Systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo/sham controlled randomised trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain

[Post-traumatic pain mononeuropathies]

Neuropathic pain syndrome (NPS) caused by peripheral nerve (PN) injury is a serious clinical problem due to its prevalence, complexity of pathogenesis, significant impact on the quality of life of patients. The issues of epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of patients with NBS with PN injury are considered. Modern possibilities of invasive treatment of such patients are discussed.

Rescue therapy with novel waveform spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome refractory to conventional stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Conventional spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) have demonstrated efficacy in individuals with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, a subgroup of patients may become refractory to the effects of conventional waveforms over time. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate the current literature on the use of novel waveform spinal cord stimulation for the management of FBSS refractory to conventional SCSs.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search of the literature published in electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The outcomes of interest were reduction in back pain and/or leg pain after conversion from conventional to novel SCSs. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 137 patients with FBSS were identified. Studies were published between 2013 and 2021. The mean ± SD age of the pooled patient sample was 55 ± 10.5 years. All patients who underwent treatment with conventional SCSs were identified. Two studies evaluated the efficacy of high-density spinal cord stimulation, 3 studies evaluated burst spinal cord stimulation, and 1 study assessed multimodal waveforms. The mean difference in back pain scores after conversion from a standard SCS to a novel waveform SCS was 2.55 (95% CI 1.59-4.08), demonstrating a significant reduction in back pain after conversion to novel stimulation. The authors also performed a subgroup analysis to compare burst stimulation to tonic waveforms. In this analysis, the authors found no significant difference in the average reductions in back pain between the 2 groups (p = 0.534).The authors found an I2 statistic equivalent to 98.47% in the meta-regression model used to assess the effect of follow-up duration on study outcome; this value implied that the variability in the data can be attributed to the remaining between-study heterogeneity. The overall certainty was moderate, with a high risk of bias across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue therapy with novel waveform spinal cord stimulation is a potential option for pain reduction in patients who become refractory to conventional SCSs. Conversion to novel waveform SCSs may potentially mitigate expenses and complications.

Effect of Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation vs Placebo Stimulation on Disability in Patients With Chronic Radicular Pain After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain after lumbar spine surgery is increasing, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of spinal cord burst stimulation, which involves the placement of an implantable pulse generator connected to electrodes with leads that travel into the epidural space posterior to the spinal cord dorsal columns, in patients with chronic radiculopathy after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disorders.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This placebo-controlled, crossover, randomized clinical trial in 50 patients was conducted at St Olavs University Hospital in Norway, with study enrollment from September 5, 2018, through April 28, 2021. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent two 3-month periods with spinal cord burst stimulation and two 3-month periods with placebo stimulation in a randomized order. Burst stimulation consisted of closely spaced, high-frequency electrical stimuli delivered to the spinal cord. The stimulus consisted of a 40-Hz burst mode of constant-current stimuli with 4 spikes per burst and an amplitude corresponding to 50% to 70% of the paresthesia perception threshold.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was difference in change from baseline in the self-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 points [no disability] to 100 points [maximum disability]; the minimal clinically important difference was 10 points) score between periods with burst stimulation and placebo stimulation. The secondary outcomes were leg and back pain, quality of life, physical activity levels, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 50 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 [SD, 9.9] years; 27 [54%] were women), 47 (94%) had at least 1 follow-up ODI score and 42 (84%) completed all stimulation randomization periods and ODI measurements. The mean ODI score at baseline was 44.7 points and the mean changes in ODI score were -10.6 points for the burst stimulation periods and -9.3 points for the placebo stimulation periods, resulting in a mean between-group difference of -1.3 points (95% CI, -3.9 to 1.3 points; P = .32). None of the prespecified secondary outcomes showed a significant difference. Nine patients (18%) experienced adverse events, including 4 (8%) who required surgical revision of the implanted system.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord burst stimulation, compared with placebo stimulation, after placement of a spinal cord stimulator resulted in no significant difference in the change from baseline in self-reported back pain-related disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03546738.

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Low Back Pain Syndrome: Mechanisms of Modulation, Technical Features and Clinical Application

Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is a common disease with several negative consequences on the quality of life, work and activity ability and increased costs to the health-care system. When pharmacological, psychological, physical and occupational therapies or surgery fail to reduce CLBP, patients may be a candidate for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS). SCS consists of the transcutaneous or surgical implantation of different types of electrodes in the epidural space; electrodes are then connected to an Implanted Pulse Generator (IPG) that generates stimulating currents. Through spinal and supraspinal mechanisms based on the “gate control theory for pain transmission”, SCS reduces symptoms of CLBP in the almost totality of well-selected patients and its effect lasts up to eight years in around 75% of patients. However, the evidence in favor of SCS still remains weak, mainly due to poor trial methodology and design. This narrative review is mainly addressed to those professionals that may encounter patients with CLBP failing conventional treatments. For this reason, we report the mechanisms of pain relief during SCS, the technical features and some clinical considerations about the application of SCS in patients with CLBP.

Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are not fully established, especially considering that data from patients who withdrew from the trial are rarely analysed, which may lead to overestimation of SCS efficacy. We evaluated short- and long-term effects of SCS on chronic pain and perceived health, beyond natural variability in these outcomes.

METHODS

In a prospective design, 176 chronic pain patients referred to SCS were evaluated five times (baseline; retest ~6 weeks later; post-SCS trial; 8 and 28 weeks post-permanent implantation). Patients whose SCS trial failed (Temp group) were followed up and compared to those who underwent permanent SCS (Perm group).

RESULTS

Analyses revealed a non-linear (U-shaped) trend significantly different between the two groups. In the Perm group, a significant improvement occurred post-SCS implantation in pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life and self-rated health, which was followed by gradual worsening and return to baseline values at end of follow-up. In the Temp group, only minor changes occurred in these outcomes over time. On average, baseline and end of follow-up values in the Perm and Temp groups were similar: ~40% in each group exhibited an increase in pain severity over time and 38% and 33%, respectively, exhibited reductions in pain severity over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the greatest improvement in the outcome measures occurred from baseline to post-SCS trial (T1-T3) followed by a gradual decline in the effect, it appears that SCS may not be effective for the majority of chronic pain patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

This longitudinal study evaluated short and long term effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on chronic pain outcome measures, beyond their natural variation in time. Despite significant short term improvements, by the end of the seven months' follow-up, the outcomes in the treatment group (people who received the permanent implantation) were similar to those of the control group (people whose SCS trial failed and did not continue to permanent implantation) suggesting SCS may not be cost-effective for chronic pain patients.

Combining Awake Anesthesia with Minimal Invasive Surgery Optimizes Intraoperative Surgical Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Placement

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective and validated treatment to address chronic refractory neuropathic pain in persistent spinal pain syndrome-type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients. Surgical SCS lead placement is traditionally performed under general anesthesia due to its invasiveness. In parallel, recent works have suggested that awake anesthesia (AA), consisting of target controlled intra-venous anesthesia (TCIVA), could be an interesting tool to optimize lead anatomical placement using patient intra-operative feedback. We hypothesized that combining AA with minimal invasive surgery (MIS) could improve SCS outcomes. The goal of this study was to evaluate SCS lead performance (defined by the area of pain adequately covered by paraesthesia generated via SCS), using an intraoperative objective quantitative mapping tool, and secondarily, to assess pain relief, functional improvement and change in quality of life with a composite score. We analyzed data from a prospective multicenter study (ESTIMET) to compare the outcomes of 115 patients implanted with MIS under AA (MISAA group) or general anesthesia (MISGA group), or by laminectomy under general anesthesia (LGA group). All in all, awake surgery appears to show significantly better performance than general anesthesia in terms of patient pain coverage (65% vs. 34-62%), pain surface (50-76% vs. 50-61%) and pain intensity (65% vs. 35-40%), as well as improved secondary outcomes (quality of life, functional disability and depression). One step further, our results suggest that MISAA combined with intra-operative hypnosis could potentialize patient intraoperative cooperation and could be proposed as a personalized package offered to PSPS-T2 patients eligible for SCS implantation in highly dedicated neuromodulation centers.

Neuromodulation Therapy for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and painful condition in patients who have received chemotherapy. The role of neuromodulation therapy in treating pain and improving neurological function in CIPN remains unclear and warrants evidence appraisal. In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review to assess change in pain intensity and neurological function after implementation of any neuromodulation intervention for CIPN. Neuromodulation interventions consisted of dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), or peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). In total, 15 studies utilized SCS (16 participants), 7 studies utilized DRG-S (7 participants), and 1 study utilized PNS (50 participants). Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria, there was very low-quality GRADE evidence supporting that dorsal column SCS, DRG-S, and PNS are associated with a reduction in pain severity from CIPN. Results on changes in neurological function remained equivocal due to mixed study findings on thermal sensory thresholds and touch sensation or discrimination. Future prospective, well-powered, and comparative studies assessing neuromodulation for CIPN are warranted.

Spinal Cord Stimulators: An Analysis of the Adverse Events Reported to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulators are used to treat intractable pain. Placebo-controlled trials of spinal cord stimulators typically involve short-term treatment and follow-up, so long-term safety and efficacy are unclear.

AIM

The aim of the study was to describe the adverse events relating to spinal cord stimulators reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia between July 2012 and January 2019.

METHODS

Adverse events were coded by seriousness, severity, body system affected, type of event, action taken, and attribution of fault. Data on the number of stimulators implanted and removed were sourced from the Admitted Patient Care Minimum Data Set.

RESULTS

Five hundred twenty adverse events were reported for spinal cord stimulators. Most events were rated as severe (79%) or life-threatening (13%). Device malfunction was the most common event (56.5%). The most common action taken in response to an adverse event was surgical intervention with or without antibiotics (80%). The ratio of removals to implants was 4 per every 10 implanted.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal cords stimulators have the potential for serious harm, and each year in Australia, many are removed. In view of the low certainty evidence of their long-term safety and effectiveness, our results raise questions about their role in providing long-term management of intractable pain.

The Added Value of Intraoperative Hypnosis during Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Implantation under Awake Anesthesia in Patients Presenting with Refractory Chronic Pain

To improve pain relief for refractory pain condition, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) needs to target the dedicated neuronal fibers within the dorsal columns. Intraoperative feedback from the patient can optimize lead placement but requires “awake surgery”, allowing interaction between patient and surgeon. This can produce negative effects like anxiety and stress. To better manage these aspects, we propose to combine intraoperative hypnosis with awake anesthesia. Seventy-four patients (35 females, 22–80 years) presenting with chronic refractory pain, were offered intraoperative hypnosis during awake SCS lead implantation. Interactive conversational hypnosis was used as well as interactive touch, which was enhanced during painful moments during the lead intraoperative programming. All patients participated actively during the intraoperative testing which helped to optimize the lead positioning. They kept an extremely positive memory of the surgery and of the hypnotic experience, despite some painful moments. Pain could be reduced in these patients by using interactions and touch, which works on Gate Control modulation. Positive memory was reinforced by congratulations to create self-confidence and to induce positive expectations, which could reinforce the Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Controls at the spinal level. Cooperation was improved because the patient was actively participating and thus, much more alert when feedback was required. Combining intraoperative hypnosis with awake anesthesia appears helpful for SCS lead implantation. It enhances patient cooperation, allows optimization of lead positioning, and leads to better pain control, positive and resourceful memory.

The Challenge of Converting "Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation Syndrome" Back to Clinical Success, Using SCS Reprogramming as Salvage Therapy, through Neurostimulation Adapters Combined with 3D-Computerized Pain Mapping Assessment: A Real Life Retrospective Study

While paresthesia-based Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) has been proven effective as treatment for chronic neuropathic pain, its initial benefits may lead to the development of "Failed SCS Syndrome' (FSCSS) defined as decrease over time related to Loss of Efficacy (LoE) with or without Loss of Coverage (LoC). Development of technologies associating new paresthesia-free stimulation waveforms and implanted pulse generator adapters provide opportunities to manage patients with LoE. The main goal of our study was to investigate salvage procedures, through neurostimulation adapters, in patients already implanted with SCS and experiencing LoE. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients who were offered new SCS programs/waveforms through an implanted adapter between 2018 and 2021. Patients were evaluated before and at 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Outcomes included pain intensity rating with a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), pain/coverage mappings and stimulation preferences. Last follow-up evaluations (N = 27) showed significant improvement in VAS (p = 0.0001), ODI (p = 0.021) and quality of life (p = 0.023). In the 11/27 patients with LoC, SCS efficacy on pain intensity (36.89%) was accompanied via paresthesia coverage recovery (55.57%) and pain surface decrease (47.01%). At 12-month follow-up, 81.3% preferred to keep tonic stimulation in their waveform portfolio. SCS conversion using adapters appears promising as a salvage solution, with an emphasis on paresthesia recapturing enabled via spatial retargeting. In light of these results, adapters could be integrated in SCS rescue algorithms or should be considered in SCS rescue.

Comparison of Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation vs. Association of Both in Patients with Refractory Chronic Back and/or Lower Limb Neuropathic Pain: An International, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Trial (BOOST-DRG Study)

While spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy to address refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after spinal surgery (PSPS-T2), its lack of spatial selectivity and reported discomfort due to positional effects can be considered as significant limitations. As alternatives, new waveforms, such as burst stimulation and different spatial neural targets, such as dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), have shown promising results. Comparisons between DRGS and standard SCS, or their combination, have never been studied on the same patients. "BOOST DRG" is the first prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study to compare SCS vs. DRGS vs. SCS+DRGS. Sixty-six PSPS-T2 patients will be recruited internationally in three centers. Before crossing over, patients will receive each stimulation modality for 1 month, using tonic conventional stimulation. After 3 months, stimulation will consist in switching to burst for 1 month, and patients will choose which modality/waveform they receive and will then be reassessed at 6 and 12 months. In addition to our primary outcome based on pain rating, this study is designed to assess quality of life, functional disability, psychological distress, pain surface coverage, global impression of change, medication quantification, adverse events, brain functional imaging and electroencephalography, with the objective being to provide a multidimensional insight based on composite pain assessment.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

A Review of the Clinical and Therapeutic Implications of Neuropathic Pain

Understanding neuropathic pain presents several challenges, given the various mechanisms underlying its pathophysiological classification and the lack of suitable tools to assess its diagnosis. Furthermore, the response of this pathology to available drugs is still often unpredictable, leaving the treatment of neuropathic pain still questionable. In addition, the rise of personalized treatments further extends the ramified classification of neuropathic pain. While a few authors have focused on neuropathic pain clustering, by analyzing, for example, the presence of specific TRP channels, others have evaluated the presence of alterations in microRNAs to find tailored therapies. Thus, this review aims to synthesize the available evidence on the topic from a clinical perspective and provide a list of current demonstrations on the treatment of this disease.

Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances

Chronic pain exerts an enormous personal and economic burden, affecting more than 30% of people worldwide according to some studies. Unlike acute pain, which carries survival value, chronic pain might be best considered to be a disease, with treatment (eg, to be active despite the pain) and psychological (eg, pain acceptance and optimism as goals) implications. Pain can be categorised as nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from nerve injury), or nociplastic (from a sensitised nervous system), all of which affect work-up and treatment decisions at every level; however, in practice there is considerable overlap in the different types of pain mechanisms within and between patients, so many experts consider pain classification as a continuum. The biopsychosocial model of pain presents physical symptoms as the denouement of a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Although it is widely known that pain can cause psychological distress and sleep problems, many medical practitioners do not realise that these associations are bidirectional. While predisposing factors and consequences of chronic pain are well known, the flipside is that factors promoting resilience, such as emotional support systems and good health, can promote healing and reduce pain chronification. Quality of life indicators and neuroplastic changes might also be reversible with adequate pain management. Clinical trials and guidelines typically recommend a personalised multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach, which might include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, integrative treatments, and invasive procedures.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation-A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects

Background: The auricular branch of the vagus nerve runs superficially, which makes it a favorable target for non-invasive stimulation techniques to modulate vagal activity. For this reason, there have been many early-stage clinical trials on a diverse range of conditions. These trials often report conflicting results for the same indication. Methods: Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool we conducted a systematic review of auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the factors that led to these conflicting results. The majority of aVNS studies were assessed as having "some" or "high" risk of bias, which makes it difficult to interpret their results in a broader context. Results: There is evidence of a modest decrease in heart rate during higher stimulation dosages, sometimes at above the level of sensory discomfort. Findings on heart rate variability conflict between studies and are hindered by trial design, including inappropriate washout periods, and multiple methods used to quantify heart rate variability. There is early-stage evidence to suggest aVNS may reduce circulating levels and endotoxin-induced levels of inflammatory markers. Studies on epilepsy reached primary endpoints similar to previous RCTs testing implantable vagus nerve stimulation therapy. Preliminary evidence shows that aVNS ameliorated pathological pain but not evoked pain. Discussion: Based on results of the Cochrane analysis we list common improvements for the reporting of results, which can be implemented immediately to improve the quality of evidence. In the long term, existing data from aVNS studies and salient lessons from drug development highlight the need for direct measures of local neural target engagement. Direct measures of neural activity around the electrode will provide data for the optimization of electrode design, placement, and stimulation waveform parameters to improve on-target engagement and minimize off-target activation. Furthermore, direct measures of target engagement, along with consistent evaluation of blinding success, must be used to improve the design of controls-a major source of concern identified in the Cochrane analysis. The need for direct measures of neural target engagement and consistent evaluation of blinding success is applicable to the development of other paresthesia-inducing neuromodulation therapies and their control designs.

Clinical Trial Designs for Neuromodulation in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury Using Epidural Stimulation

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review focused on specific challenges related to adequate controls that arise in neuromodulation clinical trials involving perceptible stimulation and physiological effects of stimulation activation.

OBJECTIVES

1) To present the strengths and limitations of available clinical trial research designs for the testing of epidural stimulation to improve recovery after spinal cord injury. 2) To describe how studies can control for the placebo effects that arise due to surgical implantation, the physical presence of the battery, generator, control interfaces, and rehabilitative activity aimed to promote use-dependent plasticity. 3) To mitigate Hawthorne effects that may occur in clinical trials with intensive supervised participation, including rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Focused literature review of neuromodulation clinical trials with integration to the specific context of epidural stimulation for persons with chronic spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard of care control groups fail to control for the multiple effects of knowledge of having undergone surgical procedures, having implanted stimulation systems, and being observed in a clinical trial. The irreducible effects that have been identified as "placebo" require sham controls or comparison groups in which both are implanted with potentially active devices and undergo similar rehabilitative training.

Trans-Spinal Direct Current Stimulation for Managing Primary Orthostatic Tremor

BACKGROUND

Primary orthostatic tremor (POT) is a rare disorder, characterized by 13 to 18 Hz tremor in the legs when standing and is often refractory to medical treatment. Epidural spinal cord stimulation has been proposed as an alternative treatment. However, this approach is invasive, which limits its application.

OBJECTIVE

Trans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a non-invasive method to modulate spinal cord circuits. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to investigate the potential beneficial effect of tsDCS in POT.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled study in 16 patients with POT. In two separate visits, patients received sham tsDCS first followed by active (either cathodal or anodal) tsDCS. The primary outcome was the change in time in standing position. Secondary outcomes comprised quantitative assessment of tremor, measurement of corticospinal excitability including short-latency afferent inhibition, and clinical global impression-improvement (CGI-I). Measurements were made at baseline, after sham tsDCS, 0-30 min, and 30-60 min after active conditions.

RESULTS

Cathodal-tsDCS reduced tremor amplitude and frequency and lowered corticospinal excitability whereas anodal-tsDCS reduced tremor frequency only. CGI-I scores positively correlated with the time in standing position after both active tsDCS conditions.

CONCLUSION

A single session of tsDCS can improve instability in POT. This opens a new vista for experimental treatment options using multiple sessions of spinal DC stimulation. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

The Impact of Electrical Stimulation of the Brain and Spinal Cord on Iron and Calcium-Phosphate Metabolism

BACKGROUND

Deep-brain stimulation (DBS) electrically modulates the subcortical brain regions. Under conditions of monopolar cerebral stimulation, electrical current flows between electrode's contacts and an implantable pulse generator, placed in the subclavicular area. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivers an electrical current to the spinal cord. Epidural electrical stimulation is associated with the leakage of current, which can cause a generalized reaction. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the electrical stimulation of the cerebrum and spinal cord could have generalized effects on biochemical parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 25 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD, n = 21) and dystonia (n = 4), who underwent DBS implantation, and 12 patients with chronic pain, who had SCS, received electrical stimulation. The blood levels of selected biochemical parameters were measured before and after overnight stimulation.

RESULTS

After DBS, the mean ± interquartile range (IQR) values for iron (off 15.6 ± 13.53 µmol/L; on: 7.65 ± 10.8 µmol/L; p < 0.001), transferrin (off: 2.42 ± 0.88 g/L; on: 1.99 ± 0.59 g/L; p < 0.001), transferrin saturation (off: 23.20 ± 14.50%; on: 10.70 ± 11.35%; p = 0.001), phosphate (off: 1.04 ± 0.2 mmol/L; on: 0.83 ± 0.2 mmol/L; p = 0.007), and total calcium (off: 2.39 ± 0.29 mmol/L; on: 2.27 ± 0.19 mmol/L; p = 0.016) were significantly reduced, whereas ferritin (off: 112.00 ± 89.00 ng/mL; on: 150.00 ± 89.00 ng/mL; p = 0.003) and C-reactive protein (off: 0.90 ± 19.39 mg/L; on: 60.35 ± 35.91 mg/L; p = 0.002) were significantly increased. Among patients with SCS, significant differences were observed for ferritin (off: 35 ± 63 ng/mL; on: 56 ± 62 ng/mL; p = 0.013), transferrin (off: 2.70 ± 0.74 g/L; on: 2.49 ± 0.69 g/L; p = 0.048), and C-reactive protein (off: 31.00 ± 36.40 mg/L; on: 36.60 ± 62.030 mg/L; p = 0.018) before and after electrical stimulation. No significant changes in the examined parameters were observed among patients after thalamotomy and pallidotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaking electric current delivered to the subcortical nuclei of the brain and the dorsal column of the spinal cord exposes the rest of the body to a negative charge. The generalized reaction is associated with an inflammatory response and altered iron and calcium-phosphate metabolism. Alterations in iron metabolism due to electrical stimulation may impact the course of PD. Future research should investigate the influence of electric current and electromagnetic field induced by neurostimulators on human metabolism.

Advances in the interventional management of neuropathic pain

The management of neuropathic pain, defined as pain as a result of a lesion or disease in the somatosensory nervous system, continues to be researched and explored. As conventional methods demonstrate limited long-term efficacy, there is a significant need to discover therapies that offer both longitudinal and sustained management of this highly prevalent disease, which can be offered through interventional therapies. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), gabapentinoids, lidocaine, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and capsaicin have been shown to be the most efficacious pharmacologic agents for neuropathic pain relief. With respect to infusion therapies, the use of intravenous (IV) ketamine could be useful for complex regional pain syndrome, fibromyalgia, and traumatic spinal cord injury. Interventional approaches such as lumbar epidurals are a reasonable treatment choice for up to 3 months of pain relief for patients who failed to respond to conservative treatment, with a “B” strength of recommendation and moderate certainty. Neuroablative procedures like pulsed radiofrequency ablation work by delivering electrical field and heat bursts to targeted nerves or tissues without permanently damaging these structures, and have been recently explored for neuropathic pain relief. Alternatively, neuromodulation therapy is now recommended as the fourth line treatment of neuropathic pain after failed pharmacological therapy but prior to low dose opioids. Finally, the intrathecal delivery of various pharmacologic agents, such as quinoxaline-based kappa-opioid receptor agonists, can be utilized for neuropathic pain relief. In this review article, we aim to highlight advances and novel methods of interventional management of neuropathic pain.

Finding Optimal Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain: Waves, Bursts, and Beyond

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as state-of-the-art evidence-based treatment for chronic intractable pain related to spinal and peripheral nerve disorders. Traditionally delivered as steady-state, paraesthesia-producing electrical stimulation, newer technology has augmented the SCS option and outcome in the last decade.

Objective

To present an overview of the traditional and newer SCS waveforms.

Materials and Methods

We present a short literature review of SCS waveforms in reference to newer waveforms and describing paraesthesia-free, high frequency, and burst stimulation methods as well as advances in waveform paradigms and programming modalities. Pertinent literature was reviewed, especially in the context of evolution in the waveforms of SCS and stimulation parameters.

Results

Conventional tonic SCS remains one of the most utilized and clinically validated SCS waveforms. Newer waveforms such as burst stimulation, high-frequency stimulation, and the sub-perception SCS have emerged in the last decades with favorable results with no or minimal paraesthesia, including in cases otherwise intractable to conventional tonic SCS. The recent evolution and experience of closed-loop SCS is promising and appealing. The experience and validation of the newer SCS waveforms, however, remain limited but optimistic.

Conclusions

Advances in SCS device technology and waveforms have improved patient outcomes, leading to its increased utilization of SCS for chronic pain. These improvements and the development of closed-loop SCS have been increasingly promising development and foster a clinical translation of improved pain relief as the years of research and clinical study beyond conventional SCS waveform come to fruition.

Analgesic Efficacy of "Burst" and Tonic (500 Hz) Spinal Cord Stimulation Patterns: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in reducing pain intensity in adult subjects suffering from chronic back and leg pain of burst (BST) and tonic sub-threshold stimulation at 500 Hz (T500) vs. sham stimulation delivered by a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre randomized double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, crossover study was undertaken at two centers in the United Kingdom. Patients who had achieved stable pain relief with a conventional SCS capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity were randomized to sequences of BST, T500, and sham SCS with treatment order balanced across the six possible sequences. A current leakage was programmed into the implantable pulse generator (IPG) in the sham period. The primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were enrolled and randomized. The mean reduction in pain with T500 was statistically significantly greater than that observed with either sham (25%; 95% CI, 8%-38%; p = 0.008) or BST (28%; 95% CI, 13%-41%; p = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS for BST versus Sham (5%; 95% CI, -13% to 27%; p = 0.59). Exploratory sub-group analyses by study site and sex were also conducted for the T500 vs. sham and BST versus sham comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest a superior outcome versus sham from T500 stimulation over BST stimulation and a practical equivalence between BST and sham in a group of subjects with leg and back pain habituated to tonic SCS and having achieved a stable status with stimulation.

Sub-Perception and Supra-Perception Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain Syndrome: A Randomized, Semi-Double-Blind, Crossover, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The introduction of modern sub-perception modalities has improved the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in refractory pain syndromes of the trunk and lower limbs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low and high frequency SCS among patients with chronic pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomised, semi-double-blind, placebo controlled, four period (4 × 2 weeks) crossover trial was conducted from August 2018 to January 2020. Eighteen patients with SCS due to failed back surgery syndrome and/or complex regional pain syndrome were randomised to four treatment arms without washout periods: (1) low frequency (40-60 Hz), (2) 1 kHz, (3) clustered tonic, and (4) sham SCS (i.e., placebo). The primary outcome was pain scores measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) preoperatively and during subsequent treatment arms.

RESULTS

Pain scores (VAS) reported during the preoperative period was M (SD) = 8.13 (0.99). There was a 50% reduction in pain reported in the low frequency tonic treatment group (M (SD) = 4.18 (1.76)), a 37% reduction in the 1 kHz treatment group (M (SD) = 5.17 (1.4)), a 34% reduction in the clustered tonic settings group (M (SD) = 5.27 (1.33)), and a 34% reduction in the sham stimulation group (M (SD) = 5.42 (1.22)). The reduction in pain from the preoperative period to the treatment period was significant in each treatment group (p < 0.001). Overall, these reductions were of comparable magnitude between treatments. However, the modality most preferred by patients was low frequency (55% or 10 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The pain-relieving effects of SCS reached significance and were comparable across all modes of stimulation including sham. Sub-perception stimulation was not superior to supra-perception. SCS was characterised by a high degree of placebo effect. No evidence of carryover effect was observed between subsequent treatments. Contemporary neuromodulation procedures should be tailored to the individual preferences of patients.

How Should we Use Multicolumn Spinal Cord Stimulation to Optimize Back Pain Spatial Neural Targeting? A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial (ESTIMET Study)

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have highlighted multicolumn spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficacy, hypothesizing that optimized spatial neural targeting provided by new-generation SCS lead design or its multicolumn programming abilities could represent an opportunity to better address chronic back pain (BP).

OBJECTIVE

To compare multicolumn vs. monocolumn programming on clinical outcomes of refractory postoperative chronic BP patients implanted with SCS using multicolumn surgical lead.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve centers included 115 patients in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. After randomization, leads were programmed using only one or several columns. The primary outcome was change in BP visual analogic scale (VAS) at six months. All patients were then programmed using the full potential of the lead up until 12-months follow-up.

RESULTS

At six months, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes whether the SCS was programmed using a mono or a multicolumn program. At 12 months, in all patients having been receiving multicolumn SCS for at least six months (n = 97), VAS decreases were significant for global pain (45.1%), leg pain (55.8%), and BP (41.5%) compared with baseline (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The ESTIMET study confirms the significant benefit experienced on chronic BP by patients implanted with multicolumn SCS, independently from multicolumn lead programming. These good clinical outcomes might result from the specific architecture of the multicolumn lead, giving the opportunity to select initially the best column on a multicolumn grid and to optimize neural targeting with low-energy requirements. However, involving more columns than one does not appear necessary, once initial spatial targeting of the "sweet spot" has been achieved. Our findings suggest that this spatial concept could also be transposed to cylindrical leads, which have drastically improved their capability to shape the electrical field, and might be combined with temporal resolution using SCS new modalities.

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: technical advances

Chronic severe pain results in a detrimental effect on the patient’s quality of life. Such patients have to take a large number of medications, including opioids, often without satisfactory effect, sometimes leading to medication abuse and the pain worsening. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the most effective technologies that, unlike other interventional pain treatment methods, achieves long-term results in patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain. The first described mode of SCS was a conventional tonic stimulation, but now the novel modalities (high-frequency and burst), techniques (dorsal root ganglia stimulations), and technical development (wireless and implantable pulse generator-free systems) of SCS are becoming more popular. The improvement of SCS systems, their miniaturization, and the appearance of new mechanisms for anchoring electrodes results in a significant reduction in the rate of complications and revision surgeries, and the appearance of new waves of stimulation allows not only to avoid the phenomenon of addiction, but also to improve the long-term results of chronic SCS. The purpose of this review is to describe the current condition of SCS and up-to-date technical advances.