International validation of a urinary biomarker panel for identification of active lupus nephritis in children.

Conventional markers of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE) disease activity fail to adequately identify lupus nephritis (LN). While individual novel urine biomarkers are good at detecting LN flares, biomarker panels may improve diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a biomarker panel to identify active LN in two international JSLE cohorts.Novel urinary biomarkers, namely vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), lipocalin-like prostaglandin D synthase (LPGDS), transferrin (TF), ceruloplasmin, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), were quantified in a cross-sectional study that included participants of the UK JSLE Cohort Study (Cohort 1) and validated within the Einstein Lupus Cohort (Cohort 2). Binary logistic regression modelling and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis [area under the curve (AUC)] were used to identify and assess combinations of biomarkers for diagnostic accuracy.A total of 91 JSLE patients were recruited across both cohorts, of whom 31 (34 %) had active LN and 60 (66 %) had no LN. Urinary AGP, ceruloplasmin, VCAM-1, MCP-1 and LPGDS levels were significantly higher in those patients with active LN than in non-LN patients [all corrected p values (p c) < 0.05] across both cohorts. Urinary TF also differed between patient groups in Cohort 2 (p c = 0.001). Within Cohort 1, the optimal biomarker panel included AGP, ceruloplasmin, LPGDS and TF (AUC 0.920 for active LN identification). These results were validated in Cohort 2, with the same markers resulting in the optimal urine biomarker panel (AUC 0.991).In two international JSLE cohorts, urinary AGP, ceruloplasmin, LPGDS and TF demonstrate an 'excellent' ability for accurately identifying active LN in children

Exploring the clinical profiles and management of juvenile dermatomyositis in Africa: a survey of African rheumatology care providers

Background: There are limited studies of juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many demonstrate delays to care, high prevalence of severe manifestations, and high mortality. Given the disease-associated damage with JDM, understanding JDM in Africa further is critical. Our objectives are to understand the burden of JDM in Africa and provider access to diagnostic tools and therapy through survey methodology. Methods: A survey (available in English and French) was distributed via WhatsApp to 363 total members of the African League of Associations for Rheumatology (AFLAR; n = 233) and Paediatric Society of the African League Against Rheumatism (PAFLAR; n = 130) from November 2022-January 2023. Topics included respondent specialty, number of JDM patients followed, severe manifestations, and available diagnostic tools and medications (with and without considering cost). Results: Forty-three (12%) of the 363 providers who received the survey started it. Among the 43 who started the survey, 37 (86%) provided consent and manage JDM patients; of these 37 providers, 4 (11%) partially and 16 (43%) fully completed the survey. Most were adult and/or pediatric rheumatologists (n = 19; 95%). Respondents represented all 5 African regions and described 216 children with JDM within the last 10 years. There was high prevalence of calcinosis (as high as 100%) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) (as high as 32%); mortality rates in Kenya (6/42; 14%) and Zambia (2/7; 29%) exceeded the 1–3% mortality reported in studies of high-income countries. Thirteen of 27 diagnostic tools and medications were accessible to ≤ 50% of respondents after considering cost, mostly in Northern or Southern Africa (9/13; 69%). Despite being cost-free, disease assessment tools and physical exam to assess calcinosis were not reported as universally available or accessible. Conclusions: This is the first study to explore experiences of providers caring for children with JDM in Africa. Respondents identified 216 children with JDM seen within the last 10 years, exceeding the 196 children with JDM reported within the last 25 years but likely still underestimating prevalence. Our findings align with reports of severe manifestations and poor outcomes in African children with JDM. Access to many diagnostics and medications is limited, and differences in accessibility parallel regional healthcare disparities. The potential differences in JDM severity warrant systematic study and highlight the need to include patients and providers from LMIC in collaborative research efforts

Predicting the Collapse of Pain Medicine Using the Economic Recession of 2008 as a Comparator: Lessons Remain Unlearned

Sayed E Wahezi,1 Corey W Hunter,2 Farshad M Ahadian,3 Charles E Argoff,4 Michael E Schatman5,6 1Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 2Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, NY, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology, Center for Pain and Palliative Medicine, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA; 4Department of Neurology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA; 5Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 6Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Sayed E Wahezi, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Montefiore Medical Center, 1250 Waters Place, Tower &num;2 8th Floor, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA, Tel +1 718-920-7246, Fax +1 929-263-3950, Email [email protected]: The last decade has seen a boom in pain medicine, basic science and interventional pain management. Concomitantly, there is a need to educate trainees, young attendings, and seasoned attendings on these innovations. There has been a growth in the number of societies that represent pain medicine physicians, each with its own philosophy and guiding principles. The variety of thought within pain management, within the various groups that practice this field, and amongst the societies which protect those missions inherently creates divergence and isolation within these different communities. There is the enormous opportunity for our field to grow, but we need the voices of all different specialties and sub-specialties which practice pain medicine to collectively design the future of our emerging field. The explosion of revolutionary percutaneous surgeries, medications, psychotherapy, and research and development in our field has outpaced the ability of payers to fully embrace them. There is an increased number of pain practitioners using novel therapies, postgraduate training programs do not adequately train users in these techniques thereby creating a potential for sub-optimal outcomes. In part, this is a reason why payers for many of our more novel treatments have decreased patient access or eliminated remuneration for some of them. We believe that society-based collaborative regulation of education, research, and treatment guidelines is needed to improve visibility for payers and end users who provide these treatments. Furthermore, postgraduate chronic pain fellowship education has been deemed by many to be insufficient to educate on all of the necessary requirements needed for the independent practice of pain medicine, especially the consummation of newer technologies. Here, we draw comparison with this tenuous stage in pain management history with the last United States recession to remind us of how poor institutional regulation and neglect for long-term growth hampers a community.Keywords: fellowship, training, futur

Analyzing Trends in the Pain Fellowship Match - A Survey of Program Directors.

IntroductionBased on recent data, the pain fellowship match is decreasing in competitiveness. The most recent 2023-2024 match cycle had the most unfilled positions and the highest match rate in the last five years. Although there has been some speculation about potential factors contributing to these trends, our study aimed to gather insight from pain fellowship program directors (PDs) nationwide to provide valuable perspectives on recent match trends.MethodsWe created an anonymous online survey, with questions regarding potential factors contributing to match trends over the last five years. Our survey was emailed to 115 program directors (PDs), and one follow-up Email was sent three weeks later to maximize responses.ResultsSurveys were completed by 25.2% (29/115) of PDs. Over the past five years, 82.8% of PDs (24/29) reported a decrease in applications to their program. For residency specialty of pain fellowship applicants, 100% of PDs (29/29) reported a decline in anesthesiology applicants. Most PDs reported an increase in applicants from PM&amp;R (62.1%, 18/29), Neurology (69.0%, 20/29), and Emergency Medicine (93.1%, 27/29). For potential contributors to these trends, increasing compensation in primary residency specialty was the most significant perceived contributor, with a weighted average of 4.89/5. Decreasing pain reimbursement was the second strongest contributor, with a weighted average of 4.31/5.ConclusionIncreasing compensation in primary residency specialty and declining pain reimbursements were the two most significant perceived contributors to the recent decline in interest in pain fellowship to resident trainees. Pain medicine is now attracting a more diverse applicant pool with a decrease in anesthesiology applicants and an increase in PM&amp;R, Internal Medicine, Neurology, Emergency Medicine, and Psychiatry applicants. Future pain fellows increased variety of training backgrounds may present an opportunity to critically assess the current pain medicine curriculum to suit the needs of a more diverse cohort

Telemedicine During COVID-19 and Beyond: A Practical Guide and Best Practices Multidisciplinary Approach for the Orthopedic and Neurologic Pain Physical Examination.

BACKGROUND:The COVID pandemic has impacted almost every aspect of human interaction, causing global changes in financial, health care, and social environments for the foreseeable future. More than 1.3 million of the 4 million cases of COVID-19 confirmed globally as of May 2020 have been identified in the United States, testing the capacity and resilience of our hospitals and health care workers. The impacts of the ongoing pandemic, caused by a novel strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have far-reaching implications for the future of our health care system and how we deliver routine care to patients. The adoption of social distancing during this pandemic has demonstrated efficacy in controlling the spread of this virus and has been the only proven means of infection control thus far. Social distancing has prompted hospital closures and the reduction of all non-COVID clinical visits, causing widespread financial despair to many outpatient centers. However, the need to treat patients for non-COVID problems remains important despite this pandemic, as care must continue to be delivered to patients despite their ability or desire to report to outpatient centers for their general care. Our national health care system has realized this need and has incentivized providers to adopt distance-based care in the form of telemedicine and video medicine visits. Many institutions have since incorporated these into their practices without financial penalty because of Medicare\u27s 1135 waiver, which currently reimburses telemedicine at the same rate as evaluation and management codes (E/M Codes). Although the financial burden has been alleviated by this policy, the practitioner remains accountable for providing proper assessment with this new modality of health care delivery. This is a challenge for most physicians, so our team of national experts has created a reference guide for musculoskeletal and neurologic examination selection to retrofit into the telemedicine experience. OBJECTIVES:To describe and illustrate musculoskeletal and neurologic examination techniques that can be used effectively in telemedicine. STUDY DESIGN:Consensus-based multispecialty guidelines. SETTING:Tertiary care center. METHODS:Literature review of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, lumbar, hip, and knee physical examinations were performed. A multidisciplinary team comprised of physical medicine and rehabilitation, orthopedics, rheumatology, neurology, and anesthesia experts evaluated each examination and provided consensus opinion to select the examinations most appropriate for telemedicine evaluation. The team also provided consensus opinion on how to modify some examinations to incorporate into a nonhealth care office setting. RESULTS:Sixty-nine examinations were selected by the consensus team. Household objects were identified that modified standard and validated examinations, which could facilitate the examinations.The consensus review team did not believe that the modified tests altered the validity of the standardized tests. LIMITATIONS:Examinations selected are not validated for telemedicine. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were not performed. CONCLUSIONS:The physical examination is an essential component for sound clinical judgment and patient care planning. The physical examinations described in this manuscript provide a comprehensive framework for the musculoskeletal and neurologic examination, which has been vetted by a committee of national experts for incorporation into the telemedicine evaluation

Delays to Care in Pediatric Lupus Patients: Data From the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Legacy Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Prompt treatment for lupus is important to prevent morbidity. A potential barrier to early treatment of pediatric lupus is delayed presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist. To better understand factors contributing to delayed presentation among pediatric lupus patients, we examined differences in demographic and clinical characteristics of lupus patients within the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Legacy Registry with regard to time between symptom onset and presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist. METHODS: We analyzed data from 598 CARRA Legacy Registry participants for differences between those who presented early (withinonset), between 1-3 months (typical presentation), with moderate delays (3-12 months), and with severe delays (≥1 year). Factors associated with early presentation, moderate delay, and severe delay were determined by multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of patients presented early, while 23% had moderate delays and 9% had severe delays. Family history of lupus, absence of discoid rash, and location in a state with a higher density of pediatric rheumatologists were associated with earlier presentation. Younger age, low household income ( CONCLUSION: Delays to care ≥1 year exist in a notable minority of pediatric lupus patients from the CARRA Legacy Registry. In this large and diverse sample of patients, access to care and family resources played an important role in predicting time to presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist

Are Chronic Pain Fellowships Disguised as Acute Pain Fellowships Which Manage Chronic Pain? How to Recognize and Repair

Sayed E Wahezi,1 Ugur Yener,1 Miles Day,2 Peter S Staats,3 Christopher Gilligan,4 Michael E Schatman,5,6 Scott G Pritzlaff7 1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA; 3National Spine and Pain Centers, Atlantic Beach, FL, USA; 4Chief Medical and Quality Officer, Senior Vice President, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 5Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 6Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA, USACorrespondence: Sayed E Wahezi, Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Montefiore Medical Center, 1250 Waters Place, Tower &num;2, 8th Floor, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA, Tel +1 718 920 7246, Fax +1 929 263 3950, Email [email protected]

Spinal Cord Stimulation Explantation and Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Technology Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects 20.5% of the US population, costing $296 billion annually in lost productivity. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a key treatment for refractory neuropathic and nociceptive pain, with increasing usage due to technological advancements. However, the durability of SCS therapy, including explantation rates, remains a concern. Understanding explantation causes is essential for improving patient selection and device effectiveness. This study aims to analyze SCS explantation rates and reasons, as well as evaluate the financial burden of these procedures on the healthcare system. METHODS: Three primary screening methods were used: manual search with keywords, MeSH term query, and reference list screening. The search covered PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 2024, yielding 719 articles. After applying eligibility criteria, 72 articles were identified, and 25 were selected for analysis. Data extraction was done by independent reviewers, with a second reviewer ensuring accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved by the corresponding editor. RESULTS: We reviewed data from 13,026 patients who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 1984 and 2024, across 25 studies. A total of 1882 patients (9.82$35,000 to $70,000) and revision costs ($15,000 to $25,000) raise concerns among payors. The hardware-driven model limits waveform flexibility, highlighting the need for innovation

Giant coronary artery aneurysms in juvenile polyarteritis nodosa: a case report

Juvenile polyarteritis nodosa (PAN) is a rare, necrotizing vasculitis, primarily affecting small to medium-sized muscular arteries. Cardiac involvement amongst patients with PAN is uncommon and reports of coronary artery aneurysms in juvenile PAN are exceedingly rare. We describe a 16 year old girl who presented with fever, arthritis and two giant coronary artery aneurysms, initially diagnosed as atypical Kawasaki disease and treated with IVIG and methylprednisolone. Her persistent fevers, arthritis, myalgias were refractory to treatment, and onset of a vasculitic rash suggested an alternative diagnosis. Based on angiographic abnormalities, polymyalgia, hypertension and skin involvement, this patient met criteria for juvenile PAN. She was treated with six months of intravenous cyclophosphamide and high dose corticosteroids for presumed PAN related coronary vasculitis. Maintenance therapy was continued with azathioprine and the patient currently remains without evidence of active vasculitis. She remains on anticoagulation for persistence of the aneurysms. This case illustrates a rare and unusual presentation of giant coronary artery aneurysms in the setting of juvenile PAN

Comparing Conventional Medical Management to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Cohort of DISTINCT RCT Patients

Timothy Deer,1,&ast; Robert Heros,2,&ast; Edward Tavel,3 Sayed Wahezi,4 Robert Funk,5 Patrick Buchanan,6 Anne Christopher,7 Jacqueline Weisbein,8 Christopher Gilligan,9 Denis Patterson,10 Ajay Antony,11 Mohab Ibrahim,12 Nathan Miller,13 Keith Scarfo,14 Gayle Johnson,15 Thadchaigeni Panchalingam,15 Udoka Okaro,15 James Yue16 1Pain Management, The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 2Pain Management, Spinal Diagnostics, Tualatin, OR, USA; 3Pain Management, Clinical Trials of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; 4Pain Management, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 5Pain Management, Indiana Spine Group, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 6Pain Management, Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA, USA; 7Pain Management, Saint Louis Pain Consultants, Chesterfield, MO, USA; 8Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 9Pain Management, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 10Pain Management, Nevada Advanced Pain Specialists, Reno, NV, USA; 11Pain Management, the Orthopedic Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA; 12Pain Management, Coastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Carlsbad, CA, USA; 13Pain Management, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA; 14Pain Management, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA; 15Neuromodulation, Abbott Labs, Austin, TX, USA; 16Orthopaedic spine Surgery, Connecticut Orthopedics, Hamden, CT, USA&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Timothy Deer, Pain Management, The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, 400 Court Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA, Tel +1 304 347 – 6120, Fax +1 304 347 – 6126, Email [email protected]: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a more effective, long-term treatment compared to conventional medical management (CMM). The DISTINCT study enrolled and randomized chronic LBP patients with no indication of traditional spine surgery. This analysis focuses comparing study outcomes on patients initially randomized to receive CMM treatment and subsequently crossed over to SCS after 6 months.Purpose: To compare the therapeutic effectiveness and cost-efficiency of passive recharge burst SCS to CMM.Patients and Methods: A total of 269 patients were enrolled with 162 randomly assigned to SCS and 107 to CMM. The DISTINCT study design allowed a crossover to the alternative treatment arm after 6 months. Patients underwent a trial and received a permanent implant if they reported ≥ 50% pain reduction. Outcome analysis included pain (NRS), disability (ODI), catastrophizing (PCS), quality of life (PROMIS-29) and health care utilization.Results: Seventy out of eighty-one patients opted to cross over to trial SCS at 6M with 94% (66/70) undergoing a trial. Among those, 88% (58/66) reported a ≥ 50% or more pain relief and 55 received a permanent implant. At 12M visit, 71.4% reported a ≥ 50% pain improvement sustained at the 18M visit, with 24.5% (12/49) indicating a ≥ 80% improvement. Disability reductions (79% meeting the minimally important difference of a 13-point decrease), decreased catastrophizing, and significant improvements in all PROMIS-29 domains were noted. Furthermore, 42% of the patients reported decreased or discontinued opioid usage. Clinical benefits at the 12M visit were sustained through the 18M visit accompanied by a significant reduction in healthcare utilization and a &dollar;1214 cost savings.Conclusion: SCS demonstrates superior, long-term performance and safety outcomes compared to CMM therapy in LBP patients who received both CMM and SCS therapy. Additionally, SCS patients experienced reduced healthcare resource utilization and lower costs compared to those receiving CMM.Keywords: DISTINCT, low back pain, BurstDR, spinal cord stimulation, healthcare utilization, persistent spinal pain syndrome, neuromodulatio