首页 > 最新文献

Pain and Therapy最新文献

英文 中文
Evaluating the Real-World Use of Topical Diclofenac Sodium Gel 1% Using US Longitudinal Electronic Health Records Database: A study supporting OTC switch. 使用美国纵向电子健康记录数据库评估1%局部双氯芬酸钠凝胶的实际使用:一项支持OTC转换的研究。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-02 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00723-9
Nicholas M Sicignano, Frédérique Bariguian Revel, Richard Petruschke, Francis P Barbone, Karin Nicholson, Jess D Edison

Introduction: Musculoskeletal conditions are a significant health challenge and second leading cause of disability worldwide. Diclofenac sodium topical gel 1% (DSG1%) provides effective relief of arthritis pain. While clinical studies show that DSG1% is safe and well-tolerated, long-term safety and tolerability in real-world settings are limited. This study aimed to profile users and prescribers of DSG1% and to evaluate its safety and tolerability over a screening period of 8.5 years with an average follow-up of nearly 1 year. The focus was on patients with risk factors and comorbidities, especially those taking concomitant medication in addition to topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Methods: This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study used the US Department of Defense (DoD) electronic health records (EHR) database. The database included 521,593 individuals with ≥ 1 prescription for DSG1% for either indicated or non-indicated conditions with mean (standard deviation; SD) follow-up of 348.4 (562.4) days. The primary outcome measure assessed the incidence of predefined events of interest (EOIs), including gastrointestinal, hepatic, renal diseases, cardiovascular events, hypertension, skin reaction, misuse, abuse, and death (all-cause mortality).

Results: The average age of subjects was 56.7 years (SD = 18.1), with women comprising 60.4% of population. During study-period, 74.2% of subjects experienced no adverse EOIs after initiating treatment with DSG1%. Among the remaining 25.8%, average time to first EOI was 244.0 (SD = 368.6) days. Notably, the frequency of reported EOIs increased with age. Additionally, subjects with conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or diabetes had a higher incidence of cardiovascular EOIs.

Conclusions: The study results indicate that DSG demonstrated a favorable safety profile, particularly for patients with comorbidities and high-risk factors and when used with other medications. Despite an older population and high baseline risk factors (93%), only 26% DSG1% users experienced a predefined EOI, observed on average 244.0 (368.6) days from index date. These findings confirm the long-term tolerability of topical DSG1% for musculoskeletal disorders.

简介:肌肉骨骼疾病是一个重大的健康挑战和残疾的第二大原因全世界。双氯芬酸钠局部凝胶1% (DSG1%)提供有效的缓解关节炎疼痛。虽然临床研究表明DSG1%是安全且耐受性良好的,但在现实环境中的长期安全性和耐受性是有限的。本研究旨在分析DSG1%的使用者和处方者,并在8.5年的筛查期(平均随访近1年)中评估其安全性和耐受性。重点是有危险因素和合并症的患者,特别是那些同时服用局部非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)的患者。方法:这项回顾性、纵向队列研究使用了美国国防部(DoD)电子健康记录(EHR)数据库。该数据库包括521,593名患者,他们的DSG1%处方≥1次,用于指征性或非指征性疾病,平均(标准差;SD)随访348.4(562.4)天。主要结局指标评估了预先确定的感兴趣事件(eoi)的发生率,包括胃肠道、肝脏、肾脏疾病、心血管事件、高血压、皮肤反应、误用、滥用和死亡(全因死亡率)。结果:研究对象的平均年龄为56.7岁(SD = 18.1),女性占60.4%。在研究期间,74.2%的受试者在开始使用DSG1%治疗后没有出现不良情绪反应。在剩余的25.8%中,到首次EOI的平均时间为244.0 (SD = 368.6)天。值得注意的是,报告的情绪激动的频率随着年龄的增长而增加。此外,患有类风湿关节炎、系统性红斑狼疮或糖尿病等疾病的受试者心血管性eoi的发病率更高。结论:研究结果表明,DSG具有良好的安全性,特别是对于有合并症和高危因素的患者,以及与其他药物联合使用时。尽管人口年龄较大,基线风险因素较高(93%),但只有26%的DSG1%用户经历了预定义的EOI,从指数日期起平均观察到244.0(368.6)天。这些发现证实了局部DSG1%治疗肌肉骨骼疾病的长期耐受性。
{"title":"Evaluating the Real-World Use of Topical Diclofenac Sodium Gel 1% Using US Longitudinal Electronic Health Records Database: A study supporting OTC switch.","authors":"Nicholas M Sicignano, Frédérique Bariguian Revel, Richard Petruschke, Francis P Barbone, Karin Nicholson, Jess D Edison","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00723-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00723-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Musculoskeletal conditions are a significant health challenge and second leading cause of disability worldwide. Diclofenac sodium topical gel 1% (DSG1%) provides effective relief of arthritis pain. While clinical studies show that DSG1% is safe and well-tolerated, long-term safety and tolerability in real-world settings are limited. This study aimed to profile users and prescribers of DSG1% and to evaluate its safety and tolerability over a screening period of 8.5 years with an average follow-up of nearly 1 year. The focus was on patients with risk factors and comorbidities, especially those taking concomitant medication in addition to topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study used the US Department of Defense (DoD) electronic health records (EHR) database. The database included 521,593 individuals with ≥ 1 prescription for DSG1% for either indicated or non-indicated conditions with mean (standard deviation; SD) follow-up of 348.4 (562.4) days. The primary outcome measure assessed the incidence of predefined events of interest (EOIs), including gastrointestinal, hepatic, renal diseases, cardiovascular events, hypertension, skin reaction, misuse, abuse, and death (all-cause mortality).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age of subjects was 56.7 years (SD = 18.1), with women comprising 60.4% of population. During study-period, 74.2% of subjects experienced no adverse EOIs after initiating treatment with DSG1%. Among the remaining 25.8%, average time to first EOI was 244.0 (SD = 368.6) days. Notably, the frequency of reported EOIs increased with age. Additionally, subjects with conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or diabetes had a higher incidence of cardiovascular EOIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study results indicate that DSG demonstrated a favorable safety profile, particularly for patients with comorbidities and high-risk factors and when used with other medications. Despite an older population and high baseline risk factors (93%), only 26% DSG1% users experienced a predefined EOI, observed on average 244.0 (368.6) days from index date. These findings confirm the long-term tolerability of topical DSG1% for musculoskeletal disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1007-1024"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085454/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143764589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Adverse Reactions Following First-Dose Administration of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol Alone for Moderate-To-Severe Acute Pain. 首次给药曲马多-塞来昔布共晶与单独曲马多治疗中重度急性疼痛的不良反应。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-02 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00730-w
Adelaida Morte, Mariano Sust, Anna Vaqué, Jesús Cebrecos, José María Giménez-Arnau

Introduction: Phase 3 clinical trials in moderate-to-severe acute pain have shown that co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) has improved efficacy and comparable tolerability versus immediate-release tramadol 50 mg alone, with a similar tramadol daily dose, over a 48-h treatment period. However, it is not known how first-dose tolerability compares, given that the administered dose of tramadol is higher in CTC 200 mg (88 mg) versus immediate-release tramadol 50 mg. This was explored in a post hoc analysis of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Methods: A randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain (NCT03108482) and has been previously reported. This post hoc analysis evaluated the prevalence of the four most common study drug-related, opioid-associated, treatment-emergent adverse reactions reported in phase 3 CTC clinical trials: somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. Prevalence was evaluated in 2-h intervals, up to 6 h post first dose (just before second-dose administration) of CTC 200 mg or immediate-release tramadol 50 mg p.o. Descriptive analysis was performed.

Results: Each group comprised 183 participants for analysis. The proportions of patients reporting drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse reactions of somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting were similar between treatment groups at 2, 4, and 6 h following the first dose.

Conclusions: This post hoc analysis indicates that the higher dose of tramadol (88 mg) given in CTC 200 mg did not result in an increase in drug-related adverse reactions after first-dose administration, and had a similar tolerability profile, compared with immediate-release tramadol 50 mg alone (the lowest dose recommended for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain). This is in line with earlier findings for the 48-h treatment period of this phase 3 trial and may be explained by CTC's differentiated physiochemical properties related to its co-crystal structure. These findings may have utility for practicing clinicians.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03108482.

导读:治疗中重度急性疼痛的3期临床试验表明,曲马多-塞来昔布(CTC)共晶在48小时的治疗期内,与曲马多单用50 mg速释曲马多相比,疗效更好,耐受性相当。曲马多日剂量相似。然而,考虑到曲马多在CTC中给药剂量200mg (88mg)高于速释曲马多50mg,尚不清楚如何比较首次给药耐受性。这在一项关键的3期试验的事后分析中得到了探讨。方法:一项随机,双盲,因子,主动和安慰剂对照的3期试验在中重度急性术后疼痛患者(NCT03108482)中进行,并已报道。本事后分析评估了CTC三期临床试验中报告的四种最常见的药物相关、阿片类药物相关、治疗中出现的不良反应的发生率:嗜睡、恶心、头晕和呕吐。每隔2小时评估一次CTC 200mg或曲马多50mg p.o给药后6小时(第二次给药前)的患病率。进行描述性分析。结果:每组183人进行分析。在第一次给药后2、4和6小时,两组患者报告药物相关、治疗引起的嗜睡、恶心、头晕和呕吐不良反应的比例相似。结论:该事后分析表明,CTC 200mg中较高剂量的曲马多(88 mg)在首次给药后不会导致药物相关不良反应的增加,并且与单独速释曲马多50mg(推荐用于治疗中至重度急性疼痛的最低剂量)相比,具有相似的耐受性。这与前期三期试验48小时处理期的研究结果一致,可能是由于CTC与其共晶结构相关的不同理化性质。这些发现可能对临床医生有实用价值。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov识别码,NCT03108482。
{"title":"Adverse Reactions Following First-Dose Administration of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol Alone for Moderate-To-Severe Acute Pain.","authors":"Adelaida Morte, Mariano Sust, Anna Vaqué, Jesús Cebrecos, José María Giménez-Arnau","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00730-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00730-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Phase 3 clinical trials in moderate-to-severe acute pain have shown that co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) has improved efficacy and comparable tolerability versus immediate-release tramadol 50 mg alone, with a similar tramadol daily dose, over a 48-h treatment period. However, it is not known how first-dose tolerability compares, given that the administered dose of tramadol is higher in CTC 200 mg (88 mg) versus immediate-release tramadol 50 mg. This was explored in a post hoc analysis of a pivotal phase 3 trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain (NCT03108482) and has been previously reported. This post hoc analysis evaluated the prevalence of the four most common study drug-related, opioid-associated, treatment-emergent adverse reactions reported in phase 3 CTC clinical trials: somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. Prevalence was evaluated in 2-h intervals, up to 6 h post first dose (just before second-dose administration) of CTC 200 mg or immediate-release tramadol 50 mg p.o. Descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each group comprised 183 participants for analysis. The proportions of patients reporting drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse reactions of somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting were similar between treatment groups at 2, 4, and 6 h following the first dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This post hoc analysis indicates that the higher dose of tramadol (88 mg) given in CTC 200 mg did not result in an increase in drug-related adverse reactions after first-dose administration, and had a similar tolerability profile, compared with immediate-release tramadol 50 mg alone (the lowest dose recommended for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain). This is in line with earlier findings for the 48-h treatment period of this phase 3 trial and may be explained by CTC's differentiated physiochemical properties related to its co-crystal structure. These findings may have utility for practicing clinicians.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03108482.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1147-1154"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085740/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143993766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Naldemedine Use and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients treated with Opioid Analgesics for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: Results of a Real-world Study in the USA. 使用阿片类镇痛药治疗慢性非癌性疼痛患者的纳地美定使用和医疗资源利用:美国一项真实世界研究的结果
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-12 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00720-y
Antonio De Vincentis, Bin Cai, Marco Moscarda, Peter M F Barnes, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi

Introduction: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common side effect of chronic opioid therapy that significantly impacts quality of life and healthcare costs. Naldemedine, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, has shown efficacy in treating OIC. However, real-world evidence on naldemedine use in the United States is limited, particularly in older adults. We aimed to describe naldemedine use in real-world settings in the US, focusing on clinical characteristics, comorbidity profiles, co-prescribed medications, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), with a specific emphasis on older adults.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from the 2017-2022 Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Databases. We identified 2110 naldemedine users aged ≥ 30 years on chronic opioid therapy. Demographic and clinical characteristics, co-prescribed medications, and HCRU were evaluated. Subgroup analysis focused on patients aged ≥ 65 years.

Results: The study cohort (66% women, median age 56 years, 14% aged ≥ 65 years) presented a significant comorbidity burden, with 57% having hypertension, 36% diabetes, and 25% chronic pulmonary disease with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 in 38% of subjects. Polypharmacy (i.e., use of five or more distinct drugs, excluding naldemedine) was very common (76%, 82% in ≥ 65 years). The most frequent indications for naldemedine were chronic back pain and radiculopathy. Oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine were the most commonly prescribed opioids. After initiating naldemedine, 30% of patients showed a reduction in hospitalizations per patient per year, with a more pronounced effect in older adults (37%). Potential drug-drug interactions with CYP3A4 inducers or inhibitors were infrequent and did not appear to impact HCRU.

Conclusions: This real-world study demonstrates that naldemedine is predominantly used in middle-aged adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy. Naldemedine use was associated with reduced HCRU, particularly in older adults, suggesting potential benefits in managing OIC. The findings support the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine in real-world settings, including in older patients with multiple comorbidities.

阿片类药物引起的便秘(OIC)是慢性阿片类药物治疗的常见副作用,显著影响生活质量和医疗保健费用。纳地美定是一种外周作用的多阿片受体拮抗剂,已显示出治疗OIC的疗效。然而,在美国,关于naldemedine使用的真实证据是有限的,特别是在老年人中。我们的目的是描述naldemedine在美国现实环境中的使用情况,重点关注临床特征、合并症概况、共处方药物和医疗资源利用(HCRU),并特别强调老年人。方法:本回顾性研究分析了2017-2022年Merative™MarketScan®商业和医疗保险数据库的数据。我们确定了2110名年龄≥30岁接受慢性阿片类药物治疗的纳尔地米丁使用者。评估了人口统计学和临床特征、共同处方药物和HCRU。亚组分析集中于年龄≥65岁的患者。结果:该研究队列(66%为女性,中位年龄56岁,14%年龄≥65岁)存在显著的合并症负担,57%的受试者患有高血压,36%的受试者患有糖尿病,38%的受试者患有25%的慢性肺部疾病,且Charlson合并症指数≥2。多药(即使用五种或更多种不同的药物,不包括纳德美定)非常常见(76%,≥65岁的82%)。naldemedine最常见的适应症是慢性背痛和神经根病。羟考酮、氢可酮和吗啡是最常用的阿片类药物。在开始使用纳尔地美定后,30%的患者显示出每年每位患者住院次数的减少,在老年人中效果更明显(37%)。潜在的药物与CYP3A4诱导剂或抑制剂的相互作用并不常见,似乎不影响HCRU。结论:这项现实世界的研究表明,纳地美定主要用于有合并症和多药的中年人。Naldemedine的使用与HCRU的降低有关,特别是在老年人中,这表明在治疗OIC方面有潜在的益处。该研究结果支持了naldemedine在现实环境中的安全性和有效性,包括对患有多种合并症的老年患者。
{"title":"Naldemedine Use and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients treated with Opioid Analgesics for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: Results of a Real-world Study in the USA.","authors":"Antonio De Vincentis, Bin Cai, Marco Moscarda, Peter M F Barnes, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00720-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00720-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common side effect of chronic opioid therapy that significantly impacts quality of life and healthcare costs. Naldemedine, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, has shown efficacy in treating OIC. However, real-world evidence on naldemedine use in the United States is limited, particularly in older adults. We aimed to describe naldemedine use in real-world settings in the US, focusing on clinical characteristics, comorbidity profiles, co-prescribed medications, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), with a specific emphasis on older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed data from the 2017-2022 Merative™ MarketScan<sup>®</sup> Commercial and Medicare Databases. We identified 2110 naldemedine users aged ≥ 30 years on chronic opioid therapy. Demographic and clinical characteristics, co-prescribed medications, and HCRU were evaluated. Subgroup analysis focused on patients aged ≥ 65 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study cohort (66% women, median age 56 years, 14% aged ≥ 65 years) presented a significant comorbidity burden, with 57% having hypertension, 36% diabetes, and 25% chronic pulmonary disease with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 in 38% of subjects. Polypharmacy (i.e., use of five or more distinct drugs, excluding naldemedine) was very common (76%, 82% in ≥ 65 years). The most frequent indications for naldemedine were chronic back pain and radiculopathy. Oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine were the most commonly prescribed opioids. After initiating naldemedine, 30% of patients showed a reduction in hospitalizations per patient per year, with a more pronounced effect in older adults (37%). Potential drug-drug interactions with CYP3A4 inducers or inhibitors were infrequent and did not appear to impact HCRU.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This real-world study demonstrates that naldemedine is predominantly used in middle-aged adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy. Naldemedine use was associated with reduced HCRU, particularly in older adults, suggesting potential benefits in managing OIC. The findings support the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine in real-world settings, including in older patients with multiple comorbidities.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"957-969"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085462/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143616757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Vulvodynia and Chronic Vulvar Pain: Influencing Factors and Long-Term Success After Therapeutic Local Anesthesia (TLA). 外阴痛和慢性外阴疼痛:治疗性局部麻醉(TLA)后的影响因素和长期成功。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-03 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00725-7
Axel Gerhardt, Manuel Feisst, Thomas Strowitzki, Oliver Zivanovic, Stefan Weinschenk

Introduction: Vulvodynia is a debilitating sexual disorder with a high prevalence of 7-11%. In the study reported here, we analyzed long-term results from a prospective, non-controlled observational study to enhance our understanding of the success of therapeutic local anesthesia (TLA) and to investigate factors that predict a response or failure of therapy, with the overall aim to gain new insights into the complex medical condition of vulvodynia.

Methods: A total of 45 patients diagnosed with severe chronic vulvodynia or chronic vulvar pain (Numeric Analog Scale [NAS] ≥ 6, median 7.9, duration ≥ 6 months, median 65.2 months) and previously treated with TLA were re-evaluated 4.5-13 years after therapy. Therapy response was defined as NAS ≤ 4 for at least 6 months.

Results: Of the 45 patients originally diagnosed with vulvodynia, 38 were available for follow-up (32 of the original 36 responders, and 4 of the 9 non-responders). The average follow-up period was 7.9 years (95.2 months, range 55-156 months) after the end of therapy. All responders remained symptom-free, and two of the non-responders also became responders. Factors associated with non-response were: the number of physicians seen previously, lichen sclerosus, previous traumata, relapses of recurrent cystitis, corticoid therapy, and psychological factors, including depression, psychotropic drug intake, and psychotherapy. Body mass index (BMI) was lower in non-responders. The number of deliveries, cesarean sections, abortions, age, hormonal status, other medication intake, and gynecological surgeries had no impact on the results.

Conclusion: The long-term success of TLA supports the hypothesis that neuralgia of one or more nerves of the pelvic floor is an important component in the development of vulvodynia. This study provides evidence for the long-term effectiveness of TLA in women with vulvodynia, as well as potential obstacles to healing. Despite limitations imposed by a monocentric, non-controlled observational design, the robustness of this investigation lies in the long observation period after treatment and the substantial percentage of patients for whom TLA was successful. The long-term results emphasize the necessity of a holistic approach integrating the view of vulvodynia as a peripheral neuro-functional disorder.

简介外阴炎是一种使人衰弱的性功能障碍,发病率高达 7-11%。在本文报告的研究中,我们分析了一项前瞻性非对照观察研究的长期结果,以加深我们对治疗性局部麻醉(TLA)成功率的理解,并调查预测治疗反应或失败的因素,总体目标是对外阴炎这一复杂的医学症状获得新的认识:共有45名患者被诊断为重度慢性外阴炎或慢性外阴疼痛(数字类比量表[NAS]≥6,中位数为7.9,持续时间≥6个月,中位数为65.2个月),曾接受过TLA治疗,治疗后4.5-13年重新进行了评估。治疗反应定义为NAS≤4至少6个月:在最初确诊的 45 名外阴炎患者中,有 38 人接受了随访(最初的 36 名应答者中有 32 人,9 名未应答者中有 4 人)。平均随访时间为治疗结束后 7.9 年(95.2 个月,范围为 55-156 个月)。所有应答者均无症状,其中两名无应答者也成为应答者。与无应答相关的因素包括:之前就诊的医生数量、地衣硬化症、之前的创伤、复发性膀胱炎复发、皮质类固醇治疗以及心理因素,包括抑郁、精神药物摄入量和心理治疗。无应答者的体重指数(BMI)较低。分娩次数、剖腹产次数、人工流产次数、年龄、激素水平、其他药物摄入量和妇科手术次数对结果没有影响:TLA的长期成功支持了盆底一根或多根神经痛是外阴炎发生的重要因素这一假设。这项研究为 TLA 对患有外阴炎的妇女的长期有效性提供了证据,同时也指出了治疗的潜在障碍。尽管单中心、非对照观察设计带来了局限性,但这项研究的稳健性在于治疗后的长期观察期和相当大比例的 TLA 成功患者。长期的治疗结果强调了将外阴炎视为外周神经功能紊乱的整体治疗方法的必要性。
{"title":"Vulvodynia and Chronic Vulvar Pain: Influencing Factors and Long-Term Success After Therapeutic Local Anesthesia (TLA).","authors":"Axel Gerhardt, Manuel Feisst, Thomas Strowitzki, Oliver Zivanovic, Stefan Weinschenk","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00725-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00725-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vulvodynia is a debilitating sexual disorder with a high prevalence of 7-11%. In the study reported here, we analyzed long-term results from a prospective, non-controlled observational study to enhance our understanding of the success of therapeutic local anesthesia (TLA) and to investigate factors that predict a response or failure of therapy, with the overall aim to gain new insights into the complex medical condition of vulvodynia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 45 patients diagnosed with severe chronic vulvodynia or chronic vulvar pain (Numeric Analog Scale [NAS] ≥ 6, median 7.9, duration ≥ 6 months, median 65.2 months) and previously treated with TLA were re-evaluated 4.5-13 years after therapy. Therapy response was defined as NAS ≤ 4 for at least 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 45 patients originally diagnosed with vulvodynia, 38 were available for follow-up (32 of the original 36 responders, and 4 of the 9 non-responders). The average follow-up period was 7.9 years (95.2 months, range 55-156 months) after the end of therapy. All responders remained symptom-free, and two of the non-responders also became responders. Factors associated with non-response were: the number of physicians seen previously, lichen sclerosus, previous traumata, relapses of recurrent cystitis, corticoid therapy, and psychological factors, including depression, psychotropic drug intake, and psychotherapy. Body mass index (BMI) was lower in non-responders. The number of deliveries, cesarean sections, abortions, age, hormonal status, other medication intake, and gynecological surgeries had no impact on the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The long-term success of TLA supports the hypothesis that neuralgia of one or more nerves of the pelvic floor is an important component in the development of vulvodynia. This study provides evidence for the long-term effectiveness of TLA in women with vulvodynia, as well as potential obstacles to healing. Despite limitations imposed by a monocentric, non-controlled observational design, the robustness of this investigation lies in the long observation period after treatment and the substantial percentage of patients for whom TLA was successful. The long-term results emphasize the necessity of a holistic approach integrating the view of vulvodynia as a peripheral neuro-functional disorder.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1025-1043"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085484/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143773045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A National Cross-Sectional Survey on Real-World Experiences of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Monoclonal Antibody Use in Adults with Migraine in Finland. 芬兰成人偏头痛患者使用降钙素基因相关肽(CGRP)单克隆抗体的全国横断面调查
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-06 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00719-5
Caroline S Casey, Mari Pölkki, Elisa K Suvanen, Ilona Iso-Mustajärvi, Timo Purmonen, Essi J Peltonen, Camilla K Appel, Niraj J Patel, Lill-Brith Von Arx

Introduction: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were the first preventive migraine treatment group to target the underlying cause of migraine. This survey evaluated real-life experiences of adults with migraine in Finland before and after using their current subcutaneous CGRP mAb treatment.

Methods: Adult users of a subcutaneous CGRP mAb for migraine prevention were recruited for an electronic cross-sectional survey by Finnish community pharmacies and Migraine Finland (a patient advocacy group) in 2023. The survey included questions regarding monthly migraine headache days, absenteeism, general disability, pain intensity, treatment patterns, and a validated Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQoL) questionnaire.

Results: The survey was completed by 383 users of subcutaneous CGRP mAb medication, of whom 78 (20.4%) were receiving galcanezumab. Users of galcanezumab, the latest CGRP mAb to be reimbursed in Finland, had more previous CGRP mAb treatment switches than users of other CGRP mAbs. Following any subcutaneous CGRP mAb use, changes were observed in the number of monthly migraine headache days (0-7 experienced by 17/379 participants [4.5%] with data before, versus 302/379 [79.7%] after using treatment; ≥ 12 experienced by 279/379 [73.6%] before, versus 34/379 [9.0%] after), monthly sick leave days (from 139/376 [37.0%] to 15/376 [4.0%] with ≥ 4 monthly sick leave days), overall ability to work or study (from 180/377 [47.7%] to 287/377 [76.1%] able to work or study full time) and average intensity of migraine pain (median [lower-upper quartile] from 8.0 [7.0-9.0] before to 6.0 [4.0-8.0] after). No differences were observed between total MSQoL scores for new (0-6 months CGRP mAb use) versus persistent (≥ 6 months use) users of any CGRP mAb.

Conclusions: Patient experiences of using subcutaneous CGRP mAbs in Finland showed improvements in several migraine-related factors, supporting the potential for CGRP mAbs to improve the quality of life of adults with migraine.

简介:降钙素基因相关肽(CGRP)单克隆抗体(mab)是首个针对偏头痛潜在病因的预防性偏头痛治疗组。这项调查评估了芬兰成人偏头痛患者在使用目前的皮下CGRP单抗治疗前后的真实经历。方法:2023年,芬兰社区药房和偏头痛芬兰(患者倡导组织)招募了用于预防偏头痛的皮下CGRP单抗的成年使用者进行电子横断面调查。调查的问题包括每月偏头痛天数、旷工、一般残疾、疼痛强度、治疗模式和一份经过验证的偏头痛特异性生活质量(MSQoL)问卷。结果:该调查由383名皮下CGRP单抗药物使用者完成,其中78名(20.4%)接受了galcanezumab。galcanezumab(芬兰最新报销的CGRP单抗)的使用者比其他CGRP单抗的使用者有更多的既往CGRP单抗治疗切换。在任何皮下使用CGRP单抗后,观察到每月偏头痛天数的变化(使用治疗前数据为17/379[4.5%],使用治疗后为302/379[79.7%];使用治疗前数据为0-7天,279/379[73.6%],使用治疗后数据为34/379[9.0%]),每月病假天数(从139/376[37.0%]到15/376[4.0%],每月病假天数≥4天)。总体工作或学习能力(从180/377[47.7%]到287/377[76.1%])和偏头痛的平均强度(中位数[上下四分位数]从之前的8.0[7.0-9.0]到之后的6.0[4.0-8.0])。新使用CGRP单抗者(0-6个月)与持续使用CGRP单抗者(≥6个月)的MSQoL总分无差异。结论:芬兰患者使用皮下CGRP单克隆抗体的经验表明,几种偏头痛相关因素得到改善,支持CGRP单克隆抗体改善成人偏头痛患者生活质量的潜力。
{"title":"A National Cross-Sectional Survey on Real-World Experiences of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Monoclonal Antibody Use in Adults with Migraine in Finland.","authors":"Caroline S Casey, Mari Pölkki, Elisa K Suvanen, Ilona Iso-Mustajärvi, Timo Purmonen, Essi J Peltonen, Camilla K Appel, Niraj J Patel, Lill-Brith Von Arx","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00719-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00719-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were the first preventive migraine treatment group to target the underlying cause of migraine. This survey evaluated real-life experiences of adults with migraine in Finland before and after using their current subcutaneous CGRP mAb treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult users of a subcutaneous CGRP mAb for migraine prevention were recruited for an electronic cross-sectional survey by Finnish community pharmacies and Migraine Finland (a patient advocacy group) in 2023. The survey included questions regarding monthly migraine headache days, absenteeism, general disability, pain intensity, treatment patterns, and a validated Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQoL) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was completed by 383 users of subcutaneous CGRP mAb medication, of whom 78 (20.4%) were receiving galcanezumab. Users of galcanezumab, the latest CGRP mAb to be reimbursed in Finland, had more previous CGRP mAb treatment switches than users of other CGRP mAbs. Following any subcutaneous CGRP mAb use, changes were observed in the number of monthly migraine headache days (0-7 experienced by 17/379 participants [4.5%] with data before, versus 302/379 [79.7%] after using treatment; ≥ 12 experienced by 279/379 [73.6%] before, versus 34/379 [9.0%] after), monthly sick leave days (from 139/376 [37.0%] to 15/376 [4.0%] with ≥ 4 monthly sick leave days), overall ability to work or study (from 180/377 [47.7%] to 287/377 [76.1%] able to work or study full time) and average intensity of migraine pain (median [lower-upper quartile] from 8.0 [7.0-9.0] before to 6.0 [4.0-8.0] after). No differences were observed between total MSQoL scores for new (0-6 months CGRP mAb use) versus persistent (≥ 6 months use) users of any CGRP mAb.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient experiences of using subcutaneous CGRP mAbs in Finland showed improvements in several migraine-related factors, supporting the potential for CGRP mAbs to improve the quality of life of adults with migraine.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1045-1061"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085427/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143796116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Pain Control Paradigms: A Comparative Review of Anesthesia Techniques in Trigeminal Neuralgia Therapy. 疼痛控制范式:三叉神经痛治疗麻醉技术的比较综述。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-15 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00738-2
Lan Lai, Keyue Xie

This review summarizes the intraoperative anesthesia protocols for radiofrequency thermal coagulation in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of two primary anesthesia approaches. The first approach involves the injection of local anesthetics, such as lidocaine, at the radiofrequency target, which can alleviate pain during the procedure but carries potential risks. The second approach discusses the efficacy of intravenous administration of propofol for pain control, highlighting the necessity for vigilant monitoring of vital signs during the procedure. This article aims to provide the latest evidence-based guidance for anesthesia protocol selection in clinical practice.

本文综述了术中射频热凝治疗三叉神经痛的麻醉方案,重点介绍了两种主要麻醉方法的优缺点。第一种方法是在射频靶处注射局部麻醉剂,如利多卡因,这可以减轻手术过程中的疼痛,但有潜在的风险。第二种方法讨论了静脉注射异丙酚控制疼痛的有效性,强调了在手术过程中警惕监测生命体征的必要性。本文旨在为临床麻醉方案的选择提供最新的循证指导。
{"title":"Pain Control Paradigms: A Comparative Review of Anesthesia Techniques in Trigeminal Neuralgia Therapy.","authors":"Lan Lai, Keyue Xie","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00738-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00738-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This review summarizes the intraoperative anesthesia protocols for radiofrequency thermal coagulation in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of two primary anesthesia approaches. The first approach involves the injection of local anesthetics, such as lidocaine, at the radiofrequency target, which can alleviate pain during the procedure but carries potential risks. The second approach discusses the efficacy of intravenous administration of propofol for pain control, highlighting the necessity for vigilant monitoring of vital signs during the procedure. This article aims to provide the latest evidence-based guidance for anesthesia protocol selection in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"881-889"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085525/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144032552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Multimodal Therapies for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: The Role of Lidocaine Patches in Combination Therapy: A Narrative Review. 治疗神经性疼痛的多模式疗法:利多卡因贴片在联合疗法中的作用:叙述性综述。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-08 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00733-7
Srinivas Nalamachu, Theresa Mallick-Searle, Jeremy Adler, Elaine K Chan, Wendy Borgersen, Dmitri Lissin

Neuropathic pain (NP) has a population presence of up to 10%. Both systemic agents and topical agents are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of NP but monotherapy provides adequate pain relief only in < 50% of the cases. This has created the need for multimodal combination therapy, a practice that is becoming more common. Combination therapy with multiple systemic agents has a risk for drug-drug interactions and adverse events (AEs), while add-on therapy with a topical agent such as lidocaine patches minimizes such risks. The focus of this review was to find if there is evidence from trials that combination therapy of the topical lidocaine patches with systemic agents will have better efficacy and/or less risk of AEs than the combination of two systemic agents. Since gabapentinoids are one of the most common systemic agents used in first-line NP therapy, the objective of this review was to summarize the safety and efficacy data and evaluate the benefit-risk ratio from three gabapentinoid combinations; gabapentinoid plus opioids, gabapentinoid plus antidepressants, and gabapentinoid plus topical lidocaine patches. Reviews of clinical trials of combinations of gabapentinoids plus other systemic agents (opioids or antidepressants) were associated with increased AEs and dropouts while improvement in analgesic efficacy was inconsistent. Clinical trials where the patients were provided topical lidocaine patches when their first treatment with a gabapentinoid was inadequate demonstrated improved analgesic efficacy with minimal additional AEs. This led to the conclusion that topical lidocaine patches-associated with minimal systemic adverse effects and proven benefits in various neuropathic pain (NP) conditions-can enhance the likelihood of achieving meaningful pain relief when used as adjuvant therapy for NP.

神经性疼痛(NP)在人群中的发病率高达10%。全身药物和局部药物都被推荐作为治疗NP的一线治疗方法,但单药治疗只能在以下情况下提供足够的疼痛缓解
{"title":"Multimodal Therapies for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: The Role of Lidocaine Patches in Combination Therapy: A Narrative Review.","authors":"Srinivas Nalamachu, Theresa Mallick-Searle, Jeremy Adler, Elaine K Chan, Wendy Borgersen, Dmitri Lissin","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00733-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00733-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neuropathic pain (NP) has a population presence of up to 10%. Both systemic agents and topical agents are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of NP but monotherapy provides adequate pain relief only in < 50% of the cases. This has created the need for multimodal combination therapy, a practice that is becoming more common. Combination therapy with multiple systemic agents has a risk for drug-drug interactions and adverse events (AEs), while add-on therapy with a topical agent such as lidocaine patches minimizes such risks. The focus of this review was to find if there is evidence from trials that combination therapy of the topical lidocaine patches with systemic agents will have better efficacy and/or less risk of AEs than the combination of two systemic agents. Since gabapentinoids are one of the most common systemic agents used in first-line NP therapy, the objective of this review was to summarize the safety and efficacy data and evaluate the benefit-risk ratio from three gabapentinoid combinations; gabapentinoid plus opioids, gabapentinoid plus antidepressants, and gabapentinoid plus topical lidocaine patches. Reviews of clinical trials of combinations of gabapentinoids plus other systemic agents (opioids or antidepressants) were associated with increased AEs and dropouts while improvement in analgesic efficacy was inconsistent. Clinical trials where the patients were provided topical lidocaine patches when their first treatment with a gabapentinoid was inadequate demonstrated improved analgesic efficacy with minimal additional AEs. This led to the conclusion that topical lidocaine patches-associated with minimal systemic adverse effects and proven benefits in various neuropathic pain (NP) conditions-can enhance the likelihood of achieving meaningful pain relief when used as adjuvant therapy for NP.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"865-879"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085434/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143812109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Four-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective, Multicenter Study of Percutaneous 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain. 一项为期4年的前瞻性多中心研究:经皮60天外周神经刺激治疗慢性腰痛。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-22 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00737-3
Christopher A Gilmore, Timothy R Deer, Mehul J Desai, Sean Li, Michael J DePalma, Steven P Cohen, Brandon D Swan, Meredith J McGee, Joseph W Boggs

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of healthcare expenditure and long-term disability associated with complex treatment challenges and the need for progressively invasive interventions. Percutaneous 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) is a minimally invasive neurostimulation treatment that has shown efficacy for chronic LBP, providing sustained improvements through 1 year of follow-up after treatment. The present work explores the long-term clinical outcomes of Percutaneous 60-day PNS for chronic LBP approximately 4 years after initial treatment.

Methods: Follow-up surveys were sent to participants from a prior prospective study who reported clinically meaningful reductions in pain, disability, or pain interference 12 months after Percutaneous 60-day PNS for LBP. The present long-term follow-up survey assessed current levels of LBP, disability, pain interference, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Use of medications and other interventions for LBP treatment since completing Percutaneous 60-day PNS was also surveyed.

Results: In total, 23 participants returned completed long-term follow-up surveys. A majority of survey respondents (65%, n = 15/23) reported sustained, clinically meaningful (≥ 30%) relief of back pain compared with baseline an average of 4.7 years after PNS treatment was initiated. On average, these long-term responders reported clinically substantial (≥ 50%) reductions in pain (average 63% reduction), as well as clinically meaningful improvements in disability and quality of life. Furthermore, 70% (n = 16/23) of survey respondents avoided progression to more costly, invasive, and/or destructive LBP pain interventions (i.e., radiofrequency ablation, neurostimulation implant, or lumbar surgery).

Conclusions: Treatment with Percutaneous 60-day PNS provided clinically meaningful pain relief among a majority of surveyed participants an average of more than 4 years after the short-term treatment. These results demonstrate that Percutaneous 60-day PNS can provide durable outcomes that are often sustained for multiple (4+) years by patients with chronic axial LBP who subsequently avoid the need for more invasive treatment interventions.

Clinical trial registration: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the initial study is NCT03179202.

慢性腰痛(LBP)是医疗保健支出和长期残疾的主要原因,与复杂的治疗挑战和渐进侵入性干预的需求相关。经皮60天外周神经刺激(PNS)是一种微创神经刺激治疗,对慢性LBP有疗效,治疗后1年随访持续改善。本研究探讨了经皮60天PNS治疗慢性腰痛大约4年后的长期临床结果。方法:对先前前瞻性研究的参与者进行随访调查,这些参与者报告经皮60天PNS治疗LBP 12个月后疼痛、残疾或疼痛干扰有临床意义的减少。目前的长期随访调查评估了LBP、残疾、疼痛干扰和患者整体变化印象(PGIC)的当前水平。还调查了完成经皮60天PNS后使用药物和其他干预措施治疗LBP的情况。结果:共有23名参与者完成了长期随访调查。大多数调查对象(65%,n = 15/23)报告说,与开始PNS治疗后平均4.7年的基线相比,腰痛得到了持续的、有临床意义的(≥30%)缓解。平均而言,这些长期应答者报告临床显着(≥50%)疼痛减轻(平均减少63%),以及临床有意义的残疾和生活质量改善。此外,70% (n = 16/23)的调查对象避免进行更昂贵的、侵入性的和/或破坏性的腰痛干预(即射频消融、神经刺激植入物或腰椎手术)。结论:经皮60天PNS治疗在短期治疗后平均超过4年的大多数被调查参与者中提供了临床有意义的疼痛缓解。这些结果表明,经皮60天PNS可以为慢性轴性腰痛患者提供持久的结果,这些患者通常可以持续多年(4年以上),从而避免了更多侵入性治疗干预的需要。临床试验注册:初始研究的Clinicaltrials.gov注册号为NCT03179202。
{"title":"Four-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective, Multicenter Study of Percutaneous 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain.","authors":"Christopher A Gilmore, Timothy R Deer, Mehul J Desai, Sean Li, Michael J DePalma, Steven P Cohen, Brandon D Swan, Meredith J McGee, Joseph W Boggs","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00737-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00737-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of healthcare expenditure and long-term disability associated with complex treatment challenges and the need for progressively invasive interventions. Percutaneous 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) is a minimally invasive neurostimulation treatment that has shown efficacy for chronic LBP, providing sustained improvements through 1 year of follow-up after treatment. The present work explores the long-term clinical outcomes of Percutaneous 60-day PNS for chronic LBP approximately 4 years after initial treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Follow-up surveys were sent to participants from a prior prospective study who reported clinically meaningful reductions in pain, disability, or pain interference 12 months after Percutaneous 60-day PNS for LBP. The present long-term follow-up survey assessed current levels of LBP, disability, pain interference, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Use of medications and other interventions for LBP treatment since completing Percutaneous 60-day PNS was also surveyed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 23 participants returned completed long-term follow-up surveys. A majority of survey respondents (65%, n = 15/23) reported sustained, clinically meaningful (≥ 30%) relief of back pain compared with baseline an average of 4.7 years after PNS treatment was initiated. On average, these long-term responders reported clinically substantial (≥ 50%) reductions in pain (average 63% reduction), as well as clinically meaningful improvements in disability and quality of life. Furthermore, 70% (n = 16/23) of survey respondents avoided progression to more costly, invasive, and/or destructive LBP pain interventions (i.e., radiofrequency ablation, neurostimulation implant, or lumbar surgery).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Treatment with Percutaneous 60-day PNS provided clinically meaningful pain relief among a majority of surveyed participants an average of more than 4 years after the short-term treatment. These results demonstrate that Percutaneous 60-day PNS can provide durable outcomes that are often sustained for multiple (4+) years by patients with chronic axial LBP who subsequently avoid the need for more invasive treatment interventions.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the initial study is NCT03179202.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1103-1115"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085521/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143986980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Small Fibre Pathology in Fibromyalgia: A review. 纤维肌痛的小纤维病理:综述。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-13 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-024-00696-1
Anne Marshall, Mohamed Elshafei, Frank G Preston, Jamie Burgess, Nicola Goodson, Nicholas Fallon, Bernhard Frank, Sizheng Steven Zhao, Uazman Alam

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) presents a complex and challenging disorder in both the diagnosis and treatment, with emerging evidence suggesting a role of small fibre pathology (SFP) in its pathophysiology. The significance of the role of SFP in FMS remains unclear; however, recent evidence suggests degeneration and dysfunction of the peripheral nervous system, particularly small unmyelinated fibres, which may influence pathophysiology and underlying phenotype. Both skin biopsy and corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) have consistently demonstrated that ~ 50% of people with FMS have SFP. CCM, a non-invasive measure of small nerve fibres has detected small fibre loss, correlating with neuropathic pain descriptors. Additionally, quantitative sensory testing has shown abnormalities, primarily in pain pressure/mechanical pain thresholds. This narrative review provides a comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiological dimensions of FMS with a clear focus on small nerve fibres and the peripheral nervous system, offering a roadmap for future research.

纤维肌痛综合征(FMS)在诊断和治疗方面都是一种复杂而具有挑战性的疾病,越来越多的证据表明,小纤维病理(SFP)在其病理生理中起着重要作用。SFP在FMS中的作用意义尚不清楚;然而,最近的证据表明,周围神经系统的退化和功能障碍,特别是小的无髓鞘纤维,这可能影响病理生理和潜在的表型。皮肤活检和角膜共聚焦显微镜(CCM)一致表明,约50%的FMS患者有SFP。CCM是一种非侵入性测量小神经纤维的方法,可以检测到与神经性疼痛描述符相关的小纤维损失。此外,定量感觉测试显示异常,主要是疼痛压力/机械性疼痛阈值。这篇叙述性综述提供了对FMS病理生理维度的全面理解,并明确关注小神经纤维和周围神经系统,为未来的研究提供了路线图。
{"title":"Small Fibre Pathology in Fibromyalgia: A review.","authors":"Anne Marshall, Mohamed Elshafei, Frank G Preston, Jamie Burgess, Nicola Goodson, Nicholas Fallon, Bernhard Frank, Sizheng Steven Zhao, Uazman Alam","doi":"10.1007/s40122-024-00696-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-024-00696-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) presents a complex and challenging disorder in both the diagnosis and treatment, with emerging evidence suggesting a role of small fibre pathology (SFP) in its pathophysiology. The significance of the role of SFP in FMS remains unclear; however, recent evidence suggests degeneration and dysfunction of the peripheral nervous system, particularly small unmyelinated fibres, which may influence pathophysiology and underlying phenotype. Both skin biopsy and corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) have consistently demonstrated that ~ 50% of people with FMS have SFP. CCM, a non-invasive measure of small nerve fibres has detected small fibre loss, correlating with neuropathic pain descriptors. Additionally, quantitative sensory testing has shown abnormalities, primarily in pain pressure/mechanical pain thresholds. This narrative review provides a comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiological dimensions of FMS with a clear focus on small nerve fibres and the peripheral nervous system, offering a roadmap for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"461-478"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11914468/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142979477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluating Noninvasive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Joint and Soft Tissue Pain Management: A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial. 评估无创脉冲电磁场治疗关节和软组织疼痛:一项前瞻性,多中心,随机临床试验。
IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z
Joshua G Hackel, James M Paci, Sunny Gupta, David A Maravelas, Taylor J North, Adelina Paunescu

Introduction: Strategies to reduce pharmacologic use for pain are needed. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a noninvasive, nonpharmacologic treatment for pain that modifies nitric oxide signaling to improve healing. This study examined whether PEMF decreased pain and pharmacologic use vs. standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for joint and soft tissue pain.

Methods: This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 120 patients presenting with joint or soft tissue pain at five orthopedic clinic sites. The PEMF group self-administered daily therapy from a commercially available device and the SOC group received standard treatment daily as prescribed by the clinician. Patients recorded their pain level, pharmacologic usage, and adverse events daily for 14 days. After 14 days, patients in the SOC group were given the option to crossover to PEMF therapy and continue for 16 days. The study was overseen by an independent clinical research organization. It was hypothesized that PEMF would be superior to SOC for pain management.

Results: PEMF treatment provided significant analgesic benefits compared to SOC. Complete data was collected for 91 patients, 48 from the PEMF group and 43 from the SOC group. The least squares mean pain score change from baseline was - 1.8 (a 36% reduction) for the PEMF group, significantly surpassing - 0.46 (a 10% reduction) for the SOC group (p < 0.0001). Pharmacologic usage decreased from 40 to 18% for the PEMF group (a 55% reduction), while the SOC group decreased from 40 to 35% (a 12% reduction). In the crossover subgroup, patients experienced an additional 18% decrease in pain score and 63% decrease in pharmacologic use after switching from SOC to PEMF treatment.

Conclusions: PEMF was significantly more effective than SOC at managing pain and reducing pharmacologic use. PEMF therapy should be considered for noninvasive, nonpharmacologic management of joint and soft tissue pain.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187.

引言:减少药物治疗疼痛的策略是必要的。脉冲电磁场(PEMF)治疗是一种无创、非药物治疗疼痛的方法,通过改变一氧化氮信号来改善愈合。本研究考察了PEMF与标准治疗(SOC)相比是否能减轻关节和软组织疼痛的疼痛和药物使用。方法:这项前瞻性、随机对照试验纳入了5个骨科诊所的120例关节或软组织疼痛患者。PEMF组每天使用市售设备进行自我治疗,SOC组每天接受临床医生规定的标准治疗。患者每天记录疼痛程度、药物使用情况和不良事件,持续14天。14天后,SOC组的患者可以选择切换到PEMF治疗并持续16天。这项研究是由一个独立的临床研究组织监督的。假设PEMF在疼痛管理方面优于SOC。结果:与SOC相比,PEMF治疗具有显著的镇痛效果。收集了91例患者的完整数据,其中48例来自PEMF组,43例来自SOC组。与基线相比,PEMF组的最小二乘平均疼痛评分变化为- 1.8(减少36%),显著超过SOC组的- 0.46(减少10%)(p结论:PEMF在控制疼痛和减少药物使用方面明显比SOC更有效。对于关节和软组织疼痛的非侵入性、非药物治疗,应考虑采用脉冲电场治疗。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187。
{"title":"Evaluating Noninvasive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Joint and Soft Tissue Pain Management: A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Joshua G Hackel, James M Paci, Sunny Gupta, David A Maravelas, Taylor J North, Adelina Paunescu","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Strategies to reduce pharmacologic use for pain are needed. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a noninvasive, nonpharmacologic treatment for pain that modifies nitric oxide signaling to improve healing. This study examined whether PEMF decreased pain and pharmacologic use vs. standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for joint and soft tissue pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 120 patients presenting with joint or soft tissue pain at five orthopedic clinic sites. The PEMF group self-administered daily therapy from a commercially available device and the SOC group received standard treatment daily as prescribed by the clinician. Patients recorded their pain level, pharmacologic usage, and adverse events daily for 14 days. After 14 days, patients in the SOC group were given the option to crossover to PEMF therapy and continue for 16 days. The study was overseen by an independent clinical research organization. It was hypothesized that PEMF would be superior to SOC for pain management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PEMF treatment provided significant analgesic benefits compared to SOC. Complete data was collected for 91 patients, 48 from the PEMF group and 43 from the SOC group. The least squares mean pain score change from baseline was - 1.8 (a 36% reduction) for the PEMF group, significantly surpassing - 0.46 (a 10% reduction) for the SOC group (p < 0.0001). Pharmacologic usage decreased from 40 to 18% for the PEMF group (a 55% reduction), while the SOC group decreased from 40 to 35% (a 12% reduction). In the crossover subgroup, patients experienced an additional 18% decrease in pain score and 63% decrease in pharmacologic use after switching from SOC to PEMF treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEMF was significantly more effective than SOC at managing pain and reducing pharmacologic use. PEMF therapy should be considered for noninvasive, nonpharmacologic management of joint and soft tissue pain.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"723-735"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11914662/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143382993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Pain and Therapy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1