Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response.

METHODS

Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured.

RESULTS

Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02924129.

Patient profiling and outcome assessment in spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and/or leg pain (the PROSTIM study): a study protocol

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option in the multidisciplinary approach to chronic back and leg pain. Nevertheless, careful patient selection remains crucial to provide the most optimal treatment and prevent treatment failure. We report the protocol for the PROSTIM study, an ongoing prospective, multicentric and observational clinical study (NCT05349695) that aims to identify different patient clusters and their outcomes after SCS. Patients are recruited in different centers in Europe. Analysis focuses on identifying significant patient clusters based on different health domains and the changes in biopsychosocial variables 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after implantation. This study is the first to include a biopsychosocial cluster analysis to identify significant patient groups and their response to treatment with SCS.

Opinions of Health Care Providers About Neuromodulation for Pain: Results of an Online Survey at the 2nd Joint Congress of the International Neuromodulation Society European Chapters

INTRODUCTION

Neuromodulation for pain has been successfully applied for decades, in that the goals and expectations that patients aim to achieve are clearly described. Nevertheless, the point of view of health care providers is less clear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the goals, expectations, and definition of success for neuromodulation for pain according to health care providers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey was developed and spread at the 2nd Joint Congress of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) European Chapters in September 2021 in Paris. Respondents were asked 1) to select the goals to treat patients with neuromodulation for pain, 2) to indicate factors that they expect to change according to neuromodulation for pain, and 3) to provide their definition of success of neuromodulation for pain.

RESULTS

We approached 101 respondents, of whom 88 health care providers at least partly completed the survey. Increasing mobility/functionality (26.7%), decreasing pain intensity (24.5%), and decreasing medication use (16.6%) were the most frequently reported goals of neuromodulation. The same top three variables were selected as factors that health care providers expected to change. For the definition of success, quality of life of patients outranked other definitions. Other highly ranked definitions, in descending order, were obtaining pain relief, increasing functionality, and increasing patient satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

Goals and expectations of health care providers are not completely in line with previously explored goals of patients that are related to pain relief and improving walking abilities. Health care providers seem to put a high emphasis on the quality of life of the patient when evaluating the success of neuromodulation, which is not completely aligned with the currently used reimbursement rules that are mainly focusing on pain relief instead of incorporating health-related quality of life.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT05013840.

Research hotspots and trends on spinal cord stimulation for pain treatment: a two-decade bibliometric analysis

Background

Chronic pain poses a significant social burden. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is considered to be the most promising treatment for refractory pain. The aim of this study was to summarize the current research hotspots on SCS for pain treatment during the past two decades and to predict the future research trends by bibliometric analysis.

Methods

The literature over the last two decades (2002-2022) which was related to SCS in pain treatment was obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analyses were conducted based on the following aspects: (1) Annual publication and citation trends; (2) Annual publication changes of different publication types; (3) Publications and citations/co-citations of different country/institution/journal/author; (4) Citations/co-citation and citation burst analysis of different literature; and (5) Co-occurrence, cluster, thematic map, trend topics, and citation burst analysis of different keywords. (6) Comparison between the United States and Europe. All analyses were performed on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R bibliometrix package.

Results

A total of 1,392 articles were included in this study, with an increasing number of publications and citations year by year. The most highly published type of literature was clinical trial. United States was the country with the most publications and citations; Johns Hopkins University was the institution with the most publications; NEUROMODULATION published the most papers; the most published author was Linderoth B; and the most cited paper was published in the PAIN by Kumar K in 2007. The most frequently occurring keywords were "spinal cord stimulation," "neuropathic pain," and "chronic pain," etc.

Conclusion

The positive effect of SCS on pain treatment has continued to arouse the enthusiasm of researchers in this field. Future research should focus on the development of new technologies, innovative applications, and clinical trials for SCS. This study might facilitate researchers to comprehensively understand the overall perspective, research hotspots, and future development trends in this field, as well as seek collaboration with other researchers.

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation

BACKGROUND

Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity.

AIM

The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response".

DISCUSSION

Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

Spinal Cord Stimulation-Naïve Patients vs Patients With Failed Previous Experiences With Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation: Two Distinct Entities or One Population?

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the success of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is evaluated separately in patients who have previous experiences with standard SCS and in SCS-naïve patients. Nevertheless, it is yet to be evaluated whether both patient groups are effectively distinct patient groups. Therefore, the aims of this study are twofold: 1) Are there clusters in the data to distinguish between both patient groups? 2) Can we discriminate both patient groups based on routinely collected clinical parameters?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Baseline data from the Discover study were used, in which 263 patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 were included (185 neurostimulation-naïve patients and 78 patients with previous SCS experience). Pain intensity scores for low back and leg pain, functional disability, medication use, and health-related quality of life utility scores were used in the analysis. Model-based clustering was performed on standardized data. Discriminant analysis was performed with linear and quadratic discriminant analysis, with leave-one-out cross-validation to evaluate model performance.

RESULTS

Model-based clustering revealed two different clusters in the data. None of the clusters clearly separated SCS-naïve patients from patients with previous SCS experience. Linear discriminant analysis resulted in a leave-one-out cross-validation error rate of 30.0% to discriminate between both patient groups, based on routinely collected clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Clustering analysis did not result in clusters that separate SCS-naïve patients from patients with previous SCS experience. This may suggest that both patient groups should not be considered as two different patient groups when comparing them on routine clinical parameters, with potentially profound implications for research and clinical settings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the Discover study is NCT02787265.

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.

Goals, Expectations, and the Definition of Success for Neuromodulation for Pain According to Representatives of Neuromodulation Device Manufacturers

Representatives of neuromodulation device manufacturers are expected to facilitate the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Nevertheless, the goals, expectations, and definition of success for neuromodulation for pain have not yet been explored. Representatives present at the 2nd Joint Congress of the INS European Chapters in September 2021 completed a survey to ascertain their opinions about the goals to achieve with neuromodulation, the factors that they expect to change, and their definition of success for neuromodulation. In total, 39 representatives completed the survey. To provide excellent service for patients (22.4%), to become a trusted partner for physicians (21.5%), and to provide excellent service for physicians (20.7%) were the highest ranked goals. The most frequently reported factors that were expected to change were pain intensity (23.1%), patient satisfaction (19.7%), mobility/functioning (14.5%), and capacity to return to work (13.7%). Within the definitions of success, increased quality of life of the patient was stated in 21% of the definitions, closely followed by pain control (19.3%) and happiness/patient satisfaction (15.8%). The goals of representatives of neuromodulation device manufacturers seem to focus on ensuring a good relationship with physicians on the one hand and providing good service towards patients on the other hand, whereby pain control, quality of life, and patient satisfaction seem to be important for company representatives.

A 6-Month Home-Based Functional Electrical Stimulation Program for Foot Drop in a Post-Stroke Patient: Considerations on a Time Course Analysis of Walking Performance

Foot drop is a common disability in post-stroke patients and represents a challenge for the clinician. To date, ankle foot orthosis (AFO) combined with conventional rehabilitation is the gold standard of rehabilitation management. AFO has a palliative mechanical action without actively restoring the associated neural function. Functional electrical stimulation (FES), consisting of stimulation of the peroneal nerve pathway, represents an alternative approach. By providing an FES device (Bioness L-300, BIONESS, Valencia, CA, USA) for 6 months to a post-stroke 22-year-old woman with a foot drop, our goal was to quantify its potential benefit on walking capacity. The gait parameters and the temporal evolution of the speed were collected with a specific connected sole device (Feet Me^®) during the 10-m walking, the time up and go, and the 6-minute walking tests with AFO, FES, or without any device (NO). As a result, the walking speed changes on 10-m were clinically significant with an increase from the baseline to 6 months in AFO (+0.14 m.s⁻¹), FES (+0.36 m.s⁻¹) and NO (+0.32 m.s⁻¹) conditions. In addition, the speed decreased at about 4-min in the 6-minute walking test in NO and AFO conditions, while the speed increased in the FES conditions at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 months. In addition to the walking performance improvement, monitoring the gait speed in an endurance test after an ecological rehabilitation training program helps to examine the walking performance in post-stroke patients and to propose a specific rehabilitation program.