British Journal of Pain最新文献

Chronic pain is becoming increasingly prevalent and burdensome both worldwide and in the United Kingdom. Due to the complexity of chronic pain and the therapeutic challenge associated, management is often difficult and requires multidisciplinary care encompassing a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Conventional analgesic treatments, such as opioids and anticonvulsants, are effective in less than half of chronic pain sufferers and are typically limited to short-term use to prevent complications associated with long-term use such as tolerance and dependence. Consequently, research and clinical interest in alternative management options for chronic pain have increased in recent years, with ketamine being one example under investigation. However, since ketamine has been licensed as an anaesthetic for decades, it has bypassed the traditional scrutinous drug development sequence that is typically seen for therapeutics marketed for pain. As such, data supporting the unlicensed administration of ketamine for chronic pain management is lacking and is being outpaced by the rates of off-label use in pain clinics. Recent limited evidence suggests that ketamine, when given as an intravenous infusion in subanaesthetic doses for refractory pain patients, may provide modest analgesic effects in nearly all aetiologies of chronic pain, with side effects common but typically mild. However, there are concerns over the safety of this practice due to the paucity of robust supportive evidence and the accompanying lack of clinical guidelines or standardised protocols. This review shall summarise the literature examining the use of subanaesthetic-dose ketamine infusions for chronic pain to comment on the current level of evidence, with limitations of existing research and future recommendations discussed.

Introduction: Mechanical chronic low back pain is often associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscles, the most important stabilizers of the lumbar spine. Restorative neurostimulation is a modality for the treatment for this specific subset of patients aimed to facilitate restoration of neuromuscular control by bilateral stimulation of the L2 medial branches. Evidence from both prospective and randomised clinical trials to date has demonstrated substantial improvements in clinical outcomes such as pain, disability and health-related quality of life.

Methods: This study is an open label prospective follow-up for the treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain of nociceptive origin with restorative neurostimulation. Patients completed assessments for pain, disability and health-related quality of life. Outcomes were collected at 45, 90 and 180 days, and 1, 2 and 3 years after the activation visit.

Results: Forty-two patients were implanted with the device and 33 (79%) were available at the 3-year appointment. Patients in this cohort presented with severe chronic low back pain (NRS = 7.0 ± 0.2) and severe disability (ODI 46.6 ± 12.0). The health-related quality of life was also severely impacted at baseline (EQ-5D 0.426 ± 0.061). Changes in pain, disability and quality of life at three-year follow-up demonstrated a statistically significant improvement between baseline and 1, 2 and 3 years. After 3 years of therapy, average NRS scores had reduced to 2.7± 0.3 and mean ODI score to 26.0 ± 3.1 while EQ-5D-5L index improved to 0.707 ± 0.036.

Conclusions: The ongoing follow-up of this post market cohort continues to demonstrate that restorative neurostimulation provides a statistically significant, clinically meaningful and durable response across pain, disability and quality-of life scores for patients suffering chronic mechanical low back pain that has been refractory to conventional management.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01985230.

Introduction: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a persistent pain condition with low prevalence. Multi-centre collaborative research is needed to attain sufficient sample sizes for meaningful studies. This international observational study: (1) tested the feasibility and acceptability of collecting outcome data using an agreed core measurement set (2) tested and refined an electronic data management system to collect and manage the data.

Methods: Adults with CRPS, meeting the Budapest diagnostic clinical criteria, were recruited to the study from 7 international research centres. After informed consent, a questionnaire comprising the core set outcome measures was completed: on paper at baseline (T1), and at 3 or 6 months (T2) using a paper or e-version. Participants and clinicians provided feedback on the data collection process. Clinicians completed the CRPS severity score at T1 and optionally, at T2. Ethical approval was obtained at each international centre.

Results: Ninety-eight adults were recruited (female n=66; mean age 46.6 years, range 19-89), of whom 32% chose to receive the T2 questionnaire in an electronic format. Fifty-five participants completed both T1 and T2. Eighteen participants and nine clinicians provided feedback on their data collection experience.

Conclusion: This study confirmed the questionnaire core outcome data are feasible and practicable to collect in clinical practice. The electronic data management system provided a robust means of collecting and managing the data across an international population. The findings have informed the final data collection tools and processes which will comprise the first international, clinical research registry and data bank for CRPS.