A Visual and Narrative Timeline Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation Technology and US Food and Drug Administration Milestones.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to present key technologic and regulatory milestones in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for managing chronic pain on a narrative timeline with visual representation, relying on original sources to the extent possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified technical advances in SCS that facilitated and enhanced treatment on the basis of scientific publications and approvals from the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We presented milestones limited to first use in key indications and in the context of new technology validation. We focused primarily on pain management, but other indications (eg, motor disorder in multiple sclerosis) were included when they affected technology development. RESULTS: We developed a comprehensive visual and narrative timeline of SCS technology and US FDA milestones. Since its conception in the 1960s, the science and technology of SCS neuromodulation have continuously evolved. Advances span lead design (from paddle-type to percutaneous, and increased electrode contacts) and stimulator technology (from wireless power to internally powered and rechargeable, with miniaturized components, and programmable multichannel devices), with expanding stimulation program flexibility (such as burst and kilohertz stimulation frequencies), as well as usage features (such as remote programming and magnetic resonance imaging conditional compatibility). CONCLUSIONS: This timeline represents the evolution of SCS technology alongside expanding FDA-approved indications for use.

Disease applications of spinal cord stimulation: Chronic nonmalignant pain.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition representing a significant burden for society. It is estimated 1 out of 10 people over the age of 30 that in the US have been diagnosed with neuropathic pain. Most of the available treatments for neuropathic pain have moderate efficacy over time which limit their use; therefore, other therapeutic approaches are needed for patients. Spinal cord stimulation is an established and cost-effective modality for treating severe chronic pain. In this article we will review the current approved indications for the use of spinal cord stimulation in the US and the novel therapeutic options which are now available using this therapy.

Postural Changes in Spinal Cord Stimulation Thresholds: Current and Voltage Sources.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) thresholds are known to change with body position; however, these changes have not been fully characterized for both "constant-voltage" and "constant-current" pulse generators. This study aimed to evaluate and quantify changes in psychophysical thresholds resulting from postural changes that may affect both conventional paresthesia-based SCS and novel paresthesia-free SCS technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured perceptual, usage, and discomfort thresholds in four body positions (prone, supine, sitting, standing) in 149 consecutive patients, with temporary lower thoracic percutaneous epidural electrodes placed for treating persistent low back and leg pain. We trialed 119 patients with constant-voltage stimulators and 30 patients with constant-current stimulators. RESULTS: Moving from supine to the sitting, standing, or prone positions caused all three thresholds (perceptual, usage, and discomfort) to increase by 22% to 34% for constant-voltage stimulators and by 44% to 82% for constant-current stimulators. Changing from a seated to a supine position caused stimulation to exceed discomfort threshold significantly more often for constant-current (87%) than for constant-voltage (63%) stimulators (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Posture-induced changes in SCS thresholds occurred consistently as patients moved from lying (supine or prone) to upright (standing or sitting) positions. These changes were more pronounced for constant-current than for constant-voltage pulse generators and more often led to stimulation-evoked discomfort. These observations are consistent with postural changes in spinal cord position measured in imaging studies, and with computer model predictions of neural recruitment for these different spinal cord positions. These observations have implications for the design, implantation, and clinical application of spinal cord stimulators, not only for conventional paresthesia-based SCS but also for paresthesia-free SCS.

A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms. APPROACH: We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain. RESULTS: We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England-A budget impact analysis.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000-£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be >£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems.

Glossary of Neurostimulation Terminology: A Collaborative Neuromodulation Foundation, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society Project.

OBJECTIVE: Consistent terminology is necessary to facilitate communication, but limited efforts have addressed this need in the neurostimulation community. We set out to provide a useful and updated glossary for our colleagues and prospective patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This collaborative effort of the Neuromodulation Foundation (NF), the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN), and the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) expands a glossary first published in 2007 for spinal cord stimulation. Peripheral nerve, dorsal root ganglion, deep brain, and motor cortex stimulation have been added to our scope. Volunteers from the collaborating entities used a nominal group process, consensus development panels, and the Delphi technique to reach consensus on inclusion and definition of terms. We created a glossary suitable for print and for expansion on the websites of the collaborating entities, which will offer the possibility of explaining definitions for a general audience. We excluded proprietary and brand names but included terms that have attracted proprietary interest without becoming brands or trademarks. We made an effort to be inclusive while also being concise and economical with space. RESULTS: We identified and defined 91 terms for this print edition and created an accompanying list of acronyms. As appropriate, we provided figures to illustrate the definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Although we refer to the glossary presented herein as the print edition, it can of course be viewed and searched electronically. NF, IoN, and INS will continue to collaborate on expanded web editions that can include hyperlinks for internal and external navigation. We believe this glossary will benefit our growing field by facilitating communication and mitigating inappropriate use of neurostimulation terms.

Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trial Protocols and Reports of Implantable Neurostimulation Devices: Protocol for the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim Extensions.

OBJECTIVES: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statements have been shown to improve the quality of reporting of trial protocols and randomized controlled trials. Extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements specific to certain interventions have the potential to address methodological considerations that would otherwise be overlooked. The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods to develop reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions will be developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation. The initial list of candidate items will be informed by findings from previous systematic reviews and published protocols and clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices. The candidate items will be included in a two-round Delphi survey. In the first round, participants will be invited to vote on the importance of each item and to suggest additional relevant items. In the second round, participants will be invited to re-score the items considering feedback received and the suggested additional items. A consensus meeting will then take place to discuss the results of the Delphi survey and reach consensus on the items to include in the extensions. DISCUSSION: Development of the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions has the potential to lead to improvements and increase in transparency of the reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices.

Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Proposal for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and ICD-11.

OBJECTIVE: For many medical professionals dealing with patients with persistent pain following spine surgery, the term Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as a diagnostic label is inadequate, misleading, and potentially troublesome. It misrepresents causation. Alternative terms have been suggested, but none has replaced FBSS. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) published a revised classification of chronic pain, as part of the new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), which has been accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO). This includes the term Chronic pain after spinal surgery (CPSS), which is suggested as a replacement for FBSS. METHODS: This article provides arguments and rationale for a replacement definition. In order to propose a broadly applicable yet more precise and clinically informative term, an international group of experts was established. RESULTS: 14 candidate replacement terms were considered and ranked. The application of agreed criteria reduced this to a shortlist of four. A preferred option-Persistent spinal pain syndrome-was selected by a structured workshop and Delphi process. We provide rationale for using Persistent spinal pain syndrome and a schema for its incorporation into ICD-11. We propose the adoption of this term would strengthen the new ICD-11 classification. CONCLUSIONS: This project is important to those in the fields of pain management, spine surgery, and neuromodulation, as well as patients labeled with FBSS. Through a shift in perspective, it could facilitate the application of the new ICD-11 classification and allow clearer discussion among medical professionals, industry, funding organizations, academia, and the legal profession.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer diagnosis and service access in New Zealand-a country pursuing COVID-19 elimination.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cancer services globally. New Zealand has pursued an elimination strategy to COVID-19, reducing (but not eliminating) this disruption. Early in the pandemic, our national Cancer Control Agency (Te Aho o Te Kahu) began monitoring and reporting on service access to inform national and regional decision-making. In this manuscript we use high-quality, national-level data to describe changes in cancer registrations, diagnosis and treatment over the course of New Zealand's response to COVID-19. METHODS: Data were sourced (2018-2020) from national collections, including cancer registrations, inpatient hospitalisations and outpatient events. Cancer registrations, diagnostic testing (gastrointestinal endoscopy), surgery (colorectal, lung and prostate surgeries), medical oncology access (first specialist appointments [FSAs] and intravenous chemotherapy attendances) and radiation oncology access (FSAs and megavoltage attendances) were extracted. Descriptive analyses of count data were performed, stratified by ethnicity (Indigenous Maori, Pacific Island, non-Maori/non-Pacific). FINDINGS: Compared to 2018-2019, there was a 40% decline in cancer registrations during New Zealand's national shutdown in March-April 2020, increasing back to pre-shutdown levels over subsequent months. While there was a sharp decline in endoscopies, pre-shutdown volumes were achieved again by August. The impact on cancer surgery and medical oncology has been minimal, but there has been an 8% year-to-date decrease in radiation therapy attendances. With the exception of lung cancer, there is no evidence that existing inequities in service access between ethnic groups have been exacerbated by COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in New Zealand has been largely mitigated. The New Zealand experience may provide other agencies or organisations with a sense of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services within a country that has actively pursued elimination of COVID-19. FUNDING: Data were provided by New Zealand's Ministry of Health, and analyses completed by Te Aho o Te Kahu staff.

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

Allergy Considerations in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices.

OBJECTIVES: Allergic reactions are rare and poorly understood complications of neuromodulation device implantation. There are currently no guidelines for management of allergic reactions to these devices and their components. Here we review the published cases of allergic reactions to implanted neuromodulatory devices and leverage the experiences of other specialties that deal with similar complications to formulate recommendations for prevention and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review and assessment of the literature. RESULTS: Allergic reactions to a number of implantable devices have been observed and published. In dentistry and orthopedics, metals such as nickel are the most frequent cause of allergic reactions. In interventional cardiology, where devices closely resemble neuromodulatory devices, titanium, silicone, and polyurethanes are the most common causes of allergic reactions. In neurosurgery, allergic reactions to implantable neuromodulatory devices are rare, and we summarize 13 cases published to date. Such allergic reactions generally present as local dermatitis, erythema, and pruritus, which can be difficult to distinguish from surgical site infection. In one published case, symptoms resolved with corticosteroid treatment, but all other cases required explantation. The successful reimplantation with a modified device was reported in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be screened for a personal history of contact allergy before implantation procedures. A multidisciplinary approach to suspected cases of postoperative allergic reactions involving collaboration between neurosurgeons and other implanting physicians, dermatologists or allergists, and device manufacturers is recommended. In cases where an allergic reaction is suspected, an infectious etiology should be ruled out first. Clinical suspicion can then be supported with the use of patch testing, interpreted by an experienced dermatologist or allergist. If patch testing supports an allergic etiology, the implanting physician and the device manufacturer can work together to modify the device for safe reimplantation.

Cost-Effectiveness Model Shows Superiority of Wireless Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation Without a Separate Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of wireless spinal cord stimulation (Wireless SCS) with single stage "direct to permanent" implantation vs. screening with temporary electrodes and an external pulse generator followed by implantation of a system for long-term use (IPG SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a cost model that takes a 2019 United States (U.S.) payer perspective and is based on IPG SCS cost models for subjects with chronic back and/or leg pain. Our six-month decision tree includes the screening trial period (success ≥50% relief) and leads to various levels of pain relief with or without complications for IPG SCS and Wireless SCS and without complications for conventional medical management (CMM). Every three months in the follow-on 15-year Markov model (with costs and quality-adjusted life years discounted 3.5% annually), subjects remain stable or transition to deteriorated health or death. Subjects who fail SCS receive CMM. After 60 Markov cycles, a 100,000-sample simulation reveals the impact of maximum willingness-to-pay (WTP) from $10,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year on net monetary benefit (NMB). Sensitivity analyses considered the impact of the Wireless SCS screening success rate, Wireless SCS device cost, and IPG SCS device longevity. RESULTS: Compared with IPG SCS, Wireless SCS offers higher clinical effectiveness at a lower cost and a higher NMB for our WTP thresholds and is, thus, dominant. Wireless SCS is also cost-effective compared with CMM. Results remain robust with 1) Wireless SCS screening success rates as low as 85% (dominant), 2) the cost of the Wireless SCS devices as high as $55,000 (cost-effective), and 3) IPG SCS devices lasting 12 years (dominant). CONCLUSIONS: In this model, compared with IPG SCS or with CMM, Wireless SCS is a superior strategy.

Two cycles of adjuvant carboplatin for clinical stage 1 testicular seminoma in New Zealand centres: A retrospective analysis of efficacy and long-term events.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant carboplatin reduces relapse risk in clinical stage 1 (CS1) seminoma, though there is a paucity of long-term safety data. AIM: Our objective was to report long-term outcomes of two cycles of adjuvant carboplatin dosed at area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) of 7. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis on treatment and outcomes of patients with CS1 seminoma who received adjuvant carboplatin from 2000 to 2016 at our centres in the Midland Region, New Zealand. Of 159 patients, median age 39 years, 153 received two cycles of carboplatin: 147 dosed at AUC7 and 6 at AUC6. Six patients had one cycle of carboplatin AUC7. One patient relapsed at 22 months and died of bleomycin pneumonitis 2 months after achieving a complete response with BEP chemotherapy. Neither RTI (present in 21.3%) nor tumor size >4 cm (in 43.3%) was predictive of relapse. Median follow-up was 106 months. At 15 years, outcomes were: relapse-free survival 99.4%, overall survival 91.4%, disease-specific survival 100%, subsequent malignant neoplasm rate 7.6%, and second testicular germ cell tumor rate 3.85%. One patient had persistent grade 1 thrombocytopenia at 46 months. CONCLUSIONS: These data add to the body of evidence that two cycles of carboplatin AUC7 is safe and effective adjuvant treatment for CS1 seminoma.

Examining the Need to Standardize Implanted Stimulator Connectors: NANS Survey Results.

INTRODUCTION: Connectors between implanted stimulator electrodes and pulse generators allow revisions, including battery changes or generator upgrades, to proceed without disturbing uninvolved components, such as the electrode. As new devices are introduced, however, connector incompatibility, even with updated hardware from the same manufacturer, can lead to additional procedures, expense, and morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the example of the cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator industry, the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN) met to explore the possibility of creating connector standards for implanted neurostimulation devices. At a subsequent meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, which coordinates the development of such standards, industry representatives asked for data defining the need for a new standard. Accordingly, IoN prepared an online survey to be sent to the North American Neuromodulation Society mailing list regarding experience with the connectivity of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) generators and electrodes. RESULTS: The 87 respondents of 9657 surveyed included 77 clinicians, who reported a total of 42,572 SCS implants and revisions. More than a quarter of revisions (2741 of 9935) required the interconnection of devices made by separate manufacturers, in most cases (n = 1528) to take advantage of a new feature (e.g., rechargeability, new waveform) or because an original component could not be replaced (n = 642). Connector adapters provided by manufacturers were used in less than half (n = 1246) of these cases. Nearly all (94%) of the clinicians agreed that standardized connectors should be developed for SCS, and 86% opined that standardized connectors should be developed for other neurostimulation therapies. CONCLUSION: Those who responded to our survey support the development of standard connectors for implanted stimulators, with voluntary compliance by manufacturers, to mitigate the need for adapters and facilitate interchanging components when appropriate. Other advantages to patients and manufacturers might accrue from the adoption of standards, as technology evolves and diversifies.