Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A 2-year Medicare Claims Benchmark Study.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries receiving percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure and a control group of patients receiving interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with LSS with NC and treated with either the mild procedure or a spacer were identified in the Medicare claims database. The incidence of harms, the rate of subsequent interventions, and the overall combined rate of harms and subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up after the index procedure were compared between the two groups and assessed for statistical significance with p = 0.05. RESULTS: The study included 2229 patients in the mild group and 3401 patients who were implanted with interspinous spacers. The rate of harms for those treated with the mild procedure was less than half that of patients implanted with a spacer (5.6% vs. 12.1%, respectively; p < 0.0001) during 2-year follow-up. The rate of subsequent interventions was not significantly different between the two groups (24.9% and 26.1% for the mild and spacer groups, respectively; p = 0.7679). The total rate of harms and subsequent interventions for mild was found to be noninferior to spacers (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive study of real-world Medicare claims data demonstrated a significantly lower rate of harms for the mild procedure compared to interspinous spacers for patients diagnosed with LSS with NC, and a similar rate of subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up.

Diaphragm Pacing: A Safety, Appropriateness, Financial Neutrality, and Efficacy Analysis of Treating Chronic Respiratory Insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and applicability of treating chronic respiratory insufficiency with diaphragm pacing relative to mechanical ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review and analysis were conducted using the safety, appropriateness, financial neutrality, and efficacy principles. RESULTS: Although mechanical ventilation is clearly indicated in acute respiratory failure, diaphragm pacing improves life expectancy, increases quality of life, and reduces complications in patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency. CONCLUSION: Diaphragm pacing should be given more consideration in appropriately selected patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency.

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.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Spinal Cord Stimulation Among the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used in the treatment of many chronic pain conditions. This study investigates racial and socioeconomic disparities in SCS among Medicare patients with chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients over the age of 18 with a primary diagnosis of postlaminectomy syndrome (ICD-10 M96.1) or chronic pain syndrome (ICD-10 G89.4) were identified in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Claims Limited Data Set. We defined our outcome as SCS therapy by race and socioeconomic status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the variables associated with SCS. RESULTS: We identified 1,244,927 patients treated between 2016 and 2019 with a primary diagnosis of postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) or chronic pain syndrome (CPS). Of these patients, 59,182 (4.8%) received SCS. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that, compared with White patients, Black (OR [95%CI], 0.62 [0.6-0.65], p < 0.001), Asian (0.66 [0.56-0.76], p < 0.001), Hispanic (0.86 [0.8-0.93], p < 0.001), and North American Native (0.62 [0.56-0.69], p < 0.001) patients were significantly less likely to receive SCS. In addition, patients who were dual-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid were significantly less likely to receive SCS than those eligible for Medicare only (OR = 0.38 [95% CI: 0.37-0.39], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that racial and socioeconomic disparities exist in SCS among Medicare and Medicaid patients with PLS and CPS. Further work is required to elucidate the complex etiology underlying these findings.

Diversity of Pain Medicine Trainees and Faculty in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Fellowship Training from 2009-2019.

OBJECTIVE: Diversity and equity in medicine remain pivotal to care delivery. Data analysis on sex and racial diversity of pain medicine fellowship trainees and faculty in the United States are scant. We sought to characterize demographic and retention patterns among pain medicine fellows and faculty, who represent the emerging chronic pain management workforce. DESIGN: cross-sectional retrospective analysis. METHOD: We conducted an analysis of data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the United States Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-approved residency and fellowship training-programs for each year from 2009 through 2019, inclusively. We compared changes in sex, racial/ethnicity composition and retention rates of fellows and faculty in the United States by practice setting. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2019, there was a 14% increase in the number of ACGME pain fellowship programs. From 2009 to 2019, the ratio of men to women pain fellows ranged from 5:1 to 3.7:1. Compared with their self-identified White peers, Asian (OR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.34-0.58), Black (OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.72), and Native American/Alaskan Native (OR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.08-0.80) identifying individuals had significantly lower odds of being a pain fellow, P < 0.05. There was no significant difference in female (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.148-1.09) and Black (OR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.11-1.12) program-directors. Pain-fellow in-state retention was 53%. CONCLUSIONS: The demographics of pain medicine training programs reflect a persistent male vs. female gap with underrepresentation of racial minorities. Further research is needed to elucidate reasons underlying these disparities.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial, compared safety and effectiveness of stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) vs. conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS-I and II) of the lower extremities. This analysis compares cost-effectiveness of three modalities of treatment for CRPS, namely DRG stimulation, SCS, and comprehensive medical management (CMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective cost-utility analysis combined ACCURATE study data with claims data to compare cost-effectiveness between DRG stimulation, SCS, and CMM. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov cohort model with ten-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost in 2017 U.S. dollars per gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY were used to define highly cost-effective and cost-effective therapies. RESULTS: Both DRG and SCS provided an increase in QALYs (4.96 ± 1.54 and 4.58 ± 1.35 QALYs, respectively) and an increase in costs ($153,992 ± $36,651 and $128,269 ± $27,771, respectively) compared to CMM (3.58 ± 0.91 QALYs, $106,173 ± $27,005) over the ten-year model lifetime. Both DRG stimulation ($34,695 per QALY) and SCS ($22,084 per QALY) were cost-effective compared to CMM. In the base case, ICER for DRG v SCS was $68,095/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: DRG and SCS are cost-effective treatments for chronic pain secondary to CRPS-I and II compared to CMM. DRG accrued higher cost due to higher conversion from trial to permanent implant and shorter battery life, but DRG was the most beneficial therapy due to more patients receiving permanent implants and experiencing higher quality of life compared to SCS. New DRG technology has improved battery life, which we expect to make DRG more cost-effective compared to both CMM and SCS in the future.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain, Headache, and Comorbid Depression: INS-NANS Expert Consensus Panel Review and Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache. METHODS: Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment. RESULTS: The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

Spinal cord stimulation as treatment for complex regional pain syndrome should be considered earlier than last resort therapy.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), by virtue of its historically described up-front costs and level of invasiveness, has been relegated by several complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) treatment algorithms to a therapy of last resort. Newer information regarding safety, cost, and efficacy leads us to believe that SCS for the treatment of CRPS should be implemented earlier in a treatment algorithm using a more comprehensive approach. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on pain care algorithmic thinking and applied the safety, appropriateness, fiscal or cost neutrality, and efficacy (S.A.F.E.) principles to establish an appropriate position for SCS in an algorithm of pain care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Based on literature-contingent considerations of safety, efficacy, cost efficacy, and cost neutrality, we conclude that SCS should not be considered a therapy of last resort for CRPS but rather should be applied earlier (e.g., three months) as soon as more conservative therapies have failed.

Using the SAFE principles when evaluating electrical stimulation therapies for the pain of failed back surgery syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: In this paper we review the literature on failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and use principles of Safety, Appropriateness, Fiscal Neutrality, and Effectiveness (SAFE) to determine the appropriate place for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of FBSS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the most recent literature regarding treatments of pain due to FBSS and used the SAFE principles to reprioritize pain treatments, particularly electrical stimulation therapies, for FBSS in a more appropriate, relevant, and up to date continuum of care. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review and analysis of the safety, appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and efficacy of treatments for the pain of FBSS, relegating SCS to a last resort therapy is no longer justifiable. SCS should be considered before submitting a patient to either long-term systemic opioid therapy or repeat spinal surgery for chronic pain resulting from FBSS.