Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments. METHODS: The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria. RESULTS: The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

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.

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.

Medical Cannabis: A Review from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Cannabinoids have recently gained a renewed interest due to their potential applicability to various medical conditions, specifically the management of chronic pain conditions. Unlike many other medications, medical cannabis is not associated with serious adverse events, and no overdose deaths have been reported. However, both safety and efficacy data for medical cannabis treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are lacking. Therefore, representatives from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience summarize the evidence, according to level and grade, for medical cannabis treatment of several different pain conditions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has prospective evidentiary support for the use of medical cannabis. Although 3 large and well-designed randomized controlled trials investigated cannabis treatment of cancer-related pain, the evidence yielded only a grade D recommendation. Neuropathic pain has been investigated in prospective studies, but a lack of high-quality evidence renders cannabis treatment for this indication a grade C recommendation. Both safety and efficacy data are lacking for use of medical cannabis to treat chronic nonmalignant pain conditions.

Early Functional Outcomes in Low Back Pain Subjects with a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device: REFINE Study 6-Month Results.

Purpose: Lumbar interlaminar decompression with interspinous fixation is an established safe and effective treatment for spinal stenosis. Early maintenance of improvements in pain intensity and function are critical for durability of symptom relief. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of minimally invasive treatments for low back pain during the early period after treatment and their utility in setting the course for longer term success. Patients and Methods: This study utilized patient evaluations at 3- and 6-months following treatment and is part of an actively enrolling, institutional review board (IRB) approved, single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label 12-month study. Clinical efficacy was assessed primarily using the change from baseline in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and leg pain during walking and standing, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and secondarily using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1. The safety endpoints were the adverse events and reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Results: At 6-month post-op, 76%, 62%-64%, and 64% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful, and statistically significant improvement in their pain as defined by ZCQ, VAS (back and leg), and ODI, respectively. In addition, 78% of patients noted improvement in PGIC. Two procedure-related adverse events were noted which fully resolved without surgical intervention. Conclusion: This 6-month interim analysis at 42% enrollment of patients was conducted to determine prolonged safety and efficacy of the interspinous fusion device. Our analysis showed a sustained improvement in clinical efficacy, and safety endpoints, when compared to the 3-months evaluations, across both interventional pain and neurosurgery specialties.

Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation: A Proposal for Standardization in Fellowship and Training Programs.

The need to be competent in neuromodulation is and should be a prerequisite prior to completing a fellowship in interventional pain medicine. Unfortunately, many programs lack acceptable candidates for these advanced therapies, and fellows may not receive adequate exposure to neuromodulation procedures. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) desires to create a consensus of experts to set a minimum standard of competence for neurostimulation procedures, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). The executive board of ASPN accepted nominations for colleagues with excellence in the subject matter of neuromodulation and physician education. This diverse group used peer-reviewed literature and, based on grading of evidence and expert opinion, developed critical consensus guides for training that all accredited fellowship programs should adopt. For each consensus point, transparency and recusal were used to eliminate bias, and an author was nominated for evidence grading oversight and bias control. Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation sets a standard for neuromodulation training in pain fellowship training programs. The consensus panel has determined several recommendations to improve care in the United States for patients undergoing neuromodulation. As neuromodulation training in the United States has evolved dramatically, these therapies have become ubiquitous in pain medicine. Unfortunately, fellowship programs and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain program requirements have not progressed training to match the demands of modern advancements. PEAK sets a new standard for fellowship training and presents thirteen practice areas vital for physician competence in neuromodulation.

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.

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.

Clinical Longevity of 106,462 Rechargeable and Primary Cell Spinal Cord Stimulators: Real World Study in the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are available with either primary cell (PC) or rechargeable cell (RC) batteries. Although RC systems are proposed to have a battery longevity upward of nine years, in comparison with four years for PC systems, there are few studies of longevity of SCS in the real world. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, nonrandomized, retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries who received neurostimulator implants in the outpatient hospital. This study used Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2020. The clinical longevity of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), defined as the duration from implant until removal for any reason, was compared between PC and RC devices. Life distribution analysis was used to approximate device lifespan. The secondary analysis separated removals into explant or replacements. The statistics were adjusted for relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: A total of 25,856 PC and 79,606 RC systems were included in the study. At seven years after implant, 53.8% of PC IPGs and 55.0% of RC IPGs remained in use. The life distribution modeling analysis projected a median lifespan of 8.2 years for PC and 9.0 years for RC devices. The rate of explant was lower for PC devices (19.2%) than for RC devices (22.0%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.082), whereas the rate of replacements was higher for PC devices (33.7%) than for RC devices (29.5%, HR = 1.31, p < 0.001). An analysis of the battery type used in device replacements showed an increasing adoption of PC devices over time. CONCLUSIONS: This large, retrospective, real-world analysis of Medicare claims data demonstrated that the clinical longevity of neurostimulator devices is similar for PC and RC batteries. In the past, clinicians may have defaulted to RC devices based on the assumption that they provided extended battery life. Considering this longevity data, clinicians should now consider the choice between PC and RC devices based on other individual factors pertinent to the patient experience and not on purported longevity claims.

A Prospective, Observational, Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Multicenter Study Measuring Functional Outcomes in a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device in Subjects with Low Back Pain: REFINE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar degenerative disease and the accompanying pain and dysfunction affect a significant number of patients in the USA and around the world. As surgery and innovation are moving towards minimally invasive treatments, this study looks to explore interspinous fixation as a standalone posterior approach to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease in the presence of neurogenic claudication and spinal stenosis. METHODS: This study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and is actively enrolling in a single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label fashion. Patients are followed with reporting at 3 months, and 12 months for primary endpoint analysis of efficacy and safety based on improved composite endpoints relative to baseline, with success defined as greater than 20 mm back pain reduction in Visual Analog Scale 100 mm (VAS) while standing or walking, greater than 20 mm leg pain reduction in VAS while standing or walking, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) improvement of 0.5 or greater in two or three domains, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement of a least 10 points and no reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Secondary endpoints included a multidimensional assessment in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1 and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: In this interim 3-month analysis, 82% of patients reported they were improved from the procedure, while 65% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful improvement in their pain and function, as defined by the VAS, ODI, and ZCQ. There was only one adverse event and no complications were identified at last clinic research follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: This interim analysis of the first 20% of the enrolled patients out to 3 months was to determine safety of the procedure and report on adverse events, acknowledging the heterogeneity of surgical specialty. Further follow-up and greater numbers are needed as the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05504499.

A post-market, randomized, controlled, prospective study evaluating intrathecal pain medication versus conventional medical management in the non-cancer, refractory, chronic pain population (PROSPER).

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy has been limited by non-randomized prospective studies, particularly for those suffering from non-cancer. Further, no prospective, randomized studies investigating the efficacy, safety, and utilization of intrathecal polyanalgesic consensus guidelines exist. METHODS: After IRB approval, patients were enrolled in a 1:1 fashion for intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) or conventional management (CMM), employing standard of care, excluding intrathecal drug delivery, based on the principal investigator's discretion. They were followed 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Assessments included PROMIS 29, NPRS, and PriceMonkey. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were screened, 54 patients were enrolled: 26 to IDD and 28 to CMM. At 3 months, there was no measurable difference in pain improvement in either subgroups within the CMM for chronic pain-related syndromes (CPRS) or failed back and related spine disorders (FBRS). For the IDD, early and maintained benefit from the baseline was statistically achieved. Cost analysis of pump to CMM breakeven was 4.5 months. There were no adverse events related to compounded intrathecal medications. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized prospective, multicenter study investigating the safety, cost, and efficacy of off-label medications for intrathecal therapy, as compared to conventional management, and suggests early detection of improvement, cost savings, safety of intrathecal compounded medication use, and safety and efficacy of employing the PACC guidance.

Six Month Interim Outcomes from SECURE: A Single arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Novel Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac joint disease is a prominent diagnosis across the world. A novel fixation technique employing a posterior approach, single point, bone allograft transfixation has proven to be helpful anecdotally. The purpose of this is study is to investigate prospectively the safety and efficacy of this approach. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, single arm study was performed after patient identification and treatment with the novel posterior fusion, single-point transfixation system and followed for 24 months. Target enrollment is 100 patients. Interim results on the first 69 consecutive patients at 6 months is presented. Primary endpoint at 6-month analysis was Pain Intensity reduction by visual analogue scale and functional improvement by Oswestry Disability Index. Adverse events were assessed for safety analysis. RESULTS: In total, 69 patients were identified for this analysis. At 6 months, a mean improvement of 34.9 was identified by a reduction in VAS and functional improvement was demonstrated by a mean reduction in ODI of 17.7. There were three adverse events, all unrelated to the device. CONCLUSION: The posterior single point transfixation is safe and efficacious for the treatment of sacroiliac joint dysfunction with statistical improvements in pain and function.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disease of aging with a growing patient population, paralleling population growth. Minimally invasive treatments are evolving, and the use of these techniques needs guidance to provide the optimal patient safety and efficacy outcomes. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for guidance on the prudent use of the innovative minimally invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of symptomatic LSS. The executive board nominated experts spanning anesthesiology, physiatry, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery based on expertise, publications, research, diversity and field of practice. Evidence was reviewed, graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence and recommendation strength and grade, and expert opinion was added to make consensus points for best practice. Results: The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for LSS-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using USPSTF criteria and consensus points are presented. Discussion: The algorithm for patient selection in the management of symptomatic spinal stenosis is evolving. Careful consideration of patient selection and anatomic architecture variance is critical for improved outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: ASPN created a guidance for best practice for minimally invasive surgical treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis.

Durability of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Evoke Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. Objective: To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. Interventions: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Results: Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. Conclusions and Relevance: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.

IonicRF™: a novel step in technology for radiofrequency ablation treatments.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been utilized since the 1970s to treat various painful conditions. The technology has evolved from its initial use to treat lumbar facet mediated pain with monopolar lesioning to now treat a plethora of chronic pain conditions. This article reviews Abbott Corporation's (IL, USA) IonicRF™ generator. The IonicRF generator utilizes an intelligent power algorithm that improves efficiency and reduces procedure time. The generator also carries a wide range of RFA therapies such as monopolar, bipolar, pulsed or pulsed dose radiofrequency. Additionally, the IonicRF RFA generator is compatible with the Simplicity™ RF probe (Abbott) which allows for efficient and effective denervation of the sacroiliac joint.

Lay abstract Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been utilized since the 1970s to treat many different painful conditions. The technique was originally developed to treat common low back pain because of arthritis. Since that time, RFA has evolved to treat other painful areas of the body such as the face, knees, shoulders, hips and buttocks. RFA is a safe, convenient, and non-surgical option to treat pain in these different areas of the body. This technique is reserved for patients who have already tried physical therapy and over the counter pain medications such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen.

The Impact of Clinical Setting on Evaluating Patients Using the PROMIS-29 Baseline Measures in the COVID Era: A Retrospective Multicenter Quantitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multidimensional patient-reported outcomes are a critical part of assessing patients to better understand their well-being during treatment. The PROMIS-29 assessment tool is utilized as a component of assessing multidimensional pain scales. It includes patient-reported measures of pain, mood, sleep, social participation, and function. Currently, there are no data on whether a patient's immediate environment (remote versus in person) influences the reported patient outcomes measurement of a multidimensional tool represented as PROMIS-29 data. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Subjects were identified and consecutively enrolled upon entry into a chronic pain or spine center in the United States. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was recorded. Statistical differences were assessed among age groups and across the seven domains of the assessment. RESULTS: A total of 25,187 distinct patients were enrolled in the study from August 2018 to December 2020 with a presenting baseline measurement of PROMIS-29. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was evaluated across the seven domains, and subgroup age analysis was performed for patients completing surveys in the clinical setting (non-remote group) and those completing the survey in the remote setting (remote group) during entry into spine and pain practices across the United States. For mental health scores, those less than 40 years of age and those over 80 years of age showed significant differences in ratings of anxiety and depression in the remote versus non-remote setting. Regarding physical health scores, those aged 60-79 showed a significant difference in the remote versus non-remote ratings for pain interference (p = 0.005; 63.9 vs. 64.4), physical function (p = 0.000; 36.4 vs. 35.7), and fatigue (p = 0.020; 57.2 vs. 57.7), while subjects over 80 years of age showed a statistical difference between the remote versus non-remote setting only in rating physical function (p = 0.025; 33.0 vs. 34). Notably, the rating of sleep disturbance in the remote versus non-remote setting was the only significant variable in the 40-59 age category (p = 0.000; 60.0 vs. 59.1). Those less than 40 years of age also reported a significant difference in the remote versus non-remote setting when rating sleep disturbance (p = 0.000; 60.5 vs. 58.9). With regard to social function, only those older than 80 years showed a significant difference in rating of ability in the remote compared to the non-remote setting (p = 0.031; 39.6 vs. 40.7). CONCLUSIONS: This data set is the first published data describing the influence of environment (remote versus in person) on PROMIS-29 outcome measurements in the chronic pain population.

Cross-Validation of the Foundation Pain Index with PROMIS-29 in Chronic Pain Patients.

PURPOSE: Discovery and validation of pragmatic biomarkers represent significant advancements in the field of pain management. Evaluating relationships between objective biomarkers and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is an effective way to gain mechanistic insight into the potential role of biochemistry in chronic pain. The aim of this study was to validate the Foundation Pain Index (FPI) by evaluating associations between deranged biochemical function and PROMIS-29 domains in individuals living with chronic pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROMIS-29 scores and FPI test results were obtained from 298 patients with chronic pain in this retrospective, observational study. Statistical analysis was performed using clinical test data to evaluate relationships between deranged biochemical function and quality of life measures across 8 universal domains. RESULTS: FPI scores significantly associated with multiple PROMIS-29 domains including physical function, impact score, fatigue, pain interference, and depression (P < 0.05). Moreover, specific analytes that comprise the FPI significantly correlated with PROMIS-29 domains, including 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid (pain interference, physical function, and pain impact scores), hydroxymethylglutarate (physical function), homocysteine (pain impact scores), kynurenic acid (pain interference and physical function), and quinolinic acid (physical function) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cross-validation of the FPI with PROMIS-29 domains further supports the role of deranged biochemical function in the etiology of chronic pain. Objective identification of atypical biochemical function and subsequent correction holds tremendous promise for the non-opioid management of pain. Continued research efforts will aim to determine the impact of biochemical optimization in pre-surgical periods and post-surgical outcomes in patients with chronic pain.

The Cost of Lost Productivity in an Opioid Utilizing Pain Sample.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic pain affects more adults in the United States than any other condition. Opioid medications are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain, but there remains considerable risk and cost associated with their use. This study aims to characterize the effects of opioid prescribing for chronic pain and similar pain conditions on lost productivity in the United States. METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study of chronic pain patients in 2011-2014. We identified patients with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain receiving index prescription for opioids in administrative claims and studied disability absence in a linked health and productivity management database. Patients were grouped as de novo and continued use opioid users before index, and by opioid dose in the year after index. Days of disability were compared before and after index with bootstrapping. Effect of opioid dose group on disability was evaluated with negative binomial regression. Lost productivity cost was compared before and after index. RESULTS: The cohort contained 16,273 de novo and 6604 continued use patients. On average, de novo patients used 24.8 days of disability after index, an increase of 18.3 more days compared to before (p < 0.001). Continued use patients used 30.7 days after index, 9 more days than before (p < 0.001). There was a dose-response relationship between dose group and days of disability in de novo patients (p < 0.001). The weighted-average cost per person of lost productivity was $4344 higher in the year after index compared to the year before. CONCLUSION: Opioid prescriptions for pain patients were associated with significant disability use and lost productivity costs. With the evolution of opioid-prescribing practices, CDC recommendations, and the HHS Pain Management Best Practices, there is opportunity to use alternative pain therapies without the risks of opioid-induced side effects to improve work productivity.

A Retrospective, Single-Center, Quantitative Analysis of Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication Using a Novel Percutaneous Direct Lumbar Decompression Strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Low-back pain with accompanying neurogenic claudication is a common diagnosis in pain and spine centers around the world, with an evolving algorithm of treatment. One option for the treatment of neurogenic claudication by decompressive strategies centers on percutaneous direct decompressive techniques. Although commonly employed in clinical practice, there have been no formal investigations looking at safety of percutaneous direct decompression without the use of an epidurogram and relying on osteal landmarks. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety of percutaneous direct decompression performed without the use of the epidurogram. METHODS: After an IRB exemption had been obtained from the Western Investigational Review Board, data were retrospectively analyzed from July 2018 to August 2020 on patients that had undergone percutaneous direct decompression using the Mild procedure in a single center by a single physician. Data were analyzed quantitatively for reported complications within 3 months of the procedure, including nerve injury, hematoma, infection, death, or allergic reaction to contrast use. RESULTS: Chart review yielded 147 individual patients who had undergone percutaneous direct decompression from July 2018 to August 2020. In this data set, women outnumbered men, with an average age of 76 years, with L4-L5 followed by L3-L4 being the most common levels decompressed. Of the 147 patients was performed, utilizing an epidurogram versus no epidurogram for decompression, with no complications. These data are the first to describe the safety of percutaneous direct lumbar decompression without the use of contrast. CONCLUSION: This study strongly suggests the use of an epidurogram is not necessary for the safe decompression of a patient with symptomatic spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication utilizing percutaneous direct decompression.

Multisystem Spinal Cord Stimulation Trialing: A Single Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation is a well-established modality for the treatment of chronic intractable pain. The safety and efficacy of various stimulation therapy designs have been demonstrated in multiple randomized controlled studies, oftentimes comparing an investigational device to an existing commercial therapy. In the real-world setting, data are lacking regarding selection of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, as waveform, pulse trains, and programming are not interchangeable among the devices. The purpose of this study is to help dissect a methodology for a patient centric multisystem trialing. METHODS: We conducted a single center, retrospective, open label observational chart review. Between June 2017 and June 2019, 83 patients underwent SCS trials. Devices from four commercially available systems were trialed. Patients were given the opportunity to trial up to three systems. If the patient reported 50% or more pain relief/functional improvement with the trial, they were able to choose which system they liked best and proceed with implantation. RESULTS: There were 82% (68/83) of patients who proceeded to permanent implant, with 72 patients electing to trial more than one stimulation paradigm. Of those, 62 trialed 2 SCS systems, whereas 11 trialed 3. During the SCS trials, loss of efficacy due to lead migration was 1.2% (1/83) and no infections occurred. The average pain score measured on the numeric pain rating scale (NRS), improved from 6.8 at baseline to 2.9 after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Multisystem trialing is safe and effective in providing patients increased exposure to multiple commercially available SCS systems.