© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
It’s Not Just Opioids: Problematic Interventional Pain Treatments
Graves Owen, MD Medical Director, Texas Pain Rehabilitation Institute
Steve Moskowitz, MD Senior Medical Director, Paradigm
Part I: Procedures
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Slides will advance automatically
■ Question & Answer period at end
■ You may submit questions at any time
– Q&A panel is on the lower right side (If you don’t see it, click the “Q&A” button in the upper right)
– Type a question into the lower section of the Q&A panel that appears
– Ask “All Panelists” and click “Send”
– If we cannot answer during the session, we will e-mail you
■ The presentation was emailed to all registered participants this morning; a copy of the replay will also be emailed
■ When the webinar ends, a short survey will pop up; you must take the survey to receive CCMC credit
■ If you experience computer broadcast audio problems, please use the dial in number posted in the Chat panel
First, a Few Housekeeping Points
2
1-877-668-4490, code 667 344 676 ##
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Our conversation centers on three primary goals.
Today’s Webinar Objectives
3
Understand why many interventional pain procedures are overused
Determine who is a legitimate candidate (and who is not)
Define a meaningful response
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Pharmacy (Non
Opioid) 15%
Pharmacy (Opioid)
13%
Surgery/ Facility/
Physician 33%
DME and Home Health
22%
Other Medical
17%
Typical Complex Pain Case Spend
The Costs Add Up, and Are Not Simply Pharmacy
While costs may be moderate in a given year, they represent significant expense over time. Changing this trajectory requires intervening beyond just pharmacy.
3
Source: Paradigm Analytics. Based on 10,000 open lost time claims, of which 600 met complexity criteria.
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Procedures including:
– Epidural Steroid Injection (ESI)
– Facets
– Radiofrequency Ablation
– Spinal Cord Stimulators
Non-Opioid Painkillers
5
Today’s webinar focuses on interventional procedures.
Common Interventional Pain Procedures
Today’s Webinar Part 2: Fall 2014
Find replays of our 2013 webinar series on pain at http://www.paradigmcorp.com/resources/webinars
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Physician Factors1
■ Belief in a “trial”
■ Reliance on clinical experience
■ Over-reliance on a surrogate outcome
■ Patients’ expectations (real or assumed)
■ Adherence to pathophysiological model
■ Desire to “do something”
Business Factors2
■ More patients, more treatments
■ No strong proof this has helped
■ Pharmaceutical and medical products industry influence on pain practice
■ Competition
■ Advertising/unrealistic expectations
■ Insurance incentives
1. Why do doctors use treatments that do not work? BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2004 Vol: 328(7438):474-475 2. The Impact of the “Business” of Pain Medicine on Patient Care; Taylor, Pain Medicine 2011; 12: 763–772
Why Are Interventional Procedures Overused?
6
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Our Presenters
7
• Head of Medicine at the Texas Pain Rehabilitation Institute
• President of the Texas Pain Society • Peer reviewer on pain medicine for the
American Academy of Pain Medicine
• Senior medical director for Paradigm’s pain program
• Physiatrist with 30 year experience treating pain and complex neurological
• 26 years experience in managed care and program development
Dr. Steven Moskowitz Dr. Graves Owen
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Graves Owen, MD
An In-Depth Look at the Devices
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Official Disability Guides (ODG)
– Radiculopathy (10% of cases)
– Diagnosis of radiculopathy defined by AMA guides 5th edition
• Should have concordant motor and/or sensory deficits
– Negative SLR test rules out radiculopathy
■ ASIPP Guides
– Radiculitis or radiculopathy (ODG does not recognize diagnosis of radiculitis)
■ NASS Guides (EMG/NCV not recommended)
■ No evidence that TF ESI provide significantly better outcomes
Patients without a validated diagnosis should not have the procedure.
Epidural Steroid Injection (ESI) Indications
9
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Unresponsive to conservative care (exercise, NSAID)
■ No series of 3 ESI
■ No more than one level (Interlaminar)
■ No more than two levels (transforaminal)
■ Do not combine ESI with other blocks such as facets or TPI
■ Do not perform Cervical and Lumbar ESI on the same day
■ Repeat ESI if 50-70% pain reduction for at least 6 weeks (limit to 4 ESI per year) if there is significant functional improvement or medication reduction
Reserve for validated radiculopathy only.
ESI Indications
10
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Fair evidence for short term benefits (less than 3 months) for diagnosis of radiculopathy
– Implications: not a good treatment for long standing radiculopathies
■ Poor to no evidence for conditions other than a radiculopathy (low back pain, FBSS, stenosis)
■ Poor outcome for “chronic” radiculopathy
■ One study found worst outcomes for spinal stenosis
– ODG and APS Guides 2009
ESI Evidence
11
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Infections (1-2%), severe infections (1 in 1,000), spinal infections (1 in 10,000)
■ Bleeding (Epidural hematoma 1 in 4,000)
■ Respiratory arrest (over sedation, local, IT opioids, pneumothorax)
■ Dural puncture headache
■ Urinary retention (opioids, local)
■ Neurologic injury (direct trauma to cord/nerve, vertebral artery injection, occlusion, embolism, or hematoma causing paralysis)
■ Exposure to corticosteroids
This is not without risk.
ESI Complications
12
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Official Disability Guides (ODG) for diagnosis:
– Tenderness to palpation in the paravertebral areas (over the facet region)
– A normal sensory examination
– Absence of radicular findings, although pain may radiate below the knee
– Normal straight leg raising exam.
– Pain on spinal extension has been suggested a indicator of facet symptoms.
■ There is no correlation between facet hypertrophy on diagnostic imaging and success of facet injections
The degree to which facets contribute to lower back pain is controversial.
Facet Signs and Symptoms
13
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Official Disability Guides (ODG)
– No evidence of:
• Radiculopathy
• Spinal Stenosis
• Previous Fusion
– No more than 2 joints injected at one time
– Not recommended for thoracic spine
– Considered successful if produces 70% relief initially and at least 50% relief for 6 weeks or more
– Should be combined with additional evidenced based treatments such as exercise
– No strong evidence for or against intraarticular facet injections
■ ASIPP does not recommend interartcicular facets
Indications for injections.
Intraarticular Facet and Medial Branch Block Injections
14
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Official Disability Guides (ODG)
– Only recommended as a diagnostic tool
– No difference in outcome when steroid or other agents are added to local
■ Successful diagnosis if 80% pain relief for duration of local anesthetic; ASIPP agrees
– Caution required if block helps for more than 12-24 hours
■ Psychosocial comorbidities are associated with decreased success from the block
■ ASIPP Guides
– As above plus:
• pain more than 3 months
• average pain of at least 6/10
• failed conservative care such as PT
Indications for medial branch blocks.
Medial Branch Blocks
15
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Uses radiofrequency energy to burn/destroy the MBB nerve.
■ Requires accurate diagnosis from the MBB block. 80% or more relief for the duration of the local anesthetic. This amount of relief should be associated with significant functional improvement and decreased medication usage.
■ Maximum of two times per year (ASIPP Guides).
■ Should result in functional improvement and medication reduction.
■ Evidence is limited:
– Cervical, 4 studies with total N=148
– Lumbar, 3 studies with total N=229
Professed to provide longer lasting relief of facet-mediated pain.
Radiofrequency (RF) Ablation of Medial Branch Nerves
16
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Dropped Head Syndrome
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ SCS is a device that uses electrical stimulation as a way to attenuate pain signals to the brain. The device is placed in the epidural space between the brain and the damaged nerve that is the “pain generator.”
■ Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) uses the same technology but places the stimulator lead adjacent to a peripheral nerve. While the evidence is weak for this technique, it has promise for these rare conditions.
■ Peripheral Field Stimulation places the stimulator lead subcutaneous. However, this technique has been widely overused. There is no evidence to support this technique.
■ New high frequency stimulation is being tested in the US. Promises greater success rates.
Spinal Cord Stimulation
18
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ ODG:
■ Failed Back Surgery Syndrome:
– Symptoms must be primary in the extremities
– Limited responses to conservative care
– Psychological clearance and realistic expectations
– No evidence of SUD
– No contraindications for trial (infection/anticoagulation)
– Trial considered successful if 50% decrease pain, medication reduction or increased function
■ CRPS:
– Similar indications and trial requirements as FBSS
Heavily marketed and overused.
Spinal Cord Stimulation Indications
19
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ AAPM Practice Guides 2007
■ Unresolved psychiatric comorbidities (depression, anxiety)
■ Unresolved secondary gain
■ Active/untreated SUD
■ Non-organic signs/inconsistent history and PE
■ Presence of major comorbid chronic pain syndrome
■ Alternative treatments with similar or better risk/benefit profile remain untried
■ Cardioverter defibrillator
These contraindications should eliminate many candidates.
SCS Relative Contraindications
20
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Cord injury
■ Dural puncture
■ Infection
■ Epidural hematoma
■ Electrode (lead) migration
■ Implant generator failure
■ Mechanical failure of lead or extension cable
An SCS is a significant, long-term commitment.
SCS Complications
21
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ APS
■ Evidence: fair
– Limited by number, quality, and size of studies
■ Net benefit: moderate
– 10-20 improvement on ODI
– 10-20 improvement on VAS
– Chou Spine 2009
SCS Evidence
22
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Great Treatment, Good Technique, Poor Candidate
23
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Steve Moskowitz, MD
Case Management Considerations
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Lack of effectiveness/not getting better
– No functional gain
– No decrease in toxic medication
– Increasing treatments rather than decreasing
■ Side effects
– Needing additional treatment
– Effects that limit function further
■ Complications
– Exposure to unwarranted risks
– Exacerbates illness behavioR/ disappointment
■ High cost
25
If you have a case with this treatment response, the claim needs special handling.
Poor Patient Selection Causes Poor Clinical Outcome
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Clinical correlation suggested.
Clinically Meaningful Outcomes
26
Restoration of function
Decreased need for medical care and
interventions
Game-changing decrease in pain
complaint
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Work functions and/or activities of daily living, self report of disability
■ Physical impairments
■ Approach to self-care and education
■ Return to normal quality of life
■ Behavioral
From ODG: WorkSafe Official Disability Guidelines
With restoration of function as a goal in mind, here’s how to measure effectiveness.
Measuring Effectiveness in an Individual
27
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Medication use
– Decrease in opioid dose or frequency
– Decrease in muscle relaxants
– Decrease in medication refill frequency
■ Passive PT
■ Other procedures
■ Physician visit frequency
Look for decreased need for medical care and other (more harmful) interventions.
Other Effectiveness Measures
28
■ Return to work motivation
■ Return to vocational activities
Decrease Increase
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Look for measurable, game-changing improvement.
Significant Improvement
29
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
For a better clinical response, approach this systematically.
Claim Step Strategy
30
Step 1
Validate that IW has a diagnosis
appropriate to the treatment request.
Documentation should be clear.
Step 2
Validate that IW meets inclusion criteria for good
outcome, absent risk factors for poor
outcome.
Step 3
Ensure there is a specific treatment outcome measure planned. Plan for
improved function, decreased need for meds, and better
comfort.
Step 4
Route to UR, CM, or other if steps 1-3
were not met. Route to systematic
management if this is a recurring theme.
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
■ Get an objective confirmation of the diagnosis
■ Know that a specific diagnosis is the gateway to appropriate treatment
■ Understand the conflict of interest of an MD referring IW to himself/herself
■ Develop a strategy to help an IW who is not a legitimate candidate for a procedure
■ Map out clear goals to gauge outcome following a procedure; communicate goals to the IW
Claim Management Strategy Tips
31
Objective Durable Meaningful
To Create a Game-Changing Treatment Plan, Goals Must Be:
© Paradigm Outcomes, Proprietary
Submit your questions in the Q&A panel on the right of your screen.
Question and Answer Session
32
Mary Baranowski
• Follow Paradigm on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ParadigmSays
• Find informative videos on our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/paradigmoutcomes
• Read Outlook on Outcomes, Paradigm’s blog: www.paradigmcorp.com/blog
Experiencing computer audio broadcast problems? Please use the toll-free dial-in number: 1-877-668-4490, access code 667 344 676 # #
Dr. Graves Owen Dr. Steven Moskowitz