Recent Advancements in Epidural Etanercept for Pain Management in Radiculopathy: A Literature Review

The most common etiology of low back and neck pain is associated with spinal cord pathologies. Regardless of origin, low back and neck pain are some of the most common causes of disability worldwide. Mechanical compression due to spinal cord diseases, such as degenerative disc disorders, can lead to radiculopathy, which manifests as numbness or tingling and can progress to loss of muscle function. Conservative management, such as physical therapy, has not been proven effective in treating radiculopathy, and surgical treatments have more risks than benefits for most patients. Epidural disease-modifying medications, such as Etanercept, have been recently explored due to their minimal invasiveness and direct effects on inhibiting tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Therefore, this literature review aims to evaluate epidural Etanercept's effect on radiculopathy caused by degenerative disc diseases. Epidural Etanercept has been shown to improve radiculopathy in patients with lumbar disc degeneration, spinal stenosis, and sciatica. Further research is needed to compare the effectiveness of Etanercept with commonly used treatments such as steroids and analgesia.

Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review

Acute low back pain (LBP) stands as a leading cause of activity limitation and work absenteeism, and its associated healthcare expenditures are expected to become substantial when acute LBP develops into a chronic and even refractory condition. Therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent progression to chronic pain, for which the management is particularly challenging and the most effective pharmacological therapy is still controversial. Current guideline treatment recommendations vary and are mostly driven by expertise with opinion differing across different interventions. Thus, it is difficult to formulate evidence-based guidance when the relatively few randomized clinical trials have explored the diagnosis and management of LBP while employing different selection criteria, statistical analyses, and outcome measurements. This narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current acute LBP management by discussing the unmet needs and areas of improvement from bench-to-bedside, and proposes multimodal analgesia as the way forward to attain an effective and prolonged pain relief and functional recovery in patients with acute LBP.

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.

First Evaluation Switching From Ropivacaine to Highly Concentrated Bupivacaine in Intrathecal Mixtures for Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal drug delivery is widely used for intractable cancer pain treatment. A combination of drugs with morphine and bupivacaine is recommended in first line therapy. In France, we use ropivacaine 10 mg/mL instead of bupivacaine 5 mg/mL, the only concentration available. Bupivacaine 40 mg/mL has been available in France only since July 2020 under temporary authorization of use.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy by pain assessment, to analyze drug dosage changes, to report adverse events (AEs) and conversion ratios switching from ropivacaine to bupivacaine. Secondary objective was to evaluate costs differences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted this retrospective follow-up monocentric study within the Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest (ICO) Pain Department in Angers, France. We included 14 patients aged 18 years and above, implanted with an Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems (IDDS) for cancer pain treatment and followed up at ICO from July 2020 to February 2021 after switching from ropivacaine to bupivacaine. We used a continuous infusion mode and Bolus could be added through Personal Therapy Manager (PTM).

RESULTS

The median conversion ratio between ropivacaine and bupivacaine was 0.68 (0.65; 0.69) and resulted in no significant change in numeric rating scale evaluation (p = 0.10). We observed moderate and rapidly reversible AEs such as clinical hypotension (29%) and motor block after bolus (21%). The estimated median hospital cost per day was significantly lower (p = 0.05) for the bupivacaine refills than for the last ropivacaine pump refill, decreasing from US$ 61.7 (49.6; 70.5) to US$ 50.4 (45.9; 60.4). The median reimbursement per day from the National Health Insurance (NHI) was three times lower for bupivacaine pump refill when compared to the last ropivacaine pump refill (p < 0.01), decreasing from US$ 179.10 (156.79; 182.91) to US$ 64.59 (59.85; 71.89).

CONCLUSION

Switching from ropivacaine to bupivacaine in IDDS appears more efficacious while remaining just as secure, and at lower cost.