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

Pharmacotherapy and non-invasive neuromodulation for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There remains a substantial unmet need for effective and safe treatments for neuropathic pain. The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group aimed to update treatment recommendations, published in 2015, on the basis of new evidence from randomised controlled trials, emerging neuromodulation techniques, and advances in evidence synthesis.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, PubMed, the International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov from data inception for neuromodulation trials and from Jan 1, 2013, for pharmacological interventions until Feb 12, 2024. We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacological and neuromodulation treatments administered for at least 3 weeks, or if there was at least 3 weeks of follow-up, and which included at least ten participants per group. Trials included participants of any age with neuropathic pain, defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain. We excluded trials with enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal designs and those with participants with mixed aetiologies (ie, neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain) and conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome, low back pain without radicular pain, fibromyalgia, and idiopathic orofacial pain. We extracted summary data in duplicate from published reports, with discrepancies reconciled by a third independent reviewer on the platform Covidence. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of responders (50% or 30% reduction in baseline pain intensity or moderate pain relief). The primary safety outcome was the number of participants who withdrew from the treatment owing to adverse events. We calculated a risk difference for each comparison and did a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk differences were used to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) for each treatment. Risk of bias was assessed by use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and certainty of evidence assessed by use of GRADE. Recommendations were based on evidence of efficacy, adverse events, accessibility, and cost, and feedback from engaged lived experience partners. This study is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023389375.

FINDINGS

We identified 313 trials (284 pharmacological and 29 neuromodulation studies) for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Across all studies, 48 789 adult participants were randomly assigned to trial groups (20 611 female and 25 078 male participants, where sex was reported). Estimates for the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) NNT=4·6 (95% CI 3·2-7·7), NNH=17·1 (11·4-33·6; moderate certainty of evidence), α2δ-ligands NNT=8·9 (7·4-11·10), NNH=26·2 (20·4-36·5; moderate certainty of evidence), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) NNT=7·4 (5·6-10·9), NNH=13·9 (10·9-19·0; moderate certainty of evidence), botulinum toxin (BTX-A) NNT=2·7 (1·8-9·61), NNH=216·3 (23·5-∞; moderate certainty of evidence), capsaicin 8% patches NNT=13·2 (7·6-50·8), NNH=1129·3 (135·7-∞; moderate certainty of evidence), opioids NNT=5·9 (4·1-10·7), NNH=15·4 (10·8-24·0; low certainty of evidence), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) NNT=4·2 (2·3-28·3), NNH=651·6 (34·7-∞; low certainty of evidence), capsaicin cream NNT=6·1 (3·1-∞), NNH=18·6 (10·6-77·1; very low certainty of evidence), lidocaine 5% plasters NNT=14·5 (7·8-108·2), NNH=178·0 (23·9-∞; very low certainty of evidence). The findings provided the basis for a strong recommendation for use of TCAs, α2δ-ligands, and SNRIs as first-line treatments; a weak recommendation for capsaicin 8% patches, capsaicin cream, and lidocaine 5% plasters as second-line recommendation; and a weak recommendation for BTX-A, rTMS, and opioids as third-line treatments for neuropathic pain.

INTERPRETATION

Our results support a revision of the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group recommendations for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Treatment outcomes are modest and for some treatments uncertainty remains. Further large placebo-controlled or sham-controlled trials done over clinically relevant timeframes are needed.

FUNDING

NeuPSIG and ERA-NET Neuron.

Does industry funding and study location impact findings from randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

FINDINGS

Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I2=0%, τ2=0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I2=97%, τ2=2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I2 and τ2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE

To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study.

METHODS

The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Thirty patients allocated to the "Trial Group" (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the "No Trial Group" (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.

Neuromodulation in patients with refractory angina pectoris: a review

The number of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who have persisting angina pectoris despite optimal medical treatment known as refractory angina pectoris (RAP) is growing. Current estimates indicate that 5-10% of patients with stable CAD have RAP. In absolute numbers, there are 50 000-100 000 new cases of RAP each year in the USA and 30 000-50 000 new cases each year in Europe. The term RAP was formulated in 2002. RAP is defined as a chronic disease (more than 3 months) characterized by diffuse CAD in the presence of proven ischaemia which is not amendable to a combination of medical therapy, angioplasty, or coronary bypass surgery. There are currently few treatment options for patients with RAP. One such last-resort treatment option is spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with a Class of recommendation IIB, level of evidence B in the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. The aim of this review is to give an overview of neuromodulation as treatment modality for patients with RAP. A comprehensive overview is given on the history, proposed mechanism of action, safety, efficacy, and current use of SCS.

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.

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 Comparison of 1000 Hz to 30 Hz Spinal Cord Stimulation Strategies in Patients with Unilateral Neuropathic Leg Pain Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Clinical Study (HALO)

INTRODUCTION

Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded crossover study. The Netherlands (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02112474). We hypothesized that the pain suppressive effects of 1000 Hz and 30 Hz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) strategies are equally effective in patients with chronic, neuropathic, unilateral leg pain after back surgery.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients (18-70 years, minimum leg pain 50 mm on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), minimal back pain) were randomized (1:1) to start 1000 Hz or 30 Hz neurostimulation for 9 days. After a 5-day washout, they crossed over, for another 9 days. Primary outcome was pain suppression (mean of VAS scores 4×/day) during the crossover period. The main investigators were blinded to strategy allocation, patients were blinded to the outcome, a blinded assessor analyzed the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was analyzed in 26 patients. There was no period effect (delta 4 mm, p = 0.42, 95% CI [- 5, 13]), allowing direct intrapatient comparison of the treatment effect (delta 1 mm, p = 0.92, 95% CI [- 13, 14]). Ninety-two percent of patients in both periods experienced greater than 34% pain suppression (minimal clinically important difference, MCID). Secondary outcomes (22 patients): pain suppression and improved quality of life were sustained at 12 months; both were statistically significant and clinically relevant. Fifty percent of patients had greater than 80% pain suppression (p < 0.001). At study termination, all events were resolved; no unanticipated events were reported. Medtronic provided a grant for additional study costs.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that our hypothesis regarding the effect of 1000 Hz and 30 Hz stimulation strategies on pain suppression was confirmed. Both stimulation strategies led to a large, sustainable, clinically relevant pain suppression and improvement in quality of life.

An implantable restorative-neurostimulator for refractory mechanical chronic low back pain: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Chronic low back pain can be caused by impaired control and degeneration of the multifidus muscles and consequent functional instability of the lumbar spine. Available treatment options have limited effectiveness and prognosis is unfavorable. We conducted an international randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial at 26 multidisciplinary centers to determine safety and efficacy of an implantable, restorative neurostimulator designed to restore multifidus neuromuscular control and facilitate relief of symptoms (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02577354). Two hundred four eligible participants with refractory mechanical (musculoskeletal) chronic LBP and a positive prone instability test indicating impaired multifidus control were implanted and randomized to therapeutic (N = 102) or low-level sham (N = 102) stimulation of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus nerve (multifidus nerve supply) for 30 minutes twice daily. The primary endpoint was the comparison of responder proportions (≥30% relief on the LBP visual analogue scale without analgesics increase) at 120 days. After the primary endpoint assessment, participants in the sham-control group switched to therapeutic stimulation and the combined cohort was assessed through 1 year for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The primary endpoint was inconclusive in terms of treatment superiority (57.1% vs 46.6%; difference: 10.4%; 95% confidence interval, -3.3% to 24.1%, P = 0.138). Prespecified secondary outcomes and analyses were consistent with a modest but clinically meaningful treatment benefit at 120 days. Improvements from baseline, which continued to accrue in all outcome measures after conclusion of the double-blind phase, were clinically important at 1 year. The incidence of serious procedure- or device-related adverse events (3.9%) compared favorably with other neuromodulation therapies for chronic pain.