Brett Stacey

Recommendations for the Management of Herpes Zoster

The objective of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with herpes zoster (HZ) that take into account clinical efficacy, adverse effects, impact on quality of life, and costs of treatment. Systematic literature reviews, published randomized clinical trials, existing guidelines, and the authors clinical and research experience relevant to the management of patients with HZ were reviewed at a consensus meeting. The results of controlled trials and the clinical experience of the authors support the use of acyclovir, brivudin (where available), famciclovir, and valacyclovir as first-line antiviral therapy for the treatment of patients with HZ. Specific recommendations for the use of these medications are provided. In addition, suggestions are made for treatments that, when used in combination with antiviral therapy, may further reduce pain and other complications of HZ.

Multimodal Treatment of Chronic Pain

Most patients with chronic pain receive multimodal treatment. There is scant literature to guide us, but when approaching combination pharmacotherapy, the practitioner and patient must weigh the benefits with the side effects; many medications have modest effect yet carry significant side effects that can be additive. Chronic pain often leads to depression, anxiety, and deconditioning, which are targets for treatment. Structured interdisciplinary programs are beneficial but costly. Interventions have their place in the treatment of chronic pain and should be a part of a multidisciplinary treatment plan. Further research is needed to validate many common combination treatments.

The ACTTION–APS–AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) Multidimensional Approach to Classifying Acute Pain Conditions

OBJECTIVEnWith the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (eg, pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain.nnnSETTINGnConsensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicineu2002(AAPM).nnnMETHODSnAs a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions.nnnPERSPECTIVEnThe ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms.nnnCONCLUSIONSnSignificant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30xa0days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

Efficacy of Interventional Procedures for Neuropathic Pain

Abstract We present an up-to-date summary of the scientific evidence on (1) the diagnostic value of neural blockade in radiculopathy, peripheral neuropathic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome; (2) the therapeutic value of neural blockade on peripheral trauma-related neuropathic pain, herpes zoster, postherpetic neuralgia, lumbosacral and cervical radiculopathy, failed back surgery syndrome with prominent radicular symptoms, complex regional pain syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, and painful diabetic and other peripheral neuropathies; and (3) the efficacy of neural destructive techniques and pulse radiofrequency on postherpetic neuralgia, cervical and lumbosacral radiculopathy, and sympathetically maintained pain. The evidence for efficacy is, at the best, moderate, and is often limited or conflicting.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin

BackgroundFormularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin.MethodsA structured literature search (PubMed, past 11xa0years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits.ResultsSearch criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6xa0months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN.ConclusionPA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies.Trial registrationN/A.

SUPPLEMENT ARTICLERecommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Neuropathic Pain: An Overview and Literature Update

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain recently sponsored the development of evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, dual reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (ie, gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine were recommended as first-line treatment options on the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in certain clinical circumstances. Results of several recent clinical trials have become available since the development of these guidelines. These studies have examined botulinum toxin, high-concentration capsaicin patch, lacosamide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and combination therapies in various neuropathic pain conditions. The increasing number of negative clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain and ambiguities in the interpretation of these negative trials must also be considered in developing treatment guidelines. The objectives of the current article are to review the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and to provide a brief overview of these recent studies.