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

Reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices: the CONSORT-iNeurostim extension

Background

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement has improved the quality of reporting of randomised trials. Extensions to the CONSORT statement are often needed to address specific issues of trial reporting, including those relevant to particular types of interventions. Methodological and reporting deficiencies in clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices are common. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension is a new reporting guideline for randomised controlled trials evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices.

Methods

CONSORT-iNeurostim was developed using the EQUATOR methodological framework including a literature review and expert consultation to generate an initial list of candidate items. The candidate items were included in a two-round Delphi survey, discussed at an international consensus meeting (42 stakeholders including healthcare professionals, methodologists, journal editors and industry representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands and other countries), and refined through a checklist pilot (18 stakeholders).

Findings

The initial extension item list included 49 candidate items relevant to CONSORT-iNeurostim. We received 132 responses in the first round of the Delphi survey and 99 responses in the second round. Participants suggested an additional 20 candidate items for CONSORT-iNeurostim during the first round of the survey, and those achieving initial consensus were discussed at the consensus meeting. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension includes 7 new checklist items, including one item for reporting the neurostimulation intervention comprising a separate checklist of 14 items.

Interpretation

The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension will promote increased transparency, clarity, and completeness of trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. It will assist journal editors, peer-reviewers, and readers to better interpret the appropriateness and generalisability of the methods used and reported outcomes.

Funding

Abbott, Boston Scientific Corp., Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd, Nevro Corp. and Saluda Medical.

Maximal Analgesic Effect Attained by the Use of Objective Neurophysiological Measurements With Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been challenged by the lack of neurophysiologic data to guide therapy optimization. Current SCS programming by trial-and-error results in suboptimal and variable therapeutic effects. A novel system with a physiologic closed-loop feedback mechanism using evoked-compound action potentials enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose by consistently and accurately activating spinal cord fibers. We aimed to identify neurophysiologic dose metrics and their ranges that resulted in clinically meaningful treatment responses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects from 3 clinical studies (n = 180) with baseline back and leg pain ≥60 mm visual analog scale and physical function in the severe to crippled category were included. Maximal analgesic effect (MAE) was operationally defined as the greatest percent reduction in pain intensity or as the greatest cumulative responder score (minimal clinically important differences [MCIDs]) obtained within the first 3 months of SCS implant. The physiologic metrics that produced the MAE were analyzed.

RESULTS

We showed that a neural dose regimen with a high neural dose accuracy of 2.8μV and dose ratio of 1.4 resulted in a profound clinical benefit to chronic pain patients (MAE of 79 ± 1% for pain reduction and 12.5 ± 0.4 MCIDs). No differences were observed for MAE or neurophysiological dose metrics between the trial phase and post-implant MAE visit.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, an evidence-based neural dose regimen is available for a neurostimulation intervention as a starting point to enable optimization of clinical benefit, monitoring of adherence, and management of the therapy.

Multidevice spinal cord stimulation trials: shared decision making in the era of multiple neuromodulation paradigms

Aim: There is a lack of evidence-based standards for matching spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paradigm to individual patients. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of a new alternative trial strategy, a sequential multidevice trial.Materials & methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 116 patients who underwent SCS trials, single device or sequential multidevice (tonic and high-frequency), for chronic low back pain to assess feasibility and compare trial-to-implantation rate and explantation rate.Results: Multidevice SCS trials are feasible and safe. There was no statistically significant difference in the trial-to-implantation and explantation rates between the two groups.Conclusion: Multidevice SCS trial, prioritizing patient preference, may serve as an alternative trial strategy to improve long-term success of SCS.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for Spinal Cord Stimulation Long-Term Outcome Optimization and Salvage Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has recognized a need to establish best practices for optimizing implantable devices and salvage when ideal outcomes are not realized. This group has established the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® to offer guidance on matters needed for both our members and the broader community of those affected by neuromodulation devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The executive committee of the INS nominated faculty for this NACC® publication on the basis of expertise, publications, and career work on the issue. In addition, the faculty was chosen in consideration of diversity and inclusion of different career paths and demographic categories. Once chosen, the faculty was asked to grade current evidence and along with expert opinion create consensus recommendations to address the lapses in information on this topic.

RESULTS

The NACC® group established informative and authoritative recommendations on the salvage and optimization of care for those with indwelling devices. The recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion and will be expected to evolve as new data are generated for each topic.

CONCLUSIONS

NACC® guidance should be considered for any patient with less-than-optimal outcomes with a stimulation device implanted for treating chronic pain. Consideration should be given to these consensus points to salvage a potentially failed device before explant.

Quantitative Sensory Testing in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been used for decades to study sensory abnormalities in multiple conditions in which the somatosensory system is compromised, including pain. It is commonly used in pharmacologic studies on chronic pain but less so in conjunction with neuromodulation. This review aims to assess the utility of QST in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this narrative review, we searched PubMed for records of studies in which sensory testing has been performed as part of a clinical study on SCS from 1975 onward until October 2023. We focused on studies in which QST has been used to explore the effect of SCS on neuropathic, neuropathic-like, or mixed pain.

RESULTS

Our search identified 22 useful studies, all small and exploratory, using heterogeneous methods. Four studies used the full battery of validated German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain QST. There is emerging evidence that assessment dynamic mechanical allodynia (eight studies), and mechanical/thermal temporal summation of pain (eight studies) may have a role in quantifying the response to various SCS waveforms. There also were sporadic reports of improvement of sensory deficits in a proportion of patients with neuropathic pain that warrant further study.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the adoption of QST into future clinical research protocols, using either the full QST protocol or a less time-demanding short-form QST.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant.

METHODS

The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed.

RESULTS

At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group.

CONCLUSION

This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02924129.

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.

The Evolution of Surgical Technique in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Scoping Review

Since the advent of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), its operative technique has consistently advanced. We performed a scoping review of the literature regarding SCS operative techniques to highlight key advancements. To review, summarize, and highlight key changes in SCS implantation techniques since their inception. The authors performed a MEDLINE search inclusive of articles from 1967 to June 2023 including human and modeling studies written in English examining the role of trialing, intraoperative neuromonitoring, and surgical adaptations. Using the Rayyan platform, two reviewers performed a blinded title screen. Of the 960 articles, 197 were included in the title screen, 107 were included in the abstract review, and ultimately 69 articles met inclusion criteria. We examined the utility of trialing and found that historical controls showed significant efficacy, whereas recent results are more equivocal. We discuss the significant improvement in outcomes with intraoperative neuromonitoring for asleep SCS placement. We highlight technique improvements that led to significant reductions in infection, lead migration, and inadequate pain relief. Physicians implanting SCS systems for chronic pain management must continually refine their surgical techniques to keep up with this rapidly evolving therapy. In addition, through collaborative efforts of neuromodulators and industry, SCS is safer and more effective for patients suffering from chronic pain.

Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain

INTRODUCTION

A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a physiologic closed-loop (CL) feedback mechanism controlled by evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose and the accuracy of the stimulation, not possible with any other commercially available SCS systems. The report of objective spinal cord measurements is essential to increase the transparency and reproducibility of SCS therapy. Here, we report a cohort of the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial treated with CL-SCS for 36 months to evaluate the ECAP dose and accuracy that sustained the durability of clinical improvements.

METHODS

41 patients randomized to CL-SCS remained in their treatment allocation and were followed up through 36 months. Objective neurophysiological data, including measures of spinal cord activation, were analyzed. Pain relief was assessed by determining the proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥80% reduction in overall back and leg pain.

RESULTS

The performance of the feedback loop resulted in high-dose accuracy by keeping the elicited ECAP within 4µV of the target ECAP set on the system across all timepoints. Percent time stimulating above the ECAP threshold was >98%, and the ECAP dose was ≥19.3µV. Most patients obtained ≥50% reduction (83%) and ≥80% reduction (59%) in overall back and leg pain with a sustained response observed in the rates between 3-month and 36-month follow-up (p=0.083 and p=0.405, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a physiological adherence to supra-ECAP threshold therapy that generates pain inhibition provided by ECAP-controlled CL-SCS leads to durable improvements in pain intensity with no evidence of loss of therapeutic effect through 36-month follow-up.

History and Future of Spinal Cord Stimulation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for chronic neuropathic pain refractory to medical management. An SCS system comprised one or more leads implanted in the epidural space, typically connected to an implantable pulse generator. This review discusses the history, indications, surgical technique, technological advances, and future directions of SCS.

Real-world outcomes of single-stage spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain patients: A multicentre, European case series

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in treating chronic neuropathic pain. A screening trial is typically conducted prior to implantation to evaluate whether a patient is a good candidate for SCS. However, the need for a screening trial has been debated. We evaluated real-world clinical outcomes in patients who underwent a single-stage procedure to receive SCS therapy (i.e., no screening trial period) (SS-SCS).

Methods

This observational, multicentre, real-world consecutive case series evaluated SS-SCS chronic pain patients. Pain and other functional outcomes were collected as part of standard care by site personnel with no sponsor involvement. Assessments included Numerical rating scale (NRS), Percent Pain Relief (PPR) and EQ-5D-5L (EuroQol 5 Dimensions-5L), recorded prior to SCS and following implantation.

Results

A total of 171 chronic pain patients (mean age: 59.4; 53.2% females) underwent a single-stage procedure (mean last follow-up, 408 days) and were included in the analysis. A 5.0 ​± ​2.1-point improvement in overall pain was reported at 3 months and sustained until the last follow-up post-implantation (p ​< ​0.0001). At last follow-up, 50.3% (86/171) of patients reported an NRS pain score ≤3. Additionally, quality of life also improved (46.1-point change, from 70.2 to 25) at the last follow-up, based on EQ-5D-5L scores.

Conclusions

In routine clinical practice, SS-SCS can provide significant long-term pain relief and improve quality of life in chronic pain patients. Our results suggest that effective long-term outcomes and success may be achieved without a trial period prior to permanent implantation of an SCS system.