Comparative Effectiveness of Targeted Intrathecal Drug Delivery Using a Combination of Bupivacaine with Either Low-Dose Fentanyl or Hydromorphone in Chronic Back Pain Patients with Lumbar Postlaminectomy Syndrome

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)®: Intrathecal Drug Delivery Guidance on Safety and Therapy Optimization When Treating Chronic Noncancer Pain

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians and scientists based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on intrathecal drug delivery in treating chronic pain. This Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)® project, created more than two decades ago, intends to provide evidence-based guidance for important safety and efficacy issues surrounding intrathecal drug delivery and its impact on the practice of neuromodulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when PACC® last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence is scant.

RESULTS

The PACC® examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.

CONCLUSIONS

The PACC® recommends best practices regarding intrathecal drug delivery to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)®: Updates on Clinical Pharmacology and Comorbidity Management in Intrathecal Drug Delivery for Cancer Pain

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on using intrathecal drug delivery in chronic pain treatment. This Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)® project's scope is to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical pharmacology and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery for cancer pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus from 2017 (when the PACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations were based on the strength of evidence, and when evidence was scant, recommendations were based on expert consensus.

RESULTS

The PACC evaluated the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based expert opinion recommendations to guide best practices in treating cancer pain. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.

CONCLUSIONS

The PACC recommends best practices regarding the use of intrathecal drug delivery in cancer pain, with an emphasis on managing the unique disease and patient characteristics encountered in oncology. These evidence- and consensus-based expert opinion recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

Efficacy of Continuous Intrathecal Infusion Trialing with a Mixture of Fentanyl and Bupivacaine in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients

Intrathecal trialing is used as a screening prognostic measure prior to intrathecal drug delivery system implant. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a continuous intrathecal infusion of an admixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl in patients with chronic low back pain. Patients with refractory chronic low back pain in the setting of previous lumbar spine surgery and/or chronic vertebral compression fracture(s) were enrolled in a randomized double blind cross-over study comparing saline infusion to infusion of a solution containing bupivacaine combined with low-dose fentanyl over a 14-18 hour period. The primary outcome measure was the change in pain intensity at the end of the screening trial. Patients who experienced significant pain reduction from either infusion relative to baseline pain were offered a permanent implant. In total, 36 patients were enrolled, with 31 patients trialed and 25 implanted. At the end of the screening trial, pain scores, at rest or with activity, decreased appreciably in both groups; however, significantly better improvements occurred in the fentanyl/bupivacaine group compared to saline both with activity and at rest (P = .016 and .006, respectively). Treatment order appeared to affect outcome with saline demonstrating a placebo response. At 12 months following implant, primary and secondary outcome measures continued to be significantly reduced from baseline. Continuous intrathecal delivery of a combination of zlow-dose fentanyl with bupivacaine is superior to saline in screening intrathecal trialing for back pain reduction. With longer term delivery, a sustained reduction of chronic low back pain was also observed.

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.

Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Advances and Applications in the Management of Chronic Pain Patient

Advances in our understanding of the biology of spinal systems in organizing and defining the content of exteroceptive information upon which higher centers define the state of the organism and its role in the regulation of somatic and automatic output, defining the motor response of the organism, along with the unique biology and spatial organization of this space, have resulted in an increased focus on therapeutics targeted at this extracranial neuraxial space. Intrathecal (IT) drug delivery systems (IDDS) are well-established as an effective therapeutic approach to patients with chronic non-malignant or malignant pain and as a tool for management of patients with severe spasticity and to deliver therapeutics that address a myriad of spinal pathologies. The risk to benefit ratio of IDD makes it a useful interventional approach. While not without risks, this approach has a significant therapeutic safety margin when employed using drugs with a validated safety profile and by skilled practioners. The present review addresses current advances in our understanding of the biology and dynamics of the intrathecal space, therapeutic platforms, novel therapeutics, delivery technology, issues of safety and rational implementation of its therapy, with a particular emphasis upon the management of pain.

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.