Validation of a holistic composite outcome measure for the evaluation of chronic pain interventions.

Introduction: Chronic pain is a personal experience influenced by multiple biopsychosocial factors. Using a pain intensity measure alone to assess the effectiveness of a chronic pain intervention fails to fully evaluate its impact on the multifaceted chronic pain experience. The holistic minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a composite outcome developed to provide a comprehensive assessment of chronic pain in response to intervention, across 5 outcome domains: pain intensity, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, physical, and emotional function. To focus on domains where the individual need is greatest, the holistic MCID reflects the cumulative MCID averaged over only the domains where subjects were impaired preintervention. Objectives: To assess the internal and construct validity of the Holistic MCID score to inform its future use as an evidence-based tool. Methods: This validation study was undertaken using data from the EVOKE trial with 111 patients up to 24-month follow-up. Internal consistency of the holistic MCID was assessed using Cronbach alpha statistic and dimensional exploration using principal component analysis. Results: The holistic MCID measure demonstrated strong internal consistency with Cronbach alpha >0.7 at all follow-ups. Principal component analysis showed one overarching holistic dimension to be present in the composite. Construct validity was demonstrated by an increase in the holistic MCID score being associated with both increased Patients' Global Impression of Change, EuroQol visual analogue scale score, and each of the outcome domains in a "leave-one-out" analysis (all P < 0.001). Conclusion: The holistic MCID provides a valid measure for the comprehensive, personalized assessment of response after a chronic pain intervention. The validity of the holistic MCID requires further confirmation in other chronic pain populations and with different interventions.

High-Frequency 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides Long-term (24-Month) Improvements in Diabetes-Related Pain and Quality of Life for Patients with Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: The SENZA-PDN study evaluated high-frequency 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Over 24 months, 10-kHz SCS provided sustained pain relief and improved health-related quality of life. This report presents additional outcomes from the SENZA-PDN study, focusing on diabetes-related pain and quality of life outcomes. METHODS: The SENZA-PDN study randomized 216 participants with refractory PDN to receive either conventional medical management (CMM) or 10-kHz SCS plus CMM (10-kHz SCS + CMM), allowing crossover after six months if pain relief was insufficient. Postimplantation assessments at 24 months were completed by 142 participants with a permanent 10-kHz SCS implant, comprising 84 initial and 58 crossover recipients. Measures included the Brief Pain Inventory for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (BPI-DPN), Diabetes-Related Quality of Life (DQOL), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Over 24 months, 10-kHz SCS treatment significantly reduced pain severity by 66.9% (P < .001; BPI-DPN) and pain interference with mood and daily activities by 65.8% (P < .001; BPI-DPN). Significant improvements were also observed in overall DQOL score (P < .001) and GAF score (P < .001), and 91.5% of participants reported satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency 10-kHz SCS significantly decreased pain severity and provided additional clinically meaningful improvements in DQOL and overall functioning for patients with PDN. The robust and sustained benefits over 24 months, coupled with high participant satisfaction, highlight that 10-kHz SCS is an efficacious and comprehensive therapy for patients with PDN.

Long-Term Treatment of Chronic Postamputation Pain With Bioelectric Nerve Block: Twelve-Month Results of the Randomized, Double-Blinded, Cross-Over QUEST Study.

OBJECTIVE: The multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-sham controlled trial (high-freQUEncy nerve block for poST amputation pain [QUEST]) was conducted to show the safety and efficacy of a novel, peripherally placed high-frequency nerve block (HFNB) system in treating chronic postamputation pain (PAP) in patients with lower limb amputations. The primary outcomes from QUEST were reported previously. This study presents the long-term, single-cross-over, secondary outcomes of on-demand HFNB treatment for chronic PAP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After the three-month randomized period, subjects in the active-sham group were crossed over to receive therapy for 12 months. Subjects self-administered HFNB therapy as needed and reported their pain (numerical rating scale [NRS]; range, 1-10) before and 30 and 120 minutes after each treatment. Pain medication use was reported throughout the study. Pain-days per week and quality of life (QOL) were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded for all subjects implanted for 12 months. RESULTS: Of 180 subjects implanted in QUEST, 164 (91%) were included in the cross-over period, and 146 (82%) completed follow-up. By month 12, average NRS pain in the combined cohort was reduced by 2.3 ± 2.2 points (95% CI, 1.7-2.8; p < 0.0001) 30 minutes after treatment and 2.9 ± 2.4 points (95% CI, 2.2-3.6; p < 0.0001) 120 minutes after treatment. Mean pain-days per week were significantly reduced (-3.5 ± 2.7 days; p < 0.001), and subject daily opioid use was reduced by 6.7 ± 29.0 morphine equivalent dose from baseline to month 12 (p = 0.013). Mean BPI-interference scores (QOL) improved by 2.7 ± 2.7 points from baseline (p < 0.001). The incidence of nonserious AEs and serious AEs was 72% (130/180) and 42% (76/180), respectively; serious device-related AEs occurred in 15 of 180 subjects (8%). CONCLUSION: Overall, HFNB delivered directly to the damaged peripheral nerve provided sustained, on-demand relief of acute PAP exacerbations, reduced opioid utilization, and improved QOL for patients with lower limb amputations with chronic PAP.

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.

Primary 3-Month Outcomes of a Double-Blind Randomized Prospective Study (The QUEST Study) Assessing Effectiveness and Safety of Novel High-Frequency Electric Nerve Block System for Treatment of Post-Amputation Pain.

Purpose: This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active sham-controlled pivotal study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of high-frequency nerve block treatment for chronic post-amputation and phantom limb pain. Patients and Methods: QUEST enrolled 180 unilateral lower-limb amputees with severe post-amputation pain, 170 of whom were implanted with the Altius device, were randomized 1:1 to active-sham or treatment groups and reached the primary endpoint. Responders were those subjects who received ≥50% pain relief 30 min after treatment in ≥50% of their self-initiated treatment sessions within the 3-month randomized period. Differences between the active treatment and sham control groups as well as numerous secondary outcomes were determined. Results: At 30-min, (primary outcome), 24.7% of the treatment group were responders compared to 7.1% of the control group (p=0.002). At 120-minutes following treatment, responder rates were 46.8% in the Treatment group and 22.2% in the Control group (p=0.001). Improvement in Brief Pain Inventory interference score of 2.3 ± 0.29 was significantly greater in treatment group than the 1.3 ± 0.26-point change in the Control group (p = 0.01). Opioid usage, although not significantly different, trended towards a greater reduction in the treatment group than in the control group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups. Conclusion: The primary outcomes of the study were met, and the majority of Treatment patients experienced a substantial improvement in PAP (regardless of meeting the study definition of a responder). The significant in PAP was associated with significantly improved QOL metrics, and a trend towards reduced opioid utilization compared to Control. These data indicate that Altius treatment represents a significant therapeutic advancement for lower-limb amputees suffering from chronic PAP.

Network Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neurostimulation Interventions for Chronic Nonsurgical Refractory Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Different types of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have been evaluated for the management of chronic nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). A direct comparison between the different types of SCS or between closed-loop SCS with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with NSRBP has not been previously conducted, and therefore, their relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, network meta-analysis (NMA) and economic evaluation of closed-loop SCS compared with fixed-output SCS and CMM for patients with NSRBP. METHODS: Databases were searched to September 8, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of SCS for NSRBP were included. The results of the studies were combined using fixed-effect NMA models. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service with results reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Closed-loop SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (mean difference [MD] 32.72 [95% CrI 15.69-49.78]) and improvements in secondary outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) compared with fixed-output SCS at 6-month follow-up. Compared with CMM, both closed-loop and fixed-output SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (closed-loop SCS vs. CMM MD 101.58 [95% CrI 83.73-119.48]; fixed-output SCS versus CMM MD 68.86 [95% CrI 63.43-74.31]) and improvements in secondary outcomes (ODI and HRQoL). Cost-utility analysis showed that closed-loop SCS dominates fixed-output SCS and CMM, and fixed-output SCS also dominates CMM. DISCUSSION: Current evidence showed that closed-loop and fixed-output SCS provide more benefits and cost-savings compared with CMM for patients with NSRBP.

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.

Impact of temperature on the magnitude and duration of relief after lumbar facets medial branch nerves radiofrequency ablation: a randomized double-blinded study.

INTRODUCTION: There are numerous studies appraising the variables that may influence the clinical outcomes after lumbar thermal radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Expanding the lesion size may increase the likelihood of capturing the target nerves in the lesion, thereby increasing the technical success rate of RFA. However, our literature search has failed to identify a consensus on the optimal target temperature. A retrospective study demonstrated that there seems to be significant functional improvement associated with the temperature of 90°C compared with 80°C. The authors prospectively studied the subject in a double-blinded randomized fashion. METHODS: Patients undergoing RFA for lumbar facetogenic pain were randomized in two cohorts (80°C and 90°C). Physicians and patients were blinded to the temperature used. The primary outcome was self-reported pain scores up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included: self-reported functional improvement, duration of relief as measured by the time before repeat ablation of the same medial branches nerves, opioids' consumption, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Both groups reported pain improvement in all follow-up time points. Overall, both groups achieved statistically significant pain reduction (p<0.05). The median time to repeat RFA in the 80°C group was 112 (49-252) days, while it was 217 (198-348) days in the 90°C group (p<0.04). The univariate analysis emphasized that the RFA temperature is a statistically significant factor for pain improvement of more than 50%, OR 2.7 (1.1 to 6.6) p value=0.031. CONCLUSION: RFA has been demonstrated as an effective therapeutic modality for lumbar facetogenic back pain. Yet, the several factors involved in determining a favorable outcome of this procedure require further research and optimization. This prospective double-blinded randomized trial demonstrated that RFA at both temperatures (80°C, 90°C) provided significance at all the time periods examined. However, RFA at 90°C was superior to 80°C in regard to the duration of relief.

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.

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 and physician radiation exposure during minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A prospective assessment of X-ray exposure risks.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild®) is becoming a popular procedure for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum (LF). The mild® procedure is commonly performed under live fluoroscopic guidance and carries a risk of radiation exposure to the patient and healthcare. METHODS: One physician performed mild® on 41 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management from October 2019 to December 2021, while wearing a radiation exposure monitor (Mirion Technologies). Mean fluoroscopy time, mean exposure per case, and mean exposure per unilateral level decompressed were the primary outcomes measured. The secondary outcome was to provide a comparison of radiation exposure during similar fluoroscopically guided procedures. RESULTS: Mean patient fluoroscopy exposure time was 2.1 min ±0.9 (range: 1.1-5.6) fluoroscopy time per unilateral level decompressed. The mean patient radiation skin exposure from mild® was 1.1 ± 0.9 mGym2, and the mean total dose was 142.3 ± 108.6 mGy per procedure. On average, the physician was exposed to an average deep tissue exposure of 4.1 ± 3.2 mRem, 2.9 ± 2.2 mRem estimated eye exposure, and 14.7 ± 11.0 mRem shallow tissue exposure per unilateral level decompressed. An individual physician would exceed the annual exposure limit of 5 Rem after approximately 610 mild® procedures per year. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an attempt to quantify the radiation exposure to the physician and patient during the mild® procedure. Compared with other fluoroscopically guided pain management procedures, patient and physician radiation exposure during mild® was low.

Long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: 24-Month results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treating refractory painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). METHODS: The SENZA-PDN study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that compared conventional medical management (CMM) alone with 10 kHz SCS plus CMM (10 kHz SCS+CMM) in 216 patients with refractory PDN. After 6 months, participants with insufficient pain relief could cross over to the other treatment. In total, 142 patients with a 10 kHz SCS system were followed for 24 months, including 84 initial 10 kHz SCS+CMM recipients and 58 crossovers from CMM alone. Assessments included pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), sleep, and neurological function. Investigators assessed neurological function via sensory, reflex, and motor tests. They identified a clinically meaningful improvement relative to the baseline assessment if there was a significant persistent improvement in neurological function that impacted the participant's well-being and was attributable to a neurological finding. RESULTS: At 24 months, 10 kHz SCS reduced pain by a mean of 79.9% compared to baseline, with 90.1% of participants experiencing ≥50% pain relief. Participants had significantly improved HRQoL and sleep, and 65.7% demonstrated clinically meaningful neurological improvement. Five (3.2%) SCS systems were explanted due to infection. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 months, 10 kHz SCS provided durable pain relief and significant improvements in HRQoL and sleep. Furthermore, the majority of participants demonstrated neurological improvement. These long-term data support 10 kHz SCS as a safe and highly effective therapy for PDN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03228420.

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.

Defining the Patient with Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Real-World Implications for Diagnosis and Effective Clinical Management.

There is an enormous body of literature that has identified the intervertebral disc as a potent pain generator. However, with regard to lumbar degenerative disc disease, the specific diagnostic criteria lack clarity and fail to capture the primary components which include axial midline low back pain with or without non-radicular/non-sciatic referred leg pain in a sclerotomal distribution. In fact, there is no specific ICD-10-CM diagnostic code to classify and define discogenic pain as a unique source of pain distinct from other recognized sources of chronic low back pain including facetogenic, neurocompressive including herniation and/or stenosis, sacroiliac, vertebrogenic, and psychogenic. All of these other sources have well-defined ICD-10-CM codes. Corresponding codes for discogenic pain remain absent from the diagnostic coding vernacular. The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) has proposed a modernization of ICD-10-CM codes to specifically define pain associated with lumbar and lumbosacral degenerative disc disease. The proposed codes would also allow the pain to be characterized by location: lumbar region only, leg only, or both. Successful implementation of these codes would benefit both physicians and payers in distinguishing, tracking, and improving algorithms and treatments for discogenic pain associated with intervertebral disc degeneration.

The Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Targeted Drug Delivery in the Management of Chronic Pain: Validation of an Outcomes Predictive Formula.

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, Mekhail et al published a formula that predicted the likelihood of a successful outcome for those who undergo spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for long-term pain management, based on retrospectively collected clinical and demographic data from one major medical center. The aim of this study is to validate such a predictive formula, prospectively, in a cohort of patients from multiple medical practices that are more representative of real-life clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the study, 939 patients who underwent successful SCS or targeted drug delivery (TDD) trials at multiple independent medical centers in the USA were enrolled into the Medtronic product surveillance registry data base before they underwent SCS or TDD device implantation, from 2018 to 2020. The registry data were collected prospectively but not specifically for this study. The data examined included demographic information, pain diagnosis, pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), Oswestry Disability Index scores, and quality-of-life scores at baseline and six months after implant. Because our goal is to validate the previously published predictive formula, in addition to the outcomes data previously mentioned, we collected the variables necessary for such a task: sex, age, depression, the presence of neuropathic pain, spine-related pain diagnosis, and persistent spinal pain syndrome "post laminectomy syndrome." Spine-related pain diagnosis included subjects with chronic spine pain who never had back surgery and whose pain was not radicular nor neuropathic. RESULTS: Of 619 patients with SCS, 138 (22%) achieved ≥ 50% reductions of the baseline VAS at six months. The logistic model predicts SCS success with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 80% in the current validation data set. Of 320 patients with TDD, 147 (46%) achieved ≥ 50% reduction of the baseline VAS at six months. The logistic model predicts TDD success with an AUC of 78% in the current validation data set. CONCLUSION: The study provides real life validation of the previously published predictive formula(4).

Pain Management Interventions for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous and minimally invasive interventions for chronic low back pain. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials published in the past 20 years reporting on radiofrequency ablation of the basivertebral, disk annulus and facet nerve structures, steroid injection of the disk, facet joint, and medial branch, biological therapies, and multifidus muscle stimulation. Outcomes evaluated included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) scores, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates. Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation was chosen as the subject of comparison to all other therapies using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. BVN ablation was found to provide statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores for 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up ( P ≤0.05). Biological therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation were the only 2 treatments with both VAS and ODI outcomes not significantly different from BVN ablation at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. All outcomes found to be statistically significant represented inferior results to those of BVN ablation. Insufficient data precluded meaningful comparisons of SF-36 and EQ-5D scores. The SAE rates for all therapies and all reported time points were not significantly different from BVN ablation except for biological therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: BVN ablation, biological therapy, and multifidus stimulation all provide significant, durable improvements in both pain and disability compared with other interventions, which provided only short-term pain relief. Studies on BVN ablation reported no SAEs, a significantly better result than for studies of biological therapy and multifidus stimulation.

ReActiv8 Stimulation Therapy vs. Optimal Medical Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial for the Treatment of Intractable Mechanical Chronic Low Back Pain (RESTORE Trial Protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally. The role of restorative neurostimulation in the treatment of patients with refractory mechanical CLBP and multifidus muscle dysfunction has been established in one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and several clinical studies that demonstrated both safety and clinical benefit. This post-market trial provides a direct comparison to optimized medical management to test the hypothesis that the addition of restorative neurostimulation to current care paradigms results in significant improvements in back pain-related disability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will include people who have reported significant levels of back pain and back pain-related disability with symptoms that have persisted for longer than 6 months prior to enrollment and resulted in pain on most days in the 12 months prior to enrollment. Eligible patients will be randomized to either optimal medical management or optimal medical management plus ReActiv8® restorative neurostimulation therapy. Patient-reported outcomes will be collected at regular intervals out to the 1-year primary endpoint, at which time the patients in the control arm will be offered implantation with the ReActiv8 system. Assessment of each group will continue for an additional year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The RESTORE trial follows the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The WCG IRB acts as the Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) for most sites and some sites will receive local IRB approval prior to enrollment of patients. Each IRB assessed the protocol and related documentation. The protocol complies with Good Clinical Practice (GCP). All patients provide written informed consent to participate in the trial. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version C, 07 Sep 2022. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration number. NCT04803214 registered March 17, 2021.

Restorative neurostimulation is a treatment for intractable CLBP associated with dysfunction of the multifidus muscle, which normally provides functional stability to the lumbar spine. To date, ReActiv8^® (Mainstay Medical) is the only neurostimulator specifically developed and approved for this indication. Electrical stimulation of the muscle's nerve overrides the dysfunction and reactivates it. Several prior studies demonstrated that the most of participants experienced clinically substantial and durable symptom relief compared to baseline. This protocol describes a second RCT in which all participants are on individualized optimal medical management and half of them are randomly selected to be implanted with a ReActiv8 system to receive restorative neurostimulation. The purpose of this design is to measure if there is any clinical benefit of restorative neurostimulation over individualized optimal medical management alone over the course of a full year.

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.

A Clinical Evaluation of the Accuracy of an Intrathecal Drug Delivery Device.

INTRODUCTION: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) devices are used to treat severe pain and spasticity refractory to conventional medical management. Although off-label medications and drug admixtures are commonly used in clinical practice and recommended by international guidelines, manufacturers state that this practice can result in device failure. The impact of off-label drugs and drug combinations on pump accuracy has hitherto never been assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multinational, three-center, retrospective review of patient records was undertaken. The inclusion criterion was the presence of an ITDD device implantation in adult patients, with the pump in situ for the expected battery lifespan. Residual drug volumes at each refill, drug mixtures and concentrations, and rate and flow pattern of the pump (simple or flex) were recorded. A normalized flow rate ratio was calculated (actual to theoretical flow rate). The impact of nonapproved drugs, battery life, pump size, and flow program on drug delivery accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Data from 1402 pump refills were collected (73 patients). The overall mean accuracy ratio was 0.995 (95% CI = 0.986-1.004). The ratio for approved drug status was 0.990 vs 0.997 in nonapproved, with a difference of -0.007 (-0.032 to 0.017). At the tenth centile for remaining battery life (14 months), the ratio was 0.983 vs 1.009 for the 90th centile (69 months), with a difference of -0.026 (-0.038 to -0.014). The ratio for flex administration was 0.982 vs 1.006 for simple, with a difference of -0.024 (-0.040 to -0.008). For pump size of 40 mL, the ratio was 0.975 vs 1.010 for 20 mL, with a difference of -0.035 (-0.063 to -0.008). The 95% prediction interval for individual refill ratios was ±0.15. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, the ITDD pumps retained high levels of accuracy and acceptable precision across their lifespan despite using unapproved drugs or admixtures and under various flow modes and rates.