelet therapy preceding interventional techniques, though both risks are significant. 8. There is fair evidence that multiple variables including anatomic pathology with spinal stenosis and ankylosing spondylitis; high risk procedures and moderate risk procedures combined with anatomic risk factors; bleeding observed during the procedure, and multiple attempts during the procedures increase the risk for bleeding complications and epidural hematoma. 9. There is fair evidence that discontinuation of phosphodiesterase inhibitors is optional (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal]. However, there is also fair evidence to discontinue Aggrenox [dipyridamole plus aspirin]) 3 days prior to undergoing interventional techniques of moderate and high risk. 10. There is fair evidence to make shared decision making between the patient and the treating physicians with the treating physician and to consider all the appropriate risks associated with continuation or discontinuation of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy. 11. There is fair evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high antithrombotic therapy may be resumed 12 hours after the interventional procedure is performed. 12. There is limited evidence that discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel [Plavix®], ticlopidine [Ticlid®], Ticagrelor [Brilinta®] and prasugrel [Effient®]) avoids complications of significant bleeding and epidural hematomas. 13. There is very limited evidence supporting the continuation or discontinuation of most NSAIDs, excluding aspirin, for 1 to 2 days and some 4 to 10 days, since these are utilized for pain management without cardiac or cerebral protective effect. Limitations: The continued paucity of the literature with discordant recommendations. Conclusion: Based on the survey of current literature, and published clinical guidelines, recommendations for patients presenting with ongoing antithrombotic therapy prior to interventional techniques are variable, and are based on comprehensive analysis of each patient and the risk-benefit analysis of intervention. Key words: Perioperative bleeding, bleeding risk, practice patterns, anticoagulant therapy, antithrombotic therapy, interventional techniques, safety precautions, pain

Several cell-based therapies have been proposed in recent years the management of low back pain, including the injection of medicinal signaling cells or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there is only emerging clinical evidence to support their use at this time.To assess the effectiveness of MSCs or PRP injections in the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain.A systematic review and metaanalysis of the effectiveness of PRP and MSCs injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain.PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. The literature search was performed from 1966 through June 2018.Randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of injections of biologics into the disc, epidural space, facet joints, or sacroiliac joints.Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5.Twenty-one injection studies met inclusion criteria. There were 12 lumbar disc injections, 5 epidural, 3 lumbar facet joint, and 3 sacroiliac joint studies RESULTS: Evidence synthesis based on a single-arm metaanalysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies, disc injections of PRP and MSCs showed Level 3 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V). Evidence for epidural injections based on single-arm metaanalysis, a single randomized controlled trial and other available studies demonstrated Level 4 (on a scale of Level I through V) evidence. Similarly, evidence for lumbar facet joint injections and sacroiliac joint injections without metaanalysis demonstrated Level 4 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V).Lack of high quality RCTs.The findings of this systematic review and single-arm metaanalysis shows that MSCs and PRP may be effective in managing discogenic low back pain, radicular pain, facet joint pain, and sacroiliac joint pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of these techniques.Chronic low back pain, regenerative therapy, medicinal signaling or mesenchymal stem cells, platelet-rich plasma, disc injection, lumbar facet joint injections, sacroiliac joint injections.

The opioid epidemic has been called the "most consequential preventable public health problem in the United States." Though there is wide recognition of the role of prescription opioids in the epidemic, evidence has shown that heroin and synthetic opioids contribute to the majority of opioid overdose deaths. It is essential to reframe the preventive strategies in place against the opioid crisis with attention to factors surrounding the illicit use of fentanyl and heroin. Data on opioid overdose deaths shows 42,000 deaths in 2016. Of these, synthetic opioids other than methadone were responsible for over 20,000, heroin for over 15,000, and natural and semi-synthetic opioids other than methadone responsible for over 14,000. Fentanyl deaths increased 520% from 2009 to 2016 (increased by 87.7% annually between 2013 and 2016), and heroin deaths increased 533% from 2000 to 2016. Prescription opioid deaths increased by 18% overall between 2009 and 2016. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) mandated reductions in opioid production by 25% in 2017 and 20% in 2018. The number of prescriptions for opioids declined significantly from 252 million in 2013 to 196 million in 2017 (9% annual decline over this period), falling below the number of prescriptions in 2006. In addition, data from 2017 shows significant reductions in the milligram equivalence of morphine by 12.2% and in the number of patients receiving high dose opioids by 16.1%. This manuscript describes the escalation of opioid use in the United States, discussing the roles played by drug manufacturers and distributors, liberalization by the DEA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), licensure boards and legislatures, poor science, and misuse of evidence-based medicine. Moreover, we describe how the influence of pharma, improper advocacy by physician groups, and the promotion of literature considered peer-reviewed led to the explosive use of illicit drugs arising from the issues surrounding prescription opioids.This manuscript describes a 3-tier approach presented to Congress. Tier 1 includes an aggressive education campaign geared toward the public, physicians, and patients. Tier 2 includes facilitation of easier access to non-opioid techniques and the establishment of a National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (NASPER). Finally, Tier 3 focuses on making buprenorphine more available for chronic pain management as well as for medication-assisted treatment.Opioid epidemic, fentanyl and heroin epidemic, prescription opioids, National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (NASPER), Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs).

Opioids have an important role in the management of acute, cancer, and chronic pain. However, their indiscriminate use in chronic pain has led, in part, to the epidemic of prescription drug abuse, resulting in a dramatic increase in morbidity and mortality in America. Most of this abuse originates from legitimate prescriptions by physicians. Prescribing opioids to chronic pain patients while restricting them to those who abuse them is very challenging, and physicians seek appropriate and unbiased prescribing guidelines. Our review, based on analysis of the available literature, focuses on striking a balance between overprescribing and underprescribing. The core concept of this strategy relies in using screening tools to identify patients who are at high risk for opioid abuse along with diligent monitoring using prescription monitoring programs and urine drug screens, while also limiting opioid doses. Hopefully, using these principles, physicians can more confidently prescribe opioids to those who would benefit from these powerful drugs and at the same time keep opioids away from those who could potentially be harmed. This review contains 3 figures, 4 tables, and 98 references. Key Words: abuse, addiction, chronic pain, dose limitation, misuse, monitoring, opioids, overdose, screening

Lumbar epidural injections are administered by accessing the epidural space either by caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal approaches. Epidural injections are administered to manage chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, spinal stenosis, post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and degenerative disc disease.

The actions and regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are crucial to the entire population of the US, specifically the public who take a multitude of drugs and providers who prescribe drugs and devices. Further, the FDA is relevant to investors, specifically in regards to biotech and pharmaceutical companies involved in developing new drugs. The FDA has been criticized for a lack of independence on the one hand and excessive regulatory and expanding authority without evidence and consistency of the actions on the other hand. The FDA approved a single-entity, long-acting, hydrocodone product (Zohydro™, Zogenix, San Diego, CA) on October 25, 2013, against the recommendation of the FDA’s own appointed scientific advisory panel, which voted 11 to 2 against the approval of Zohydro. Subsequent to the approval, multiple consumer safety organizations, health care agencies, addiction treatment providers, professional organizations, and other groups on the frontline of the opioid addiction epidemic have expressed concern. In addition, the US Congress and various state attorneys general raised serious concerns about the approval of Zohydro, which is highly addictive and may enhance the opioid addiction epidemic. Supporters of Zohydro contend that it is necessary and essential to manage chronic pain and improve functional status with no additional risk. Over the past 15 years, prescriptions for opioids have skyrocketed with the United States consuming more than 84% of the global oxycodone and more than 99% of the hydrocodone supply. The sharp increase in opioid prescribing has led to parallel increases in opioid addiction and overdose deaths, surpassing motor vehicle injuries in the US. Recent studies assessing the trends of medical use and misuse of opioid analgesics from 2000 to 2011 have concluded that the present trend of the continued increase in the medical use of opioid analgesics appears to contribute to increasing misuse, resulting in multiple health consequences, despite numerous regulations enforced by multiple organizations. The approval of Zohydro and its defense from the FDA were based on a misunderstanding of the prevalence of chronic severe disabling pain. Based on inaccurate data from the Institute of Medicine, in part caused by conflicts of interest, 100 million persons have been described to suffer from severe pain -- the correct number is 22.6 million. This manuscript analyzes 3 important principles of drug approval and utilization based on safety, efficacy, and medical necessity. Based on the limited literature that the authors were able to review including that which was submitted to the FDA by the manufacturers, it appears the safety, efficacy, and medical necessity were not demonstrated. In fact, the study submitted to the FDA showed a 50% pain improvement in only 48% of the patients in the treatment group and 21% of the patients in the placebo group at 85 day follow-up. This is a statistically significant result but its clinical relevance is unknown. The FDA approval decision occurring against the backdrop of the advisory panel recommendation is concerning and may result in serious consequences in the future. Key words: Chronic non-cancer pain, Food and Drug Administration, opioids, Zohydro, misuse, tolerance, addiction, dependency, medical necessity

Background: The epidemic of medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics is linked to the economic burden of opioid-related abuse and fatalities in the United States. Multiple studies have estimated the extent to which prescription opioid analgesics contribute to the national drug abuse problem; studies also assessing the trends in medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics have confirmed the relationship between increasing medical use of opioids and increasing fatalities. The available data is limited until 2002.. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of data from 2004 to 2011 from 2 databases: Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) for opioid use data and Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) for drug misuse data. Objective: To determine the proportion of drug abuse related to opioid analgesics and the various trends in the medical use and abuse of 8 opioid analgesics commonly used to treat pain: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, and oxycodone. Methods: The data obtained from DAWN is a nationally representative sample of hospital emergency department admissions resulting from drug abuse. Main outcome measure was the identification of trends in the medical use and misuse of opioid analgesics from 2004 to 2011. Results: From 2004 to 2011, there was an increase in the medical use of all opioids except for a 20% decrease in codeine. The abuse of all opioids including codeine increased during this period. Increases in medical use ranged from 2,318% for buprenorphine to 35% for fentanyl, including 140% for hydromorphone, 117% for oxycodone, 73% for hydrocodone, 64% for morphine, and 37% for methadone. The misuse increased 384% for buprenorphine with available data from 2006 to 2011, whereas from 2004 to 2011, it increased 438% for hydromorphone, 263% for oxycodone, 146% for morphine, 107% for hydrocodone, 104% for fentanyl, 82% for methadone, and 39% for codeine. Comparison of opioid use showed an overall increase of 1,448% from 1996 to 2011, with increases if 690% from 1996 to 2004 and 100% from 2004 to 2011. In contrast, misuse increased more dramatically: 4,680% from 1996 to 2011, with increases of 1,372% from 1996 through 2004 and 245% from 2004 to 2011. The number of patients seeking rehabilitation for substance abuse also increased 187% for opioids, whereas it increased 87% for heroin, 40% for marijuana, and decreased 7% for cocaine. Limitations: Limitations of this assessment include the lack of data from 2003, lack of data available on meperidine, and that the aggregate data systems used in the study did not identify specific formulations or commercial products. Conclusion: The present trend of continued increase in the medical use of opioid analgesics appears to contribute to increases in misuse, resulting in multiple health consequences. Key words: Medical use of opioids, inappropriate use of opioids, abuse of opioids, opioid-related fatalities, Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS), Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)

As we say goodbye to 2013, 2014 brings in the global epidemic of opioid use, inappropriate use, and abuse with related fatalities, which along with the global epidemic of chronic pain with its related disability continue to be major issues for the public, officials, and physician community (1-11). After much controversy with pendulums swinging in different directions over the last 3 decades, it appears that we have reached the boiling point, with disagreements and colliding opinions finally resulting in definitive action with the publication of a policy position paper from the American College of Physicians (ACP) in December 2013 which in our opinion further validates as it is largely in keeping with the philosophy and policies that the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) initiated in 2000 (6,10). Starting in 2014, the Medicare participating provider program also encourages providers to actively participate in state prescription drug monitoring programs (12). However, the global epidemic of opioid use with related fatalities is not a new problem and not limited to a single country, culture, race, or socioeconomic status (4,7-11,13,14). Inappropriate use, overuse, abuse, and rarely underuse is a universal problem (15-21). In fact, a 2011 report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) reported that abuse of prescription drugs was growing rapidly around the world with more people abusing legal narcotics than heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy combined (22). Thus, prescription drug abuse, while most prevalent in the US is also a problem in many countries around the world including Canada, Australia, Europe, Southern Africa, and South Asia with tens of millions of people giving up control of their lives in favor of addiction (7,17-22). The increasing reports of prescription overdose deaths highly popularized in the United States (5), with the over 30 thousand drug overdose deaths exceeding motor vehicle injuries and 2.5 million emergency department visits, this has become a public health problem. Ironically, emergency department visits related to prescription drug abuse now exceed the number of visits related to illicit drug use (7). The same pattern also has been observed in other countries with increasing high overall prescription opioid consumption levels, nonmedical prescription opioid

Background: Transforaminal technique for epidural steroid injections, unlike other approaches, is uniquely associated with permanent, bilateral, lower extremity paralysis. Objective: To review the literature and analyze the reported cases of paralysis from lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections to possibly establish a cause and to prevent this complication. Study Design: Eighteen cases of paralysis from transforaminal epidural injection have been reported. We could analyze the position of the needle within the neural foramen based on the available images and/or description among 10 of these 18 cases. Five cases were performed with computed tomography guidance and 12 cases were performed with fluoroscopic guidance [unknown in one case]. Additionally, other variables associated with the procedure, including the technique, were also examined. Methods: Analysis of the needle position in the neural foramen in cases of paralysis from transforaminal epidural steroid injections. This analysis is based on images and/or description provided in published reports. Results: Paralysis in these cases seems to be associated with a well performed traditional safe triangle approach with good epidural contrast spreads. Analyzed data shows that 77.7% of the time, the needle was in the superior part of the foramen. In 71.4% of the cases, the needle was in the anterior part of the foramen. This coincides with the location of the radicular artery in the foramen. In 22.2%, the needle was in the midzone (neither in the superior nor inferior zone). No level was spared as this event occurred at every foramen from T12 to S1. Ten of these events happened during a left-sided procedure and 8 during a right-sided procedure. No relation to this complication was noted when other variables like type and size of the needles, side of the injection, local anesthetic, contrast, or volume of injectate were taken into consideration. Limitations: Only 18 cases of paralysis from transforaminal epidurals have been reported. Out of these, only 10 cases included images or descriptions which could be evaluated for our study. Conclusion: In light of the anatomical and radiological evidence in the literature that radicular arteries dwell in the superior part of the foramen and along with our needle position analysis, we suggest that the traditional technique of placing the needle in the superior and anterior part of the foramen must be reexamined. Alternative, safer techniques must be considered, one of which is described. Key words: Lumbar epidural injection, lumbar transforaminal, approach, selective nerve root block, paralysis, steroid, particulate, nonparticulate, safe triangle, radicular artery, artery of Adamkiewicz

Background: Lumbosacral selective nerve root blocks and/ or transforaminal epidural injections are used for diagnosis and treatment of different disorders causing low back and lower extremity pain. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the validity of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear. Objective: To evaluate and update the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing lumbar spinal disorders. Study Design: A systematic review of selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of low back and lower extremity pain. Methods: Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited or poor based on the quality of evidence grading scale developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: In this review, we evaluated studies in which controlled local anesthetic blocks were performed using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard. Results: There is limited evidence for the accuracy of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool for lumbosacral disorders. There is limited evidence for their use in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature, variations in technique, and variable criterion standards for the diagnosis of lumbar radicular pain. Conclusions: There is limited evidence for selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool in evaluating low back pain with radicular features. However, their role needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus. Key words: Low back pain, lower extremity pain, selective nerve root block, transforaminal epidural injection, discogenic pain, radiculitis, sciatica radiculopathy, nerve root pain

Background: The use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain has grown exponentially in the last 15 years. Associated with that, dramatic increases in abuse and overdose deaths from opioid use have been noted. Objectives: Most opioid abuse stems from legitimate prescriptions, putting the onus on prescribers to use opioids responsibly for chronic pain. Very little evidence-based guidance exists for those who wish to prescribe opioids for legitimate chronic pain and at the same time prevent opioid abuse. Methods: A review of literature was performed for articles focused on guidelines for opioid use when prescribed for chronic pain, opioid abuse, and overdose, strategies to detect and prevent abuse of opioids, urine drug screens (UDS) in chronic pain settings, prescription monitoring programs (PMP), and the relationship between opioid dosing and abuse. Results: Based on the existing literature, an evidence-based algorithmic approach was developed to decrease opioid abuse in the chronic pain environment. The pillars of prevention are the screening of patients into high, medium, and low risk categories using screening tools; monitoring patients using UDS, PMP, and pill counts, and lastly, dose limitations. Conclusion: This algorithmic approach may enable physicians to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic pain and also to reduce opioid abuse. Key words: Opioids, chronic pain, abuse, prescription, overdose, deaths, overdose deaths, urine drug screens, prescription monitoring programs, opioid dose, screening, monitoring

Background: Chronic mid back and upper back pain caused by thoracic facet joints has been reported in 34% to 48% of the patients based on the responses to controlled diagnostic blocks. Systematic reviews have established moderate evidence for controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks of thoracic facet joints in the diagnosis of mid back and upper back pain, moderate evidence for therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, and limited evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy of therapeutic facet joint nerves. Objectives: To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic thoracic facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing chronic upper back and mid back pain. Study Design: Systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic thoracic facet joint interventions. Methods: Review of the literature for utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. Recommendations were based on the criteria developed by Guyatt et al. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to July 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results of the analysis were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. Outcome Measures: For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term relief > 6 months) with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: Based on the controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, the evidence for the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain is Level I or II-1. The evidence for therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks is Level I or II-1. The recommendation is IA or 1B/strong for diagnostic and therapeutic medial branch blocks. Conclusion: The evidence for the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is Level I or II-1 for medial branch blocks. Recommendation is 1A or 1B/strong for diagnostic and therapeutic medial branch blocks. Key words: Chronic thoracic pain, mid back or upper back pain, thoracic facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, medial branch blocks, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy, thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections

Opioids are important, if not essential, agents in treating certain types of chronic pain. However, the prevalence of drug misuse, abuse, and addiction has fostered considerable consternation among physicians, who may hesitate to prescribe these medications both due to concern for patients (misuse, abuse, and addiction), and fears of prosecution and/or professional sanction. Such practice may reflect 1) inadequate knowledge about patients’ susceptibility to, or current drug misuse or abuse; 2) lack of familiarity with extant assessments and/or regulations, and/or 3) an unanticipated reaction to existing guidelines, policies or laws. We posit that assessing patients’ predisposition to, and patterns of, drug misuse/abuse is a vital first step toward establishing and maintaining the safe and effective use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain. Adherence monitoring is critical to identify patients’ prior and current drug use, establish treatment basis, and evaluate compliance, so as to avoid misuse and abuse, and ensure sound and proper pain management. This paper provides a review of the numerous monitoring approaches that have been described in the literature and addresses the benefits and limitations of these techniques and tools. The complex nature of the problem of drug misuse and abuse is discussed, and while no single monitoring technique can fully address this complex issue, we describe how multiple approaches to adherence monitoring may be employed to sustain the prudent use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain. Key words: Opioids, adherence monitoring, drug abuse, non-compliance, misuse, addiction, urine drug testing

Background: Epidural injection of corticosteroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. However, there has been a lack of well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections. Consequently, debate continues as to the value of epidural steroid injections in managing spinal pain. Objective: To evaluate the effect of various types of epidural steroid injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), in managing various types of chronic spinal pain (axial and radicular) in the neck and low back regions. Study Design: A systematic review utilizing the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials, and criteria of Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials were used. Methods: Data sources included relevant English literature performed by a librarian experienced in Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), as well as manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years. Three reviewers independently assessed the trials for the quality of their methods. Subgroup analyses were performed among trials with different control groups, with different techniques of epidural injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), with different injection sites (cervical/thoracic, lumbar/sacral), and with timing of outcome measurement (short- and long-term). Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure is pain relief. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term improvement is defined as 6 weeks or less, and long-term relief is defined as 6 weeks or longer. Results: In managing lumbar radicular pain with interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. In managing cervical radiculopathy with cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is moderate. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radicular pain is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing cervical nerve root pain is moderate. The evidence is moderate in managing lumbar radicular pain in post lumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief, in managing chronic pain of lumbar radiculopathy and postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. Conclusion: There is moderate evidence for interlaminar epidurals in the cervical spine and limited evidence in the lumbar spine for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term improvement in managing nerve root pain. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term relief in managing nerve root pain and chronic low back pain. Key words: Spinal pain, low back pain, cervicalgia, epidural steroids, interlaminar, caudal, transforaminal, radiculopathy, axial pain, postlaminectomy syndrome, failed back surgery syndrome.

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 II 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 II 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 II 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. Key words: Chronic pain, spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections

lation of the essentials of guidelines, a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, followed by statements regarding relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. Methods: Consistent with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) hierarchical and comprehensive standards, the elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentations, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), and blinded peer review. Evidence was designated based on scientifi c merit as Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), or Level V (indeterminate). Results: After an extensive review and analysis of the literature, the authors utilized two systematic reviews, two narrative reviews, 32 studies included in prior systematic reviews, and 10 additional studies in the synthesis of evidence. The evidence was limited. Conclusion: These guidelines evaluated the evidence for the use of opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and recommendations for management. These guidelines are based on the best available scientifi c evidence and do not constitute infl exible treatment recommendations. Because of the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard

Background Effective use of opioids in patients with chronic pain has been hindered by their potential for drug abuse. There are no reliable means to distinguish those who use the opioids in an inappropriate manner from those who do not. Objective To develop a screening tool to distinguish patients at risk for inappropriate prescription opioid use among patients with chronic pain. Methods We conducted a case-control study of adults with chronic pain. Patients dismissed from the pain clinic for inappropriate prescription opioid use were placed in the "inappropriate opioid use group". Randomly chosen patients with chronic pain on opioids, who did not have any evidence of inappropriate use were in the "control group". We performed a review of the clinical notes of all the patients enrolled in the study and extracted clinical criteria. We analyzed these criteria to identify independent predictors of inappropriate opioid use. Based on these criteria, a screening tool was developed to stratify patients into low-and high-risk categories. This screening tool was then applied to both groups. Results There were 107 patients in the inappropriate use group and 103 patients in the control group. On multivariate analysis, six criteria were significantly associated with inappropriate drug abuse. These included focus on opioids, opioid overuse, other substance use, nonfunctional status, unclear etiology of pain, and exaggeration of pain. A screening tool was developed by giving one point to each of these criteria so that a patient's score can range from 0 to 6. In the "inappropriate opioid use" group, 77% of patients scored more than 3 points as opposed to 16% in the control group. In the "inappropriate opioid use group", 23% scored 3 or less, in comparison to 84% in the control group. Conclusion We have identified six clinical criteria, which were significantly more prevalent in the 'inappropriate opioid use group'. Using these criteria, we have developed a screening tool that appears to predict inappropriate use of prescription opioids in patients with chronic pain.

Controlled substance abuse has increased at an alarming rate. However, available evidence suggests a wide variance in the use of controlled substances, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The primary objective of controlled substance guidelines by American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) is to provide guidance for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of chronic pain. It is anticipated that these practical guidelines will improve quality of care, patient access, and quality of life. Additional benefits include improved treatment efficiency and efficacy, and cost containment by improving the risk-benefit ratio of treating patients with chronic pain. Further goals of this manuscript are to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic pain patients with medically appropriate controlled substances, and to reduce the incidence of drug diversion. These guidelines also reinforce the need for systematic evaluation and ongoing care of patients with chronic or persistent pain. ASIPP controlled substance guidelines also provide a discussion of the epidemiology of chronic pain, the role of controlled substances in treating chronic pain, various aspects of drug abuse, pharmacological considerations, clinical effectiveness of controlled substances, options for treatment monitoring and drug testing and a review of terminology used in addiction medicine. These guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. It is expected that a provider will establish a plan of care on a case-by-case basis, taking into account an individual patient's medical condition, personal needs, and preferences, and the physician's experience. Based on an individual patient's needs, controlled substance prescribing and treatment different from that outlined here may be warranted. These guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

The actions and regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are crucial to the entire population of the U.S., specifically the public who take a multitude of drugs and providers who prescribe drugs and devices. Further, the FDA is relevant to investors, specifically in regards to biotech and pharmaceutical companies involved in developing new drugs. The FDA has been criticized for a lack of independence on the one hand and excessive regulatory and expanding authority without evidence and consistency of the actions on the other hand. The FDA approved a single-entity, long-acting, hydrocodone product (Zohydro, Zogenix, San Diego, CA) on October 25, 2013, against the recommendation of the FDA's own appointed scientific advisory panel, which voted 11 to 2 against the approval of Zohydro. Subsequent to the approval, multiple consumer safety organizations, health care agencies, addiction treatment providers, professional organizations, and other groups on the frontline of the opioid addiction epidemic have expressed concern. In addition, the US Congress and various state attorneys general raised serious concerns about the approval of Zohydro, which is highly addictive and may enhance the opioid addiction epidemic. Supporters of Zohydro contend that it is necessary and essential to manage chronic pain and improve functional status with no additional risk. Over the past 15 years, prescriptions for opioids have skyrocketed with the United States consuming more than 84% of the global oxycodone and more than 99% of the hydrocodone supply. The sharp increase in opioid prescribing has led to parallel increases in opioid addiction and overdose deaths, surpassing motor vehicle injuries in the U.S. Recent studies assessing the trends of medical use and misuse of opioid analgesics from 2000 to 2011 have concluded that the present trend of the continued increase in the medical use of opioid analgesics appears to contribute to increasing misuse, resulting in multiple health consequences, despite numerous regulations enforced by multiple organizations. The approval of Zohydro and its defense from the FDA were based on a misunderstanding of the prevalence of chronic severe disabling pain. Based on inaccurate data from the Institute of Medicine, in part caused by conflicts of interest, 100 million persons have been described to suffer from severe pain - the correct number is 22.6 million. This manuscript analyzes 3 important principles of drug approval and utilization based on safety, efficacy, and medical necessity. Based on the limited literature that the authors were able to review including that which was submitted to the FDA by the manufacturers, it appears the safety, efficacy, and medical necessity were not demonstrated. In fact, the study submitted to the FDA showed a 50% pain improvement in only 48% of the patients in the treatment group and 21% of the patients in the placebo group at 85 day follow-up. This is a statistically significant result but its clinical relevance is unknown. The FDA approval decision occurring against the backdrop of the advisory panel recommendation is concerning and may result in serious consequences in the future.