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

Clinical observation of the treatment of refractory cancer pain with cancer pain information platform and IDDS under home analgesia mode: A retrospective study

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a cancer pain information platform combined with semi-implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems among the patients with refractory cancer pain under a "home analgesia" model. This was a retrospective study. A total of 49 patients underwent semi-implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems with patient-controlled analgesia in conjunction with the establishment of a cancer pain information platform. Numeric rating scales (NRS), Bruggrmann comfort scale (BCS), high-quality sleep duration, and opioid-related adverse effects were recorded at various time points and analyzed: the day on admission (T0), the day of discharge (T1), 30 days post-discharge (T2), 60 days post-discharge (T3), 90 days post-discharge (T4), 120 days post-discharge (T5), 150 days post-discharge (T6), 180 days post-discharge (T7), and the day before death (T8). Compared with T0, NRS significantly decreased and BCS significantly increased at T1 to T8 time points (P < .05). However, NRS and BCS did not show differences at T1 to T8 time points (P > .05). The duration of high-quality sleep was significantly extended, and the incidence of opioid-related adverse effects was significantly reduced. Postoperative complications included 1 case of cerebrospinal fluid leakage, 3 cases of infection at the butterfly needle insertion site, 6 cases of hospital readmission for equipment malfunction, and no cases of respiratory depression. Eleven patients continued standardized antitreatment after IDDS surgery. The mean survival time for all patients was 135.51 ± 102.69 days, and the survival rate at T7 was 30.61%. The cancer pain information platform combined with semi-implantable IDDS is beneficial for the pain management of refractory cancer patients under the "home analgesia" model, improving their quality of life.

Optimizing Preoperative Chronic Pain Management in Elective Spine Surgery Patients: A Narrative Review of Outcomes with Opioid and Adjuvant Pain Therapies

» Chronic preoperative opioid use negatively affects outcomes after spine surgery, with increased complications and reoperations, longer hospital stays, decreased return-to-work rates, worse patient-reported outcomes, and a higher risk of continued opioid use postoperatively.» The definition of chronic opioid use is not consistent across studies, and a more specific and consistent definition will aid in stratifying patients and understanding their risk of inferior outcomes.» Preoperative weaning periods and maximum dose thresholds are being established, which may increase the likelihood of achieving a meaningful improvement after surgery, although higher level evidence studies are needed.» Spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery devices are increasingly used to manage chronic back pain and are equivalent or perhaps even superior to opioid treatment, although few studies exist examining how patients with these devices do after subsequent spine surgery.» Further investigation is needed to determine whether a true mechanistic explanation exists for spine-related analgesia related to spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery devices.

The PATIENT Approach: A New Bundle for the Management of Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is one of the most challenging diseases for physicians as its etiology and manifestations can be extremely varied. Many guidelines have been published and many therapeutic options are nowadays available for the different types of pain. Given the enormous amount of information that healthcare providers must handle, it is not always simple to keep in mind all the phases and strategies to manage pain. We here present the acronym PATIENT (P: patient's perception; A: assessment; T: tailored approach; I: iterative evaluation; E: education; N: non-pharmacological approach; T: team), a bundle which can help to summarize all the steps to follow in the management of chronic pain.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed search with a list of terms specific for every issue of the bundle; only English articles were considered.

RESULTS

We analyzed the literature investigating these topics to provide an overview of the available data on each bundle's issue; their synthesis lead to an algorithm which may allow healthcare providers to undertake every step of a patient's evaluation and management.

DISCUSSION

Pain management is very complex; our PATIENT bundle could be a guide to clinicians to optimize a patient's evaluation and treatment.

Pharmacological Methods of Pain Management: Narrative Review of Medication Used

Background

Pain management is a critical aspect of healthcare, aimed at alleviating discomfort and improving the quality of life for individuals experiencing acute or chronic pain. Pharmacological methods constitute a primary approach to pain management, including a diverse array of drugs that work through different mechanisms.

Aim

Identifying medications commonly employed in pain management, focusing on their mechanism of actions, uses, efficacy and pharmacological applications.

Methods

The methodology involved a systematic search of scientific literature using various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Relevant articles published between 2000 and 2023 were screened for inclusion. The selected studies encompassed original research, review articles, therapeutic guidelines and randomized controlled trials.

Results

The findings of this review suggest that a multimodal approach combining various analgesics can enhance pain relief while minimizing adverse effects. It emphasizes the importance of assessing pain intensity, determining the underlying etiology, and utilizing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pain management outcomes.

Conclusion

Pharmacological methods of pain management are an essential component of pain management strategies to achieve optimal pain relief while minimizing adverse effects. The article concludes with a discussion on emerging trends and future directions in pharmacological pain management, including novel drug targets and advances in drug delivery systems.

Evaluation of the effect of intrathecal GM1 in 24, 48, and 72 hours after acute spinal cord injury in rats

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the best timing and feasibility of intrathecal application of sodium monosialoganglioside (GM1) after spinal cord contusion in Wistar rats as an experimental model.

METHODS

Forty Wistar rats were submitted to contusion spinal cord injury after laminectomy. The animals were randomized and divided into four groups: Group 1 - Intrathecal application of GM1 24 hours after contusion; Group 2 - Intrathecal application of GM1 48 hours after contusion; Group 3 - intrathecal application of GM1 72 hours after contusion; Group 4 - Sham, with laminectomy and intrathecal application of 0.5 mL of 0.9% saline solution, without contusion. The recovery of locomotor function was evaluated at seven different moments by the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) test. They were also assessed by the horizontal ladder, with sensory-motor behavioral assessment criteria, pre-and postoperatively.

RESULTS

This experimental study showed better functional scores in the group submitted to the application of GM1, with statistically significant results, showing a mean increase when evaluated on known motor tests like the horizontal ladder and BBB, at all times of evaluation (p < 0.05), especially in group 2 (48 hours after spinal cord injury). Also, fewer mistakes and slips over the horizontal ladder were observed, and many points were achieved at the BBB scale analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that the intrathecal application of GM1 after spinal cord contusion in Wistar rats is feasible. The application 48 hours after the injury presented the best functional results.

Perioperative and anesthetic considerations for the management of neuromodulation systems

The use of neuromodulation systems is increasing for the treatment of various pathologies ranging from movement disorders to urinary incontinence to chronic pain syndromes. While the type of neuromodulation devices varies, they are largely categorized as intracranial (eg, deep brain stimulation), neuraxial (eg, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, and intrathecal drug delivery systems), or peripheral (eg, sacral nerve stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation) systems. Given the increasing prevalence of these systems in the overall population, it is important for anesthesiologists, surgeons, and the perioperative healthcare team to familiarize themselves with these systems and their unique perioperative considerations. In this review, we explore and highlight the various neuromodulation systems, their general perioperative considerations, and notable special circumstances for perioperative management.

Intrathecal pain pumps in pain relief

Chronic pain is a significant global health issue, described as a bio-psychosocial phenomenon that hampers the integration of body, mind, and social functions. To relieve chronic intractable pain, intrathecal drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) are the last resort after conventional treatment options have been exhausted. This article outlines the indications, pharmacological agents, types, techniques, preparation of the patient, and complications of IDDDs for the management of challenging chronic pain (non-neoplastic and cancer-related pain) conditions in patients who have not responded well to a commonly used conventional line of treatment.

Ion elemental-optimized layered double hydroxide nanoparticles promote chondrogenic differentiation and intervertebral disc regeneration of mesenchymal stem cells through focal adhesion signaling pathway

Chronic low back pain and dyskinesia caused by intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) are seriously aggravated and become more prevalent with age. Current clinical treatments do not restore the biological structure and inherent function of the disc. The emergence of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine has provided new insights into the treatment of IDD. We synthesized biocompatible layered double hydroxide (LDH) nanoparticles and optimized their ion elemental compositions to promote chondrogenic differentiation of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUC-MSCs). The chondrogenic differentiation of LDH-treated MSCs was validated using Alcian blue staining, qPCR, and immunofluorescence analyses. LDH-pretreated hUC-MSCs were differentiated prior to transplantation into the degenerative site of a needle puncture IDD rat model. Repair and regeneration evaluated using X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, and tissue immunostaining 4–12 weeks after transplantation showed recovery of the disc space height and integrated tissue structure. Transcriptome sequencing revealed significant regulatory roles of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and integrin receptors of focal adhesion signaling pathway in enhancing chondrogenic differentiation and thus prompting tissue regeneration. The construction of ion-specific LDH nanomaterials for in situ intervertebral disc regeneration through the focal adhesion signaling pathway provides theoretical basis for clinical transformation in IDD treatment.

•

LDH nanoparticles with different elemental compositions are constructed to optimize the chondrogenic differentiation of hUC-MSCs.

•

Optimized-LDH pretreated hUC-MSCs transplantation show recovery of disc space height and integrated tissue structure.

•

ECM and focal adhesion signaling pathway play significant roles in LDH-promoted cell differentiation and tissue regeneration.

•

Ion-specific optimizing LDH provides theoretical basis for clinical transformation on IDD treatment.

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.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

The Options for Neuraxial Drug Administration

Neuraxial drug administration, i.e., the injection of drugs into the epidural or intrathecal space to produce anesthesia or analgesia, is a technique developed more than 120 years ago. Today, it still is widely used in daily practice in anesthesiology and in acute and chronic pain therapy. A multitude of different drugs have been introduced for neuraxial injection, only a part of which have obtained official approval for that indication. A broad understanding of the pharmacology of those agents is essential to the clinician to utilize them in a safe and efficient manner. In the present narrative review, we summarize current knowledge on neuraxial anatomy relevant to clinical practice, including pediatric anatomy. Then, we delineate the general pharmacology of neuraxial drug administration, with particular attention to specific aspects of epidural and intrathecal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Furthermore, we describe the most common clinical indications for neuraxial drug administration, including the perioperative setting, obstetrics, and chronic pain. Then, we discuss possible neurotoxic effects of neuraxial drugs, and moreover, we detail the specific properties of the most commonly used neuraxial drugs that are relevant to clinicians who employ epidural or intrathecal drug administration, in order to ensure adequate treatment and patient safety in these techniques. Finally, we give a brief overview on new developments in neuraxial drug therapy.

Hemodynamic molecular imaging of tumor-associated enzyme activity in the living brain

Molecular imaging could have great utility for detecting, classifying, and guiding treatment of brain disorders, but existing probes offer limited capability for assessing relevant physiological parameters. Here, we describe a potent approach for noninvasive mapping of cancer-associated enzyme activity using a molecular sensor that acts on the vasculature, providing a diagnostic readout via local changes in hemodynamic image contrast. The sensor is targeted at the fibroblast activation protein (FAP), an extracellular dipeptidase and clinically relevant biomarker of brain tumor biology. Optimal FAP sensor variants were identified by screening a series of prototypes for responsiveness in a cell-based bioassay. The best variant was then applied for quantitative neuroimaging of FAP activity in rats, where it reveals nanomolar-scale FAP expression by xenografted cells. The activated probe also induces robust hemodynamic contrast in nonhuman primate brain. This work thus demonstrates a potentially translatable strategy for ultrasensitive functional imaging of molecular targets in neuromedicine.

Gabapentin enhances the antinociceptive effect of intrathecal morphine in refractory cancer pain patients

PURPOSE

Morphine infusion through Intrathecal Drug Delivery System (IDDS) is widely used to relieve refractory cancer pain. However, continuous escalation of morphine dose caused by opioid tolerance and/or progress of cancer was commonly observed. Combining morphine with medications of different analgesic mechanisms is applied to blunt the rate of morphine increase. The purpose of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of combining gabapentin with morphine after IDDS implantation.

METHODS

This study compared patients that received IDDS implantation from January 1, 2017 to November 10, 2018 in our institute. Key outcomes included change in mean pain score, dose of morphine used in patients, percentage of patients with 30% and 50% reduction in mean pain score, Patient Global Impression of Change scores, breakthrough pain characters and side effects.

RESULTS

34 patients in the combination group (morphine + gabapentin) and 40 patients in the monotherapy group(morphine)were analyzed. The results showed that both therapy groups achieved similar analgesic efficacy, demonstrated by Numerical rating scale (2.42 ± 0.88 vs 2.57 ± 0.85; Combination vs Monotherapy), PGIC and responder status. Mean daily dose of morphine was significantly lower in combination group compared to monotherapy group (3.54 ± 1.29 mg vs 4.64 ± 1.28 mg, P = 0.007). More patients experienced dizziness and somnolence after receiving combination therapy compared to morphine-alone treatment although no statistical significance was found (P = 0.49).

CONCLUSION

Addition of gabapentin achieved similar analgesic efficacy with lower dose of morphine compared to morphine alone accompanying with higher incidence of dizziness and somnolence.