Mechanisms of Action of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

The dorsal root ganglion (DRG) serves as a pivotal site for managing chronic pain through dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S). In recent years, the DRG-S has emerged as an attractive modality in the armamentarium of neuromodulation therapy due to its accessibility and efficacy in alleviating chronic pain refractory to conventional treatments. Despite its therapeutic advantages, the precise mechanisms underlying DRG-S-induced analgesia remain elusive, attributed in part to the diverse sensory neuron population within the DRG and its modulation of both peripheral and central sensory processing pathways. Emerging evidence suggests that DRG-S may alleviate pain by several mechanisms, including the reduction of nociceptive signals at the T-junction of sensory neurons, modulation of pain gating pathways within the dorsal horn, and regulation of neuronal excitability within the DRG itself. However, elucidating the full extent of DRG-S mechanisms necessitates further exploration, particularly regarding its supraspinal effects and its interactions with cognitive and affective networks. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for optimizing neurostimulation technologies and improving clinical outcomes of DRG-S for chronic pain management. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the DRG anatomy, mechanisms of action of the DRG-S, and its significance in neuromodulation therapy for chronic pain.

Evaluation and Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain in Patients with History of Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Retrospective Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) can affect the entire spinopelvic complex and cause unpredictable patterns of back pain due to their effects on spinal tensegrity and biomechanical compensation. They can lead to significant morbidity and mortality in the aging population and are difficult to diagnose. We aimed to establish a relationship between VCFs and sacroiliac (SI) joint pain. OBJECTIVES: Demonstration of SI joint (SIJ) pain relief at up to 6 months after kyphoplasty (KP) in patients with VCFs and diagnosed SI dysfunction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: All patients were from a private chronic pain and orthopedics practice in the northeastern United States. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with VCFs diagnosed through imaging and SIJ dysfunction diagnosed through 2 diagnostic SIJ blocks who had failed conservative management were considered for KP. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS 11) scores were recorded at the baseline, after each SIJ block, and at 4 weeks and then 6 months after KP. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients underwent KP. At 4 weeks after the procedure, there was an 84% average reduction in NRS scores from the baseline (P < 0.01). At 6 months after the procedure, there was an 80% reduction in NRS scores from the baseline (P < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Larger sample sizes and a randomized control trial would be important steps in furthering the relationship between VCFs and SIJ. CONCLUSION: VCFs can cause a referred pain pattern to the SIJ that is best treated by KP for long-term management.

Chronic Abdominal Discomfort Syndrome (CADS): Defining and Discussing a Novel Diagnosis.

In this article, we propose a new diagnostic paradigm known as Chronic Abdominal Discomfort Syndrome (CADS). Patient's presentation centers around chronic abdominal pain not explained by acute pathology with or without accompanying dyspepsia, bloating, nausea and vomiting among other symptoms. The pathophysiology is noted to be neurogenic, possibly stemming from visceral sympathetic nerves or abdominal wall afferent nerves. Diagnosis is supported by signs or symptoms traversing clinical, diagnostic and functional criteria. Included is a tool which can assist clinicians in diagnosing patients with CADS per those domains. We hope to facilitate primary care physicians' and gastroenterologists' utilization of our criteria to provide guidance for selecting which patients may benefit from further interventions or evaluation by a pain physician. The pain physician may then offer interventions to provide the patient with relief.

Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Pain Medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores the current applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of pain medicine with a focus on machine learning. RECENT FINDINGS: Utilizing a literature search conducted through the PubMed database, several current trends were identified, including the use of AI as a tool for diagnostics, predicting pain progression, predicting treatment response, and performance of therapy and pain management. Results of these studies show promise for the improvement of patient outcomes. Current gaps in the research and subsequent directions for future study involve AI in optimizing and improving nerve stimulation and more thoroughly predicting patients' responses to treatment.

Sacroiliac Joint Denervation-A Novel Approach to Target Sacral Lateral Branches: A Practical Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a relatively common cause of low back pain. Percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) techniques for SIJ are limited to ablation of the posterior SIJ innervation. Different techniques have been described for SIJ radiofrequency ablation, including conventional thermal, cooled RF, pulsed RF, bipolar RF, and specialized tip RF needle (i.e., multi-tined); however, additional costs may limit these applications. METHODS: This new technique for SIJ denervation uses anatomical landmarks and a single RF cannula. Two spinal needles are placed lateral to the posterior S1 and S2 sacral foramina; then, with caudal tilt we get a coaxial view of the sacral bone, we advance an 18-G curved 15-mm active tip RF cannula just lateral to the aligned finder needles. Ablation is performed, and then the RF cannula is retracted 2 cm and ablation is repeated for a total of four lesions. RESULTS: The two spinal needles placed lateral to the posterior sacral foramina S1 and S2 guide the final needle in the posterior aspect of the sacrum, lateral to the sacral foramina, where the lateral sacral branches are located. CONCLUSION: We introduce a cost and time efficient technique to perform radiofrequency ablation of the sacral lateral branches using a single RF needle. This technique utilizes the sacrum's reliable anatomy and angulation and maximizes the surface area of the active tip lesioning. This technique creates a strip lesion lateral to the sacral foramina and reduces time and cost efficacy compared to several of the other techniques and/or commercially available special devices designed for sacroiliac denervation.

Oral pregabalin is effective as preemptive analgesia in abdominal hysterectomy-A randomized controlled trial.

Postoperative pain is one of the main negative symptoms resulting from surgery and the use of new methods to control this symptom is of ever-increasing relevance. Opioid-sparing strategies, such as multimodal analgesia, are trends in this scenario. Pregabalin is a well-established treatment for neuropathic pain; however, it is still controversial in the surgical context for postoperative analgesia. This study investigated the effect of pregabalin on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. It is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Female patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy were randomised to use pregabalin (group P1), 300 mg orally 2 h before surgery, or identical placebo pills (group P0). The main outcome includes the postoperative pain index by visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill's pain questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include opioid consumption and the presence of adverse effects. A value of p < 0.05 was used to reject type I error. Fifty-five patients were randomised amongst the groups. Patients in group P1 had lower pain rates by VAS scale, both at rest and in active motion, than group P0. In McGill's questionnaire, patients from group P1 also had lower pain rates (12 × 28.5). There was approximately twice as much opioid consumption amongst patients in group P0. Regarding side effects, there was a difference between the two groups only for dizziness, being more incident in group P1. This study suggests that pregabalin is an important adjuvant drug in treating postoperative pain in patients with abdominal hysterectomy.

Effects of local anesthetics and contrast agents on musculoskeletal regenerative medicine procedures.

In regenerative medicine, cells, tissues and organs are often replaced, engineered or regrown in order to restore their function after they have been damaged or lost. Local anesthetics, corticosteroids and contrast agents are commonly employed for both diagnostic and therapeutic objectives in interventional pain and musculoskeletal treatments for regenerative medicine. There is growing evidence that routine injectables promote catabolism and disease processes. Thus, understanding the effects of these compounds on regenerative medicine injectates and target tissues such as tenocytes, chondrocytes, nucleus pulposus and ligamentous tissue is critical. This review includes the current research on the effects of local anesthetics and contrast agents, as well as their use and recommendations in regenerative medicine operations.

In regenerative medicine, various human organs are often modified to restore their function after being damaged. Various substances are commonly injected in pain and musculoskeletal treatments for regenerative medicine. A growing body of literature indicates that common injectable substances may promote cellular destruction and pathologies. Therefore, understanding their effects on various musculoskeletal tissue and cellular components is critical. This review includes the current research on the effects of local anesthetics and contrast agents, as well as their use and recommendations in regenerative medicine operations.

The Role of Neuromodulation in Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Review Article.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a complex, heterogeneous condition affecting both female and male patients with significant effects on quality of life. Chronic pelvic pain is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed condition due to the variation in patient presentation, a gap in communication among specialties, under-reporting of the syndrome, and lack of standardized diagnostic criteria with a subsequent delay in diagnosis. The mechanism of CPP is complex due to multifactorial etiologies of pain and its vast anatomy and innervation. Potential causes of pelvic pain include the nerves, muscles, bone, or organs of the reproductive, gastrointestinal, urological, musculoskeletal, vascular, neurological, and psychological systems. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to review the anatomy of the pelvis, share current lead placement locations, and discuss the current evidence for neuromodulation in the management of chronic pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: This is a narrative review of current literature on neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain. SETTING: A database review. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to gather literature on neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain. RESULTS: Traditionally, pelvic pain has been managed with conservative therapies such as physical therapy, pharmacological agents, trigger point injections, botulinum toxin injections, ganglion impar blocks, caudal epidural steroid injections, or superior and inferior hypogastric blocks, but with the evolution of the neuromodulation, there are new advances to incorporate this modality in the management of chronic pelvic pain. LIMITATIONS: This review article possesses limitations and includes published data, excluding case reports. For this reason, some applications of neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain may be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Neuromodulation may include spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, and peripheral nerve stimulation. Specifically, neuromodulation utilizes electrical stimulation or pharmacological agents to modulate a nerve and alter pain signals. Currently used locations for lead placement include intracranial, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglion, sacral nerve roots, or at a peripheral nerve. As the field of pelvic pain continues to evolve, continued evidence for neuromodulatory interventions is needed.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based upon 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 NACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC 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 NACC recommends best practices regarding the use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate.

Methodology for Evidence Synthesis and Development of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain.

BACKGROUND: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." The revised definition distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations. RESULTS: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques. CONCLUSION: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies.

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

Evidence-Based Risk Mitigation and Stratification During COVID-19 for Return to Interventional Pain Practice: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care even during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has drastically changed healthcare and other societal practices. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-ASIPP Risk Mitigation & Stratification (COVID-ARMS) Return to Practice Task Force in order to provide guidance for safe and strategic reopening. OBJECTIVES: The aims are to provide education and guidance for interventional pain specialists and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic that minimizes COVID-related morbidity while allowing a return to interventional pain care. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various regions, specialities, and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification were reviewed. The principles of best evidence synthesis of available literature and grading for recommendations as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) typically utilized in ASIPP guideline preparation was not utilized in these guidelines due to limitations because of their lack of available literature on COVID-19, risk mitigation and stratification. These guidelines are considered evidence -- informed with incorporation of best available research and practice knowledge. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with incorporation of best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: Numerous risk factors have emerged that predispose patients to contracting COVID-19 and/or having a more severe course of the infection. COVID-19 may have mild symptoms, even be asymptomatic, or may be severe and life threatening. Older age and certain comorbidities, such as underlying pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, have been associated with worse outcomes. In pain care, COVID-19 patients are a heterogeneous group with some individuals relatively healthy and having only a short course of manageable symptoms while others become critically ill. It is necessary to assess patients on a case-by-case basis and craft individualized care recommendations. A COVID-ARMS risk stratification tool was created to quickly and objectively assess patients. Interventional pain specialists and their patients may derive important benefits from evidence-informed risk stratification, protective strategies to prevent infection, and the gradual resumption of treatments and procedures to manage pain. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 was an ongoing pandemic at the time during which these recommendations were developed. The pandemic has created a fluid situation in terms of evidence-informed guidance. As more and better evidence is gathered, these recommendations may be modified. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care but during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, steps must be taken to stratify risks and protect patients from possible infection to safeguard them from COVID-19-related illness and transmitting the disease to others. Pain specialists should optimize telemedicine encounters with their pain patients, be cognizant of risks of COVID-19 morbidity, and take steps to evaluate risk-benefit on a case-by-case basis. Pain specialists may return to practice with lower-risk patients and appropriate safeguards.

Triaging Interventional Pain Procedures During COVID-19 or Related Elective Surgery Restrictions: Evidence-Informed Guidance from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of "elective" interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures.Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. METHODS: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included urgent, emergency, and elective procedures. Examples of urgent and emergency procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, emergency procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications on Interventional Pain Practice-a Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged and has challenged us to look for alternatives to bring about a paradigm shift in interventional chronic pain management. As the disease lowers the body's immune system, the use of medications that suppress the immune system are not recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review medications other than steroids used for interventional pain management and the emphasis on mitigation of the untoward consequences of steroid injections on the immune system during the COVID-19 pandemic. LITERATURE SEARCH: The literature was searched for articles in English with key words COVID-19, immunity, steroid for pain management injections with steroid, local anesthetics, dextrose water, normal saline, pain and genetic medicine, pain, and regenerative medicine. The sources of articles were PubMed, Embase, and open Google search. LITERATURE REVIEW: The medications used for interventional pain management include steroids and opioids. The side effects of these medications are well known but have never been looked at as critically as they are now. Many other medications have been used for interventional pain procedures to relieve pain, such as dextrose water, normal saline solution, local anesthetics, and many adjuvants. Regarding regenerative therapy, despite plenty of evidence in literature, we have not yet considered it as a routine therapy for chronic pain injections. It is now time to move on beyond steroids and consider other types of medications and treatment options.The use of these medications in clinical practice is less auspicious, and thus more research is needed on the practical applications. Further areas for research include studies to determine definitive efficacy and safety assessment and determine whether or not the analgesic effects of these drugs are duration or dose-dependent. The optimal identification of candidates, volume, concentration, and intervals of injection are essential for routine application in interventional chronic pain practice. CONCLUSIONS: The future of interventional pain practice is trending toward regenerative medicine and genetic research. Numerous scientific studies have been conducted to investigate the genetic basis of phenotypic variability in individuals with different ethnic groups in terms of susceptibility to chronic pain, as well as response to treatment for the personalized medicine model. Despite the preliminary data on genetic variations, there is no evidence for the use of a pharmacogenomics-based approach to personalized medicine for patients with chronic pain. The field of medicine therefore needs further research in pharmacogenetics, including large-scale prospective studies that focus on pain pathways. However, recent research, including larger studies and larger-scale genomic perspectives, may yield more promising findings in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic proved the need for medications with the most impact and least complications.

COVID-19 Pandemic - A Narrative Review of the Potential Roles of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine.

BACKGROUND: Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are old drugs used against malaria, rheumatism, inflammation in the joints, lupus, among others. These drugs showed positive results in preliminary scientific research for treatment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Since the studies with CQ and HCQ are initial with small patient populations, it is not yet known whether there are adverse effects from the use of CQ and HCQ for patients infected with the coronavirus. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ used against viral infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. STUDY DESIGN: This is a narrative review of the traditional prescriptions of CQ and HCQ efficacy and adverse effects as well as their employment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SETTING: In vitro and clinical studies comparing the antiviral efficacy and adverse effect profile of CQ and HCQ against COVID-19 in adult patients were evaluated. METHODS: A systemic search of reviews, including in vitro and clinical trial studies in English focusing on CQ and HCQ effects and adverse effects against COVID-19 in the adult patient population from PubMed was performed. It included studies reporting chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine effects and adverse effects against COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 42 articles published between 2004 and April 2020 were reviewed for therapeutic use of CQ and HCQ. Both these drugs showed a significant in vitro potential against coronavirus. Many studies for clinical use of CQ and HCQ showed that patients presented adverse reactions on high doses. LIMITATIONS: Clinical studies have some methodology shortcomings, such as lack of information about the treatment and small number of experimental patients, leading to a misinterpretation of the data. Besides, there are few clinical studies with a limited sample size. Moreover, most of them did not present control groups, and some patients had died during these protocols. DISCUSSION: Despite both CQ and HCQ in vitro antiviral evidence, clinically, both drugs, either alone or combined with other medications, may increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias, leading to cardiac arrest and sudden death. Besides, a lot of uncertainty still remains, such as starting administration period, dose prescribed, length of treatment, patients' condition, concomitant drug use, among others. CONCLUSION: From the studies reviewed, it is not possible to state the precise efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ use in the treatment of COVID-19 at any time in the course of the disease. Future studies are warranted.

The Technological Impact of COVID-19 on the Future of Education and Health Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: The unexpected COVID-19 crisis has disrupted medical education and patient care in unprecedented ways. Despite the challenges, the health-care system and patients have been both creative and resilient in finding robust "temporary" solutions to these challenges. It is not clear if some of these COVID-era transitional steps will be preserved in the future of medical education and telemedicine. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this commentary is to address the sometimes substantial changes in medical education, continuing medical education (CME) activities, residency and fellowship programs, specialty society meetings, and telemedicine, and to consider the value of some of these profound shifts to "business as usual" in the health-care sector. METHODS: This is a commentary is based on the limited available literature, online information, and the front-line experiences of the authors. RESULTS: COVID-19 has clearly changed residency and fellowship programs by limiting the amount of hands-on time physicians could spend with patients. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medicine Education has endorsed certain policy changes to promote greater flexibility in programs but still rigorously upholds specific standards. Technological interventions such as telemedicine visits with patients, virtual meetings with colleagues, and online interviews have been introduced, and many trainees are "techno-omnivores" who are comfortable using a variety of technology platforms and techniques. Webinars and e-learning are gaining traction now, and their use, practicality, and cost-effectiveness may make them important in the post-COVID era. CME activities have migrated increasingly to virtual events and online programs, a trend that may also continue due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness. While many medical meetings of specialty societies have been postponed or cancelled altogether, technology allows for virtual meetings that may offer versatility and time-saving opportunities for busy clinicians. It may be that future medical meetings embrace a hybrid approach of blending digital with face-to-face experience. Telemedicine was already in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis but barriers are rapidly coming down to its widespread use and patients seem to embrace this, even as health-care systems navigate the complicated issues of cybersecurity and patient privacy. Regulatory guidance may be needed to develop safe, secure, and patient-friendly telehealth applications. Telemedicine has affected the prescribing of controlled substances in which online counseling, informed consent, and follow-up must be done in a virtual setting. For example, pill counts can be done in a video call and patients can still get questions answered about their pain therapy, although it is likely that after the crisis, prescribing controlled substances may revert to face-to-face visits. LIMITATIONS: The health-care system finds itself in a very fluid situation at the time this was written and changes are still occurring and being assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the technological changes imposed so abruptly on the health-care system by the COVID-19 pandemic may be positive and it may be beneficial that some of these transitions be preserved or modified as we move forward. Clinicians must be objective in assessing these changes and retaining those changes that clearly improve health-care education and patient care as we enter the COVID era.

Safety and Effectiveness of Intravascular Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Treat Organ Failure and Possible Application in COVID-19 Complications.

BACKGROUND: Although only a small percentage of patients with COVID-19 deteriorate to a critical condition, because of the associated high mortality rate and the sheer number of cases, it imposes a tremendous burden on the society and unprecedented strains the health care resources. Albeit lung is the primary organ involved resulting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), many patients additionally present with secondary multiorgan failure. Unfortunately, there is no definitive or curative treatment for this condition, and the management has been predominantly confined to supportive care, which necessitates an urgent need for novel therapies. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has a vast array of preclinical data and early, preliminary clinical data that suggests its potential to regenerate and restore the function of damaged tissues and organs. To date, there has been no review of all the clinical trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in organ failure commonly seen in seriously complicated COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure, utilizing currently available literature. STUDY DESIGN: A review of human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the role of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1990 through May 2020. Studies that included embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, differentiated MSCs into specific lineage cells, and hematopoietic stem cells were excluded. Trials with intraorgan infiltration of MSC were also excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome evaluated the improvement in clinical assessment scores and indices of organ function. The secondary outcome assessed the safety of MSC therapy in the clinical trials. RESULTS: Based on search criteria, 12 studies were found for lung, 52 for heart, 23 for liver, 16 for stroke, and 9 for kidney. Among the 6 studies that specifically assessed the effectiveness of MSC therapy in ARDS, 4 showed positive outcomes. Forty-one of the 52 trials that examined ischemic and nonischemic heart failure reported beneficial effects. Twenty of 23 trials for liver failure from different etiologies revealed favorable outcomes. Nine out of the 15 studies evaluating stroke had satisfactory effects. However, only 3 out of the 9 studies for kidney failure showed positive results. Nonexpanded bone marrow mononuclear cells were used in most of the negative studies. The incidence of disease worsening or major complications was extremely rare from MSC therapy. LIMITATIONS: Among the studies evaluated, although there were many RCTs, there were also numerous case series. Additionally, most recruited a small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: MSC therapy seems to be promising to treat multiorgan failure from COVID-19. More studies are urgently needed to assess both safety and efficacy.

Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines Facet Joint Interventions 2020 Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.