Citations

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 of the review With the widespread integration of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) into clinical practice, understanding its ethical, economic, and patient-centered implications has become increasingly important. This review critically examines recent evidence across these domains to illuminate challenges and opportunities for advancing transparent, ethical, patient-centered, and value-based neuromodulation practice. Recent findings Recent analyses reveal persistent challenges with bias, conflicts of interest, and selective outcome reporting in neuromodulation research. Studies demonstrate significant disparities in access to SCS across racial and socioeconomic groups and highlight new ethical considerations associated with artificial intelligence–enabled and informed treatment in neuromodulation. Contemporary randomized trials support clinically meaningful improvements in pain, functionality, psychological outcomes, and other patient-centered outcomes, although durability remains inconsistent because of the potential for therapy habituation or adverse events. Despite high initial upfront costs, evaluations of SCS cost-effectiveness across healthcare systems generally favor SCS over conventional medical management when assessed over multiyear periods, with differential economic benefits observed based on the type of waveform and type of national healthcare system. Summary While current evidence supports the clinical and long-term economic benefits of SCS in defined clinical contexts and indications, gaps in research transparency, equitable access to care, economic considerations, and durability of effectiveness persist.

Background Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injection and peri-articular corticosteroid injection are commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions. Results vary by musculoskeletal region, but most studies report short-term benefit with mixed results on long-term relief. Publications showed adverse events from single corticosteroid injections. Recommended effective doses were lower than those currently used by clinicians. Methods Development of the practice guideline for joint injections was approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the participating societies. A Corticosteroid Safety Work Group coordinated the development of three guidelines: peripheral nerve blocks and trigger points; joints; and neuraxial, facet, and sacroiliac joint injections. The topics included safety of the technique in relation to landmark-guided, ultrasound-guided, or radiology-aided injections; effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate; and adverse events related to the injection. Experts on the topics were assigned to extensively review the literature and initially develop consensus statements and recommendations. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. A modified Delphi process was adhered to in arriving at a consensus. Results This guideline focuses on the safety and efficacy of corticosteroid joint injections for managing joint chronic pain in adults. The joints that were addressed included the shoulder, elbow, hand, wrist, hip, knee, and small joints of the hands and feet. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants and the Board of Directors of the participating societies after four rounds of discussion. There is little evidence to guide the selection of one corticosteroid over another. Ultrasound guidance increases the accuracy of injections and reduces procedural pain. A dose of 20 mg triamcinolone is as effective as 40 mg for both shoulder IACS and subacromial subdeltoid bursa corticosteroid injections. The commonly used dose for hip IACS is 40 mg triamcinolone or methylprednisolone. Triamcinolone 40 mg is as effective as 80 mg for knee IACS. Overall, IACS injections result in short-term pain relief from a few weeks to a few months. The adverse events include an increase in blood glucose, adrenal suppression, detrimental effect on cartilage lining the joint, reduction of bone mineral density, and postoperative joint infection. Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided specific recommendations on the role of corticosteroids in joint, bursa, and peritendon injections for musculoskeletal pain.

Background There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic–pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. Methods Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines 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 the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Background/importance Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated. Objective We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials. Evidence review Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success. Findings Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively. Conclusions Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Summary The COVID‐19 pandemic transformed everyday life, but the implications were most impactful for vulnerable populations, including patients with chronic pain. Moreover, persistent pain is increasingly recognised as a key manifestation of long COVID. This narrative review explores the consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic for chronic pain. Publications were identified related to the COVID‐19 pandemic influence on the burden of chronic pain, development of new‐onset pain because of long COVID with proposed mechanisms and COVID‐19 vaccines and pain interventions. Broadly, mechanisms underlying pain due to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could be caused by ‘systemic inflammatory‐immune mechanisms’, ‘direct neuropathic mechanisms’ or ‘secondary mechanisms due to the viral infection or treatment’. Existing chronic pain populations were variably impacted and social determinants of health appeared to influence the degree of effect. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased the absolute numbers of patients with pain and headache. In the acute phase, headache as a presenting symptom predicted a milder course. New‐onset chronic pain was reportedly common and likely involves multiple mechanisms; however, its prevalence decreases over time and symptoms appear to fluctuate. Patients requiring intensive support were particularly susceptible to long COVID symptoms. Some evidence suggests steroid exposure (often used for pain interventions) may affect vaccine efficacy, but there is no evidence of clinical repercussions to date. Although existing chronic pain management could help with symptomatic relief, there is a need to advance research focusing on mechanism‐based treatments within the domain of multidisciplinary care.

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.