.
Background There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit.Methods Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (>= 75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed.Results This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections.Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.
All animals perform physical activity, but humans engage in a special kind of physical activity - exercise, defined as discretionary physical activity for health and fitness. However, the effects of physical activity on whole-organism metabolism and health are unresolved, partly because it is difficult to measure the three major components of metabolism: active energy expenditure (AEE), resting energy expenditure (REE) and dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT), which together equal total energy expenditure (TEE). Three competing models make different predictions about the effects of AEE on REE and TEE. Whereas the traditional 'additive' model of energy balance predicts that AEE is independent of REE, the 'stress' model hypothesizes that AEE temporarily increases REE partly because of transient effects of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). In contrast, the 'constrained energy' model predicts that increases in AEE cause compensatory decreases in REE to maintain a constant TEE. Here, we discuss how different analytical models, measurements, experimental designs and statistical methods affect tests of these three models' hypotheses. After accounting for spurious correlations, we find that longitudinal and cross-sectional data provide most support for the additive model. However, more and better data are needed to test these hypotheses rigorously. To conclude, we also review the evidence, mostly from humans, that increased levels of physical activity slow aging and reduce vulnerability to disease by diverting energy away from processes that improve reproductive success at the expense of long-term health and by increasing energy allocation to repair, maintenance and capacity building.
Patients recovering from burn injuries experience long-term psychological, physiological, and biomechanical challenges due to scarring. While interventions to address these challenges exist, insurance coverage is often limited. This study examines the insurance policies of major health insurers regarding cosmetic reconstruction (CR) following burn injuries. A comprehensive review of coverage policies was conducted for 5 major health insurance providers: UnitedHealth Group, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), Humana, CVS (Aetna), and Centene Corporation. The review focused on invasive and noninvasive CR interventions for burn injuries. Data were collected from state-specific insurance documents using Microsoft Excel. As of 2024, UnitedHealth Group holds a 28% share of the Medicare Advantage market and 14% of the commercial market, serving all 50 states. Humana controls 18% of the Medicare Advantage market, while CVS (Aetna) holds 11% in both markets, with nationwide coverage. However, none provides coverage for CR unless there is documented significant functional impairment (FI). Elevance Health has limited coverage in 19 states, contingent on FI documentation, while Centene Corporation covers CR on a case-by-case basis, leading to fragmented access across the United States. Standardized, equitable coverage for burn-related CR is needed to remove bureaucratic barriers hindering survivors' recovery. Inconsistent insurance policies prevent access to essential aftercare, exacerbating physical and emotional burdens. Policy reform is crucial to ensure all burn survivors receive the care needed for recovery and a restored quality of life.
INTRODUCTION:Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is an effective treatment for basilar artery occlusion (BAO) stroke in select patients. While there is a growing body of literature suggesting that advanced imaging modalities such as computed tomography perfusion (CTP) and magnetic resonance (MR) may not be necessary for selecting anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke patients for EVT, whether advanced imaging may be superior to conventional imaging (non-contrast CT and CT angiography) in identifying good treatment candidates among BAO patients is less clear. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of BAO EVT patients treated from 2013 to 2022 in the Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry. Patients selected for EVT by advanced imaging (CTP or MR) were matched with those selected by conventional imaging using propensity score matching (PSM) accounting for possible confounders. Primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days. Other outcomes include bedridden state or death at 90-days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). RESULTS:268 patients were included. 150 patients were selected for BAO EVT by conventional imaging, 86 by CTP, and 32 by MR. Patients selected by advanced imaging were significantly older than those selected by conventional imaging (median age 71 vs 64 years, p = 0.001); patient characteristics were otherwise similar between cohorts. After PSM, 90-day outcomes were similar between the two cohorts (p = 0.56), with similar rates of functional independence (39.4% vs 35.1%, p = 0.65), bedridden state or death (40.4% vs 44.7%, p = 0.66), and sICH (3.3% vs 5.7%, p = 0.49) for conventional and advanced imaging groups, respectively. Results were similar across treatment time windows (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Selecting patients for basilar EVT using conventional versus advanced imaging did not result in different clinical outcomes, regardless of treatment time windows. Conventional imaging appears sufficient as a first-line tool for selecting basilar EVT patients in routine clinical practice.
