TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Regenerative Medicine Treatment for Chronic Pain
T2 - A Consensus Report from a Multispecialty Working Group
AU - D’souza, Ryan S.
AU - Her, Yeng F.
AU - Hussain, Nasir
AU - Karri, Jay
AU - Schatman, Michael E.
AU - Calodney, Aaron K.
AU - Lam, Christopher
AU - Buchheit, Thomas
AU - Boettcher, Brennan J.
AU - Chien, George C.Chang
AU - Pritzlaff, Scott G.
AU - Centeno, Christopher
AU - Shapiro, Shane A.
AU - Klasova, Johana
AU - Grider, Jay S.
AU - Hubbard, Ryan
AU - Ege, Eliana
AU - Johnson, Shelby
AU - Epstein, Max H.
AU - Kubrova, Eva
AU - Ramadan, Mohamed Ehab
AU - Moreira, Alexandra Michelle
AU - Vardhan, Swarnima
AU - Eshraghi, Yashar
AU - Javed, Saba
AU - Abdullah, Newaj M.
AU - Christo, Paul J.
AU - Diwan, Sudhir
AU - Hassett, Leslie C.
AU - Sayed, Dawood
AU - Deer, Timothy R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 D’Souza et al.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Purpose: Injectable biologics have not only been described and developed to treat dermal wounds, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but have also been reported to treat chronic pain conditions. Despite emerging evidence supporting regenerative medicine therapy for pain, many aspects remain controversial. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the educational need for an evidence-based guideline on regenerative medicine therapy for chronic pain. The executive board nominated experts spanning multiple specialties including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and sports medicine based on expertise, publications, research, and clinical practice. A steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were reviewed and refined. Evidence was appraised using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence level and degree of recommendation. Using a modified Delphi approach, consensus points were distributed to all collaborators and each collaborator voted on each point. If collaborators provided a decision of “disagree” or “abstain”, they were invited to provide a rationale in a non-blinded fashion to the committee chair, who incorporated the respective comments and distributed revised versions to the committee until consensus was achieved. Results: Sixteen questions were selected for guideline development. Questions that were addressed included type of injectable biologics and mechanism, evidence in treating chronic pain indications (eg, tendinopathy, muscular pathology, osteoarthritis, inter-vertebral disc disease, neuropathic pain), role in surgical augmentation, dosing, comparative efficacy between injectable biologics, peri-procedural practices to optimize therapeutic response and quality of injectate, federal regulations, and complications with mitigating strategies. Conclusion: In well-selected individuals with certain chronic pain indications, use of injectable biologics may provide superior analgesia, functionality, and/or quality of life compared to conventional medical management or placebo. Future high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted with implementation of minimum reporting standards, standardization of preparation protocols, investigation of dose–response associations, and comparative analysis between different injectable biologics.
AB - Purpose: Injectable biologics have not only been described and developed to treat dermal wounds, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but have also been reported to treat chronic pain conditions. Despite emerging evidence supporting regenerative medicine therapy for pain, many aspects remain controversial. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the educational need for an evidence-based guideline on regenerative medicine therapy for chronic pain. The executive board nominated experts spanning multiple specialties including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and sports medicine based on expertise, publications, research, and clinical practice. A steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were reviewed and refined. Evidence was appraised using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence level and degree of recommendation. Using a modified Delphi approach, consensus points were distributed to all collaborators and each collaborator voted on each point. If collaborators provided a decision of “disagree” or “abstain”, they were invited to provide a rationale in a non-blinded fashion to the committee chair, who incorporated the respective comments and distributed revised versions to the committee until consensus was achieved. Results: Sixteen questions were selected for guideline development. Questions that were addressed included type of injectable biologics and mechanism, evidence in treating chronic pain indications (eg, tendinopathy, muscular pathology, osteoarthritis, inter-vertebral disc disease, neuropathic pain), role in surgical augmentation, dosing, comparative efficacy between injectable biologics, peri-procedural practices to optimize therapeutic response and quality of injectate, federal regulations, and complications with mitigating strategies. Conclusion: In well-selected individuals with certain chronic pain indications, use of injectable biologics may provide superior analgesia, functionality, and/or quality of life compared to conventional medical management or placebo. Future high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted with implementation of minimum reporting standards, standardization of preparation protocols, investigation of dose–response associations, and comparative analysis between different injectable biologics.
KW - bone marrow aspirate concentrate
KW - injectable biologics
KW - mesenchymal stem cell
KW - pain medicine
KW - platelet-rich plasma
KW - regenerative medicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205239286&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85205239286&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2147/JPR.S480559
DO - 10.2147/JPR.S480559
M3 - Review article
C2 - 39282657
AN - SCOPUS:85205239286
SN - 1178-7090
VL - 17
SP - 2951
EP - 3001
JO - Journal of Pain Research
JF - Journal of Pain Research
ER -