The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Narrative review of intrathecal drug delivery (IDD): indications, devices and potential complications

The management of chronic refractory pain (non-neoplastic and cancer-related pain) remains a therapeutic challenge. The continuous intrathecal (IT) administration of drugs may play an important role in the possible management options. Intrathecal drug delivery devices (IDDDs) may be effective for patients with refractory chronic pain. Therefore, they may be adopted for non-oncologic pain in patients with compression fractures, spondylolisthesis, spondylosis, back surgery failure syndrome and spinal stenosis. Oncologic patients can benefit from these treatments in a variable way according to tumor characteristics, prognosis, periprocedural imaging and risk of disease progression. In this review, we describe the most commonly used drugs (opioids and non-opioids), their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features and indications of use. The most used drugs are morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methadone, bupivacaine, clonidine, and ketamine. Patient evaluation before the device implantation should be based on clinical examination, medical records assessment and psychometric evaluation. The infusion pumps available on the market are both non-programmable (with continuous IT deliver of drugs) and programmable (with variable deliver of drugs according to their flow rate). Moreover, we describe the procedure of implantation and the potential complications of IT drug delivery (such as bleeding, infection, loss of cerebrospinal fluid, wound seroma, loss of catheter pump propellant).

Intrathecal Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Review of Morphine and Ziconotide as Firstline Options

Objectives

To evaluate the evidence for morphine and ziconotide as firstline intrathecal (IT) analgesia agents for patients with chronic pain.

Methods

Medline was searched (through July 2017) for “ziconotide” or “morphine” AND “intrathecal” AND “chronic pain,” with results limited to studies in human populations.

Results

The literature supports the use of morphine (based primarily on noncontrolled, prospective, and retrospective studies) and ziconotide (based on randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies) as first-choice IT therapies. The 2016 Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) guidelines recommended both morphine and ziconotide as firstline IT monotherapy for localized and diffuse chronic pain of cancer-related and non–cancer-related etiologies; however, one consensus point emphasized ziconotide use, unless contraindicated, as firstline IT therapy in patients with chronic non–cancer-related pain. Initial IT therapy choice should take into consideration individual patient characteristics (e.g., pain location, response to previous therapies, comorbid medical conditions, psychiatric history). Trialing is recommended to assess medication efficacy and tolerability. For both morphine and ziconotide, the PACC guidelines recommend conservative initial dosing strategies. Due to its narrow therapeutic window, ziconotide requires careful dose titration. Ziconotide is contraindicated in patients with a history of psychosis. IT morphine administration may be associated with serious side effects (e.g., respiratory depression, catheter tip granuloma), require dose increases, and cause dependence over time.

Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, morphine and ziconotide are recommended as firstline IT monotherapy for cancer-related and non–cancer-related pain. The choice of first-in-pump therapy should take into consideration patient characteristics and the advantages and disadvantages of each medication.