Robert B Bolash1, Tariq Niazi2, Meera Kumari2, Gerges Azer2, Nagy Mekhail1. 1. Departments of Pain Management and Evidence Based Pain Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. 2. Department of Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal targeted drug delivery systems historically required physician office visits for dose adjustment to manage fluctuating pain. A wireless device now enables patients to supplement their basal intrathecal infusion with a programmed on-demand bolus dose. We sought to quantify the change in oral breakthrough opioid need associated with the use of an intrathecal bolus in comparison to those treated with the basal infusion alone. METHODS: Demographic, dosage, bolus usage and longevity data were extracted from the historical medical record of 69 patients (18/51 bolus/nonbolus) followed continuously at our center. Medication consumption and Pain Disability Index measures were obtained at baseline and most recent follow-up. RESULTS: Among patients with the bolus option, only 2 (11%; confidence interval [CI] 0% to 26%) continued to require oral opiates to manage breakthrough pain compared to 29 (57%; CI 43% to 71%) without the bolus option. The Pain Disability Index score decreased by 19% in patients with the bolus option and by 25% in those with the basal infusion. Total daily intrathecal opioid intake was 34% lower in the group with the bolus device. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing an intrathecal bolus to treat incident pain was a safe way to manage unpredictable breakthrough pain and may represent a cost-saving opportunity by eliminating the need for oral analgesic medications.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal targeted drug delivery systems historically required physician office visits for dose adjustment to manage fluctuating pain. A wireless device now enables patients to supplement their basal intrathecal infusion with a programmed on-demand bolus dose. We sought to quantify the change in oral breakthrough opioid need associated with the use of an intrathecal bolus in comparison to those treated with the basal infusion alone. METHODS: Demographic, dosage, bolus usage and longevity data were extracted from the historical medical record of 69 patients (18/51 bolus/nonbolus) followed continuously at our center. Medication consumption and Pain Disability Index measures were obtained at baseline and most recent follow-up. RESULTS: Among patients with the bolus option, only 2 (11%; confidence interval [CI] 0% to 26%) continued to require oral opiates to manage breakthrough pain compared to 29 (57%; CI 43% to 71%) without the bolus option. The Pain Disability Index score decreased by 19% in patients with the bolus option and by 25% in those with the basal infusion. Total daily intrathecal opioid intake was 34% lower in the group with the bolus device. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing an intrathecal bolus to treat incident pain was a safe way to manage unpredictable breakthrough pain and may represent a cost-saving opportunity by eliminating the need for oral analgesic medications.
Authors: Nicholas Avery; Amy G McNeilage; Fiona Stanaway; Claire E Ashton-James; Fiona M Blyth; Rebecca Martin; Ali Gholamrezaei; Paul Glare Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-04-04
Authors: Jose De Andres; Salim Hayek; Christophe Perruchoud; Melinda M Lawrence; Miguel Angel Reina; Carmen De Andres-Serrano; Ruben Rubio-Haro; Mathew Hunt; Tony L Yaksh Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-16