Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain in England From 2010 to 2020: A Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized intervention for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence has recommended SCS as a management option for chronic neuropathic pain since 2008. The aim of this study is to undertake an assessment of SCS uptake across the National Health Service in England up to 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics were obtained for patients with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS and patients receiving an SCS-related procedure. Data were retrieved nationally and per region from the years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020. RESULTS: There were 50,288 adults in England attending secondary care with neuropathic pain in 2010-2011, increasing to 66,376 in 2019-2020. The number of patients with neuropathic pain with an SCS procedure increased on a year-to-year basis until 2018-2019. However, less than 1% of people with neuropathic pain received an SCS device with no evidence of an increase over time when considering the background increase in neuropathic pain prevalence. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients in England with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS receives this intervention. The recommendation for routine use of SCS for management of neuropathic pain has not resulted in an uptake of SCS over the last decade.

Analgesic Efficacy of "Burst" and Tonic (500 Hz) Spinal Cord Stimulation Patterns: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in reducing pain intensity in adult subjects suffering from chronic back and leg pain of burst (BST) and tonic sub-threshold stimulation at 500 Hz (T500) vs. sham stimulation delivered by a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre randomized double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, crossover study was undertaken at two centers in the United Kingdom. Patients who had achieved stable pain relief with a conventional SCS capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity were randomized to sequences of BST, T500, and sham SCS with treatment order balanced across the six possible sequences. A current leakage was programmed into the implantable pulse generator (IPG) in the sham period. The primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled and randomized. The mean reduction in pain with T500 was statistically significantly greater than that observed with either sham (25%; 95% CI, 8%-38%; p = 0.008) or BST (28%; 95% CI, 13%-41%; p = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS for BST versus Sham (5%; 95% CI, -13% to 27%; p = 0.59). Exploratory sub-group analyses by study site and sex were also conducted for the T500 vs. sham and BST versus sham comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a superior outcome versus sham from T500 stimulation over BST stimulation and a practical equivalence between BST and sham in a group of subjects with leg and back pain habituated to tonic SCS and having achieved a stable status with stimulation.

To Trial or Not to Trial Before Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: The Patients' View From the TRIAL-STIM Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine suitability for a permanent implant, its evidence base is limited. The recent TRIAL-STIM study (a randomized controlled trial at three centers in the United Kingdom) found no evidence that an SCS screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes as compared with a no trial approach. As part of the TRIAL-STIM study, we undertook a nested qualitative study to ascertain patients' preferences in relation to undergoing a screening trial or not. Materials and Methods We interviewed 31 patients sampled from all three centers and both study arms (screening trial/no trial) prior to SCS implantation, and 23 of these patients again following implantation (eight patients were lost to follow-up). Interviews were undertaken by telephone and audio-recorded, then transcripts were subject to thematic analysis. In addition, participants were asked to state their overall preference for a one-stage (no screening trial) versus two-stage (screening trial) implant procedure on a five-point Likert scale, before and after implantation. Results Emergent themes favoured the option for a one-stage SCS procedure. Themes identified include: saving time (off work, in hospital, attending appointments), avoiding the worry about having "loose wires" in the two-stage procedure, having only one period of recovery, and saving NHS resources. Participants' rated preferences show similar support for a one-stage procedure without a screening trial. Conclusions Our findings indicate an overwhelming preference among participants for a one-stage SCS procedure both before and after the implant, regardless of which procedure they had undergone. The qualitative study findings further support the TRIAL-STIM RCT results.

An Exploration of the Experiences and Educational Needs of Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Receiving Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). METHODS: Adults with FBSS referred for SCS underwent semistructured interviews at three time points: before their SCS trial, after the trial, and three months after receiving the SCS implant. The face-to-face interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Twelve adults (8 male, 4 female, aged 38-80 years, pain duration 1-26 years) were recruited. Six themes were identified; 1) What should I expect? 2) Varied outcomes, 3) Understanding pain and this new treatment, 4) Experiences of the SCS journey, 5) Getting used to the device, and 6) Finding out what I need to know. Participants' expectations were varied and the procedures were broadly viewed as minor surgery. Participants' expectations about SCS were not limited to pain relief and included reductions in medication, better sleep, and increased physical activity. Participants' understanding of pain and how SCS purports to work was limited. Throughout the process, practical challenges were identified such as the surgical wound management and battery recharging. Participants received information from multiple sources and identified a range of key information needs including a quick-start guide on how to operate the device and a list of dos and don'ts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants' understanding of SCS was limited. The value participants placed on understanding of the process varied markedly. A list of practical informational needs has been identified. Bespoke, user-friendly, informational tools should be developed from this list to enhance the patient experience of SCS.

Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Boluses to Simple Continuous Infusion on Patients' Global Perceived Effect in Intrathecal Therapy for Pain: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Study.

Objective: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) is commonly used for intractable pain management. A paucity of good-quality studies in chronic noncancer patients and concerns over increased dosages have focused interest on different modes of administration. The aim of this international multicenter randomized double-blind crossover trial was to compare the efficacy of the same daily dose of drugs administered by intermittent boluses vs simple continuous infusion. Methods: Eligible patients implanted with a programmable ITDD device were randomized to receive two weeks of either intermittent boluses or a simple continuous flow in period 1, followed by a crossover to the alternative mode of administration. The primary outcome measure was the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Results: The mean proportion of positive responders (at least "minimally improved") was 38.4% in the continuous condition vs 37.3% in the bolus (difference in proportions = 1.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -21.8-24.0%, P = 0.93). The mean PGIC in the continuous condition was 3.8 vs 3.9 in the bolus (mean difference = -0.1, -0.6-0.4, P = 0.72). Exploratory analyses revealed a tendency for the mean proportion of positive responders to be higher at low vs high flow rates for both bolus and continuous administrations. Two patients were withdrawn from the study due to adverse events during the bolus phase, both with symptoms of increased pain, and one patient with additional symptoms of numbness and urinary retention. Conclusion: The mean PGIC and proportion of positive responders was not substantially different after intermittent bolus vs continuous administration.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with "refractory angina" (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health-related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting. METHODS: RA patients deemed suitable were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SCS plus UC (SCS group) or UC alone (UC group). We sought to assess: recruitment, uptake, and retention of patients; feasibility and acceptability of SCS treatment; the feasibility and acceptability of standardizing UC; and the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed trial outcome measures. Patient outcomes were assessed at baseline (prerandomization) and three and six months postrandomization. RESULTS: We failed to meet our planned recruitment target (45 patients) and randomized 29 patients (15 SCS group, 14 UC group) over a 42-month period across four sites. None of the study participants chose to withdraw following consent and randomization. With exception of two deaths, all completed evaluation at baseline and follow-up. Although the study was not formally powered to compare outcomes between groups, we saw a trend toward larger improvements in both primary and secondary outcomes in the SCS group. CONCLUSIONS: While patient recruitment was found to be challenging, levels of participant retention, outcome completion, and acceptability of SCS therapy were high. A number of lessons are presented in order to take forward a future definitive pragmatic randomized trial.

Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation is a recognized treatment of chronic neuropathic and vascular pain. Recent data suggest that the use of very high-frequency (HF) stimulation modes does produce analgesia without paresthesia. AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare the efficacy of HF stimulation (HF spinal cord stimulation [HFSCS]) and sham stimulation on the patient's global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients who have achieved stable pain relief with conventional SCS have been recruited. After randomization, HFSCS and sham are initiated in a double-blind randomized two-period-crossover design. RESULTS: Complete data were available from 33 patients. The primary outcome was a minimal improvement in the PGIC. The proportion of patients responding under HFSCS was 42.4% (14/33 patients) vs. 30.3% (10/33 patients) in the sham condition. The mean benefit of HF vs. sham was not statistically significant with a proportion of 11.2% in favor of HFSCS (p = 0.30). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect," irrespective of treatment received, with 51.5% of patients (N = 17) improving at visit 3 vs. 21.2% (N = 7) at visit 5 (p = 0.006). The mean pain visual analog scale (VAS) on sham was 4.26 vs. 4.35 on HFSCS (p = 0.82) and the mean EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) index with HFSCS was 0.480 vs. 0.463 with sham (p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized double-blind study on SCS. HFSCS was equivalent to sham for the primary outcome (improvement of PGIC) as well as for both the secondary outcomes (VAS and EQ-5D index). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect" (p = 0.006) with improved PGIC scores in the first study period regardless of the treatment. The same trend was seen for VAS and EQ-5D. It appears that the effect of HFSCS and sham is equal and only the order in the sequence, not the nature of the treatment, seems to dictate the effect.

Bolus intrathecal injection of ziconotide (Prialt®) to evaluate the option of continuous administration via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) system: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated efficacy and safety of bolus doses of ziconotide (Prialt®, Eisai Limited, Hertfordshire, UK) to assess the option of continuous administration of this drug via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adults with severe chronic pain who were under consideration for intrathecal (IT) therapy were enrolled in this open label, nonrandomized, pilot study. Informed consent was obtained. Demographics, medical/pain history, pain scores, and concomitant medications were recorded. A physical examination was performed. Creatine kinase was measured. Initial visual analog scale (VAS), blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate were recorded. All patients received an initial bolus dose of 2.5 mcg ziconotide; the dose in the subsequent visits was modified according to response. Subsequent doses were 2.5 mcg, 1.2 mcg, or 3.75 mcg as per protocol. A good response (≥30% reduction in baseline pain VAS) with no side-effects on two occasions was considered a successful trial. Data were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations model, with pain VAS as the outcome and time (seven time points; preinjection and one to six hours postinjection) as the predictor. RESULTS: Generalized estimating equations analysis of summary measures showed a mean reduction of pain VAS of approximately 25% at the group level; of 11 responders, seven underwent pump implantation procedure, two withdrew because of adverse effects, one refused an implant, and one could not have an implant (lack of funding from the Primary Care Trust). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that mean VAS was reduced by approximately 25% at the group level after IT ziconotide bolus. Treatment efficacy did not vary with sex, center, age, or pain etiology. Ziconotide bolus was generally well tolerated. Larger studies are needed to determine if bolus dosing with ziconotide is a good predictor of response to continuous IT ziconotide via an intrathecal drug delivery system.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study. METHODS: The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates. RESULTS: Thirty patients allocated to the "Trial Group" (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the "No Trial Group" (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.

A prospective long-term follow-up of dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the management of chronic intractable pain.

ABSTRACT: Initial clinical studies have shown that the stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) can significantly reduce chronic intractable pain. However, clinical data on long-term results and complications of these systems are limited. The aim of this prospective study is to report on a single center long-term follow-up of DRG stimulation for intractable chronic pain. Participants were implanted with DRG stimulation devices between 2013 and 2015 with an observation period of 24 months. Patients were contacted again in 2020 for a final follow-up (ie, between 5 and 7 years postimplantation). Forty-two participants were recruited, of whom 32 received the fully implantable pulse generator (IPG). At the final follow-up, 50% (16/32) of participants were still using DRG stimulation. Two participants still had the original IPG and 14 had received a replacement IPG. Pain scores were significantly reduced at 24 months, mean difference 1.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.2-3.3, P = 0.03), and at the last follow-up, mean difference 2.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.3-4, P = 0.03). Significant improvements were observed for health-related quality of life. The findings were generally robust to imputation methods of missing data. Implantable pulse generators of 8 patients were explanted because of dissatisfaction with pain relief. In conclusion, DRG stimulation can provide effective pain relief and improved quality of life in patients suffering with neuropathic pain, although this study had a revision rate of 42% within the first 24 months, and 56% of IPGs that were replaced because of battery depletion had a shorter than expected battery life.

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.

Effects of flow rate modifications on reported analgesia and quality of life in chronic pain patients treated with continuous intrathecal drug therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the analgesia and the quality of life of a constant daily dose of intrathecal drug administered at different flow rates in patients treated for chronic pain. We postulate that the quality of the analgesia, at the same daily dose, will show an infusion rate dependent pattern with decreased pain at higher flow rates. PATIENTS: Twenty consecutive patients on stable intrathecal treatment were included in a double-blind three-period crossover study where the same daily dose was administered at single, double, and quadruple flow rates in a randomized sequence. OUTCOMES MEASURES: The mean daily pain score and the quality of life (EuroQol measure of health outcome [EQ-5D]) were measured following each flow rate change, after 1 week of stabilization. Results. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores remained unchanged with all flow rates. Compared with the lowest flow rate, the EQ-5D index decreased with double and even more with quadruple flow rate, suggesting a clinically relevant worsening of the health state with higher flow rates. Adverse events were equally distributed in all groups. CONCLUSION: Pain VAS did not significantly change with flow rate. This is consistent with preclinical data showing very limited increase in drug distribution in the cerebrospinal fluid with much larger flow rate augmentation. However, the quality of life decreased consistently as the flow rate increased. This was entirely due to a worsening of the pain and anxiety dimension of the EQ-5D questionnaire, caused presumably by a slight increase in pain rather than adverse events. We suggest that at higher flow rates increased drug dilution results in a decreased effect at the receptor site.

Prospective analysis of the trial period for spinal cord stimulation treatment for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient preferences regarding the duration of trial period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients were given a trial of spinal cord stimulation. They were questioned daily if they would like to proceed to a permanent implant. Three consecutive affirmative answers implied a successful trial; three negative replies implied a failed trial. Patients rated daily the pain from the surgery, original pain, satisfaction with the stimulator, and the duration of the use of the stimulator. RESULTS: The trial duration varied from 3 to 15 days. Patients with a failed trial took longer to make a decision and also experienced prolonged surgical pain. The majority of patients with a successful trial experienced more than 50% pain reduction. The rate of infection was 7.5%, which has reduced to 2.8% after changing the dressing protocol. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, all patients could make a decision in 15 days, with successful trials requiring a shorter duration. The conversion rate was similar to rates in literature despite patients making a decision without physician input.

Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine whether a patient should receive permanent SCS implant, its evidence base is limited. We aimed to establish the clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of an SCS screening trial. A multicentre single-blind, parallel two-group randomised controlled superiority trial was undertaken at 3 centres in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomised 1:1 to either SCS screening trial strategy (TG) or no trial screening strategy (NTG). Treatment was open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome measure was numerical rating scale (NRS) pain at 6-month follow-up. Between June 2017 and September 2018, 105 participants were enrolled and randomised (TG = 54, NTG = 51). Mean numerical rating scale pain decreased from 7.47 at baseline (before SCS implantation) to 4.28 at 6 months in TG and from 7.54 to 4.49 in NTG (mean group difference: 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2 to 0.9, P = 0.89). We found no difference between TG and NTG in the proportion of pain responders or other secondary outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation screening trial had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 78-100) and specificity of 8% (95% CI: 1-25). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TG vs NTG was £78,895 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. In conclusion, although the SCS screening trial may have some diagnostic utility, there was no evidence that an SCS screening TG provides superior patient outcomes or is cost-effective compared to a no trial screening approach.

Correction to: Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the final specification of randomisation implemented in the study is slightly different to that stated in the protocol and needs to be corrected as follows.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781 . Registered on 15 August 2017.

Ziconotide Monotherapy: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic pain is difficult to treat and is often refractory to most modalities of treatment. Ziconotide is a novel, potent, non-opioid, calcium channel blocking agent which has been shown in clinical trials to be effective in treating chronic neuropathic pain. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for English language studies. Reference sections of articles were examined for further papers and the manufacturer of ziconotide was contacted for further unpublished data. Three randomised controlled trials in ziconotide monotherapy were included and subjected to a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: All three studies used the similar main outcome measure (visual analogue scale of pain intensity; VASPI) and were therefore comparable. A Jadad score was performed for each paper. Frequent serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed which resulted in two of the studies revising the protocol. The metaanalysis revealed a pooled odds ratio (responders on ziconotide vs. placebo) of 2.77 (95% CI, 1.37 to 5.59). DISCUSSION: The results suggest that ziconotide is beneficial for pain reduction in chronic neuropathic pain. However, there remain some methodological issues that may call into question the validity of the results. It is evident that more work needs to be conducted to further validate the efficacy of ziconotide and to discover new areas of use.

Impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on medical technology uptake: analysis of the uptake of spinal cord stimulation in England 2008-2012.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Guidance on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was published in 2008 and updated in 2012 with no change. This guidance recommends SCS as a cost-effective treatment for patients with neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of NICE guidance by comparing SCS uptake in England pre-NICE (2008-2009) and post-NICE (2009-2012) guidance. We also compared the English SCS uptake rate with that of Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany. DESIGN: SCS implant data for England was obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database and compared with other European countries where comparable data were available. RESULTS: The HES data showed small increases in SCS implantation and replacement/revision procedures, and a large increase in SCS trials between 2008 and 2012. The increase in the total number of SCS procedures per million of population in England is driven primarily by revision/replacements and increased trial activity. Marked variability in SCS uptake at both health regions and primary care trust level was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the positive NICE recommendation for the routine use of SCS, we found no evidence of a significant impact on SCS uptake in England. Rates of SCS implantation in England are lower than many other European countries.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The RASCAL (Refractory Angina Spinal Cord stimulation and usuAL care) pilot study seeks to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess if addition of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to usual care is clinically superior and more cost-effective than usual care alone in patients with refractory angina. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an external pilot, patient-randomized controlled trial.The study will take place at three centers in the United Kingdom - South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital), Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.The subjects will be 45 adults with refractory angina, that is, limiting angina despite optimal anti-angina therapy, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification Class III and IV, angiographically documented coronary artery disease not suitable for revascularization, satisfactory multidisciplinary assessment and demonstrable ischemia on functional testing.The study will be stratified by center, age and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification.Interventions will involve spinal cord stimulation plus usual care ('SCS group') or usual care alone ('UC group'). Usual care received by both groups will include consideration of an education session with a pain consultant, trial of a transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation, serial thoracic sympathectomy and oral/systemic analgesics.Expected outcomes will be recruitment and retention rates; reasons for agreeing/declining participation; variability in primary and secondary outcomes (to inform power calculations for a definitive trial); and completion rates of outcome measures. Trial patient-related outcomes include disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, angina exercise capacity, intake of angina medications, frequency of angina attacks, complications and adverse events, and satisfaction. DISCUSSION: The RASCAL pilot trial seeks to determine the feasibility and design of a definitive randomized controlled trial comparing the addition of spinal cord stimulation to usual care versus usual care alone for patients with refractory angina.Fifteen patients have been recruited since recruitment opened in October 2011. The trial was originally scheduled to end in April 2013 but due to slow recruitment may have to be extended to late 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65254102.