Hunt, Christine

Background Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are widely employed for chronic pain. These injections include peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections, injections of large appendicular joints, the axial facet and sacroiliac joints, and the epidural space. These injections may be performed in patients who have been recently vaccinated or plan to be vaccinated. This multisociety multispecialty position statement aims to develop evidence-based statements and recommendations (SRs) on the safe interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccine administration. Methods Development of the position statement was approved by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Board of Directors and several other societies that agreed to participate. The scope of the SRs was agreed on to include the efficacy of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, adverse events related to the CSIs, specifically the effect of CSIs on the hypothalamic–pituitary axis, incidence of COVID-19 in patients who had CSIs during the pandemic, incidence of influenza in patients who had CSIs during the influenza season, and recommend a reasonable interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccination 20 mg/day of prednisone s. Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive literature review and draft SRs, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results All SRs were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Boards of Directors of the participating societies also approved all SRs. If a vaccine has been recently administered or planned, then for non-urgent indications, the CSI should be offered at least 1 week before or after vaccine administration. For healthy patient(s), CSI, or vaccine administration may be performed without a 7-day interval after informed discussion with the patient and consent regarding the risk of blunted vaccine efficacy. For non-healthy patients, shared decision-making should include discussion of diminished vaccine effectiveness and the possibility of influenza or COVID-19 infection. Conclusions In this position statement, we provide recommendations on the optimal timing between CSIs and COVID-19 or influenza vaccine.

Background Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are widely employed in facet and sacroiliac joint pain. Similar to CSIs at other sites (peripheral nerve blocks, joints, epidural), these injections are associated with potential adverse events. These multisociety consensus recommendations aim to develop evidence-based statements and recommendations on the safe use of CSIs in facet joint and sacroiliac joint injections. Methods Development of the consensus recommendations was approved by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Board of Directors and several other societies that agreed to participate. The scope of statements and recommendations was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound, or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on effectiveness (vs local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive literature review and draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (>75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results All statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Boards of Directors of the participating societies also approved all statements and recommendations. Injection of corticosteroid into the facet joint in patients with joint inflammation may relieve pain and improves function. Intra-articular, extra-articular (periarticular), and combined administration are effective for sacroiliac joint injections. No dose-response studies exist, but CSIs containing 10 mg of methylprednisolone or triamcinolone per facet joint and 40 mg per sacroiliac joint (SIJ) (or their respective pharmacologic equivalents) are reasonable. Conclusions In this practice recommendation, we provide statements and recommendations on facet and sacroiliac joint CSIs, the optimal doses, and intervals and criteria for repeating the CSIs in patients with facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain.

Purpose: A variety of care pathways are offered to females with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and pelvic floor myofascial pain (PFMP), which may affect treatment outcomes. This study aims to compare care pathways and describe health care utilization and characteristics of patients with CPP and PFMP referred for physical therapy (PT) at a tertiary care center. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on females with CPP and PFMP referred for PT. Patients received PT, medication management, injection therapy, or a combination of treatments. We collected data on health care utilization, comorbidities of interest, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare patients with pre- and posttreatment PROM scores. Results: A total of 1172 patients were referred for PT treatment, but 19.5% (n = 229) did not attend any PT sessions, and only 18% (n = 211) of patients attended the recommended number of PT sessions. Comorbid urinary (48.5%, n = 569) and bowel dysfunction (43%, n = 512) were prevalent. Patients consulted with multiple providers. Most patients (57.1%, n = 669) utilized opioid medications. Less than 20% completed both pre-and posttreatment PROMs. Discussion: Care pathways vary widely for the treatment of PFMP. Low adherence to PT and a trend toward greater than 5 subspecialty appointments indicating higher health care utilization reflect the range of inconsistent patient experience likely affecting outcomes. Outcomes of care are uncharted territory. Optimal care pathways for CPP and PFMP need to be established, along with further investigation of PROMs, to determine which treatments result in effective outcomes that matter to patients.

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common genetic kidney disorder. It is primarily caused by pathogenic variants in the PKD1 or PKD2 genes. This leads to the development of numerous kidney cysts, which can result in kidney enlargement and progression to kidney failure. Pain is a common symptom in ADPKD and can negatively affect quality of life (QOL). This pain is often due to the continuous growth of kidney and liver cysts or associated cystic complications. We present a case of a 29-year-old woman with ADPKD who experienced chronic, refractory right-sided flank pain that significantly affected her QOL. Her pain persisted despite taking daily multimodal analgesics and undergoing multiple invasive interventions. She had an unusual asymmetric disease with the right kidney accounting for only 24% of her kidney function. After exhausting all other pain control strategies, she underwent right nephrectomy and partial hepatectomy, which led to substantial improvement in pain and QOL. This review describes the causes, manifestations, and management strategies for abdominal and/or flank pain in ADPKD, including a practical stepwise algorithm to guide clinicians in managing pain and improve QOL of patients with ADPKD. Pain in ADPKD can either be acute or chronic and can lead to significant physical and psychologic distress. Effective pain management in ADPKD requires a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin or tolvaptan in select cases. Interventions considered in ADPKD pain control include cyst aspiration with sclerotherapy, celiac plexus blockade, spinal cord stimulation, renal denervation, or nephrectomy.

AbstractMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a prevalent comorbidity in patients with chronic pain conditions. Emerging evidence suggests that the relationship between MetS and chronic pain is bidirectional. This interplay involves complex mechanisms, including proinflammatory mediators in nociceptive modulation and pain‐induced lifestyle changes affecting metabolic function. This scoping review examines the association between MetS and chronic pain. We conducted a scoping review, including 28 studies. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included observational studies (cross‐sectional, case–control, and cohort studies) from the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. We identified studies on migraine (n = 9), spinal pain (n = 8), general chronic pain (n = 4), fibromyalgia syndrome (n = 3), carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 1), osteoarthritis (n = 1), shoulder pain (n = 1), and neuropathic pain (n = 1). Most studies used a cross‐sectional design and standard criteria to define MetS, with some exceptions. Individuals with MetS and spinal pain, fibromyalgia, or general chronic pain showed higher pain scores and increased functional limitations. MetS was common in patients with migraine, but its effect on pain severity was inconclusive. The relationship between MetS and other pain conditions requires further investigation to clarify the association and potential mechanisms. MetS is prevalent in patients with chronic pain and is associated with worse pain and functional outcomes. Health care providers should acknowledge the wide spectrum of MetS beyond obesity. This understanding may help identify those at risk for more severe chronic pain.