Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management

Background: Genetic sequencing is changing the way physicians practice medicine. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is one of the most common inheritable cardiac diseases. Sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease involving granulomatous infiltration of the lungs, heart, and other organs thought to be caused by a dysregulated immune system, influenced by genetic factors. Here, we present a case where an individual initially diagnosed with HCM was experiencing frequent episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT). Further workup, including advanced imaging along with whole genome screening (WGS), revealed an unlikely diagnosis of concurrent cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). Clinical History: A 62-year-old man had ventricular fibrillation with workup notable for an ECG with deeply inverted T-waves, normal coronary angiography, and an echocardiogram and MRI showing apical HCM. An ICD was placed. Six years later, he had VT requiring a shock and was started on sotalol. He has now developed recurrent exercise-induced VT. While VT is seen HCM, the increasing frequency prompted further evaluation. A CT coronary angiogram showed normal coronaries and mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Lymph node biopsy revealed noncaseating granulomas and a PET/CT revealed hypermetabolic basal myocardium meeting HRS criteria for CS. Given minimal apical FDG uptake and a low likelihood that he had CS for 9 years without significant fibrosis, he likely has both HCM and CS. Using WGS, four genetic variants previously described in CS and HCM were identified confirming this diagnosis, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DQA1, ALPK3, and TTN. Discussion: HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DQA1 are both major histocompatibility complexes associated with CS. ALPK3 encodes alpha kinase 3 while TTN encodes titin. Truncating variants of ALPK3 are associated with HCM while pathogenic TTN variants have been described to cause HCM, DCM, and ARVC. This case reflects the potential of WGS in aiding clinicians in confirming an unlikely diagnosis.

Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.

Background and AimsChronic pain affects more adults in the United States than any other condition. Opioid medications are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain, but there remains considerable risk and cost associated with their use. This study aims to characterize the effects of opioid prescribing for chronic pain and similar pain conditions on lost productivity in the United States.MethodsThis was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study of chronic pain patients in 2011–2014. We identified patients with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain receiving index prescription for opioids in administrative claims and studied disability absence in a linked health and productivity management database. Patients were grouped as de novo and continued use opioid users before index, and by opioid dose in the year after index. Days of disability were compared before and after index with bootstrapping. Effect of opioid dose group on disability was evaluated with negative binomial regression. Lost productivity cost was compared before and after index.ResultsThe cohort contained 16,273 de novo and 6604 continued use patients. On average, de novo patients used 24.8 days of disability after index, an increase of 18.3 more days compared to before (p < 0.001). Continued use patients used 30.7 days after index, 9 more days than before (p < 0.001). There was a dose–response relationship between dose group and days of disability in de novo patients (p < 0.001). The weighted-average cost per person of lost productivity was $4344 higher in the year after index compared to the year before.ConclusionOpioid prescriptions for pain patients were associated with significant disability use and lost productivity costs. With the evolution of opioid-prescribing practices, CDC recommendations, and the HHS Pain Management Best Practices, there is opportunity to use alternative pain therapies without the risks of opioid-induced side effects to improve work productivity.

Background and ObjectivesOsteoarthritis (OA) of the knee affects the aging population and has an associated influence on the health care system. Rigorous studies evaluating radiofrequency ablation for OA-related knee pain are lacking. This study compared long-term clinical safety and effectiveness of cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) with intra-articular steroid (IAS) injection in managing OA-related knee pain.MethodsThis is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial with 151 subjects with chronic (≥6 months) knee pain that was unresponsive to conservative modalities. Knee pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), Oxford Knee Score, overall treatment effect (Global Perceived Effect), analgesic drug use, and adverse events were compared between CRFA and IAS cohorts at 1, 3, and 6 months after intervention.ResultsThere were no differences in demographics between study groups. At 6 months, the CRFA group had more favorable outcomes in NRS: pain reduction 50% or greater: 74.1% versus 16.2%, P < 0.0001 (25.9% and 83.8% of these study cohorts, respectively, were nonresponders). Mean NRS score reduction was 4.9 ± 2.4 versus 1.3 ± 2.2, P < 0.0001; mean Oxford Knee Score was 35.7 ± 8.8 vs 22.4 ± 8.5, P < 0.0001; mean improved Global Perceived Effect was 91.4% vs 23.9%, P < 0.0001; and mean change in nonopioid medication use was CRFA > IAS (P = 0.02). There were no procedure-related serious adverse events.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that CRFA is an effective long-term therapeutic option for managing pain and improving physical function and quality of life for patients with painful knee OA when compared with IAS injection.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02343003).