User login
MSK Clinic: Evaluating shoulder pain using IPASS
Opioid Epidemic
Galcanezumab benefits patients with migraine and medication overuse
PHILADELPHIA –
“When you have targeted preventive treatment and you reduce the burden of illness, medication overuse seems to be reduced as well,” said Sheena Aurora, MD, adjunct clinical associate professor of anesthesiology and perioperative and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. Dr. Aurora also is a medical fellow and global launch leader for galcanezumab at Eli Lilly, which has developed the treatment.
Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the calcitonin gene-related peptide. The phase 3 EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN studies indicated galcanezumab’s superiority to placebo in preventing episodic and chronic migraine.
A post hoc analysis of phase 3 data
Dr. Aurora and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the three phase 3 studies to examine galcanezumab’s effect in patients with medication overuse. EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 included patients with episodic migraine, and REGAIN included patients with chronic migraine. All participants were randomized to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo or galcanezumab (120 mg/month or 240 mg/month) for 3-6 months. Based on information obtained through electronic patient-reported outcome diaries, investigators determined headache medication overuse using criteria adapted from the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition. They estimated mean changes in monthly headache days and the proportion of patients with medication overuse after randomization using mixed modeling.
The demographic characteristics of the three study populations were similar to those reported in epidemiologic studies of migraine, said Dr. Aurora. Most participants were women, and most patients were between ages 40 and 49 years. At baseline, the mean number of monthly migraine headache days was 20 among patients with chronic migraine and 9 among patients with episodic migraine.
The rate of medication overuse was higher in the combined study population than in the literature. Patients with medication overuse had greater disability and greater health care resource utilization, compared with patients without medication overuse. Among patients with chronic migraine, participants who overused medication were not significantly different from those who did not. But among patients with episodic migraine, participants who overused medication had higher headache frequency than those who did not.
In the EVOLVE trials, the proportion of patients with baseline medication overuse was 19.3% in the placebo arm, 17.0% in the galcanezumab 120-mg arm, and 19.2% in the galcanezumab 240-mg arm. In REGAIN, the proportion of patients with baseline medication overuse was 63.4% in the placebo arm, 64.3% in the galcanezumab 120-mg arm, and 64.1% in the galcanezumab 240-mg arm.
Galcanezumab reduced medication overuse
Compared with placebo, both doses of galcanezumab significantly decreased mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with baseline medication overuse. In the EVOLVE studies, this endpoint decreased by 2.71 in the placebo group, 6.26 in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 5.77 in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. In REGAIN, the reductions were 2.25 in the placebo group, 4.78 in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 4.51 in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. The effect size was higher in patients who were overusing medications, compared with those who were not, said Dr. Aurora. “This is clinically relevant, because most of us ... had this belief that patients who were overusing medications may be more treatment-resistant to prevention.”
In addition, galcanezumab was associated with significantly lower rates of average monthly medication overuse, compared with placebo. In the EVOLVE studies, the average rate of monthly medication overuse was 15.9% for the placebo group, 6.2% for the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 7.9% for the galcanezumab 240-mg group. In REGAIN, the average rate of monthly medication overuse was 40.6% in the placebo group, 24.3% in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 23.1% in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. About 85% of patients with episodic migraine and medication overuse had a reduction in medication overuse, and approximately 50% of patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse had a reduction in medication overuse, said Dr. Aurora.
Dr. Aurora and coinvestigators are employees of Eli Lilly, which developed galcanezumab and funded the EVOLVE and REGAIN studies.
SOURCE: Aurora S et al. AHS 2019. Abstract IOR07.
PHILADELPHIA –
“When you have targeted preventive treatment and you reduce the burden of illness, medication overuse seems to be reduced as well,” said Sheena Aurora, MD, adjunct clinical associate professor of anesthesiology and perioperative and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. Dr. Aurora also is a medical fellow and global launch leader for galcanezumab at Eli Lilly, which has developed the treatment.
Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the calcitonin gene-related peptide. The phase 3 EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN studies indicated galcanezumab’s superiority to placebo in preventing episodic and chronic migraine.
A post hoc analysis of phase 3 data
Dr. Aurora and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the three phase 3 studies to examine galcanezumab’s effect in patients with medication overuse. EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 included patients with episodic migraine, and REGAIN included patients with chronic migraine. All participants were randomized to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo or galcanezumab (120 mg/month or 240 mg/month) for 3-6 months. Based on information obtained through electronic patient-reported outcome diaries, investigators determined headache medication overuse using criteria adapted from the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition. They estimated mean changes in monthly headache days and the proportion of patients with medication overuse after randomization using mixed modeling.
The demographic characteristics of the three study populations were similar to those reported in epidemiologic studies of migraine, said Dr. Aurora. Most participants were women, and most patients were between ages 40 and 49 years. At baseline, the mean number of monthly migraine headache days was 20 among patients with chronic migraine and 9 among patients with episodic migraine.
The rate of medication overuse was higher in the combined study population than in the literature. Patients with medication overuse had greater disability and greater health care resource utilization, compared with patients without medication overuse. Among patients with chronic migraine, participants who overused medication were not significantly different from those who did not. But among patients with episodic migraine, participants who overused medication had higher headache frequency than those who did not.
In the EVOLVE trials, the proportion of patients with baseline medication overuse was 19.3% in the placebo arm, 17.0% in the galcanezumab 120-mg arm, and 19.2% in the galcanezumab 240-mg arm. In REGAIN, the proportion of patients with baseline medication overuse was 63.4% in the placebo arm, 64.3% in the galcanezumab 120-mg arm, and 64.1% in the galcanezumab 240-mg arm.
Galcanezumab reduced medication overuse
Compared with placebo, both doses of galcanezumab significantly decreased mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with baseline medication overuse. In the EVOLVE studies, this endpoint decreased by 2.71 in the placebo group, 6.26 in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 5.77 in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. In REGAIN, the reductions were 2.25 in the placebo group, 4.78 in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 4.51 in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. The effect size was higher in patients who were overusing medications, compared with those who were not, said Dr. Aurora. “This is clinically relevant, because most of us ... had this belief that patients who were overusing medications may be more treatment-resistant to prevention.”
In addition, galcanezumab was associated with significantly lower rates of average monthly medication overuse, compared with placebo. In the EVOLVE studies, the average rate of monthly medication overuse was 15.9% for the placebo group, 6.2% for the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 7.9% for the galcanezumab 240-mg group. In REGAIN, the average rate of monthly medication overuse was 40.6% in the placebo group, 24.3% in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 23.1% in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. About 85% of patients with episodic migraine and medication overuse had a reduction in medication overuse, and approximately 50% of patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse had a reduction in medication overuse, said Dr. Aurora.
Dr. Aurora and coinvestigators are employees of Eli Lilly, which developed galcanezumab and funded the EVOLVE and REGAIN studies.
SOURCE: Aurora S et al. AHS 2019. Abstract IOR07.
PHILADELPHIA –
“When you have targeted preventive treatment and you reduce the burden of illness, medication overuse seems to be reduced as well,” said Sheena Aurora, MD, adjunct clinical associate professor of anesthesiology and perioperative and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. Dr. Aurora also is a medical fellow and global launch leader for galcanezumab at Eli Lilly, which has developed the treatment.
Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the calcitonin gene-related peptide. The phase 3 EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN studies indicated galcanezumab’s superiority to placebo in preventing episodic and chronic migraine.
A post hoc analysis of phase 3 data
Dr. Aurora and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the three phase 3 studies to examine galcanezumab’s effect in patients with medication overuse. EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 included patients with episodic migraine, and REGAIN included patients with chronic migraine. All participants were randomized to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo or galcanezumab (120 mg/month or 240 mg/month) for 3-6 months. Based on information obtained through electronic patient-reported outcome diaries, investigators determined headache medication overuse using criteria adapted from the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition. They estimated mean changes in monthly headache days and the proportion of patients with medication overuse after randomization using mixed modeling.
The demographic characteristics of the three study populations were similar to those reported in epidemiologic studies of migraine, said Dr. Aurora. Most participants were women, and most patients were between ages 40 and 49 years. At baseline, the mean number of monthly migraine headache days was 20 among patients with chronic migraine and 9 among patients with episodic migraine.
The rate of medication overuse was higher in the combined study population than in the literature. Patients with medication overuse had greater disability and greater health care resource utilization, compared with patients without medication overuse. Among patients with chronic migraine, participants who overused medication were not significantly different from those who did not. But among patients with episodic migraine, participants who overused medication had higher headache frequency than those who did not.
In the EVOLVE trials, the proportion of patients with baseline medication overuse was 19.3% in the placebo arm, 17.0% in the galcanezumab 120-mg arm, and 19.2% in the galcanezumab 240-mg arm. In REGAIN, the proportion of patients with baseline medication overuse was 63.4% in the placebo arm, 64.3% in the galcanezumab 120-mg arm, and 64.1% in the galcanezumab 240-mg arm.
Galcanezumab reduced medication overuse
Compared with placebo, both doses of galcanezumab significantly decreased mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with baseline medication overuse. In the EVOLVE studies, this endpoint decreased by 2.71 in the placebo group, 6.26 in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 5.77 in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. In REGAIN, the reductions were 2.25 in the placebo group, 4.78 in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 4.51 in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. The effect size was higher in patients who were overusing medications, compared with those who were not, said Dr. Aurora. “This is clinically relevant, because most of us ... had this belief that patients who were overusing medications may be more treatment-resistant to prevention.”
In addition, galcanezumab was associated with significantly lower rates of average monthly medication overuse, compared with placebo. In the EVOLVE studies, the average rate of monthly medication overuse was 15.9% for the placebo group, 6.2% for the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 7.9% for the galcanezumab 240-mg group. In REGAIN, the average rate of monthly medication overuse was 40.6% in the placebo group, 24.3% in the galcanezumab 120-mg group, and 23.1% in the galcanezumab 240-mg group. About 85% of patients with episodic migraine and medication overuse had a reduction in medication overuse, and approximately 50% of patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse had a reduction in medication overuse, said Dr. Aurora.
Dr. Aurora and coinvestigators are employees of Eli Lilly, which developed galcanezumab and funded the EVOLVE and REGAIN studies.
SOURCE: Aurora S et al. AHS 2019. Abstract IOR07.
REPORTING FROM AHS 2019
Peripheral nervous system events have lasting impact on SLE patients
Peripheral nervous system disease, predominantly neuropathies, constitutes a substantial proportion of the manifestations of neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and has a lasting negative impact on health-related quality of life, John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and associates reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
According to the study of 1,827 SLE patients who had been recently diagnosed and enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) network at sites in Europe, Asia, and North America during 1999-2011, 161 peripheral nervous system (PNS) events occurred in 139 of the patients (8%) over a mean 7.6 years of follow-up.
Using the seven American College of Rheumatology case definitions for PNS disease in neuropsychiatric SLE, most of the events were peripheral neuropathy (41%), mononeuropathy (27%), and cranial neuropathy (24%). For 110 with peripheral neuropathy or mononeuropathy who underwent electrophysiologic testing, axonal damage was often present (42%), followed by demyelination (22%).
The PNS events were attributed to SLE in about 58%-75% of the patients. Based on these data the investigators estimated that after 10 years the cumulative incidence of any PNS event regardless of its attribution was about 9%, and it was nearly 7% for events attributed to SLE.
The probability that the neuropathies would not resolve over time was estimated at about 43% for peripheral neuropathy, 29% for mononeuropathy, and 30% for cranial neuropathy. Resolution of neuropathy was most rapid for cranial neuropathy, followed by mononeuropathy and peripheral neuropathy.
Patients with PNS events had significantly lower physical and mental health component scores on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey than did patients without a neuropsychiatric event up to the study assessment, and these differences persisted for 10 years of follow-up.
These “findings provide a benchmark for the assessment of future treatment modalities,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41070.
Peripheral nervous system disease, predominantly neuropathies, constitutes a substantial proportion of the manifestations of neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and has a lasting negative impact on health-related quality of life, John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and associates reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
According to the study of 1,827 SLE patients who had been recently diagnosed and enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) network at sites in Europe, Asia, and North America during 1999-2011, 161 peripheral nervous system (PNS) events occurred in 139 of the patients (8%) over a mean 7.6 years of follow-up.
Using the seven American College of Rheumatology case definitions for PNS disease in neuropsychiatric SLE, most of the events were peripheral neuropathy (41%), mononeuropathy (27%), and cranial neuropathy (24%). For 110 with peripheral neuropathy or mononeuropathy who underwent electrophysiologic testing, axonal damage was often present (42%), followed by demyelination (22%).
The PNS events were attributed to SLE in about 58%-75% of the patients. Based on these data the investigators estimated that after 10 years the cumulative incidence of any PNS event regardless of its attribution was about 9%, and it was nearly 7% for events attributed to SLE.
The probability that the neuropathies would not resolve over time was estimated at about 43% for peripheral neuropathy, 29% for mononeuropathy, and 30% for cranial neuropathy. Resolution of neuropathy was most rapid for cranial neuropathy, followed by mononeuropathy and peripheral neuropathy.
Patients with PNS events had significantly lower physical and mental health component scores on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey than did patients without a neuropsychiatric event up to the study assessment, and these differences persisted for 10 years of follow-up.
These “findings provide a benchmark for the assessment of future treatment modalities,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41070.
Peripheral nervous system disease, predominantly neuropathies, constitutes a substantial proportion of the manifestations of neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and has a lasting negative impact on health-related quality of life, John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and associates reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
According to the study of 1,827 SLE patients who had been recently diagnosed and enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) network at sites in Europe, Asia, and North America during 1999-2011, 161 peripheral nervous system (PNS) events occurred in 139 of the patients (8%) over a mean 7.6 years of follow-up.
Using the seven American College of Rheumatology case definitions for PNS disease in neuropsychiatric SLE, most of the events were peripheral neuropathy (41%), mononeuropathy (27%), and cranial neuropathy (24%). For 110 with peripheral neuropathy or mononeuropathy who underwent electrophysiologic testing, axonal damage was often present (42%), followed by demyelination (22%).
The PNS events were attributed to SLE in about 58%-75% of the patients. Based on these data the investigators estimated that after 10 years the cumulative incidence of any PNS event regardless of its attribution was about 9%, and it was nearly 7% for events attributed to SLE.
The probability that the neuropathies would not resolve over time was estimated at about 43% for peripheral neuropathy, 29% for mononeuropathy, and 30% for cranial neuropathy. Resolution of neuropathy was most rapid for cranial neuropathy, followed by mononeuropathy and peripheral neuropathy.
Patients with PNS events had significantly lower physical and mental health component scores on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey than did patients without a neuropsychiatric event up to the study assessment, and these differences persisted for 10 years of follow-up.
These “findings provide a benchmark for the assessment of future treatment modalities,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41070.
REPORTING FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
USPSTF draft guidance calls for drug use screening
according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.
The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”
The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.
In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.
Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.
When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.
The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.
Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”
For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.
The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.
The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.
The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.
The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.
The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”
The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.
In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.
Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.
When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.
The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.
Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”
For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.
The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.
The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.
The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.
The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.
The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”
The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.
In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.
Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.
When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.
The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.
Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”
For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.
The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.
The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.
The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.
The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE USPSTF
Treatment of episodic cluster headache deviates from recommendations
PHILADELPHIA – , according to an analysis presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although consensus treatment guidelines do not exist for episodic cluster headache, treatment of this disorder did not follow many established recommendations that call for the use of preventive medications (e.g., MacGregor et al., 2010; Sarchielli et al., 2012; and May et al., 2006). Additional preventive medication options may be needed.
Patients with episodic cluster headache have several unilateral headache attacks per day. Little information is available to guide the selection of treatments for this population, and little is known about how available treatments are used in routine practice.
Analyzing cross-sectional survey data
To address this paucity of evidence, Jeffrey Scott Andrews, PharmD, a senior research scientist at Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, and colleagues examined data from the Adelphi 2017 Cluster Headache Disease Specific Programme, a large, international, cross-sectional survey. Physicians and patients in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States responded to the survey. Eligible physicians consulted with at least four patients with cluster headache per month, and eligible patients had a diagnosis of episodic cluster headache that was consistent with ICHD-3 beta criteria. Additional data were collected from all participants through questionnaires.
The analysis included 309 patients in Germany, 328 in the United Kingdom, and 375 in the United States. The average age of the patients was 40 years, and most of the patients were male. Less than 70% of patients reported working full time, which may indicate “the impact of this condition on work status,” said Dr. Andrews. Patients’ average number of attacks per day within an active period was 2.4. The two most commonly reported comorbidities were anxiety and depression. About 40% of cases of depression were reported to have occurred after the receipt of a diagnosis of cluster headache.
Use of inhaled oxygen was low
Most patients received acute treatments. The proportion of patients who received acute therapy only was 53% in Germany, 48% in the United Kingdom, and 43% in the United States. Approximately 34% of patients in Germany received a combination of acute and preventive therapy, compared with 37% in the United Kingdom and 42% in the United States. The proportion of patients who received preventive therapy only was 10% in Germany, 8% in the United Kingdom, and 12% in the United States.
The most commonly prescribed acute treatment, regardless of formulation, was sumatriptan. About 60% of patients received this medication. Less than one-third of patients used inhaled oxygen. Oxygen was prescribed more often in Germany (45%) and the United Kingdom (33%), compared with the United States (19%). U.S. patients face well-known obstacles in getting access to, and reimbursement for, oxygen, said Dr. Andrews. “That’s an area that deserves increased attention.” Zolmitriptan was the third most commonly prescribed acute medication.
Among prescriptions for sumatriptan, oral and injectable formulations were approximately equally common. Recommendations, however, indicate formulations with potentially fast onset of action. “The average duration of one of these attacks is between 15 and 180 minutes, so that certainly suggests that a formulation that gives you a faster onset of action might improve outcomes,” said Dr. Andrews. The use of injectable sumatriptan was lowest in the United States and highest in the United Kingdom.
“The most common decision regarding preventive treatment was [to give] no preventive treatment,” said Dr. Andrews. Verapamil was the most commonly prescribed preventive therapy (34% in Germany, 29% in the United States, and 25% in the United Kingdom), followed by topiramate, lithium, and valproate.
Nonadherence and noncompliance was common
Fewer U.K. patients (32%) reported taking their preventive therapy as advised, compared with German patients (60%) and U.S. patients (80%). Common reasons for noncompliance, regardless of location, were forgetfulness, the belief that a dose was not needed, and side effects. Most patients in the United Kingdom (60%) and the United States (54%) reported the need to take an extra dose of their acute medication to relieve pain symptoms, compared with 30% in Germany. Furthermore, 13% of U.S. patients indicated that they took extra doses all the time or nearly all the time, compared with 2% in Germany and 7% in the United Kingdom. Among patients who had discontinued a preventive treatment in the past, the most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy and problems with tolerability.
One limitation of the study was that the survey was not designed to represent the general cluster headache or treating physician populations fully. The data may reflect selection bias in favor of physicians who treat high volumes of patients and in favor of patients who frequently seek health care. In addition, the data were based on self-reports.
“Increased awareness and educational efforts that aim at promoting the need and benefit of the preventive treatment for these patients is warranted,” Dr. Andrews concluded.
Dr. Andrews is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study.
SOURCE: Nichols R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR04.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to an analysis presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although consensus treatment guidelines do not exist for episodic cluster headache, treatment of this disorder did not follow many established recommendations that call for the use of preventive medications (e.g., MacGregor et al., 2010; Sarchielli et al., 2012; and May et al., 2006). Additional preventive medication options may be needed.
Patients with episodic cluster headache have several unilateral headache attacks per day. Little information is available to guide the selection of treatments for this population, and little is known about how available treatments are used in routine practice.
Analyzing cross-sectional survey data
To address this paucity of evidence, Jeffrey Scott Andrews, PharmD, a senior research scientist at Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, and colleagues examined data from the Adelphi 2017 Cluster Headache Disease Specific Programme, a large, international, cross-sectional survey. Physicians and patients in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States responded to the survey. Eligible physicians consulted with at least four patients with cluster headache per month, and eligible patients had a diagnosis of episodic cluster headache that was consistent with ICHD-3 beta criteria. Additional data were collected from all participants through questionnaires.
The analysis included 309 patients in Germany, 328 in the United Kingdom, and 375 in the United States. The average age of the patients was 40 years, and most of the patients were male. Less than 70% of patients reported working full time, which may indicate “the impact of this condition on work status,” said Dr. Andrews. Patients’ average number of attacks per day within an active period was 2.4. The two most commonly reported comorbidities were anxiety and depression. About 40% of cases of depression were reported to have occurred after the receipt of a diagnosis of cluster headache.
Use of inhaled oxygen was low
Most patients received acute treatments. The proportion of patients who received acute therapy only was 53% in Germany, 48% in the United Kingdom, and 43% in the United States. Approximately 34% of patients in Germany received a combination of acute and preventive therapy, compared with 37% in the United Kingdom and 42% in the United States. The proportion of patients who received preventive therapy only was 10% in Germany, 8% in the United Kingdom, and 12% in the United States.
The most commonly prescribed acute treatment, regardless of formulation, was sumatriptan. About 60% of patients received this medication. Less than one-third of patients used inhaled oxygen. Oxygen was prescribed more often in Germany (45%) and the United Kingdom (33%), compared with the United States (19%). U.S. patients face well-known obstacles in getting access to, and reimbursement for, oxygen, said Dr. Andrews. “That’s an area that deserves increased attention.” Zolmitriptan was the third most commonly prescribed acute medication.
Among prescriptions for sumatriptan, oral and injectable formulations were approximately equally common. Recommendations, however, indicate formulations with potentially fast onset of action. “The average duration of one of these attacks is between 15 and 180 minutes, so that certainly suggests that a formulation that gives you a faster onset of action might improve outcomes,” said Dr. Andrews. The use of injectable sumatriptan was lowest in the United States and highest in the United Kingdom.
“The most common decision regarding preventive treatment was [to give] no preventive treatment,” said Dr. Andrews. Verapamil was the most commonly prescribed preventive therapy (34% in Germany, 29% in the United States, and 25% in the United Kingdom), followed by topiramate, lithium, and valproate.
Nonadherence and noncompliance was common
Fewer U.K. patients (32%) reported taking their preventive therapy as advised, compared with German patients (60%) and U.S. patients (80%). Common reasons for noncompliance, regardless of location, were forgetfulness, the belief that a dose was not needed, and side effects. Most patients in the United Kingdom (60%) and the United States (54%) reported the need to take an extra dose of their acute medication to relieve pain symptoms, compared with 30% in Germany. Furthermore, 13% of U.S. patients indicated that they took extra doses all the time or nearly all the time, compared with 2% in Germany and 7% in the United Kingdom. Among patients who had discontinued a preventive treatment in the past, the most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy and problems with tolerability.
One limitation of the study was that the survey was not designed to represent the general cluster headache or treating physician populations fully. The data may reflect selection bias in favor of physicians who treat high volumes of patients and in favor of patients who frequently seek health care. In addition, the data were based on self-reports.
“Increased awareness and educational efforts that aim at promoting the need and benefit of the preventive treatment for these patients is warranted,” Dr. Andrews concluded.
Dr. Andrews is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study.
SOURCE: Nichols R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR04.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to an analysis presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although consensus treatment guidelines do not exist for episodic cluster headache, treatment of this disorder did not follow many established recommendations that call for the use of preventive medications (e.g., MacGregor et al., 2010; Sarchielli et al., 2012; and May et al., 2006). Additional preventive medication options may be needed.
Patients with episodic cluster headache have several unilateral headache attacks per day. Little information is available to guide the selection of treatments for this population, and little is known about how available treatments are used in routine practice.
Analyzing cross-sectional survey data
To address this paucity of evidence, Jeffrey Scott Andrews, PharmD, a senior research scientist at Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, and colleagues examined data from the Adelphi 2017 Cluster Headache Disease Specific Programme, a large, international, cross-sectional survey. Physicians and patients in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States responded to the survey. Eligible physicians consulted with at least four patients with cluster headache per month, and eligible patients had a diagnosis of episodic cluster headache that was consistent with ICHD-3 beta criteria. Additional data were collected from all participants through questionnaires.
The analysis included 309 patients in Germany, 328 in the United Kingdom, and 375 in the United States. The average age of the patients was 40 years, and most of the patients were male. Less than 70% of patients reported working full time, which may indicate “the impact of this condition on work status,” said Dr. Andrews. Patients’ average number of attacks per day within an active period was 2.4. The two most commonly reported comorbidities were anxiety and depression. About 40% of cases of depression were reported to have occurred after the receipt of a diagnosis of cluster headache.
Use of inhaled oxygen was low
Most patients received acute treatments. The proportion of patients who received acute therapy only was 53% in Germany, 48% in the United Kingdom, and 43% in the United States. Approximately 34% of patients in Germany received a combination of acute and preventive therapy, compared with 37% in the United Kingdom and 42% in the United States. The proportion of patients who received preventive therapy only was 10% in Germany, 8% in the United Kingdom, and 12% in the United States.
The most commonly prescribed acute treatment, regardless of formulation, was sumatriptan. About 60% of patients received this medication. Less than one-third of patients used inhaled oxygen. Oxygen was prescribed more often in Germany (45%) and the United Kingdom (33%), compared with the United States (19%). U.S. patients face well-known obstacles in getting access to, and reimbursement for, oxygen, said Dr. Andrews. “That’s an area that deserves increased attention.” Zolmitriptan was the third most commonly prescribed acute medication.
Among prescriptions for sumatriptan, oral and injectable formulations were approximately equally common. Recommendations, however, indicate formulations with potentially fast onset of action. “The average duration of one of these attacks is between 15 and 180 minutes, so that certainly suggests that a formulation that gives you a faster onset of action might improve outcomes,” said Dr. Andrews. The use of injectable sumatriptan was lowest in the United States and highest in the United Kingdom.
“The most common decision regarding preventive treatment was [to give] no preventive treatment,” said Dr. Andrews. Verapamil was the most commonly prescribed preventive therapy (34% in Germany, 29% in the United States, and 25% in the United Kingdom), followed by topiramate, lithium, and valproate.
Nonadherence and noncompliance was common
Fewer U.K. patients (32%) reported taking their preventive therapy as advised, compared with German patients (60%) and U.S. patients (80%). Common reasons for noncompliance, regardless of location, were forgetfulness, the belief that a dose was not needed, and side effects. Most patients in the United Kingdom (60%) and the United States (54%) reported the need to take an extra dose of their acute medication to relieve pain symptoms, compared with 30% in Germany. Furthermore, 13% of U.S. patients indicated that they took extra doses all the time or nearly all the time, compared with 2% in Germany and 7% in the United Kingdom. Among patients who had discontinued a preventive treatment in the past, the most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy and problems with tolerability.
One limitation of the study was that the survey was not designed to represent the general cluster headache or treating physician populations fully. The data may reflect selection bias in favor of physicians who treat high volumes of patients and in favor of patients who frequently seek health care. In addition, the data were based on self-reports.
“Increased awareness and educational efforts that aim at promoting the need and benefit of the preventive treatment for these patients is warranted,” Dr. Andrews concluded.
Dr. Andrews is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study.
SOURCE: Nichols R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR04.
REPORTING FROM AHS 2019
CDC finds that too little naloxone is dispensed
Although the CDC recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, to patients who receive high-dose opioid prescriptions, one naloxone prescription was dispensed in 2018 for every 69 such patients, according to a Vital Signs investigation published Aug. 6 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Approximately 9 million more naloxone prescriptions could have been dispensed in 2018 if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription were offered the drug, according to the agency. In addition, the rate at which naloxone is dispensed varies significantly according to region.
“Thousands of Americans are alive today thanks to the use of naloxone,” said Alex M. Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, in a press release. “Giving people a chance to survive an opioid overdose and safely enter recovery is one of the five key pillars of our HHS strategy for ending the overdose epidemic. With help from Congress, the private sector, state, and local governments and communities, targeted access to naloxone has expanded dramatically over the last several years, but today’s CDC report is a reminder that there is much more all of us need to do to save lives.”
Investigators examined retail pharmacy data
In 2017, 47,600 (67.8%) drug overdose deaths in the United States involved opioids. For decades, emergency medical service providers have administered naloxone to patients with suspected drug overdose. A major focus of public health initiatives intended to address the opioid overdose crisis has been to increase access to naloxone through clinician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The CDC recommends considering prescribing naloxone to patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, those receiving opioid dosages of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or greater (that is, high-dose prescriptions), and those who are using benzodiazepines concurrently.
Investigators at the CDC examined retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a company that maintains information on prescriptions from approximately 50,400 retail pharmacies. They extracted data from 2012 through 2018 to analyze naloxone dispensing by region, urban versus rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics (for example, age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment).
Dispensations doubled from 2017 to 2018
Naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies increased from 0.4 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2012 to 170.2 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2018. From 2017 to 2018 alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased by 106%.
Despite consistency among state laws, naloxone dispensation varied by region. The average rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 0.2 in the lowest quartile to 2.9 in the highest quartile. In 2018, the rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 1.5 in metropolitan counties and 1.6 in the Northeast to 1.2 in rural counties and 1.3 in the Midwest. Rural counties were nearly three times more likely to be low-dispensing counties, compared with metropolitan counties.
The rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions also varied by provider specialty. This rate was lowest among surgeons (0.2) and highest among psychiatrists (12.9).
Most naloxone prescriptions entailed out-of-pocket costs. About 71% of prescriptions paid for by Medicare entailed out-of-pocket costs, compared with 43.8% of prescriptions paid for by Medicaid, and 41.5% of prescriptions paid for by commercial insurance.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
More can be done
“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the CDC, in a press release. “The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention. As we aggressively confront what is the public health crisis of our time, CDC will continue to stress with health care providers the benefit of making this overdose-reversing medicine available to patients.”
“While we’ve seen these important increases [in naloxone prescriptions], we are not as far along as we’d like to be,” said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC, during a press conference. “Cost is one of the issues, but I think awareness is another.” These data should prompt pharmacies to make sure that they stock naloxone and remind clinicians to consider naloxone when they prescribe opioids, she added. Patients and their family members should be aware of naloxone and ask their health care providers about it. “We’d really like to see the increase [in naloxone prescriptions] move much more rapidly,” she concluded.
The investigators disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Guy GP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 6.
Although the CDC recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, to patients who receive high-dose opioid prescriptions, one naloxone prescription was dispensed in 2018 for every 69 such patients, according to a Vital Signs investigation published Aug. 6 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Approximately 9 million more naloxone prescriptions could have been dispensed in 2018 if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription were offered the drug, according to the agency. In addition, the rate at which naloxone is dispensed varies significantly according to region.
“Thousands of Americans are alive today thanks to the use of naloxone,” said Alex M. Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, in a press release. “Giving people a chance to survive an opioid overdose and safely enter recovery is one of the five key pillars of our HHS strategy for ending the overdose epidemic. With help from Congress, the private sector, state, and local governments and communities, targeted access to naloxone has expanded dramatically over the last several years, but today’s CDC report is a reminder that there is much more all of us need to do to save lives.”
Investigators examined retail pharmacy data
In 2017, 47,600 (67.8%) drug overdose deaths in the United States involved opioids. For decades, emergency medical service providers have administered naloxone to patients with suspected drug overdose. A major focus of public health initiatives intended to address the opioid overdose crisis has been to increase access to naloxone through clinician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The CDC recommends considering prescribing naloxone to patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, those receiving opioid dosages of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or greater (that is, high-dose prescriptions), and those who are using benzodiazepines concurrently.
Investigators at the CDC examined retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a company that maintains information on prescriptions from approximately 50,400 retail pharmacies. They extracted data from 2012 through 2018 to analyze naloxone dispensing by region, urban versus rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics (for example, age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment).
Dispensations doubled from 2017 to 2018
Naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies increased from 0.4 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2012 to 170.2 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2018. From 2017 to 2018 alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased by 106%.
Despite consistency among state laws, naloxone dispensation varied by region. The average rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 0.2 in the lowest quartile to 2.9 in the highest quartile. In 2018, the rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 1.5 in metropolitan counties and 1.6 in the Northeast to 1.2 in rural counties and 1.3 in the Midwest. Rural counties were nearly three times more likely to be low-dispensing counties, compared with metropolitan counties.
The rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions also varied by provider specialty. This rate was lowest among surgeons (0.2) and highest among psychiatrists (12.9).
Most naloxone prescriptions entailed out-of-pocket costs. About 71% of prescriptions paid for by Medicare entailed out-of-pocket costs, compared with 43.8% of prescriptions paid for by Medicaid, and 41.5% of prescriptions paid for by commercial insurance.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
More can be done
“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the CDC, in a press release. “The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention. As we aggressively confront what is the public health crisis of our time, CDC will continue to stress with health care providers the benefit of making this overdose-reversing medicine available to patients.”
“While we’ve seen these important increases [in naloxone prescriptions], we are not as far along as we’d like to be,” said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC, during a press conference. “Cost is one of the issues, but I think awareness is another.” These data should prompt pharmacies to make sure that they stock naloxone and remind clinicians to consider naloxone when they prescribe opioids, she added. Patients and their family members should be aware of naloxone and ask their health care providers about it. “We’d really like to see the increase [in naloxone prescriptions] move much more rapidly,” she concluded.
The investigators disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Guy GP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 6.
Although the CDC recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, to patients who receive high-dose opioid prescriptions, one naloxone prescription was dispensed in 2018 for every 69 such patients, according to a Vital Signs investigation published Aug. 6 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Approximately 9 million more naloxone prescriptions could have been dispensed in 2018 if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription were offered the drug, according to the agency. In addition, the rate at which naloxone is dispensed varies significantly according to region.
“Thousands of Americans are alive today thanks to the use of naloxone,” said Alex M. Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, in a press release. “Giving people a chance to survive an opioid overdose and safely enter recovery is one of the five key pillars of our HHS strategy for ending the overdose epidemic. With help from Congress, the private sector, state, and local governments and communities, targeted access to naloxone has expanded dramatically over the last several years, but today’s CDC report is a reminder that there is much more all of us need to do to save lives.”
Investigators examined retail pharmacy data
In 2017, 47,600 (67.8%) drug overdose deaths in the United States involved opioids. For decades, emergency medical service providers have administered naloxone to patients with suspected drug overdose. A major focus of public health initiatives intended to address the opioid overdose crisis has been to increase access to naloxone through clinician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The CDC recommends considering prescribing naloxone to patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, those receiving opioid dosages of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or greater (that is, high-dose prescriptions), and those who are using benzodiazepines concurrently.
Investigators at the CDC examined retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a company that maintains information on prescriptions from approximately 50,400 retail pharmacies. They extracted data from 2012 through 2018 to analyze naloxone dispensing by region, urban versus rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics (for example, age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment).
Dispensations doubled from 2017 to 2018
Naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies increased from 0.4 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2012 to 170.2 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2018. From 2017 to 2018 alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased by 106%.
Despite consistency among state laws, naloxone dispensation varied by region. The average rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 0.2 in the lowest quartile to 2.9 in the highest quartile. In 2018, the rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 1.5 in metropolitan counties and 1.6 in the Northeast to 1.2 in rural counties and 1.3 in the Midwest. Rural counties were nearly three times more likely to be low-dispensing counties, compared with metropolitan counties.
The rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions also varied by provider specialty. This rate was lowest among surgeons (0.2) and highest among psychiatrists (12.9).
Most naloxone prescriptions entailed out-of-pocket costs. About 71% of prescriptions paid for by Medicare entailed out-of-pocket costs, compared with 43.8% of prescriptions paid for by Medicaid, and 41.5% of prescriptions paid for by commercial insurance.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
More can be done
“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the CDC, in a press release. “The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention. As we aggressively confront what is the public health crisis of our time, CDC will continue to stress with health care providers the benefit of making this overdose-reversing medicine available to patients.”
“While we’ve seen these important increases [in naloxone prescriptions], we are not as far along as we’d like to be,” said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC, during a press conference. “Cost is one of the issues, but I think awareness is another.” These data should prompt pharmacies to make sure that they stock naloxone and remind clinicians to consider naloxone when they prescribe opioids, she added. Patients and their family members should be aware of naloxone and ask their health care providers about it. “We’d really like to see the increase [in naloxone prescriptions] move much more rapidly,” she concluded.
The investigators disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Guy GP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 6.
FROM MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT
Preoperative tramadol fails to improve function after knee surgery
according to findings of a study based on pre- and postsurgery data.
Tramadol has become a popular choice for nonoperative knee pain relief because of its low potential for abuse and favorable safety profile, but its impact on postoperative outcomes when given before knee surgery has not been well studied, wrote Adam Driesman, MD, of the New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Arthroplasty, the researchers compared patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after total knee arthroplasty among 136 patients who received no opiates, 21 who received tramadol, and 42 who received other opiates. All patients who did not have preoperative and postoperative PRO scores were excluded
All patients received the same multimodal perioperative pain protocol, and all were placed on oxycodone postoperatively for maintenance and breakthrough pain as needed, with discharge prescriptions for acetaminophen/oxycodone combination (Percocet) for breakthrough pain.
Patients preoperative assessment using the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr. (KOOS, JR.) were similar among the groups prior to surgery; baseline scores for the groups receiving either tramadol, no opiates, or other opiates were 49.95, 50.4, and 48.0, respectively. Demographics also were not significantly different among the groups.
At 3 months, the average KOOS, JR., score for the tramadol group (62.4) was significantly lower, compared with the other-opiate group (67.1) and treatment-naive group (70.1). In addition, patients in the tramadol group had the least change in scores on KOOS, JR., with an average of 12.5 points, compared with 19.1-point and 20.1-point improvements, respectively, in the alternate-opiate group and opiate-naive group.
The data expand on previous findings that patients given preoperative opioids had proportionally less postoperative pain relief than those not on opioids, the researchers said, but noted that they were surprised by the worse outcomes in the tramadol group given its demonstrated side-effect profile.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively short follow-up period, as well as the inability to accurately determine outpatient medication use, not only of opioids, but of nonopioid postoperative pain medications that could have affected the results, the researchers said.
“However, given the conflicting evidence presented in this study and despite the 2013 American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, it is recommended providers remain very conservative in their administration of outpatient narcotics including tramadol prior to surgery,” they concluded.
SOURCE: Driesman A et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(8):1662-66.
according to findings of a study based on pre- and postsurgery data.
Tramadol has become a popular choice for nonoperative knee pain relief because of its low potential for abuse and favorable safety profile, but its impact on postoperative outcomes when given before knee surgery has not been well studied, wrote Adam Driesman, MD, of the New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Arthroplasty, the researchers compared patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after total knee arthroplasty among 136 patients who received no opiates, 21 who received tramadol, and 42 who received other opiates. All patients who did not have preoperative and postoperative PRO scores were excluded
All patients received the same multimodal perioperative pain protocol, and all were placed on oxycodone postoperatively for maintenance and breakthrough pain as needed, with discharge prescriptions for acetaminophen/oxycodone combination (Percocet) for breakthrough pain.
Patients preoperative assessment using the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr. (KOOS, JR.) were similar among the groups prior to surgery; baseline scores for the groups receiving either tramadol, no opiates, or other opiates were 49.95, 50.4, and 48.0, respectively. Demographics also were not significantly different among the groups.
At 3 months, the average KOOS, JR., score for the tramadol group (62.4) was significantly lower, compared with the other-opiate group (67.1) and treatment-naive group (70.1). In addition, patients in the tramadol group had the least change in scores on KOOS, JR., with an average of 12.5 points, compared with 19.1-point and 20.1-point improvements, respectively, in the alternate-opiate group and opiate-naive group.
The data expand on previous findings that patients given preoperative opioids had proportionally less postoperative pain relief than those not on opioids, the researchers said, but noted that they were surprised by the worse outcomes in the tramadol group given its demonstrated side-effect profile.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively short follow-up period, as well as the inability to accurately determine outpatient medication use, not only of opioids, but of nonopioid postoperative pain medications that could have affected the results, the researchers said.
“However, given the conflicting evidence presented in this study and despite the 2013 American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, it is recommended providers remain very conservative in their administration of outpatient narcotics including tramadol prior to surgery,” they concluded.
SOURCE: Driesman A et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(8):1662-66.
according to findings of a study based on pre- and postsurgery data.
Tramadol has become a popular choice for nonoperative knee pain relief because of its low potential for abuse and favorable safety profile, but its impact on postoperative outcomes when given before knee surgery has not been well studied, wrote Adam Driesman, MD, of the New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Arthroplasty, the researchers compared patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after total knee arthroplasty among 136 patients who received no opiates, 21 who received tramadol, and 42 who received other opiates. All patients who did not have preoperative and postoperative PRO scores were excluded
All patients received the same multimodal perioperative pain protocol, and all were placed on oxycodone postoperatively for maintenance and breakthrough pain as needed, with discharge prescriptions for acetaminophen/oxycodone combination (Percocet) for breakthrough pain.
Patients preoperative assessment using the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr. (KOOS, JR.) were similar among the groups prior to surgery; baseline scores for the groups receiving either tramadol, no opiates, or other opiates were 49.95, 50.4, and 48.0, respectively. Demographics also were not significantly different among the groups.
At 3 months, the average KOOS, JR., score for the tramadol group (62.4) was significantly lower, compared with the other-opiate group (67.1) and treatment-naive group (70.1). In addition, patients in the tramadol group had the least change in scores on KOOS, JR., with an average of 12.5 points, compared with 19.1-point and 20.1-point improvements, respectively, in the alternate-opiate group and opiate-naive group.
The data expand on previous findings that patients given preoperative opioids had proportionally less postoperative pain relief than those not on opioids, the researchers said, but noted that they were surprised by the worse outcomes in the tramadol group given its demonstrated side-effect profile.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively short follow-up period, as well as the inability to accurately determine outpatient medication use, not only of opioids, but of nonopioid postoperative pain medications that could have affected the results, the researchers said.
“However, given the conflicting evidence presented in this study and despite the 2013 American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, it is recommended providers remain very conservative in their administration of outpatient narcotics including tramadol prior to surgery,” they concluded.
SOURCE: Driesman A et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(8):1662-66.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction in Patients With Low Back Pain
Patients experiencing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction might show symptoms that overlap with those seen in lumbar spine pathology. This article reviews diagnostic tools that assist practitioners to discern the true pain generator in patients with low back pain (LBP) and therapeutic approaches when the cause is SIJ dysfunction.
Prevalence
Most of the US population will experience LBP at some point in their lives. A 2002 National Health Interview survey found that more than one-quarter (26.4%) of 31 044 respondents had complained of LBP in the previous 3 months.1 About 74 million individuals in the US experienced LBP in the past 3 months.1 A full 10% of the US population is expected to suffer from chronic LBP, and it is estimated that 2.3% of all visits to physicians are related to LBP.1
The etiology of LBP often is unclear even after thorough clinical and radiographic evaluation because of the myriad possible mechanisms. Degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, ligamentous hypertrophy, muscle spasm, hip arthropathy, and SIJ dysfunction are potential pain generators and exact clinical and radiographic correlation is not always possible. Compounding this difficulty is the lack of specificity with current diagnostic techniques. For example, many patients will have disc desiccation or herniation without any LBP or radicular symptoms on radiographic studies, such as X-rays, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). As such, providers of patients with diffuse radiographic abnormalities often have to identify a specific pain generator, which might not have any role in the patient’s pain.
Other tests, such as electromyographic studies, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, discography, and epidural steroid injections, can help pinpoint a specific pain generator. These tests might help determine whether the patient has a surgically treatable condition and could help predict whether a patient’s symptoms will respond to surgery.
However, the standard spine surgery workup often fails to identify an obvious pain generator in many individuals. The significant number of patients that fall into this category has prompted spine surgeons to consider other potential etiologies for LBP, and SIJ dysfunction has become a rapidly developing field of research.
Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction
The SIJ is a bilateral, C-shaped synovial joint surrounded by a fibrous capsule and affixes the sacrum to the ilia. Several sacral ligaments and pelvic muscles support the SIJ. The L5 nerve ventral ramus and lumbosacral trunk pass anteriorly and the S1 nerve ventral ramus passes inferiorly to the joint capsule. The SIJ is innervated by the dorsal rami of L4-S3 nerve roots, transmitting nociception and temperature. Mechanisms of injury to the SIJ could arise from intra- and extra-articular etiologies, including capsular disruption, ligamentous tension, muscular inflammation, shearing, fractures, arthritis, and infection.2 Patients could develop SIJ pain spontaneously or after a traumatic event or repetitive shear.3 Risk factors for developing SIJ dysfunction include a history of lumbar fusion, scoliosis, leg length discrepancies, sustained athletic activity, pregnancy, seronegative HLA-B27 spondyloarthropathies, or gait abnormalities. Inflammation of the SIJ and surrounding structures secondary to an environmental insult in susceptible individuals is a common theme among these etiologies.2
Pain from the SIJ is localized to an area of approximately 3 cm × 10 cm that is inferior to the ipsilateral posterior superior iliac spine.4 Referred pain maps from SIJ dysfunction extend in the L5-S1 nerve distributions, commonly seen in the buttocks, groin, posterior thigh, and lower leg with radicular symptoms. However, this pain distribution demonstrates extensive variability among patients and bears strong similarities to discogenic or facet joint sources of LBP.5-7 Direct communication has been shown between the SIJ and adjacent neural structures, namely the L5 nerve, sacral foramina, and the lumbosacral plexus. These direct pathways could explain an inflammatory mechanism for lower extremity symptoms seen in SIJ dysfunction.8
The prevalence of SIJ dysfunction among patients with LBP is estimated to be 15% to 30%, an extraordinary number given the total number of patients presenting with LBP every year.9 These patients might represent a significant segment of patients with an unrevealing standard spine evaluation. Despite the large number of patients who experience SIJ dysfunction, there is disagreement about optimal methods for diagnosis and treatment.
Diagnosis
The International Association for the Study of Pain has proposed criteria for evaluating patients who have suspected SIJ dysfunction: Pain must be in the SIJ area, should be reproducible by performing specific provocative maneuvers, and must be relieved by injection of local anesthetic into the SIJ.10 These criteria provide a sound foundation, but in clinical practice, patients often defy categorization.
The presence of pain in the area inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine and lateral to the gluteal fold with pain referral patterns in the L5-S1 nerve distributions is highly sensitive for identifying patients with SIJ dysfunction. Furthermore, pain arising from the SIJ will not be above the level of the L5 nerve sensory distribution. However, this diagnostic finding alone is not specific and might represent other etiologies known to produce similar pain, such as intervertebral discs and facet joints. Patients with SIJ dysfunction often describe their pain as sciatica-like, recurrent, and triggered with bending or twisting motions. It is worsened with any activity loading the SIJ, such as walking, climbing stairs, standing, or sitting upright. SIJ pain might be accompanied by dyspareunia and changes in bladder function because of the nerves involved.11
The use of provocative maneuvers for testing SIJ dysfunction is controversial because of the high rate of false positives and the inability to distinguish whether the SIJ or an adjacent structure is affected. However, the diagnostic utility of specific stress tests has been studied, and clusters of tests are recommended if a health care provider (HCP) suspects SIJ dysfunction. A diagnostic algorithm should first focus on using the distraction test and the thigh thrust test. Distraction is done by applying vertically oriented pressure to the anterior superior iliac spine while aiming posteriorly, therefore distracting the SIJ. During the thigh thrust test the examiner fixates the patient’s sacrum against the table with the left hand and applies a vertical force through the line of the femur aiming posteriorly, producing a posterior shearing force at the SIJ. Studies show that the thigh thrust test is the most sensitive, and the distraction test is the most specific. If both tests are positive, there is reasonable evidence to suggest SIJ dysfunction as the source of LBP.
If there are not 2 positive results, the addition of the compression test, followed by the sacral thrust test also can point to the diagnosis. The compression test is performed with vertical downward force applied to the iliac crest with the patient lying on each side, compressing the SIJ by transverse pressure across the pelvis. The sacral thrust test is performed with vertical force applied to the midline posterior sacrum at its apex directed anteriorly with the patient lying prone, producing a shearing force at the SIJs. The Gaenslen test uses a torsion force by applying a superior and posterior force to the right knee and posteriorly directed force to the left knee. Omitting the Gaenslen test has not been shown to compromise diagnostic efficacy of the other tests and can be safely excluded.12
A HCP can rule out SIJ dysfunction if these provocation tests are negative. However, the diagnostic predictive value of these tests is subject to variability among HCPs, and their reliability is increased when used in clusters.9,13
Imaging for the SIJ should begin with anterior/posterior, oblique, and lateral view plain X-rays of the pelvis (Figures 1 and 2), which will rule out other pathologies by identifying other sources of LBP, such as spondylolisthesis or hip osteoarthritis. HCPs should obtain lumbar and pelvis CT images to identify inflammatory or degenerative changes within the SIJ. CT images provide the high resolution that is needed to identify pathologies, such as fractures and tumors within the pelvic ring that could cause similar pain. MRI does not reliably depict a dysfunctional ligamentous apparatus within the SIJ; however, it can help identify inflammatory sacroiliitis, such as is seen in the spondyloarthropathies.11,14 Recent studies show combined single photon emission tomography and CT (SPECT-CT) might be the most promising imaging modality to reveal mechanical failure of load transfer with increased scintigraphic uptake in the posterior and superior SIJ ligamentous attachments. The joint loses its characteristic “dumbbell” shape in affected patients with about 50% higher uptake than unaffected joints. These findings were evident in patients who experienced pelvic trauma or during the peripartum period.15,16
Fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular injection of a local anesthetic (lidocaine) and/or a corticosteroid (triamcinolone) has the dual functionality of diagnosis and treatment (Figure 3). It often is considered the most reliable method to diagnose SIJ dysfunction and has the benefit of pain relief for up to 1 year. However, intra-articular injections lack diagnostic validity because the solution often extravasates to extracapsular structures. This confounds the source of the pain and makes it difficult to interpret these diagnostic injections. In addition, the injection might not reach the entire SIJ capsule and could result in a false-negative diagnosis.17,18 Periarticular injections have been shown to result in better pain relief in patients diagnosed with SIJ dysfunction than intra-articular injections. Periarticular injections also are easier to perform and could be a first-step option for these patients.19
Treatment
Nonoperative management of SIJ dysfunction includes exercise programs, physical therapy, manual manipulation therapy, sacroiliac belts, and periodic articular injections. Efficacy of these methods is variable, and analgesics often do not significantly benefit this type of pain. Another nonoperative approach is radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the lumbar dorsal rami and lateral sacral branches, which can vary based on the number of rami treated as well as the technique used. About two-thirds of patients report pain relief after RFA.2 When successful, pain is relieved for 6 to 12 months, which is a temporary yet effective option for patients experiencing SIJ dysfunction.14,20
Fusion Surgery
Cadaver studies show that biomechanical stabilization of the SIJ leads to decreased range of motion in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. This results in a decreased need for periarticular muscular and ligamentous support, therefore facilitating load transfer across the SIJ.21,22 Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery report better pain relief compared with those receiving open surgery at 12 months postoperatively.23 The 2 main SIJ fusion approaches used are the lateral transarticular and the dorsal approaches. In the dorsal approach, the SIJ is distracted and allograft dowels or titanium cages with graft are inserted into the joint space posteriorly through the back. When approaching laterally, hollow screw implants filled with graft or triangular titanium implants are placed across the joint, accessing the SIJ through the iliac bones using imaging guidance. This lateral transiliac approach using porous titanium triangular rods currently is the most studied technique.24
A recent prospective, multicenter trial included 423 patients with SIJ dysfunction who were randomized to receive SIJ fusion with triangular titanium implants vs a control group who received nonoperative management. Patients in the SIJ fusion group showed substantially greater improvement in pain (81.4%) compared with that of the nonoperative group (26.1%) 6 months after surgery. Pain relief in the SIJ fusion group was maintained at > 80% at 1 and 2 year follow-up, while the nonoperative group’s pain relief decreased to < 10% at the follow-ups. Measures of quality of life and disability also improved for the SIJ fusion group compared with that of the nonoperative group. Patients who were crossed over from conservative management to SIJ fusion after 6 months demonstrated improvements that were similar to those in the SIJ fusion group by the end of the study. Only 3% of patients required surgical revision. The strongest predictor of pain relief after surgery was a diagnostic SIJ anesthetic block of 30 to 60 minutes, which resulted in > 75% pain reduction.21,25 Additional predictors of successful SIJ fusion include nonsmokers, nonopioid users, and older patients who have a longer time course of SIJ pain.26
Another study investigating the outcomes of SIJ fusion, RFA, and conservative management with a 6-year follow-up demonstrated similar results.27 This further confirms the durability of the surgical group’s outcome, which sustained significant improvement compared with RFA and conservative management group in pain relief, daily function, and opioid use.
HCPs should consider SIJ fusion for patients who have at least 6 months of unsuccessful nonoperative management, significant SIJ pain (> 5 in a 10-point scale), ≥ 3 positive provocation tests, and at least 50% pain relief (> 75% preferred) with diagnostic intra-articular anesthetic injection.14 It is reasonable for primary care providers to refer these patients to a neurosurgeon or orthopedic spine surgeon for possible fusion. Patients with earlier lumbar/lumbosacral spinal fusions and persistent LBP should be evaluated for potential SIJ dysfunction. SIJ dysfunction after lumbosacral fusion could be considered a form of distal pseudarthrosis resulting from increased motion at the joint. One study found its incidence correlated with the number of segments fused in the lumbar spine.28 Another study found that about one-third of patients with persistent LBP after lumbosacral fusion could be attributed to SIJ dysfunction.29
Case Presentation
A 27-year-old female army veteran presented with bilateral buttock pain, which she described as a dull, aching pain across her sacral region, 8 out of 10 in severity. The pain was in a L5-S1 pattern. The pain was bilateral, with the right side worse than the left, and worsened with lateral bending and load transferring. She reported no numbness, tingling, or weakness.
On physical examination, she had full strength in her lower extremities and intact sensation. She reported tenderness to palpation of the sacrum and SIJ. Her gait was normal. The patient had positive thigh thrust and distraction tests. Lumbar spine X-ray, CT, MRI, and electromyographic studies did not show any pathology. She described little or no relief with analgesics or physical therapy. Previous L4-L5 and L5-S1 facet anesthetic injections and transforaminal epidural steroid injections provided minimal pain relief immediately after the procedures. Bilateral SIJ anesthetic injections under fluoroscopic guidance decreased her pain severity from a 7 to 3 out of 10 for 2 to 3 months before returning to her baseline. Radiofrequency ablation of the right SIJ under fluoroscopy provided moderate relief for about 4 months.
After exhausting nonoperative management for SIJ dysfunction without adequate pain control, the patient was referred to neurosurgery for surgical fusion. The patient was deemed an appropriate surgical candidate and underwent a right-sided SIJ fusion (Figures 4 and 5). At her 6-month and 1-year follow-up appointments, she had lasting pain relief, 2 out of 10.
Conclusion
SIJ dysfunction is widely overlooked because of the difficulty in distinguishing it from other similarly presenting syndromes. However, with a detailed history, appropriate physical maneuvers, imaging, and adequate response to intra-articular anesthetic, providers can reach an accurate diagnosis that will inform subsequent treatments. After failure of nonsurgical methods, patients with SIJ dysfunction should be considered for minimally invasive fusion techniques, which have proven to be a safe, effective, and viable treatment option.
1. Zaidi HA, Montoure AJ, Dickman CA. Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(1):59-66.
2. Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(5):1440-1453.
3. Chou LH, Slipman CW, Bhagia SM, et al. Inciting events initiating injection‐proven sacroiliac joint syndrome. Pain Med. 2004;5(1):26-32.
4. Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(4):255-265.
5. Buijs E, Visser L, Groen G. Sciatica and the sacroiliac joint: a forgotten concept. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(5):713-716.
6. Fortin JD, Dwyer AP, West S, Pier J. Sacroiliac joint: pain referral maps upon applying a new injection/arthrography technique. Part I: asymptomatic volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(13):1475-1482.
7. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Bogduk N. The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1):31-37.
8. Fortin JD, Washington WJ, Falco FJ. Three pathways between the sacroiliac joint and neural structures. ANJR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;20(8):1429-1434.
9. Szadek KM, van der Wurff P, van Tulder MW, Zuurmond WW, Perez RS. Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review. J Pain. 2009;10(4):354-368.
10. Merskey H, Bogduk N, eds. Classification of Chronic Pain: Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms. 2nd ed. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 1994.
11. Cusi MF. Paradigm for assessment and treatment of SIJ mechanical dysfunction. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14(2):152-161.
12. Laslett M, Aprill CN, McDonald B, Young SB. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther. 2005;10(3):207-218.
13. Laslett M. Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16(3):142-152.
14. Polly DW Jr. The sacroiliac joint. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017;28(3):301-312.
15. Cusi M, Van Der Wall H, Saunders J, Fogelman I. Metabolic disturbances identified by SPECT-CT in patients with a clinical diagnosis of sacroiliac joint incompetence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1674-1682.
16. Tofuku K, Koga H, Komiya S. The diagnostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography for severe sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(4):859-863.
17. Kennedy DJ, Engel A, Kreiner DS, Nampiaparampil D, Duszynski B, MacVicar J. Fluoroscopically guided diagnostic and therapeutic intra‐articular sacroiliac joint injections: a systematic review. Pain Med. 2015;16(8):1500-1518.
18. Schneider BJ, Huynh L, Levin J, Rinkaekan P, Kordi R, Kennedy DJ. Does immediate pain relief after an injection into the sacroiliac joint with anesthetic and corticosteroid predict subsequent pain relief? Pain Med. 2018;19(2):244-251.
19. Murakami E, Tanaka Y, Aizawa T, Ishizuka M, Kokubun S. Effect of periarticular and intraarticular lidocaine injections for sacroiliac joint pain: prospective comparative study. J Orthop Sci. 2007;12(3):274-280.
20. Cohen SP, Hurley RW, Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Kurihara C, Morlando B, Dragovich A. Randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating lateral branch radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac joint pain. Anesthesiology. 2008;109(2):279-288.
21. Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, et al; INSITE Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: 12-month outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(5):674-690.
22. Soriano-Baron H, Lindsey DP, Rodriguez-Martinez N, et al. The effect of implant placement on sacroiliac joint range of motion: posterior versus transarticular. Spine. 2015;40(9):E525-E530.
23. Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2013;7(1):14.
24. Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD, Lindley EM, Kitchel SH, Patel VV. Sacroiliac joint pain and its treatment. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):42-48.
25. Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:28.
26. Dengler J, Duhon B, Whang P, et al. Predictors of outcome in conservative and minimally invasive surgical management of pain originating from the sacroiliac joint: a pooled analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(21):1664-1673.
27. Vanaclocha V, Herrera JM, Sáiz-Sapena N, Rivera-Paz M, Verdú-López F. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion, radiofrequency denervation, and conservative management for sacroiliac joint pain: 6-year comparative case series. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1):48-55.
28. Unoki E, Abe E, Murai H, Kobayashi T, Abe T. Fusion of multiple segments can increase the incidence of sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(12):999-1005.
29. Katz V, Schofferman J, Reynolds J. The sacroiliac joint: a potential cause of pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(1):96-99.
Patients experiencing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction might show symptoms that overlap with those seen in lumbar spine pathology. This article reviews diagnostic tools that assist practitioners to discern the true pain generator in patients with low back pain (LBP) and therapeutic approaches when the cause is SIJ dysfunction.
Prevalence
Most of the US population will experience LBP at some point in their lives. A 2002 National Health Interview survey found that more than one-quarter (26.4%) of 31 044 respondents had complained of LBP in the previous 3 months.1 About 74 million individuals in the US experienced LBP in the past 3 months.1 A full 10% of the US population is expected to suffer from chronic LBP, and it is estimated that 2.3% of all visits to physicians are related to LBP.1
The etiology of LBP often is unclear even after thorough clinical and radiographic evaluation because of the myriad possible mechanisms. Degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, ligamentous hypertrophy, muscle spasm, hip arthropathy, and SIJ dysfunction are potential pain generators and exact clinical and radiographic correlation is not always possible. Compounding this difficulty is the lack of specificity with current diagnostic techniques. For example, many patients will have disc desiccation or herniation without any LBP or radicular symptoms on radiographic studies, such as X-rays, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). As such, providers of patients with diffuse radiographic abnormalities often have to identify a specific pain generator, which might not have any role in the patient’s pain.
Other tests, such as electromyographic studies, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, discography, and epidural steroid injections, can help pinpoint a specific pain generator. These tests might help determine whether the patient has a surgically treatable condition and could help predict whether a patient’s symptoms will respond to surgery.
However, the standard spine surgery workup often fails to identify an obvious pain generator in many individuals. The significant number of patients that fall into this category has prompted spine surgeons to consider other potential etiologies for LBP, and SIJ dysfunction has become a rapidly developing field of research.
Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction
The SIJ is a bilateral, C-shaped synovial joint surrounded by a fibrous capsule and affixes the sacrum to the ilia. Several sacral ligaments and pelvic muscles support the SIJ. The L5 nerve ventral ramus and lumbosacral trunk pass anteriorly and the S1 nerve ventral ramus passes inferiorly to the joint capsule. The SIJ is innervated by the dorsal rami of L4-S3 nerve roots, transmitting nociception and temperature. Mechanisms of injury to the SIJ could arise from intra- and extra-articular etiologies, including capsular disruption, ligamentous tension, muscular inflammation, shearing, fractures, arthritis, and infection.2 Patients could develop SIJ pain spontaneously or after a traumatic event or repetitive shear.3 Risk factors for developing SIJ dysfunction include a history of lumbar fusion, scoliosis, leg length discrepancies, sustained athletic activity, pregnancy, seronegative HLA-B27 spondyloarthropathies, or gait abnormalities. Inflammation of the SIJ and surrounding structures secondary to an environmental insult in susceptible individuals is a common theme among these etiologies.2
Pain from the SIJ is localized to an area of approximately 3 cm × 10 cm that is inferior to the ipsilateral posterior superior iliac spine.4 Referred pain maps from SIJ dysfunction extend in the L5-S1 nerve distributions, commonly seen in the buttocks, groin, posterior thigh, and lower leg with radicular symptoms. However, this pain distribution demonstrates extensive variability among patients and bears strong similarities to discogenic or facet joint sources of LBP.5-7 Direct communication has been shown between the SIJ and adjacent neural structures, namely the L5 nerve, sacral foramina, and the lumbosacral plexus. These direct pathways could explain an inflammatory mechanism for lower extremity symptoms seen in SIJ dysfunction.8
The prevalence of SIJ dysfunction among patients with LBP is estimated to be 15% to 30%, an extraordinary number given the total number of patients presenting with LBP every year.9 These patients might represent a significant segment of patients with an unrevealing standard spine evaluation. Despite the large number of patients who experience SIJ dysfunction, there is disagreement about optimal methods for diagnosis and treatment.
Diagnosis
The International Association for the Study of Pain has proposed criteria for evaluating patients who have suspected SIJ dysfunction: Pain must be in the SIJ area, should be reproducible by performing specific provocative maneuvers, and must be relieved by injection of local anesthetic into the SIJ.10 These criteria provide a sound foundation, but in clinical practice, patients often defy categorization.
The presence of pain in the area inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine and lateral to the gluteal fold with pain referral patterns in the L5-S1 nerve distributions is highly sensitive for identifying patients with SIJ dysfunction. Furthermore, pain arising from the SIJ will not be above the level of the L5 nerve sensory distribution. However, this diagnostic finding alone is not specific and might represent other etiologies known to produce similar pain, such as intervertebral discs and facet joints. Patients with SIJ dysfunction often describe their pain as sciatica-like, recurrent, and triggered with bending or twisting motions. It is worsened with any activity loading the SIJ, such as walking, climbing stairs, standing, or sitting upright. SIJ pain might be accompanied by dyspareunia and changes in bladder function because of the nerves involved.11
The use of provocative maneuvers for testing SIJ dysfunction is controversial because of the high rate of false positives and the inability to distinguish whether the SIJ or an adjacent structure is affected. However, the diagnostic utility of specific stress tests has been studied, and clusters of tests are recommended if a health care provider (HCP) suspects SIJ dysfunction. A diagnostic algorithm should first focus on using the distraction test and the thigh thrust test. Distraction is done by applying vertically oriented pressure to the anterior superior iliac spine while aiming posteriorly, therefore distracting the SIJ. During the thigh thrust test the examiner fixates the patient’s sacrum against the table with the left hand and applies a vertical force through the line of the femur aiming posteriorly, producing a posterior shearing force at the SIJ. Studies show that the thigh thrust test is the most sensitive, and the distraction test is the most specific. If both tests are positive, there is reasonable evidence to suggest SIJ dysfunction as the source of LBP.
If there are not 2 positive results, the addition of the compression test, followed by the sacral thrust test also can point to the diagnosis. The compression test is performed with vertical downward force applied to the iliac crest with the patient lying on each side, compressing the SIJ by transverse pressure across the pelvis. The sacral thrust test is performed with vertical force applied to the midline posterior sacrum at its apex directed anteriorly with the patient lying prone, producing a shearing force at the SIJs. The Gaenslen test uses a torsion force by applying a superior and posterior force to the right knee and posteriorly directed force to the left knee. Omitting the Gaenslen test has not been shown to compromise diagnostic efficacy of the other tests and can be safely excluded.12
A HCP can rule out SIJ dysfunction if these provocation tests are negative. However, the diagnostic predictive value of these tests is subject to variability among HCPs, and their reliability is increased when used in clusters.9,13
Imaging for the SIJ should begin with anterior/posterior, oblique, and lateral view plain X-rays of the pelvis (Figures 1 and 2), which will rule out other pathologies by identifying other sources of LBP, such as spondylolisthesis or hip osteoarthritis. HCPs should obtain lumbar and pelvis CT images to identify inflammatory or degenerative changes within the SIJ. CT images provide the high resolution that is needed to identify pathologies, such as fractures and tumors within the pelvic ring that could cause similar pain. MRI does not reliably depict a dysfunctional ligamentous apparatus within the SIJ; however, it can help identify inflammatory sacroiliitis, such as is seen in the spondyloarthropathies.11,14 Recent studies show combined single photon emission tomography and CT (SPECT-CT) might be the most promising imaging modality to reveal mechanical failure of load transfer with increased scintigraphic uptake in the posterior and superior SIJ ligamentous attachments. The joint loses its characteristic “dumbbell” shape in affected patients with about 50% higher uptake than unaffected joints. These findings were evident in patients who experienced pelvic trauma or during the peripartum period.15,16
Fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular injection of a local anesthetic (lidocaine) and/or a corticosteroid (triamcinolone) has the dual functionality of diagnosis and treatment (Figure 3). It often is considered the most reliable method to diagnose SIJ dysfunction and has the benefit of pain relief for up to 1 year. However, intra-articular injections lack diagnostic validity because the solution often extravasates to extracapsular structures. This confounds the source of the pain and makes it difficult to interpret these diagnostic injections. In addition, the injection might not reach the entire SIJ capsule and could result in a false-negative diagnosis.17,18 Periarticular injections have been shown to result in better pain relief in patients diagnosed with SIJ dysfunction than intra-articular injections. Periarticular injections also are easier to perform and could be a first-step option for these patients.19
Treatment
Nonoperative management of SIJ dysfunction includes exercise programs, physical therapy, manual manipulation therapy, sacroiliac belts, and periodic articular injections. Efficacy of these methods is variable, and analgesics often do not significantly benefit this type of pain. Another nonoperative approach is radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the lumbar dorsal rami and lateral sacral branches, which can vary based on the number of rami treated as well as the technique used. About two-thirds of patients report pain relief after RFA.2 When successful, pain is relieved for 6 to 12 months, which is a temporary yet effective option for patients experiencing SIJ dysfunction.14,20
Fusion Surgery
Cadaver studies show that biomechanical stabilization of the SIJ leads to decreased range of motion in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. This results in a decreased need for periarticular muscular and ligamentous support, therefore facilitating load transfer across the SIJ.21,22 Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery report better pain relief compared with those receiving open surgery at 12 months postoperatively.23 The 2 main SIJ fusion approaches used are the lateral transarticular and the dorsal approaches. In the dorsal approach, the SIJ is distracted and allograft dowels or titanium cages with graft are inserted into the joint space posteriorly through the back. When approaching laterally, hollow screw implants filled with graft or triangular titanium implants are placed across the joint, accessing the SIJ through the iliac bones using imaging guidance. This lateral transiliac approach using porous titanium triangular rods currently is the most studied technique.24
A recent prospective, multicenter trial included 423 patients with SIJ dysfunction who were randomized to receive SIJ fusion with triangular titanium implants vs a control group who received nonoperative management. Patients in the SIJ fusion group showed substantially greater improvement in pain (81.4%) compared with that of the nonoperative group (26.1%) 6 months after surgery. Pain relief in the SIJ fusion group was maintained at > 80% at 1 and 2 year follow-up, while the nonoperative group’s pain relief decreased to < 10% at the follow-ups. Measures of quality of life and disability also improved for the SIJ fusion group compared with that of the nonoperative group. Patients who were crossed over from conservative management to SIJ fusion after 6 months demonstrated improvements that were similar to those in the SIJ fusion group by the end of the study. Only 3% of patients required surgical revision. The strongest predictor of pain relief after surgery was a diagnostic SIJ anesthetic block of 30 to 60 minutes, which resulted in > 75% pain reduction.21,25 Additional predictors of successful SIJ fusion include nonsmokers, nonopioid users, and older patients who have a longer time course of SIJ pain.26
Another study investigating the outcomes of SIJ fusion, RFA, and conservative management with a 6-year follow-up demonstrated similar results.27 This further confirms the durability of the surgical group’s outcome, which sustained significant improvement compared with RFA and conservative management group in pain relief, daily function, and opioid use.
HCPs should consider SIJ fusion for patients who have at least 6 months of unsuccessful nonoperative management, significant SIJ pain (> 5 in a 10-point scale), ≥ 3 positive provocation tests, and at least 50% pain relief (> 75% preferred) with diagnostic intra-articular anesthetic injection.14 It is reasonable for primary care providers to refer these patients to a neurosurgeon or orthopedic spine surgeon for possible fusion. Patients with earlier lumbar/lumbosacral spinal fusions and persistent LBP should be evaluated for potential SIJ dysfunction. SIJ dysfunction after lumbosacral fusion could be considered a form of distal pseudarthrosis resulting from increased motion at the joint. One study found its incidence correlated with the number of segments fused in the lumbar spine.28 Another study found that about one-third of patients with persistent LBP after lumbosacral fusion could be attributed to SIJ dysfunction.29
Case Presentation
A 27-year-old female army veteran presented with bilateral buttock pain, which she described as a dull, aching pain across her sacral region, 8 out of 10 in severity. The pain was in a L5-S1 pattern. The pain was bilateral, with the right side worse than the left, and worsened with lateral bending and load transferring. She reported no numbness, tingling, or weakness.
On physical examination, she had full strength in her lower extremities and intact sensation. She reported tenderness to palpation of the sacrum and SIJ. Her gait was normal. The patient had positive thigh thrust and distraction tests. Lumbar spine X-ray, CT, MRI, and electromyographic studies did not show any pathology. She described little or no relief with analgesics or physical therapy. Previous L4-L5 and L5-S1 facet anesthetic injections and transforaminal epidural steroid injections provided minimal pain relief immediately after the procedures. Bilateral SIJ anesthetic injections under fluoroscopic guidance decreased her pain severity from a 7 to 3 out of 10 for 2 to 3 months before returning to her baseline. Radiofrequency ablation of the right SIJ under fluoroscopy provided moderate relief for about 4 months.
After exhausting nonoperative management for SIJ dysfunction without adequate pain control, the patient was referred to neurosurgery for surgical fusion. The patient was deemed an appropriate surgical candidate and underwent a right-sided SIJ fusion (Figures 4 and 5). At her 6-month and 1-year follow-up appointments, she had lasting pain relief, 2 out of 10.
Conclusion
SIJ dysfunction is widely overlooked because of the difficulty in distinguishing it from other similarly presenting syndromes. However, with a detailed history, appropriate physical maneuvers, imaging, and adequate response to intra-articular anesthetic, providers can reach an accurate diagnosis that will inform subsequent treatments. After failure of nonsurgical methods, patients with SIJ dysfunction should be considered for minimally invasive fusion techniques, which have proven to be a safe, effective, and viable treatment option.
Patients experiencing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction might show symptoms that overlap with those seen in lumbar spine pathology. This article reviews diagnostic tools that assist practitioners to discern the true pain generator in patients with low back pain (LBP) and therapeutic approaches when the cause is SIJ dysfunction.
Prevalence
Most of the US population will experience LBP at some point in their lives. A 2002 National Health Interview survey found that more than one-quarter (26.4%) of 31 044 respondents had complained of LBP in the previous 3 months.1 About 74 million individuals in the US experienced LBP in the past 3 months.1 A full 10% of the US population is expected to suffer from chronic LBP, and it is estimated that 2.3% of all visits to physicians are related to LBP.1
The etiology of LBP often is unclear even after thorough clinical and radiographic evaluation because of the myriad possible mechanisms. Degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, ligamentous hypertrophy, muscle spasm, hip arthropathy, and SIJ dysfunction are potential pain generators and exact clinical and radiographic correlation is not always possible. Compounding this difficulty is the lack of specificity with current diagnostic techniques. For example, many patients will have disc desiccation or herniation without any LBP or radicular symptoms on radiographic studies, such as X-rays, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). As such, providers of patients with diffuse radiographic abnormalities often have to identify a specific pain generator, which might not have any role in the patient’s pain.
Other tests, such as electromyographic studies, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, discography, and epidural steroid injections, can help pinpoint a specific pain generator. These tests might help determine whether the patient has a surgically treatable condition and could help predict whether a patient’s symptoms will respond to surgery.
However, the standard spine surgery workup often fails to identify an obvious pain generator in many individuals. The significant number of patients that fall into this category has prompted spine surgeons to consider other potential etiologies for LBP, and SIJ dysfunction has become a rapidly developing field of research.
Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction
The SIJ is a bilateral, C-shaped synovial joint surrounded by a fibrous capsule and affixes the sacrum to the ilia. Several sacral ligaments and pelvic muscles support the SIJ. The L5 nerve ventral ramus and lumbosacral trunk pass anteriorly and the S1 nerve ventral ramus passes inferiorly to the joint capsule. The SIJ is innervated by the dorsal rami of L4-S3 nerve roots, transmitting nociception and temperature. Mechanisms of injury to the SIJ could arise from intra- and extra-articular etiologies, including capsular disruption, ligamentous tension, muscular inflammation, shearing, fractures, arthritis, and infection.2 Patients could develop SIJ pain spontaneously or after a traumatic event or repetitive shear.3 Risk factors for developing SIJ dysfunction include a history of lumbar fusion, scoliosis, leg length discrepancies, sustained athletic activity, pregnancy, seronegative HLA-B27 spondyloarthropathies, or gait abnormalities. Inflammation of the SIJ and surrounding structures secondary to an environmental insult in susceptible individuals is a common theme among these etiologies.2
Pain from the SIJ is localized to an area of approximately 3 cm × 10 cm that is inferior to the ipsilateral posterior superior iliac spine.4 Referred pain maps from SIJ dysfunction extend in the L5-S1 nerve distributions, commonly seen in the buttocks, groin, posterior thigh, and lower leg with radicular symptoms. However, this pain distribution demonstrates extensive variability among patients and bears strong similarities to discogenic or facet joint sources of LBP.5-7 Direct communication has been shown between the SIJ and adjacent neural structures, namely the L5 nerve, sacral foramina, and the lumbosacral plexus. These direct pathways could explain an inflammatory mechanism for lower extremity symptoms seen in SIJ dysfunction.8
The prevalence of SIJ dysfunction among patients with LBP is estimated to be 15% to 30%, an extraordinary number given the total number of patients presenting with LBP every year.9 These patients might represent a significant segment of patients with an unrevealing standard spine evaluation. Despite the large number of patients who experience SIJ dysfunction, there is disagreement about optimal methods for diagnosis and treatment.
Diagnosis
The International Association for the Study of Pain has proposed criteria for evaluating patients who have suspected SIJ dysfunction: Pain must be in the SIJ area, should be reproducible by performing specific provocative maneuvers, and must be relieved by injection of local anesthetic into the SIJ.10 These criteria provide a sound foundation, but in clinical practice, patients often defy categorization.
The presence of pain in the area inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine and lateral to the gluteal fold with pain referral patterns in the L5-S1 nerve distributions is highly sensitive for identifying patients with SIJ dysfunction. Furthermore, pain arising from the SIJ will not be above the level of the L5 nerve sensory distribution. However, this diagnostic finding alone is not specific and might represent other etiologies known to produce similar pain, such as intervertebral discs and facet joints. Patients with SIJ dysfunction often describe their pain as sciatica-like, recurrent, and triggered with bending or twisting motions. It is worsened with any activity loading the SIJ, such as walking, climbing stairs, standing, or sitting upright. SIJ pain might be accompanied by dyspareunia and changes in bladder function because of the nerves involved.11
The use of provocative maneuvers for testing SIJ dysfunction is controversial because of the high rate of false positives and the inability to distinguish whether the SIJ or an adjacent structure is affected. However, the diagnostic utility of specific stress tests has been studied, and clusters of tests are recommended if a health care provider (HCP) suspects SIJ dysfunction. A diagnostic algorithm should first focus on using the distraction test and the thigh thrust test. Distraction is done by applying vertically oriented pressure to the anterior superior iliac spine while aiming posteriorly, therefore distracting the SIJ. During the thigh thrust test the examiner fixates the patient’s sacrum against the table with the left hand and applies a vertical force through the line of the femur aiming posteriorly, producing a posterior shearing force at the SIJ. Studies show that the thigh thrust test is the most sensitive, and the distraction test is the most specific. If both tests are positive, there is reasonable evidence to suggest SIJ dysfunction as the source of LBP.
If there are not 2 positive results, the addition of the compression test, followed by the sacral thrust test also can point to the diagnosis. The compression test is performed with vertical downward force applied to the iliac crest with the patient lying on each side, compressing the SIJ by transverse pressure across the pelvis. The sacral thrust test is performed with vertical force applied to the midline posterior sacrum at its apex directed anteriorly with the patient lying prone, producing a shearing force at the SIJs. The Gaenslen test uses a torsion force by applying a superior and posterior force to the right knee and posteriorly directed force to the left knee. Omitting the Gaenslen test has not been shown to compromise diagnostic efficacy of the other tests and can be safely excluded.12
A HCP can rule out SIJ dysfunction if these provocation tests are negative. However, the diagnostic predictive value of these tests is subject to variability among HCPs, and their reliability is increased when used in clusters.9,13
Imaging for the SIJ should begin with anterior/posterior, oblique, and lateral view plain X-rays of the pelvis (Figures 1 and 2), which will rule out other pathologies by identifying other sources of LBP, such as spondylolisthesis or hip osteoarthritis. HCPs should obtain lumbar and pelvis CT images to identify inflammatory or degenerative changes within the SIJ. CT images provide the high resolution that is needed to identify pathologies, such as fractures and tumors within the pelvic ring that could cause similar pain. MRI does not reliably depict a dysfunctional ligamentous apparatus within the SIJ; however, it can help identify inflammatory sacroiliitis, such as is seen in the spondyloarthropathies.11,14 Recent studies show combined single photon emission tomography and CT (SPECT-CT) might be the most promising imaging modality to reveal mechanical failure of load transfer with increased scintigraphic uptake in the posterior and superior SIJ ligamentous attachments. The joint loses its characteristic “dumbbell” shape in affected patients with about 50% higher uptake than unaffected joints. These findings were evident in patients who experienced pelvic trauma or during the peripartum period.15,16
Fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular injection of a local anesthetic (lidocaine) and/or a corticosteroid (triamcinolone) has the dual functionality of diagnosis and treatment (Figure 3). It often is considered the most reliable method to diagnose SIJ dysfunction and has the benefit of pain relief for up to 1 year. However, intra-articular injections lack diagnostic validity because the solution often extravasates to extracapsular structures. This confounds the source of the pain and makes it difficult to interpret these diagnostic injections. In addition, the injection might not reach the entire SIJ capsule and could result in a false-negative diagnosis.17,18 Periarticular injections have been shown to result in better pain relief in patients diagnosed with SIJ dysfunction than intra-articular injections. Periarticular injections also are easier to perform and could be a first-step option for these patients.19
Treatment
Nonoperative management of SIJ dysfunction includes exercise programs, physical therapy, manual manipulation therapy, sacroiliac belts, and periodic articular injections. Efficacy of these methods is variable, and analgesics often do not significantly benefit this type of pain. Another nonoperative approach is radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the lumbar dorsal rami and lateral sacral branches, which can vary based on the number of rami treated as well as the technique used. About two-thirds of patients report pain relief after RFA.2 When successful, pain is relieved for 6 to 12 months, which is a temporary yet effective option for patients experiencing SIJ dysfunction.14,20
Fusion Surgery
Cadaver studies show that biomechanical stabilization of the SIJ leads to decreased range of motion in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. This results in a decreased need for periarticular muscular and ligamentous support, therefore facilitating load transfer across the SIJ.21,22 Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery report better pain relief compared with those receiving open surgery at 12 months postoperatively.23 The 2 main SIJ fusion approaches used are the lateral transarticular and the dorsal approaches. In the dorsal approach, the SIJ is distracted and allograft dowels or titanium cages with graft are inserted into the joint space posteriorly through the back. When approaching laterally, hollow screw implants filled with graft or triangular titanium implants are placed across the joint, accessing the SIJ through the iliac bones using imaging guidance. This lateral transiliac approach using porous titanium triangular rods currently is the most studied technique.24
A recent prospective, multicenter trial included 423 patients with SIJ dysfunction who were randomized to receive SIJ fusion with triangular titanium implants vs a control group who received nonoperative management. Patients in the SIJ fusion group showed substantially greater improvement in pain (81.4%) compared with that of the nonoperative group (26.1%) 6 months after surgery. Pain relief in the SIJ fusion group was maintained at > 80% at 1 and 2 year follow-up, while the nonoperative group’s pain relief decreased to < 10% at the follow-ups. Measures of quality of life and disability also improved for the SIJ fusion group compared with that of the nonoperative group. Patients who were crossed over from conservative management to SIJ fusion after 6 months demonstrated improvements that were similar to those in the SIJ fusion group by the end of the study. Only 3% of patients required surgical revision. The strongest predictor of pain relief after surgery was a diagnostic SIJ anesthetic block of 30 to 60 minutes, which resulted in > 75% pain reduction.21,25 Additional predictors of successful SIJ fusion include nonsmokers, nonopioid users, and older patients who have a longer time course of SIJ pain.26
Another study investigating the outcomes of SIJ fusion, RFA, and conservative management with a 6-year follow-up demonstrated similar results.27 This further confirms the durability of the surgical group’s outcome, which sustained significant improvement compared with RFA and conservative management group in pain relief, daily function, and opioid use.
HCPs should consider SIJ fusion for patients who have at least 6 months of unsuccessful nonoperative management, significant SIJ pain (> 5 in a 10-point scale), ≥ 3 positive provocation tests, and at least 50% pain relief (> 75% preferred) with diagnostic intra-articular anesthetic injection.14 It is reasonable for primary care providers to refer these patients to a neurosurgeon or orthopedic spine surgeon for possible fusion. Patients with earlier lumbar/lumbosacral spinal fusions and persistent LBP should be evaluated for potential SIJ dysfunction. SIJ dysfunction after lumbosacral fusion could be considered a form of distal pseudarthrosis resulting from increased motion at the joint. One study found its incidence correlated with the number of segments fused in the lumbar spine.28 Another study found that about one-third of patients with persistent LBP after lumbosacral fusion could be attributed to SIJ dysfunction.29
Case Presentation
A 27-year-old female army veteran presented with bilateral buttock pain, which she described as a dull, aching pain across her sacral region, 8 out of 10 in severity. The pain was in a L5-S1 pattern. The pain was bilateral, with the right side worse than the left, and worsened with lateral bending and load transferring. She reported no numbness, tingling, or weakness.
On physical examination, she had full strength in her lower extremities and intact sensation. She reported tenderness to palpation of the sacrum and SIJ. Her gait was normal. The patient had positive thigh thrust and distraction tests. Lumbar spine X-ray, CT, MRI, and electromyographic studies did not show any pathology. She described little or no relief with analgesics or physical therapy. Previous L4-L5 and L5-S1 facet anesthetic injections and transforaminal epidural steroid injections provided minimal pain relief immediately after the procedures. Bilateral SIJ anesthetic injections under fluoroscopic guidance decreased her pain severity from a 7 to 3 out of 10 for 2 to 3 months before returning to her baseline. Radiofrequency ablation of the right SIJ under fluoroscopy provided moderate relief for about 4 months.
After exhausting nonoperative management for SIJ dysfunction without adequate pain control, the patient was referred to neurosurgery for surgical fusion. The patient was deemed an appropriate surgical candidate and underwent a right-sided SIJ fusion (Figures 4 and 5). At her 6-month and 1-year follow-up appointments, she had lasting pain relief, 2 out of 10.
Conclusion
SIJ dysfunction is widely overlooked because of the difficulty in distinguishing it from other similarly presenting syndromes. However, with a detailed history, appropriate physical maneuvers, imaging, and adequate response to intra-articular anesthetic, providers can reach an accurate diagnosis that will inform subsequent treatments. After failure of nonsurgical methods, patients with SIJ dysfunction should be considered for minimally invasive fusion techniques, which have proven to be a safe, effective, and viable treatment option.
1. Zaidi HA, Montoure AJ, Dickman CA. Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(1):59-66.
2. Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(5):1440-1453.
3. Chou LH, Slipman CW, Bhagia SM, et al. Inciting events initiating injection‐proven sacroiliac joint syndrome. Pain Med. 2004;5(1):26-32.
4. Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(4):255-265.
5. Buijs E, Visser L, Groen G. Sciatica and the sacroiliac joint: a forgotten concept. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(5):713-716.
6. Fortin JD, Dwyer AP, West S, Pier J. Sacroiliac joint: pain referral maps upon applying a new injection/arthrography technique. Part I: asymptomatic volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(13):1475-1482.
7. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Bogduk N. The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1):31-37.
8. Fortin JD, Washington WJ, Falco FJ. Three pathways between the sacroiliac joint and neural structures. ANJR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;20(8):1429-1434.
9. Szadek KM, van der Wurff P, van Tulder MW, Zuurmond WW, Perez RS. Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review. J Pain. 2009;10(4):354-368.
10. Merskey H, Bogduk N, eds. Classification of Chronic Pain: Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms. 2nd ed. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 1994.
11. Cusi MF. Paradigm for assessment and treatment of SIJ mechanical dysfunction. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14(2):152-161.
12. Laslett M, Aprill CN, McDonald B, Young SB. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther. 2005;10(3):207-218.
13. Laslett M. Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16(3):142-152.
14. Polly DW Jr. The sacroiliac joint. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017;28(3):301-312.
15. Cusi M, Van Der Wall H, Saunders J, Fogelman I. Metabolic disturbances identified by SPECT-CT in patients with a clinical diagnosis of sacroiliac joint incompetence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1674-1682.
16. Tofuku K, Koga H, Komiya S. The diagnostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography for severe sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(4):859-863.
17. Kennedy DJ, Engel A, Kreiner DS, Nampiaparampil D, Duszynski B, MacVicar J. Fluoroscopically guided diagnostic and therapeutic intra‐articular sacroiliac joint injections: a systematic review. Pain Med. 2015;16(8):1500-1518.
18. Schneider BJ, Huynh L, Levin J, Rinkaekan P, Kordi R, Kennedy DJ. Does immediate pain relief after an injection into the sacroiliac joint with anesthetic and corticosteroid predict subsequent pain relief? Pain Med. 2018;19(2):244-251.
19. Murakami E, Tanaka Y, Aizawa T, Ishizuka M, Kokubun S. Effect of periarticular and intraarticular lidocaine injections for sacroiliac joint pain: prospective comparative study. J Orthop Sci. 2007;12(3):274-280.
20. Cohen SP, Hurley RW, Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Kurihara C, Morlando B, Dragovich A. Randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating lateral branch radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac joint pain. Anesthesiology. 2008;109(2):279-288.
21. Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, et al; INSITE Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: 12-month outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(5):674-690.
22. Soriano-Baron H, Lindsey DP, Rodriguez-Martinez N, et al. The effect of implant placement on sacroiliac joint range of motion: posterior versus transarticular. Spine. 2015;40(9):E525-E530.
23. Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2013;7(1):14.
24. Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD, Lindley EM, Kitchel SH, Patel VV. Sacroiliac joint pain and its treatment. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):42-48.
25. Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:28.
26. Dengler J, Duhon B, Whang P, et al. Predictors of outcome in conservative and minimally invasive surgical management of pain originating from the sacroiliac joint: a pooled analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(21):1664-1673.
27. Vanaclocha V, Herrera JM, Sáiz-Sapena N, Rivera-Paz M, Verdú-López F. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion, radiofrequency denervation, and conservative management for sacroiliac joint pain: 6-year comparative case series. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1):48-55.
28. Unoki E, Abe E, Murai H, Kobayashi T, Abe T. Fusion of multiple segments can increase the incidence of sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(12):999-1005.
29. Katz V, Schofferman J, Reynolds J. The sacroiliac joint: a potential cause of pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(1):96-99.
1. Zaidi HA, Montoure AJ, Dickman CA. Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(1):59-66.
2. Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(5):1440-1453.
3. Chou LH, Slipman CW, Bhagia SM, et al. Inciting events initiating injection‐proven sacroiliac joint syndrome. Pain Med. 2004;5(1):26-32.
4. Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(4):255-265.
5. Buijs E, Visser L, Groen G. Sciatica and the sacroiliac joint: a forgotten concept. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(5):713-716.
6. Fortin JD, Dwyer AP, West S, Pier J. Sacroiliac joint: pain referral maps upon applying a new injection/arthrography technique. Part I: asymptomatic volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(13):1475-1482.
7. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Bogduk N. The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1):31-37.
8. Fortin JD, Washington WJ, Falco FJ. Three pathways between the sacroiliac joint and neural structures. ANJR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;20(8):1429-1434.
9. Szadek KM, van der Wurff P, van Tulder MW, Zuurmond WW, Perez RS. Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review. J Pain. 2009;10(4):354-368.
10. Merskey H, Bogduk N, eds. Classification of Chronic Pain: Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms. 2nd ed. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 1994.
11. Cusi MF. Paradigm for assessment and treatment of SIJ mechanical dysfunction. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14(2):152-161.
12. Laslett M, Aprill CN, McDonald B, Young SB. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther. 2005;10(3):207-218.
13. Laslett M. Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16(3):142-152.
14. Polly DW Jr. The sacroiliac joint. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017;28(3):301-312.
15. Cusi M, Van Der Wall H, Saunders J, Fogelman I. Metabolic disturbances identified by SPECT-CT in patients with a clinical diagnosis of sacroiliac joint incompetence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1674-1682.
16. Tofuku K, Koga H, Komiya S. The diagnostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography for severe sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(4):859-863.
17. Kennedy DJ, Engel A, Kreiner DS, Nampiaparampil D, Duszynski B, MacVicar J. Fluoroscopically guided diagnostic and therapeutic intra‐articular sacroiliac joint injections: a systematic review. Pain Med. 2015;16(8):1500-1518.
18. Schneider BJ, Huynh L, Levin J, Rinkaekan P, Kordi R, Kennedy DJ. Does immediate pain relief after an injection into the sacroiliac joint with anesthetic and corticosteroid predict subsequent pain relief? Pain Med. 2018;19(2):244-251.
19. Murakami E, Tanaka Y, Aizawa T, Ishizuka M, Kokubun S. Effect of periarticular and intraarticular lidocaine injections for sacroiliac joint pain: prospective comparative study. J Orthop Sci. 2007;12(3):274-280.
20. Cohen SP, Hurley RW, Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Kurihara C, Morlando B, Dragovich A. Randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating lateral branch radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac joint pain. Anesthesiology. 2008;109(2):279-288.
21. Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, et al; INSITE Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: 12-month outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(5):674-690.
22. Soriano-Baron H, Lindsey DP, Rodriguez-Martinez N, et al. The effect of implant placement on sacroiliac joint range of motion: posterior versus transarticular. Spine. 2015;40(9):E525-E530.
23. Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2013;7(1):14.
24. Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD, Lindley EM, Kitchel SH, Patel VV. Sacroiliac joint pain and its treatment. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):42-48.
25. Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:28.
26. Dengler J, Duhon B, Whang P, et al. Predictors of outcome in conservative and minimally invasive surgical management of pain originating from the sacroiliac joint: a pooled analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(21):1664-1673.
27. Vanaclocha V, Herrera JM, Sáiz-Sapena N, Rivera-Paz M, Verdú-López F. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion, radiofrequency denervation, and conservative management for sacroiliac joint pain: 6-year comparative case series. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1):48-55.
28. Unoki E, Abe E, Murai H, Kobayashi T, Abe T. Fusion of multiple segments can increase the incidence of sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(12):999-1005.
29. Katz V, Schofferman J, Reynolds J. The sacroiliac joint: a potential cause of pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(1):96-99.
COPD adds complexity to shared decision making for LDCT lung cancer screening
research suggests.
Jonathan M. Iaccarino, MD, of the pulmonary center at the Boston University, and coauthors reported the results of a secondary analysis of patient-level outcomes from 75,138 low-dose CT (LDCT) scans in 26,453 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (Chest 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016).
Currently, LDCT screening is recommended annually for high-risk smokers aged 55-80 years. The National Lung Screening Trial showed that this screening achieved a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality in this group. The guidelines stress the importance of shared decision making, with discussion of the risks and benefits of screening.
Dr. Iaccarino and colleagues point out that decision aids for shared decision making need to include important baseline characteristics, such as the presence of COPD, as these can complicate the risk and benefit analysis.
In this study, they found that 14.2% of LDCT scans performed led to a subsequent diagnostic study and 1.5% resulted in an invasive procedure. In addition, 0.3% of scans resulted in a procedure-related complication, and in 89 cases (0.1%), this procedure-related complication was serious.
At the patient level, nearly one-third (30.5%) received a diagnostic study, 4.2% underwent an invasive procedure – 41% of whom ultimately were found not to have lung cancer – 0.9% had a procedure-related complication, and 0.3% had a serious procedure related complication. Furthermore, among those who experienced a serious complication, 12.5% were found not to have lung cancer.
“Our study analyzes cumulative outcomes at the level of the individual patient over the three years of LDCT screening during the NLST, showing higher rates of diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures, complications and serious complications than apparent when data is presented at the level of the individual test,” the authors wrote.
The 4,632 participants with COPD were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic studies (36.2%), have an invasive procedure (6%), experience a procedure-related complication (1.5%) and experience a serious procedure-related complication (0.6%) than were participants without COPD. However, they also had a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer diagnosis than did participants without COPD (6.1% vs. 3.6%).
“While most decision aids note the risks of screening may be increased in those with COPD, our study helps quantify these increased risks as well as the increased likelihood of a lung cancer diagnosis, a critical advance given that providing personalized (rather than generic) information results in more accurate risk perception and more informed choices among individuals considering screening,” the authors wrote. “With the significant change in the balance of benefits and risks of screening in patients with COPD, it is critical to adjust the shared decision-making discussions accordingly.”
They also noted that other comorbidities, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and other lung diseases, would likely affect the balance of risk and benefit of LDCT screening, and that there was a need for further exploration of screening in these patients.
Noting the study’s limitations, the authors pointed that their analysis focused on outcomes that were not the primary outcomes of the National Lung Screening trial, and that they relied on self-reported COPD diagnoses.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Charles A. King Trust, and Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Iaccarino JM et al. CHEST 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016.
research suggests.
Jonathan M. Iaccarino, MD, of the pulmonary center at the Boston University, and coauthors reported the results of a secondary analysis of patient-level outcomes from 75,138 low-dose CT (LDCT) scans in 26,453 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (Chest 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016).
Currently, LDCT screening is recommended annually for high-risk smokers aged 55-80 years. The National Lung Screening Trial showed that this screening achieved a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality in this group. The guidelines stress the importance of shared decision making, with discussion of the risks and benefits of screening.
Dr. Iaccarino and colleagues point out that decision aids for shared decision making need to include important baseline characteristics, such as the presence of COPD, as these can complicate the risk and benefit analysis.
In this study, they found that 14.2% of LDCT scans performed led to a subsequent diagnostic study and 1.5% resulted in an invasive procedure. In addition, 0.3% of scans resulted in a procedure-related complication, and in 89 cases (0.1%), this procedure-related complication was serious.
At the patient level, nearly one-third (30.5%) received a diagnostic study, 4.2% underwent an invasive procedure – 41% of whom ultimately were found not to have lung cancer – 0.9% had a procedure-related complication, and 0.3% had a serious procedure related complication. Furthermore, among those who experienced a serious complication, 12.5% were found not to have lung cancer.
“Our study analyzes cumulative outcomes at the level of the individual patient over the three years of LDCT screening during the NLST, showing higher rates of diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures, complications and serious complications than apparent when data is presented at the level of the individual test,” the authors wrote.
The 4,632 participants with COPD were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic studies (36.2%), have an invasive procedure (6%), experience a procedure-related complication (1.5%) and experience a serious procedure-related complication (0.6%) than were participants without COPD. However, they also had a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer diagnosis than did participants without COPD (6.1% vs. 3.6%).
“While most decision aids note the risks of screening may be increased in those with COPD, our study helps quantify these increased risks as well as the increased likelihood of a lung cancer diagnosis, a critical advance given that providing personalized (rather than generic) information results in more accurate risk perception and more informed choices among individuals considering screening,” the authors wrote. “With the significant change in the balance of benefits and risks of screening in patients with COPD, it is critical to adjust the shared decision-making discussions accordingly.”
They also noted that other comorbidities, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and other lung diseases, would likely affect the balance of risk and benefit of LDCT screening, and that there was a need for further exploration of screening in these patients.
Noting the study’s limitations, the authors pointed that their analysis focused on outcomes that were not the primary outcomes of the National Lung Screening trial, and that they relied on self-reported COPD diagnoses.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Charles A. King Trust, and Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Iaccarino JM et al. CHEST 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016.
research suggests.
Jonathan M. Iaccarino, MD, of the pulmonary center at the Boston University, and coauthors reported the results of a secondary analysis of patient-level outcomes from 75,138 low-dose CT (LDCT) scans in 26,453 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (Chest 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016).
Currently, LDCT screening is recommended annually for high-risk smokers aged 55-80 years. The National Lung Screening Trial showed that this screening achieved a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality in this group. The guidelines stress the importance of shared decision making, with discussion of the risks and benefits of screening.
Dr. Iaccarino and colleagues point out that decision aids for shared decision making need to include important baseline characteristics, such as the presence of COPD, as these can complicate the risk and benefit analysis.
In this study, they found that 14.2% of LDCT scans performed led to a subsequent diagnostic study and 1.5% resulted in an invasive procedure. In addition, 0.3% of scans resulted in a procedure-related complication, and in 89 cases (0.1%), this procedure-related complication was serious.
At the patient level, nearly one-third (30.5%) received a diagnostic study, 4.2% underwent an invasive procedure – 41% of whom ultimately were found not to have lung cancer – 0.9% had a procedure-related complication, and 0.3% had a serious procedure related complication. Furthermore, among those who experienced a serious complication, 12.5% were found not to have lung cancer.
“Our study analyzes cumulative outcomes at the level of the individual patient over the three years of LDCT screening during the NLST, showing higher rates of diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures, complications and serious complications than apparent when data is presented at the level of the individual test,” the authors wrote.
The 4,632 participants with COPD were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic studies (36.2%), have an invasive procedure (6%), experience a procedure-related complication (1.5%) and experience a serious procedure-related complication (0.6%) than were participants without COPD. However, they also had a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer diagnosis than did participants without COPD (6.1% vs. 3.6%).
“While most decision aids note the risks of screening may be increased in those with COPD, our study helps quantify these increased risks as well as the increased likelihood of a lung cancer diagnosis, a critical advance given that providing personalized (rather than generic) information results in more accurate risk perception and more informed choices among individuals considering screening,” the authors wrote. “With the significant change in the balance of benefits and risks of screening in patients with COPD, it is critical to adjust the shared decision-making discussions accordingly.”
They also noted that other comorbidities, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and other lung diseases, would likely affect the balance of risk and benefit of LDCT screening, and that there was a need for further exploration of screening in these patients.
Noting the study’s limitations, the authors pointed that their analysis focused on outcomes that were not the primary outcomes of the National Lung Screening trial, and that they relied on self-reported COPD diagnoses.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Charles A. King Trust, and Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Iaccarino JM et al. CHEST 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016.
FROM CHEST
