Jack M. Rosenberg

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense (DoD) revised the 2010 clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of opioid therapy for chronic pain, considering the specific needs of the VA and DoD and new evidence regarding prescribing opioid medication for non-end-of-life-related chronic pain. This paper summarizes the major recommendations and compares them with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline for prescribing opioids. This Opioid Therapy CPG was developed for VA-DoD service members, veterans, and their families. The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a VA/DoD guideline renewal development effort and conformed to the guidelines established by the VA/DoD Joint Executive Council (JEC) and VA/DoD Health Executive Council (HEC). The panel developed questions, searched and evaluated the literature, developed recommendations using GRADE methodology, and developed algorithms. Passage of the CARA Act by Congress compelled consideration and comparison with the CDC opioid therapy guideline mid-development. There were 18 recommendations made. This article focuses on guideline development and key recommendations with CDC comparisons taken from four major areas, including: initiation and continuation of opioids; type, dose, follow-up, and taper of opioids; risk mitigation; acute pain. Guideline development and recommendations are presented. There was substantial overlap with the CDC opioid guideline. Additionally, there were items particularly relevant to the VA-DoD, including risk mitigation, suicide prevention, and preventing opioid use disorder in young patients. Our guideline highlights avoiding opioid therapy longer than 90 days as a critical juncture.

Opioid prescribing for chronic pain is common and controversial, but recommended clinical practices are followed inconsistently in many clinical settings. Strategies for increasing adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations are needed to increase effectiveness and reduce negative consequences of opioid prescribing in chronic pain patients.

The goal of this study was to use computed tomographic (CT) scanning to localize clinically guided sacroiliac (SI) joint injections and identify other structures affected by this procedure. A prospective, double-blind, correlational outcome study design was used. Injection of 39 SI joints with a mixture of bupivacaine (0.25%), methylprednisolone (40 mg), and iohexol (Omnipaque; 180 mg/dl) using a clinically guided technique, (i.e., no image guidance) was performed. Patients had CT scans obtained both immediately after needle placement and after contrast injection. Neither the patients nor their clinicians were aware of the CT findings at the time of injection. Academic multidisciplinary pain center. Patients with SI disease by clinical criteria. Intra-articular injection was accomplished in 8 of 37 (22%) patients. Injected material was identified within 1 cm of the joint 68% of the time. Epidural (spinal canal) injected material was seen 24% of the time. The low rate of intra-articular injection seen with this clinically-guided technique suggests restraint in its use for injection therapy. Some image guidance (e.g., fluoroscopy, CT) is probably necessary to reliably inject the SI joint. Perhaps in clinical settings, where image guidance is not readily available, a clinically-guided technique could initially be tried in patients at low risk for complications from such injections. This study also provides an anatomic explanation for the occasional weakness observed after SI joint injection.