Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

Assessment of pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: An international consensus guideline.

Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the lack of consensus negatively impacts clinical management, research and meta-analysis. This guideline aims to review generic pain questionnaires for their usability in CP, to outline how pain assessment can be modified by confounding factors and pain types, to assess the value of additional measures such as quality of life, mental health and quantitative sensory testing, and finally to review pain assessment questionnaires used specifically in CP. A systematic review was done to answer 27 questions that followed the PICO (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome) template. Quality of evidence of the statements was judged by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The manuscript was sent for review to 36 experts from various disciplines and continents in a multi-stage Delphi process, and finally reviewed by patient representatives. Main findings were that generic pain instruments are valid in most settings, but aspects of pain are specific for CP (including in children), and instruments have to account for the wide phenotypic variability and development of sensitization of the central nervous system. Side effects to treatment and placebo effects shall also be considered. Some multidimensional questionnaires are validated for CP and are recommended together with assessment of quality of life and psychiatric co-morbidities. This guideline will result in more homogeneous and comprehensive pain assessment to potentially improve management of painful CP.

Assessment of Somatosensory and Psychosocial Function of Patients With Trigeminal Nerve Damage.

OBJECTIVE: The present study assessed somatosensory changes related to trigeminal nerve damage using extensive evaluation tools and assessed the effect of such damage on the patients' psychosocial status and quality of life compared with healthy participants. METHODS: In 37 patients with intraorally or extraorally presenting trigeminal nerve damage diagnosed as painful or nonpainful posttraumatic trigeminal neuropathy, psychophysical tests like quantitative sensory testing (QST) and qualitative sensory testing and the electrophysiological "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex were performed. The patients and 20 healthy participants completed a set of questionnaires assessing their psychosocial status and quality of life. RESULTS: A loss or gain of somatosensory function was seen in at least 1 QST parameter in >88.9% of the patients. Patients in whom extraoral QST was performed showed an overall loss of somatosensory function, whereas intraoral QST showed a general gain of somatosensory function. Qualitative sensory testing identified a side-to-side difference in the tactile and pinprick stimulation in >77% of the patients. An abnormal "nociceptive-specific" blink reflex response was seen in 42.1% to 71.4% of patients dependent on the trigeminal branch stimulated, though comparisons with healthy reference values showed ambiguous results. Compared with the healthy participants, patients showed higher scores for pain catastrophizing, symptoms of depression and anxiety, limited jaw function, more somatic symptoms, and significantly impaired oral health-related quality of life (all P<0.038). DISCUSSION: The results from the present study showed presence of varied somatosensory abnormalities when assessed using psychophysical and electrophysiological investigations and a significantly impaired psychosocial status.

Assessment of experimental orofacial pain, pleasantness and unpleasantness via standardized psychophysical testing.

BACKGROUND: Somatosensory assessment within the orofacial region may be performed using highly standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST). However, the function of the C-tactile (CT) afferent, a nerve fibre linked to the perception of pleasant touch, is usually not evaluated. Furthermore, the perception of unpleasantness is also rarely assessed, a dimension not only limited to a painful experience. Therefore, the primary aim was to apply standardized QST stimuli as well as standardized pleasant stimuli and evaluate their potential capacity for evocation of perceived pain, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the facial region. METHODS: Twenty-one female participants underwent QST as per the protocol derived from the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain. For the first time, two modified protocols were used to investigate stimuli for perceived pleasantness and unpleasantness. RESULTS: Thermal stimuli provided separate thresholds for each sensation. From certain mechanical stimuli (e.g., vibration), overlap between the perceived sensations of pleasantness and unpleasantness was identified. It was not possible to evoke only an unpleasant sensation without a painful contribution, and both these sensations increased significantly when utilizing an increasing pinprick force (p < 0.011). Between dynamic stimuli, the brush was rated as significantly more pleasant than the cotton wool tip (p = 0.015). A quadratic model provided the best fit for velocity against mean pleasantness ratings (R2  = 0.62 ± 0.08), supporting previous CT afferent literature to some extent. CONCLUSION: Stimuli were generally not isolated to one sensation, highlighting the multidimensional construct of stimulus perception and the need for scales to capture this. SIGNIFICANCE: The battery of QST tests from the DFNS protocol has been modified to investigate pleasant and unpleasant sensations. This allows the evaluation of psychophysical properties across standardized dimensions to provide a thorough view of somatosensory function and to better understand the affective spectrum of somatosensory function.

Predictors of the placebo analgesia response in randomized controlled trials of chronic pain: a meta-analysis of the individual data from nine industrially sponsored trials.

A large number of analgesics have failed to prove superiority over placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and as this has been related to increasing placebo responses, there is currently an interest in specifying predictors of the placebo response. The literature on placebo mechanisms suggests that factors related to patients' expectations of treatment efficacy are pivotal for the placebo response. Also, general characteristics of RCTs have been suggested to influence the placebo response. Yet, only few meta-analyses have directly tested these hypotheses. Placebo data from 9 industrially sponsored, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trials in 2017 adult patients suffering from chronic painful osteoarthritis (hip or knee) or low back pain were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity. Based on previous studies, we chose 3 expectancy-related primary predictors: type of active medication, randomization ratio, and number of planned face-to-face visits. In addition, explorative analyses tested whether RCT and patients' characteristics predicted the placebo response. Opioid trials, a high number of planned face-to-face visits, and randomization ratio predicted the magnitude of the placebo response, thereby supporting the expectancy hypothesis. Exploratory models with baseline pain intensity, age, washout length, and discontinuation because of adverse events accounted for approximately 10% of the variability in the placebo response. Based on these results and previous mechanisms studies, we think that patients' perception of treatment allocation and expectations toward treatment efficacy could potently predict outcomes of RCTs.