Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Acute Pain Management From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine infusions have been used for decades to treat acute pain, but a recent surge in usage has made the infusions a mainstay of treatment in emergency departments, in the perioperative period in individuals with refractory pain, and in opioid-tolerant patients. The widespread variability in patient selection, treatment parameters, and monitoring indicates a need for the creation of consensus guidelines. METHODS: The development of acute pain ketamine guidelines grew as a corollary from the genesis of chronic pain ketamine guidelines. The charge for the development of acute pain ketamine guidelines was provided by the Boards of Directors of both the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine, who approved the document along with the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters. The committee chair developed questions based on input from the committee during conference calls, which the committee then refined. Groups of 3 to 5 panel members and the committee chair were responsible for answering individual questions. After preliminary consensus was achieved, the entire committee made further revisions via e-mail and conference calls. RESULTS: Consensus guidelines were prepared in the following areas: indications, contraindications for acute pain and whether they differ from those for chronic pain, the evidence for the use of ketamine as an adjunct to opioid-based therapy, the evidence supporting patient-controlled ketamine analgesia, the use of nonparenteral forms of ketamine, and the subanesthetic dosage range and whether the evidence supports those dosages for acute pain. The group was able to reach consensus on the answers to all questions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the use of ketamine for acute pain in a variety of contexts, including as a stand-alone treatment, as an adjunct to opioids, and, to a lesser extent, as an intranasal formulation. Contraindications for acute pain are similar to those for chronic pain, partly based on the observation that the dosage ranges are similar. Larger studies evaluating different acute pain conditions are needed to enhance patient selection, determine the effectiveness of nonparenteral ketamine alternatives, define optimal treatment parameters, and develop protocols optimizing safety and access to care.

Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Chronic Pain From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades, the use of intravenous ketamine infusions as a treatment for chronic pain has increased dramatically, with wide variation in patient selection, dosing, and monitoring. This has led to a chorus of calls from various sources for the development of consensus guidelines. METHODS: In November 2016, the charge for developing consensus guidelines was approved by the boards of directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and, shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pain Medicine. In late 2017, the completed document was sent to the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters, after which additional modifications were made. Panel members were selected by the committee chair and both boards of directors based on their expertise in evaluating clinical trials, past research experience, and clinical experience in developing protocols and treating patients with ketamine. Questions were developed and refined by the committee, and the groups responsible for addressing each question consisted of modules composed of 3 to 5 panel members in addition to the committee chair. Once a preliminary consensus was achieved, sections were sent to the entire panel, and further revisions were made. In addition to consensus guidelines, a comprehensive narrative review was performed, which formed part of the basis for guidelines. RESULTS: Guidelines were prepared for the following areas: indications; contraindications; whether there was evidence for a dose-response relationship, or a minimum or therapeutic dose range; whether oral ketamine or another N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist was a reasonable treatment option as a follow-up to infusions; preinfusion testing requirements; settings and personnel necessary to administer and monitor treatment; the use of preemptive and rescue medications to address adverse effects; and what constitutes a positive treatment response. The group was able to reach consensus on all questions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the use of ketamine for chronic pain, but the level of evidence varies by condition and dose range. Most studies evaluating the efficacy of ketamine were small and uncontrolled and were either unblinded or ineffectively blinded. Adverse effects were few and the rate of serious adverse effects was similar to placebo in most studies, with higher dosages and more frequent infusions associated with greater risks. Larger studies, evaluating a wider variety of conditions, are needed to better quantify efficacy, improve patient selection, refine the therapeutic dose range, determine the effectiveness of nonintravenous ketamine alternatives, and develop a greater understanding of the long-term risks of repeated treatments.

Discordant patient pain level reporting between questionnaires and physician encounters of the same day.

We examined the consistency of pain reporting by patients in a community pain management practice in Michigan. We compared pain levels (range 0-10) entered by patients in questionnaires versus those provided during their face-to-face physician encounter on the same day. Both of these values were available for approximately 10,000 encounters during the study period (2010-2014). Two subpopulations of patients were identifiable. One was consistent in reporting worst or least pain levels on the questionnaire and during the provider encounter. The other was discordant. Factor analysis had previously identified severity scales for patient biopsychosocial characteristics derived from the full questionnaire. The two subpopulations differed in their factor profiles even though they had similar demographics. In general, pain reported directly to physicians was more correlated to biopsychosocial indicators. Pain self-reporting using questionnaires has often been assumed to be ground truth, but those obtained during the physician encounter may be more reliable.

Patient-reported outcomes in a large community-based pain medicine practice: evaluation for use in phenotype modeling.

BACKGROUND: An academic, community medicine partnership was established to build a phenotype-to-outcome model targeting chronic pain. This model will be used to drive clinical decision support for pain medicine in the community setting. The first step in this effort is an examination of the electronic health records (EHR) from clinics that treat chronic pain. The biopsychosocial components provided by both patients and care providers must be of sufficient scope to populate the spectrum of patient types, treatment modalities, and possible outcomes. METHODS: The patient health records from a large Midwest pain medicine practice (Michigan Pain Consultants, PC) contains physician notes, administrative codes, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) on over 30,000 patients during the study period spanning 2010 to mid-2014. The PRO consists of a regularly administered Pain Health Assessment (PHA), a biopsychosocial, demographic, and symptomology questionnaire containing 163 items, which is completed approximately every six months with a compliance rate of over 95%. The biopsychosocial items (74 items with Likert scales of 0-10) were examined by exploratory factor analysis and descriptive statistics to determine the number of independent constructs available for phenotypes and outcomes. Pain outcomes were examined both in the aggregate and the mean of longitudinal changes in each patient. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis of the intake PHA revealed 15 orthogonal factors representing pain levels; physical, social, and emotional functions; the effects of pain on these functions; vitality and health; and measures of outcomes and satisfaction. Seven items were independent of the factors, offering unique information. As an exemplar of outcomes from the follow-up PHAs, patients reported approximately 60% relief in their pain. When examined in the aggregate, patients showed both a decrease in pain levels and an increase in coping skills with an increased number of visits. When examined individually, 80-85% of patients presenting with the highest pain levels reported improvement by approximately two points on an 11-point pain scale. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the data available in a community practice can be a rich source of biopsychosocial information relevant to the phenotypes of chronic pain. It is anticipated that phenotype linkages to best treatments and outcomes can be constructed from this set of records.