Caring for patients with pain during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel

Chronic pain causes significant suffering, limitation of daily activities and reduced quality of life. Infection from COVID-19 is responsible for an ongoing pandemic that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, leading to systemic complications and death. Led by the World Health Organization, healthcare systems across the world are engaged in limiting the spread of infection. As a result, all elective surgical procedures, outpatient procedures and patient visits, including pain management services, have been postponed or cancelled. This has affected the care of chronic pain patients. Most are elderly with multiple comorbidities, which puts them at risk of COVID-19 infection. Important considerations that need to be recognised during this pandemic for chronic pain patients include: ensuring continuity of care and pain medications, especially opioids; use of telemedicine; maintaining biopsychosocial management; use of anti-inflammatory drugs; use of steroids; and prioritising necessary procedural visits. There are no guidelines to inform physicians and healthcare providers engaged in caring for patients with pain during this period of crisis. We assembled an expert panel of pain physicians, psychologists and researchers from North America and Europe to formulate recommendations to guide practice. As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve rapidly, these recommendations are based on the best available evidence and expert opinion at this present time and may need adapting to local workplace policies.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: evidence and theory for mechanisms of action

Well-established in the field of bioelectronic medicine, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) offers an implantable, non-pharmacologic treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain conditions. Chronic pain is a widely heterogenous syndrome with regard to both pathophysiology and the resultant phenotype. Despite advances in our understanding of SCS-mediated antinociception, there still exists limited evidence clarifying the pathways recruited when patterned electric pulses are applied to the epidural space. The rapid clinical implementation of novel SCS methods including burst, high frequency and dorsal root ganglion SCS has provided the clinician with multiple options to treat refractory chronic pain. While compelling evidence for safety and efficacy exists in support of these novel paradigms, our understanding of their mechanisms of action (MOA) dramatically lags behind clinical data. In this review, we reconstruct the available basic science and clinical literature that offers support for mechanisms of both paresthesia spinal cord stimulation (P-SCS) and paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (PF-SCS). While P-SCS has been heavily examined since its inception, PF-SCS paradigms have recently been clinically approved with the support of limited preclinical research. Thus, wide knowledge gaps exist between their clinical efficacy and MOA. To close this gap, many rich investigative avenues for both P-SCS and PF-SCS are underway, which will further open the door for paradigm optimization, adjunctive therapies and new indications for SCS. As our understanding of these mechanisms evolves, clinicians will be empowered with the possibility of improving patient care using SCS to selectively target specific pathophysiological processes in chronic pain.

Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Acute Pain Management From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Ketamine infusions have been used for decades to treat acute pain, but a recent surge in usage has made the infusions a mainstay of treatment in emergency departments, in the perioperative period in individuals with refractory pain, and in opioid-tolerant patients. The widespread variability in patient selection, treatment parameters, and monitoring indicates a need for the creation of consensus guidelines.

METHODS

The development of acute pain ketamine guidelines grew as a corollary from the genesis of chronic pain ketamine guidelines. The charge for the development of acute pain ketamine guidelines was provided by the Boards of Directors of both the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine, who approved the document along with the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters. The committee chair developed questions based on input from the committee during conference calls, which the committee then refined. Groups of 3 to 5 panel members and the committee chair were responsible for answering individual questions. After preliminary consensus was achieved, the entire committee made further revisions via e-mail and conference calls.

RESULTS

Consensus guidelines were prepared in the following areas: indications, contraindications for acute pain and whether they differ from those for chronic pain, the evidence for the use of ketamine as an adjunct to opioid-based therapy, the evidence supporting patient-controlled ketamine analgesia, the use of nonparenteral forms of ketamine, and the subanesthetic dosage range and whether the evidence supports those dosages for acute pain. The group was able to reach consensus on the answers to all questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the use of ketamine for acute pain in a variety of contexts, including as a stand-alone treatment, as an adjunct to opioids, and, to a lesser extent, as an intranasal formulation. Contraindications for acute pain are similar to those for chronic pain, partly based on the observation that the dosage ranges are similar. Larger studies evaluating different acute pain conditions are needed to enhance patient selection, determine the effectiveness of nonparenteral ketamine alternatives, define optimal treatment parameters, and develop protocols optimizing safety and access to care.

Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Chronic Pain From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Over the past 2 decades, the use of intravenous ketamine infusions as a treatment for chronic pain has increased dramatically, with wide variation in patient selection, dosing, and monitoring. This has led to a chorus of calls from various sources for the development of consensus guidelines.

METHODS

In November 2016, the charge for developing consensus guidelines was approved by the boards of directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and, shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pain Medicine. In late 2017, the completed document was sent to the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters, after which additional modifications were made. Panel members were selected by the committee chair and both boards of directors based on their expertise in evaluating clinical trials, past research experience, and clinical experience in developing protocols and treating patients with ketamine. Questions were developed and refined by the committee, and the groups responsible for addressing each question consisted of modules composed of 3 to 5 panel members in addition to the committee chair. Once a preliminary consensus was achieved, sections were sent to the entire panel, and further revisions were made. In addition to consensus guidelines, a comprehensive narrative review was performed, which formed part of the basis for guidelines.

RESULTS

Guidelines were prepared for the following areas: indications; contraindications; whether there was evidence for a dose-response relationship, or a minimum or therapeutic dose range; whether oral ketamine or another N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist was a reasonable treatment option as a follow-up to infusions; preinfusion testing requirements; settings and personnel necessary to administer and monitor treatment; the use of preemptive and rescue medications to address adverse effects; and what constitutes a positive treatment response. The group was able to reach consensus on all questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the use of ketamine for chronic pain, but the level of evidence varies by condition and dose range. Most studies evaluating the efficacy of ketamine were small and uncontrolled and were either unblinded or ineffectively blinded. Adverse effects were few and the rate of serious adverse effects was similar to placebo in most studies, with higher dosages and more frequent infusions associated with greater risks. Larger studies, evaluating a wider variety of conditions, are needed to better quantify efficacy, improve patient selection, refine the therapeutic dose range, determine the effectiveness of nonintravenous ketamine alternatives, and develop a greater understanding of the long-term risks of repeated treatments.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Recommendations for Infection Prevention and Management

INTRODUCTION

The use of neurostimulation for pain has been an established therapy for many decades and is a major tool in the arsenal to treat neuropathic pain syndromes. Level I evidence has recently been presented to substantiate the therapy, but this is balanced against the risk of complications of an interventional technique.

METHODS

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society convened an international panel of well published and diverse physicians to examine the best practices for infection mitigation and management in patients undergoing neurostimulation. The NACC recommendations are based on evidence scoring and peer-reviewed literature. Where evidence is lacking the panel added expert opinion to establish recommendations.

RESULTS

The NACC has made recommendations to improve care by reducing infection and managing this complication when it occurs. These evidence-based recommendations should be considered best practices in the clinical implantation of neurostimulation devices.

CONCLUSION

Adhering to established standards can improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of infectious complications in patients receiving neurostimulation.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury

INTRODUCTION

Neurostimulation involves the implantation of devices to stimulate the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral or cranial nerves for the purpose of modulating the neural activity of the targeted structures to achieve specific therapeutic effects. Surgical placement of neurostimulation devices is associated with risks of neurologic injury, as well as possible sequelae from the local or systemic effects of the intervention. The goal of the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is to improve the safety of neurostimulation.

METHODS

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) is dedicated to improving neurostimulation efficacy and patient safety. Over the past two decades the INS has established a process to use best evidence to improve care. This article updates work published by the NACC in 2014. NACC authors were chosen based on nomination to the INS executive board and were selected based on publications, academic acumen, international impact, and diversity. In areas in which evidence was lacking, the NACC used expert opinion to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The INS has developed recommendations that when properly utilized should improve patient safety and reduce the risk of injury and associated complications with implantable devices.

CONCLUSIONS

On behalf of INS, the NACC has published recommendations intended to reduce the risk of neurological injuries and complications while implanting stimulators.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients With Medically Refractory Occipital Neuralgia: Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline

BACKGROUND

Occipital neuralgia (ON) is a disorder characterized by sharp, electrical, paroxysmal pain, originating from the occiput and extending along the posterior scalp, in the distribution of the greater, lesser, and/or third occipital nerve. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) constitutes a promising therapy for medically refractory ON because it is reversible with minimal side effects and has shown continued efficacy with long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic literature review and provide treatment recommendations for the use of ONS for the treatment of patients with medically refractory ON.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library to locate articles published between 1966 and April 2014 using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to ONS as a means to treat ON. A second literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library to locate articles published between 1966 and June 2014 using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to interventions that predict response to ONS in ON. The strength of evidence of each article that underwent full text review and the resulting strength of recommendation were graded according to the guidelines development methodology of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Guidelines Committee.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion in this guideline. All articles provided Class III Level evidence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the data derived from this systematic literature review, the following Level III recommendation can be made: the use of ONS is a treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON.

Occipital Neuralgia Diagnosis and Treatment: The Role of Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Occipital neuralgia is a form of neuropathic type of pain in the distribution of the greater, lesser, or third occipital nerves. Patients with intractable occipital neuralgia do not respond well to conservative treatment modalities. This group of patients represents a significant therapeutic challenge and may require interventional or invasive therapeutic approaches.

PURPOSE

Occipital neuralgia frequently occurs as a result of nerve entrapment or irritation by a tight muscle or vascular structure, or nerve trauma during whiplash injury. Although the entrapment theory is most commonly accepted, it lacks strong clinical evidence to support it. Accordingly, the available interventional approaches have been targeting the accessible part of the occipital nerve rather than the entrapped part.

CONCLUSION

Bedside sonography is an excellent imaging modality for soft tissue structures. Ultrasound not only allows distinguishing normal from abnormal entrapped occipital nerves, it can identify the level and the cause of entrapment as well. Ultrasound guidance allows precise occipital nerve blocks and interventions at the level of the "specific" entrapment location rather than into the site of "presumed" entrapment.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain.

METHODS

The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: avoidance and treatment of complications of neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need for guidance regarding safety and risk reduction for implantable neurostimulation devices. The INS convened an international committee of experts in the field to explore the evidence and clinical experience regarding safety, risks, and steps to risk reduction to improve outcomes.

METHODS

The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) reviewed the world literature in English by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to evaluate the evidence for ways to reduce risks of neurostimulation therapies. This evidence, obtained from the relevant literature, and clinical experience obtained from the convened consensus panel were used to make final recommendations on improving safety and reducing risks.

RESULTS

The NACC determined that the ability to reduce risk associated with the use of neurostimulation devices is a valuable goal and possible with best practice. The NACC has recommended several practice modifications that will lead to improved care. The NACC also sets out the minimum training standards necessary to become an implanting physician.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC has identified the possibility of improving patient care and safety through practice modification. We recommend that all implanting physicians review this guidance and consider adapting their practice accordingly.

Safety and efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves for the management of chronic migraine: long-term results from a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies evaluated short-term efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the occipital nerves for managing chronic migraine. We present 52-week safety and efficacy results from an open-label extension of a randomized, sham-controlled trial.

METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study, patients were implanted with a neurostimulation system, randomized to an active or control group for 12 weeks, and received open-label treatment for an additional 40 weeks. Outcomes collected included number of headache days, pain intensity, migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), Zung Pain and Distress (PAD), direct patient reports of headache pain relief, quality of life, satisfaction and adverse events. Statistical tests assessed change from baseline to 52 weeks using paired t-tests. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses of all patients (N = 157) and analyses of only patients who met criteria for intractable chronic migraine (ICM; N = 125) were performed.

RESULTS

Headache days were significantly reduced by 6.7 (±8.4) days in the ITT population (p < 0.001) and by 7.7 (±8.7) days in the ICM population (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients who achieved a 30% and 50% reduction in headache days and/or pain intensity were 59.5% and 47.8%, respectively. MIDAS and Zung PAD scores were significantly reduced for both populations. Excellent or good headache relief was reported by 65.4% of the ITT population and 67.9% of the ICM population. More than half the patients in both cohorts were satisfied with the headache relief provided by the device. A total of 183 device/procedure-related adverse events occurred during the study, of which 18 (8.6%) required hospitalization and 85 (40.7%) required surgical intervention; 70% of patients experienced an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the 12-month efficacy of PNS of the occipital nerves for headache pain and disability associated with chronic migraine. More emphasis on adverse event mitigation is needed in future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials.gov (NCT00615342).