A pilot trial of intravenous pamidronate for chronic low back pain

Management of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: Review Update 2022

A vertebral fracture is the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) cause a variety of morbidities and deaths. There are currently few "gold standard treatments" outlined for the management of OVFs in terms of quantity and quality. Conservative treatment is the primary treatment option for OVFs. The treatment of pain includes short-term bed rest, analgesic medication, anti-osteoporotic medications, exercise, and a brace. Numerous reports have been made on studies for vertebral augmentation (VA), including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. There is still debate and controversy about the effectiveness of VA in comparison with conservative treatment. Until more robust data are available, current evidence does not support the routine use of VA for OVF. Despite the fact that the majority of OVFs heal without surgery, 15%-35% of patients with an unstable fracture, persistent intractable back pain, or severely collapsed vertebra that causes a neurologic deficit, kyphosis, or chronic pseudarthrosis frequently require surgery. Because no single approach can guarantee the best surgical outcomes, customized surgical techniques are required. Surgeons must stay current on developments in the osteoporotic spine field and be open to new treatment options. Osteoporosis management and prevention are critical to lowering the risk of future OVFs. Clinical studies on bisphosphonate's effects on fracture healing are lacking. Teriparatide was intermittently administered, which dramatically improved spinal fusion and fracture healing while lowering mortality risk. According to the available literature, there are no standard management methods for OVFs. More multimodal approaches, including conservative and surgical treatment, VA, and medications that treat osteoporosis and promote fracture healing, are required to improve the quality of the majority of guidelines.

Oral Zoledronic acid bisphosphonate for the treatment of chronic low back pain with associated Modic changes: A pilot randomized controlled trial

To assess the safety and efficacy of oral 50 mg Zoledronic acid (ZA) bisphosphate once-a-week for 6-weeks to placebo among patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and Modic changes (MC) on MRI. A parallel, double-blinded randomized controlled study was performed at a single center, consisted of 25 subjects with cLBP and MC that received ZA (n = 13) or placebo (n = 12). Evaluation was at baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, 3-months and 6-months for assessment of LBP/leg pain intensity, disability (Oswestry-Disability-Index: ODI), health-related quality-of-life (RAND-36), and mental component summary scores (MCS). Type 2 MC at baseline (56%) were prevalent. In the ZA group, LBP intensity was lower at 4-weeks in comparison to placebo (5.1 ± 1.9 vs. 6.9 ± 1.8, p = 0.038) (minimal clinically important difference [MCID] = 1.5). LBP intensity reduced at 4-weeks and 3-months in the ZA-treated group in comparison to baseline. Although there was no difference in ODI, subscale RAND-36 metrics for physical function (p = 0.038), energy/fatigue (p = 0.040) and pain (p = 0.003) were improved at 3-months compared to placebo, with moderate significant difference for pain at 6-months (p = 0.051). Correlated MCS scores to baseline also improved at 3-months (p = 0.035) and 6-months (p = 0.028) by 6.9 and 6.8, respectively, (MCID = 3.8). A reduction in MC endplate affected area at 6-month follow-up was noted in the ZA group (-0.67 ± 0.69 cm² ), while in the placebo group no change in size was observed (0.0 ± 0.15; p = 0.041). Three subjects withdrew from the study and no long-lasting adverse events. Oral ZA was a safe and effective treatment that reduced MC volume, improved LBP symptoms and quality-of-life measures in cLBP subjects with MCs.

Current Concepts in the Management of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: A Narrative Review

Vertebral fractures are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture and can increase morbidity and mortality. To date, the guidelines for managing osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) are limited in quantity and quality, and there is no gold standard treatment for these fractures. Conservative treatment is considered the primary treatment option for OVFs and includes pain relief through shortterm bed rest, analgesics, antiosteoporotic drugs, exercise, and braces. Studies on vertebral augmentation (VA) including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been widely reported, but there is still debate and controversy regarding the effectiveness of VA when compared with conservative treatment, and the routine use of VA for OVF is not supported by current evidence. Although most OVFs heal well, approximately 15%-35% of patients with unstable fractures, chronic intractable back pain, severely collapsed vertebra (leading to neurological deficits and kyphosis), or chronic pseudarthrosis frequently require surgery. Given that there is no single technique for optimizing surgical outcomes in OVFs, tailored surgical techniques are needed. Surgeons need to pay attention to advances in osteoporotic spinal surgery and should be open to novel thoughts and techniques. Prevention and management of osteoporosis is the key element in reducing the risk of subsequent OVFs. Bisphosphonates and teriparatide are mainstay drugs for improving fracture healing in OVF. The effects of bisphosphonates on fracture healing have not been clinically evaluated. The intermittent administration of teriparatide significantly enhanced spinal fusion and fracture healing and reduced mortality risk. Based on the current literature, there is still a lack of standard management strategies for OVF. There is a need for greater efforts through multimodal approaches including conservative treatment, surgery, osteoporosis treatment, and drugs that promote fracture healing to improve the quality of the guidelines.

Extra-skeletal effects of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are pyrophosphate analogues widely used in diseases related to bone loss and increased bone turnover. Their high affinity for bone hydroxyapatite makes them ideal agents for bone diseases, while preventing them from reaching other cells and tissues. Data of the last decade, however, have demonstrated extra-skeletal tissue deposition and a variety of non-skeletal effects have been recently recognized. As such, BPs have been shown to exert anti-tumor, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic effects. In addition, new delivery systems (liposomes, nanoparticles, hydrogels) are being developed in an effort to expand BPs clinical application to extra-skeletal tissues and enhance their overall therapeutic spectrum and effectiveness. In the present review, we outline current data on extra-skeletal actions of bisphosphonates and attempt to unravel the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Effect of Zoledronic Acid and Denosumab in Patients With Low Back Pain and Modic Change: A Proof-of-Principle Trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab on low back pain (LBP) and Modic change (MC) over 6 months. Adults aged ≥40 years with significant LBP for at least 6 months duration and MC (type 1, 2, or mixed) were randomized to receive ZA (5 mg/100 mL), denosumab (60 mg), or placebo. LBP was measured monthly by visual analogue scale (VAS) and the LBP Rating Scale (RS). MC was measured from MRIs of T₁₂ -S₁ vertebrae at screening and 6 months. A total of 103 participants with moderate/severe LBP (mean VAS = 57 mm; mean RS = 18) and median total MC area 538 mm² were enrolled. Compared to placebo, LBP reduced significantly at 6 months in the ZA group for RS (-3.3; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.7) but not VAS (-8.2; 95% CI, -18.8 to +2.4) with similar findings for denosumab (RS, -3.0; 95% CI, -5.7 to -0.3; VAS, -10.7; 95% CI, -21.7 to +0.2). There was little change in areal MC size overall and no difference between groups with the exception of denosumab in those with type 1 Modic change (-22.1 mm² ; 95% CI, -41.5 to -2.7). In post hoc analyses, both medications significantly reduced VAS LBP in participants with milder disc degeneration and non-neuropathic pain, and denosumab reduced VAS LBP in those with type 1 MC over 6 months, compared to placebo. Adverse events were more frequent in the ZA group. These results suggests a potential therapeutic role for ZA and denosumab in MC-associated LBP. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Anesthetic Management in a Gravida with Type IV Osteogenesis Imperfecta

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is an inherited disorder of the connective tissues caused by abnormalities in collagen formation. OI may present many challenges to the anesthesiologist. A literature review reveals a wide range of implications, from basic positioning to management of the difficult airway. We present the anesthetic management of a 25-year-old gravid woman with OI, fetal demise, and possible uterine rupture, admitted for an exploratory laparotomy.

Emerging targets in treating pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview on drug targets and emerging pharmacological treatment options for chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chronic pain poses an enormous socioeconomic burden for the more than 30% of people who suffer from it, costing over $600 billion per year in the USA. In recent years, there has been a surge in preclinical and clinical research endeavors to try to stem this epidemic. Preclinical studies have identified a wide array of potential targets, with some of the most promising translational research being performed on novel opioid receptors, cannabinoid receptors, selective ion channel blockers, cytokine inhibitors, nerve growth factor inhibitors, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists, glial cell inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

SUMMARY

There are many obstacles for the development of effective medications to treat chronic pain, including the inherent challenges in identifying pathophysiological mechanisms, the overlap and multiplicity of pain pathways, and off-target adverse effects stemming from the ubiquity of drug target receptor sites and the lack of highly selective receptor ligands. Despite these barriers, the number and diversity of potential therapies have continued to grow, to include disease-modifying and individualized drug treatments.

Paraspinous Lidocaine Injection for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

In this large, sham-controlled, randomized trial, we examined the efficacy of the combination of standard treatment and paraspinous lidocaine injection compared with standard therapy alone in subjects with chronic low back pain. There is little research-based evidence for the routine clinical use of paraspinous lidocaine injection for low back pain. A total of 378 subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomized to 3 groups: paraspinous lidocaine injection, analgesics, and exercises (group 1, LID-INJ); sham paraspinous lidocaine injection, analgesics, and exercises (group 2, SH-INJ); and analgesics and exercises (group 3, STD-TTR). A blinded rater assessed the study outcomes at 3 time points: baseline, after treatment, and after 3 months of follow-up. There were increased frequency of pain responses and better low back functional scores in the LID-INJ group compared with the SH-INJ and STD-TTR groups. These effects remained at the 3-month follow-up but differed between all 3 groups. There were significant changes in pain threshold immediately after treatment, supporting the effects of this intervention in reducing central sensitization. Paraspinous lidocaine injection therapy is not associated with a higher risk of adverse effects compared with conventional treatment and sham injection. Its effects on hyperalgesia might correlate with changes in central sensitization.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02387567.

PERSPECTIVE

There are few data to support paraspinous lidocaine injection use in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Our results show that this therapy when combined with standard therapy significantly increases the number of responders versus standard treatment alone. Its effects on hyperalgesia might correlate with a change in central sensitization.

The Number of Ratings Needed for Valid Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials: Replication and Extension

OBJECTIVES

To provide additional empirical findings regarding the number of pain ratings needed to obtain valid measures for assessing outcomes in pain clinical trials.

DESIGN

Secondary analyses of data from a clinical study examining the effects of psychological treatments on pain. Eleven adults with multiple sclerosis and chronic pain reported on four domains of pain intensity (current pain and 24-hour recalled worst, least, and average pain) on four occasions before and after receiving 16 sessions of psychological pain treatments. We evaluated the reliability and validity of four single ratings and 16 different composite scores.

RESULTS

Many of the single pain ratings were inadequately reliable while almost all of the composite scores, including the scores created from two ratings, evidenced adequate to excellent reliability. There was a noticeable increase in validity (ability to detect treatment effects) as the number of ratings used increased from one to two. However, there was little change in the validity as the number of items used to create composite scores increased from 2 to 3 or more. The findings also indicated that the scores assessing recalled worst pain were more valid than the scores assessing any of the other pain intensity domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite pain intensity scores created from two individual ratings of recalled pain appear to be adequately valid for detecting treatment effects. Moreover, the findings indicate that the selection of the pain intensity domain to use as a primary outcome variable may play a more important role than increasing reliability by obtaining more assessments; specifically, ratings of recalled worst pain may be more valid for detecting treatment effects than ratings of average pain.