Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial

Controversies in intrathecal drug delivery for cancer pain

Pain and suffering related to cancer are challenging issues that continue to deserve consideration for treatment optimization. Advances in analgesic management and control of the underlying cancer have improved symptom management, yet many patients still suffer from uncontrolled pain. Intrathecal drug delivery has an established role in the management of refractory cancer pain, but there are significant knowledge gaps in our understanding and application of this therapy. This review addresses several areas of controversy, including the importance of intrathecal catheter tip location, the necessity of an intrathecal trial and the role of intrathecal ziconotide and local anesthetics. In each area, the evidence is discussed, with an emphasis on presenting practical clinical guidance and highlighting deficiencies in our knowledge that are worthy of future investigation.

Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model - A Narrative Review

Despite the well-known efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic pain management, patient selection in clinical practice remains challenging. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the factors that can influence the process of patient selection for SCS treatment. A sequential decision-making model is presented within a tier system that operates in clinical practice. The first level incorporates the underlying disease as a primary indication for SCS, country-related reimbursement rules, and SCS screening-trial criteria in combination with underlying psychological factors as initial selection criteria in evaluating patient eligibility for SCS. The second tier is aligned with the individualized approach within precision pain medicine, whereby individual goals and expectations and the potential need for preoperative optimizations are emphasized. Additionally, this tier relies on results from prediction models to provide an estimate of the efficacy of SCS in the long term. In the third tier, selection bias, MRI compatibility, and ethical beliefs are included, together with recent technological innovations, superiority of specific stimulation paradigms, and new feedback systems that could indirectly influence the decision-making of the physician. Both patients and physicians should be aware of the different aspects that influence patient selection in relation to SCS for pain management to make an independent decision on whether or not to initiate a treatment trajectory with SCS.

60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief

Objective

Conventional neurostimulation typically involves a brief (eg, ≤10-day) trial to assess presumed effectiveness prior to permanent implantation. Low trial conversion rates and high explant rates due to inadequate pain relief highlight the need for improved patient identification strategies. The development of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system enables evaluation of outcomes following an extended temporary treatment period of up to 60 days, that may obviate or validate the need for permanent implant. The present study provides the first real-world evidence regarding patient response throughout a 60-day PNS treatment period.

Methods

Anonymized data listings were compiled from patients who underwent implantation of temporary percutaneous leads and opted-in to provide real-world data to the device manufacturer during routine interactions with device representatives throughout the 60-day treatment.

Results

Overall, 30% (222/747) of patients were early responders (≥50% pain relief throughout treatment). Another 31% (231/747) of patients initially presented as non-responders but surpassed 50% pain relief by the end of treatment. Conversely, 32% (239/747) of patients were non-responders throughout treatment. An additional 7% (55/747) of patients initially presented as responders but fell below 50% relief by the end of the treatment period.

Conclusion

An extended, 60-day PNS treatment may help identify delayed responders, providing the opportunity for sustained relief and improving access to effective PNS treatment. Compared to a conventionally short trial of ≤10 days, a longer 60-day PNS treatment may also help reduce explant rates by identifying delayed non-responders unlikely to benefit long-term. These scenarios support the importance of an extended 60-day temporary PNS stimulation period to help inform stepwise treatment strategies that may optimize outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Improved User Engagement and Assessment of Treatment Effectiveness in Patients Utilizing a Novel Digital Mobile Health Application During Spinal Cord Stimulation Screening Trials (Preprint)

Background

Patient outcomes and experience during a Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) screening trial can have a significant effect on whether to proceed with long-term, permanent implantation of an SCS device for the treatment of chronic pain. Enhancing the ability to track and assess patients during this initial trial evaluation offers the potential for improved understanding regarding the suitability of permanent device implantation as well as identification of the SCS-based neurostimulative modalities and parameters that may provide substantial analgesia in a patient-specific manner.

Objective

In this report, we aimed to describe a preliminary, real-world assessment of a new, real time tracking, smart, device-based digital app used by patients with chronic pain undergoing trial screening for SCS therapy.

Methods

This is a real-world, retrospective evaluation of 13,331 patients diagnosed with chronic pain who used the new “mySCS” mobile app during an SCS screening trial. The app design is health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA)-compliant and compatible with most commercially available smartphones (eg, Apple, iPhone, and Android). The app enables tracking of user-inputted health-related responses (ie, pain relief, activity level, and sleep quality) in addition to personal trial goals and a summary of overall experience during the SCS trial. A deidentified, aggregate analysis of user engagement, user-submitted responses, and overall trial success was conducted.

Results

When provided the opportunity, the percentage of users who engaged with the tracking app for ≥50% of the time during their trial was found to be 64.43% (n=8589). Among the 13,331 patients who used the app, 58.24% (n=7764) entered a trial goal. Most patients underwent SCS screening with a trial duration of at least 7 days (n=7739, 58.05%). Of those patients who undertook a 7-day SCS trial, 62.30% (n=3456) engaged the app for 4 days or more. In addition, among all who submitted descriptive responses using the app, health-related improvements were reported by 77.84% (n=10,377) of patients who reached day 3 of the screening phase assessment and by 83.04% (n=11,070) of those who reached trial completion. A trial success rate of 91% was determined for those who used the app (versus 85% success rate for nonusers).

Conclusions

Data from this initial, real-world examination of a mobile, digital-health–based tracking app (“mySCS”), as used during the SCS screening phase, demonstrate that substantial patient engagement can be achieved while also providing for the acquisition of more real time patient-outcome measures that may help facilitate improved SCS trial success.

Machine Learning Algorithms Provide Greater Prediction of Response to SCS Than Lead Screening Trial: A Predictive AI-Based Multicenter Study

Persistent pain after spinal surgery can be successfully addressed by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). International guidelines strongly recommend that a lead trial be performed before any permanent implantation. Recent clinical data highlight some major limitations of this approach. First, it appears that patient outco mes, with or without lead trial, are similar. In contrast, during trialing, infection rate drops drastically within time and can compromise the therapy. Using composite pain assessment experience and previous research, we hypothesized that machine learning models could be robust screening tools and reliable predictors of long-term SCS efficacy. We developed several algorithms including logistic regression, regularized logistic regression (RLR), naive Bayes classifier, artificial neural networks, random forest and gradient-boosted trees to test this hypothesis and to perform internal and external validations, the objective being to confront model predictions with lead trial results using a 1-year composite outcome from 103 patients. While almost all models have demonstrated superiority on lead trialing, the RLR model appears to represent the best compromise between complexity and interpretability in the prediction of SCS efficacy. These results underscore the need to use AI-based predictive medicine, as a synergistic mathematical approach, aimed at helping implanters to optimize their clinical choices on daily practice.

Spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used for more than 40years to treat localized chronic medically refractory neuropathic pain involving limb(s) and trunk. The most frequent indications remain complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and peripheral neuropathy. Stimulation-induced paresthesias, perceived by the patient, prevent blinded evaluation and increase the placebo effect, decreasing the credibility of the tonic SCS efficacy. Retrospective studies reported that about 50% of the patients are improved more than 50% at short-term, but long-term improvement is less. Several comparative randomized trials (RCT) are now available. In CRPS, a RCT demonstrated the superiority of SCS plus physiotherapy compared to physiotherapy alone. In FBSS, two RCTs have shown that SCS was superior to reoperation and conventional medical treatment, (CMM) respectively. New stimulation waveforms, namely burst, high frequency (10KHz) stimulation and close-loop SCS, have been proposed recently to avoid the perception of paresthesias and/or increase the pain relief. RCTs in FBSS have suggested that these new SCS modalities were as least as efficient than conventional tonic SCS and perhaps slightly superior. Two RCTs confirmed SCS efficacy in painful diabetic neuropathy in comparison with CMM. Complications are frequent (hardware dysfunction or migration, superficial infection) but exceptionally serious. Consequently, the risk/benefit ratio is favorable to SCS, considering that chronic pain patients undergoing this procedure are usually resistant to all the other therapies.

Spinal cord stimulation: a real-world data analysis on outcomes and differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable implantable pulse generators

OBJECTIVE

In this analysis, we examined differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices in patients with pain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal claims data analysis using a German research database comprising 5 million statutory insured patients (2012-2017). Outcomes of demographics, patient pathways, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with initial SCS were collected.

RESULTS

Of 150 patients in the database, 73 (49%) received a rechargeable device and 77 (51%) a non-rechargeable device. The average age was 62.5 years (51% female and 49% male patients). A significant decrease over a 3-year follow-up was observed in analgesic prescriptions (-18%), number of patient visits to a physician, and number of patients who were hospitalized. HCRU-related figures for patients with non-rechargeable neurostimulators increased in the last follow-up year whereas the group receiving rechargeable neurostimulators showed a steady decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

SCS seems to be an effective way for patients with chronic pain to decrease pain and improve quality of life. Rechargeable devices seem to be superior to non-rechargeable devices owing to greater longevity and were found to be associated with continuous reduction of pain diagnoses, hospitalization, physician visits, and use of pain medication in our study.

French guidelines for neuropathic pain: An update and commentary

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet need. French recommendations were updated in 2020. The goal of this minireview is to provide an update on these published guidelines. Despite newer relevant studies, our proposed algorithm remains relevant. First-line treatments include serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants, topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation being specifically proposed for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Second-line treatments include pregabalin (such position being confirmed by newer studies), tramadol, combinations and psychotherapy as add on, high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A being proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Third-line treatments include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation and strong opioids (in the lack of alternative). Disseminating these recommendations and ensuring that they are well accepted by French practitioners will be necessary to optimize neuropathic pain management in real life.

One-Year Results of Prospective Research Study Using 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation in Persistent Nonoperated Low Back Pain of Neuropathic Origin: Maiden Back Study

PURPOSE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Persistent nonoperative low back pain of neuropathic origin has profound negative impacts on patient's lives. This prospective, open label, research study aimed to explore the use of SCS in patients with associated features of central sensitisation such as allodynia and hyperalgesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients with back pain and hyperalgesia or allodynia who had not had prior spinal surgery underwent a SCS trial followed by full implantation. SCS comprised administering electrical impulses epidurally at a frequency of 10 kHz and pulse width of 30 μsec. Patients attended follow-up visits after 6 and 12 months of SCS. Repeated measure ANOVAs/Friedman tests explored change after 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. Independent sample t-tests/Mann-Whitney U tests examined differences in response after 12 months of 10 kHz SCS.

RESULTS

Back and leg pain, quality of life (QoL), pain-related disability, and morphine equivalence significantly improved compared with baseline following 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. There were no increases in the consumption of opioids, amitriptyline, gabapentin or pregabalin in any patient. After 12 months of treatment, 52% encountered ≥50% improvement in back pain, 44% achieved remission (0-3 cm back pain VAS), 40% reported ODI scores between 0 and 40 and 60% experienced a reduction of at least 10 ODI points. Patients reporting ≥10-point improvement in ODI had significantly longer pain history durations and experienced significantly greater improvements in back pain, leg pain and QoL than those reporting <10-point improvement in ODI.

CONCLUSION

The 10 kHz SCS improved back and leg pain, QoL, pain-related disability and medication consumption in patients with nonoperative back pain of neuropathic origin. With further research incorporating a sham control arm, the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in this patient cohort will become more established.

Predicting the Response of High Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Retrospective Study with Machine Learning Techniques

Despite the proven clinical value of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), factors related to a successful SCS outcome are not yet clearly understood. This study aimed to predict responders for high frequency SCS at 10 kHz (HF-10). Data before implantation and the last available data was extracted for 119 FBSS patients treated with HF-10 SCS. Correlations, logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, classification and regression trees, random forest, bagging, and boosting were applied. Based on feature selection, trial pain relief, predominant pain location, and the number of previous surgeries were relevant factors for predicting pain relief. To predict responders with 50% pain relief, 58.33% accuracy was obtained with boosting, random forest and bagging. For predicting responders with 30% pain relief, 70.83% accuracy was obtained using logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, boosting, and classification trees. For predicting pain medication decrease, accuracies above 80% were obtained using logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis. Several machine learning techniques were able to predict responders to HF-10 SCS with an acceptable accuracy. However, none of the techniques revealed a high accuracy. The inconsistent results regarding predictive factors in literature, combined with acceptable accuracy of the currently obtained models, might suggest that routinely collected baseline parameters from clinical practice are not sufficient to consistently predict the SCS response with a high accuracy in the long-term.

To Trial or Not to Trial Before Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: The Patients' View From the TRIAL-STIM Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine suitability for a permanent implant, its evidence base is limited. The recent TRIAL‐STIM study (a randomized controlled trial at three centers in the United Kingdom) found no evidence that an SCS screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes as compared with a no trial approach. As part of the TRIAL‐STIM study, we undertook a nested qualitative study to ascertain patients' preferences in relation to undergoing a screening trial or not.

Materials and Methods

We interviewed 31 patients sampled from all three centers and both study arms (screening trial/no trial) prior to SCS implantation, and 23 of these patients again following implantation (eight patients were lost to follow‐up). Interviews were undertaken by telephone and audio‐recorded, then transcripts were subject to thematic analysis. In addition, participants were asked to state their overall preference for a one‐stage (no screening trial) versus two‐stage (screening trial) implant procedure on a five‐point Likert scale, before and after implantation.

Results

Emergent themes favoured the option for a one‐stage SCS procedure. Themes identified include: saving time (off work, in hospital, attending appointments), avoiding the worry about having “loose wires” in the two‐stage procedure, having only one period of recovery, and saving NHS resources. Participants' rated preferences show similar support for a one‐stage procedure without a screening trial.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate an overwhelming preference among participants for a one‐stage SCS procedure both before and after the implant, regardless of which procedure they had undergone. The qualitative study findings further support the TRIAL‐STIM RCT results.