Citations

Abstract Objective To evaluate available evidence for the efficacy and safety of topical analgesics for neuropathic pain and to offer treatment guidance. Methods An expert panel searched PubMed (Medline) and reference lists of published articles for available literature assessing 8 categories of topical analgesics used to treat various neuropathic pain conditions. The panel rated the level of analgesic efficacy evidence for each treatment and considered safety, ease of use, and cost. The degree of consensus on the recommendations among the panelists was measured. Results There was strong evidence and high consensus that capsaicin 8% is effective for diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia and that lidocaine is effective for postherpetic neuralgia. There was strong evidence and moderate consensus that capsaicin 8% could be effective for HIV-induced neuropathy. There was moderate evidence and high consensus that lidocaine is likely effective for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, idiopathic neuropathy, and postsurgical neuropathy and that capsaicin 8% might be effective for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and complex regional pain syndrome. Evidence was weak for other topical medications, though the panel strongly agreed that antidepressants might help with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, postsurgical neuropathy, and post-traumatic neuropathy; that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs could help with postsurgical neuropathy; and that gabapentin might benefit vulvodynia. There was less agreement about whether antidepressants might benefit diabetic peripheral neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, and vulvodynia and whether capsaicin 8% could be effective for postsurgical neuropathy. Conclusions Recommendations were based on a survey and grading of existing literature and, when strong evidence was lacking, the collective clinical expertise of panelists.

Abstract Background Recommended noninvasive strategies for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening include multitarget stool DNA and fecal immunochemical test from ages 45 to 75 years. With new clinical trials, performance data for next-generation multitarget stool DNA, multitarget stool RNA, and blood-based screening tests are now available. This decision analytical model study evaluated the estimated benefit-to-burden ratio by means of efficient frontiers for noninvasive established and emerging CRC screening strategies. Methods Outcomes were estimated using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality microsimulation model for average-risk individuals in the United States. Screening strategies were next-generation multitarget stool DNA (an updated marker panel), fecal immunochemical tests, multitarget stool RNA, or blood-based tests every 1-3 years, over various age ranges. Test performance inputs were derived from recent large clinical trials. A strategy was deemed efficient if no other strategy provided more life-years gained with equivalent or fewer lifetime colonoscopies and near-efficient if within 3 days of life-years gained of the efficient frontier. Results All modeled screening strategies resulted in life-years gained vs no screening. No strategy using blood-based tests was efficient or near-efficient. Overall, 10 strategies were efficient (6 next-generation multitarget stool DNA and 4 fecal immunochemical tests), including 2 strategies among those ages 45-75 years (biennial and triennial next-generation multitarget stool DNA). Overall, 22 strategies were near-efficient, including 4 strategies among those ages 45-75 years (annual, biennial, or triennial fecal immunochemical test; annual next-generation multitarget stool DNA). Conclusion Based on this modeling study, next-generation multitarget stool DNA was the only noninvasive screening test at guideline-endorsed interval and age-recommended ranges that was deemed efficient. Blood-based and multitarget stool RNA strategies were deemed not efficient for primary screening.

ABSTRACT Objectives Patients requiring long‐term enteral nutrition or continuous infusion of carbidopa/levodopa can benefit from jejunostomy tube placement. Recently, directly placed percutaneous transgastric jejunal tubes (TGJs) have been used instead of gastrostomy tubes with jejunal extensions (PEG‐Js) for enteral access. We aim to compare patient characteristics and outcomes after placement of TGJs placed via the introducer technique compared to PEG‐Js. Methods We performed a retrospective study of 141 patients (TGJ = 58, PEG‐J = 83) assessed at Mayo Clinic between 2010 and 2024. Patients were identified using a prospectively maintained procedure data registry. Demographic data, patient characteristics, procedural indications, complications, and first‐replacement date were gathered. Statistical analysis included the Wilcoxon rank sum test, chi‐square test, Fisher's exact test, and Kaplan‐Meier estimates. Patients receiving carbidopa/levodopa were excluded from complications analysis due to the carbidopa/levodopa tube's proprietary structure. A p ‐value of <0.05 was set as a threshold for significance. Results Our results demonstrated no difference in cumulative incidence of complications within 1 year for TGJs and PEG‐Js, p ‐value 0.48. Regarding time to first replacement, treating death as a competing risk factor, there was no statistically significant difference in cumulative incidence of replacement within 1 year for TGJs and PEG‐Js, p ‐value 0.389. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that both direct TGJs and PEG‐Js are safe options for long‐term jejunal feeding. More studies are needed to compare endoscopic to radiologically placed percutaneous transgastric jejunal feeding tubes.