Introduction: Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective: The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion: The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in patient pain medicine education has the potential to revolutionize pain management. By harnessing the power of AI, patient education becomes more personalized, interactive, and supportive, empowering patients to understand their pain, make informed decisions, and actively participate in their pain management journey. AI tailors the educational content to individual patients’ needs, providing personalized recommendations. It introduces interactive elements through chatbots and virtual assistants, enhancing engagement and motivation. AI-powered platforms improve accessibility by providing easy access to educational resources and adapting content to diverse patient populations. Future AI applications in pain management include explaining pain mechanisms, treatment options, predicting outcomes based on individualized patient-specific factors, and supporting monitoring and adherence. Though the literature on AI in pain medicine and its applications are scarce yet growing, we propose avenues where AI may be applied and review the potential applications of AI in pain management education. Additionally, we address ethical considerations, patient empowerment, and accessibility barriers.

Background: Increasing physical function is a challenging, yet imperative goal of pain management programs. Physical activity can improve physical function, but uptake is low due to chronic pain misconceptions, poor pain management skills, and doing too much too soon. Purpose: To increase physical function by 1) adapting an evidence-based, group, mind-body program to address the needs of patients with heterogeneous chronic pain and to facilitate individually tailored quota-based pacing with a Fitbit (GetActive with Fitbit) or without it (GetActive) (phase 1), and 2) assessing preliminary feasibility benchmarks (phase 2). Methods: We followed evidence based frameworks for developing interventions and for early feasibility testing. In phase 1 we conducted 4 focus groups with 22 patients with heterogeneous chronic pain and adapted the mind-body program. In phase 2 we conducted a nonrandomized pilot trial of the 2 programs (N=7 and 6) with qualitative exit interviews. Results: Focus groups showed high interest in increasing activity, a preference for walking linked to pleasurable activities, using a Fitbit to track number of steps, and learning skills to manage pain and aid with increased activity. Both programs had good to excellent feasibility markers. Participation in both programs was associated with signal of improvements in physical and emotional function, as well as intervention targets. Exit interviews confirmed high satisfaction and suggested modification. Conclusion: Results informed subsequent adaptations of the 2 programs and methodology for an ongoing pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the 2 programs, necessary before an efficacy RCT of the 2 programs against an education control.

Chronic Noncancer Pain Management and Systemic Racism: Time to Move Toward Equal Care Standards

The Polysubstance Overdose-Death Crisis