European randomized controlled trial evaluating differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and conventional medical management in subjects with persistent back pain ineligible for spine surgery: 24-month results.

BACKGROUND: Differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) was shown to be superior to conventional SCS for treating chronic low back pain (CLBP) in subjects with persistent spinal pain syndrome with previous spinal surgery (PSPS-T2) or ineligible for it (PSPS-T1). This study reports 24-month efficacy and safety of DTM SCS vs. conventional medical management (CMM) in PSPS-T1 subjects across four European countries. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial with optional crossover. Subjects randomized 1:1 to DTM SCS or CMM. Primary endpoint was responder rate (% subjects reporting ≥50% CLBP relief) at 6 months. A superiority test compared responder rates between treatments. CLBP and leg pain levels, functional disability, quality of life (QoL), patient satisfaction and global impression of change were evaluated for 24 months. A Composite Responder Index (CRI) was obtained using CLBP relief, disability and QoL. Incidence of study-related adverse events evaluated safety. RESULTS: A total of 55 and 57 subjects were randomized to DTM SCS and CMM respectively. DTM SCS was superior, with CLBP responder rates ≥80% and CLBP relief >5.6 cm (>70% reduction) through the 24-month follow-up. Improvements with DTM SCS in other outcomes were sustained. The CRI was >80% for DTM SCS through 24 months. Opioid medication intake decreased in subjects treated with DTM SCS. Most patients treated with DTM SCS felt satisfied and improved at the end of the study. Safety was congruent with other studies. CONCLUSION: DTM SCS is efficacious and safe during 24 months for the treatment of CLBP and leg pain in PSPS-T1 patients ineligible for spine surgery. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This randomized controlled trial shows that Differential Target Multiplexed SCS (DTM SCS) is an effective and safe long-term treatment for PSPS type 1 patients suffering from axial low back pain with or without leg pain and who are ineligible for spinal surgery. Currently, CMM treatments are their only option and provide limited benefits. Besides superior pain relief, DTM SCS provides significant improvements in functional disability, quality of life, high levels of satisfaction and perceived impression of change.

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

Long-Term Evaluation of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy: An Eight-to-Ten-Year Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study was the eight-to-ten-year follow-up of a previously performed pilot and randomized controlled trial on the effects of SCS in PDPN, initiated by the multidisciplinary pain center of Maastricht University Medical Center+. The study population consisted of a subgroup of patients who still used SCS treatment ≥ eight years after implantation (n = 19). Pain intensity scores (numeric rating scale [NRS]) during the day and night and data on secondary outcomes (ie, quality of life, depression, sleep quality) were reported during yearly follow-up consultations. Long-term efficacy of SCS was analyzed by comparing the most recently obtained data eight to ten years after implantation with those obtained at baseline. RESULTS: Pain intensity, day and night, was significantly (p < 0.01) reduced by 2.3 (NRS 6.6-4.3) and 2.2 (NRS 6.8-4.6) points, respectively, when comparing the long-term data with baseline. Moreover, for > 50% of patients, the pain reduction was > 30%, which is considered clinically meaningful. No differences were found regarding the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This eight-to-ten-year follow-up study indicates that SCS can remain an effective treatment in the long term to reduce pain intensity in a subcohort of patients with PDPN who still had an SCS device implanted after eight years.

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study).

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients. METHODS: This multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation. DISCUSSION: The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration:  NCT05421273 . Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

A Comparison of 1000 Hz to 30 Hz Spinal Cord Stimulation Strategies in Patients with Unilateral Neuropathic Leg Pain Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Clinical Study (HALO).

INTRODUCTION: Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded crossover study. The Netherlands (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02112474). We hypothesized that the pain suppressive effects of 1000 Hz and 30 Hz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) strategies are equally effective in patients with chronic, neuropathic, unilateral leg pain after back surgery. METHODS: Thirty-two patients (18-70 years, minimum leg pain 50 mm on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), minimal back pain) were randomized (1:1) to start 1000 Hz or 30 Hz neurostimulation for 9 days. After a 5-day washout, they crossed over, for another 9 days. Primary outcome was pain suppression (mean of VAS scores 4×/day) during the crossover period. The main investigators were blinded to strategy allocation, patients were blinded to the outcome, a blinded assessor analyzed the primary outcome. RESULTS: The primary outcome was analyzed in 26 patients. There was no period effect (delta 4 mm, p = 0.42, 95% CI [- 5, 13]), allowing direct intrapatient comparison of the treatment effect (delta 1 mm, p = 0.92, 95% CI [- 13, 14]). Ninety-two percent of patients in both periods experienced greater than 34% pain suppression (minimal clinically important difference, MCID). Secondary outcomes (22 patients): pain suppression and improved quality of life were sustained at 12 months; both were statistically significant and clinically relevant. Fifty percent of patients had greater than 80% pain suppression (p < 0.001). At study termination, all events were resolved; no unanticipated events were reported. Medtronic provided a grant for additional study costs. CONCLUSION: We conclude that our hypothesis regarding the effect of 1000 Hz and 30 Hz stimulation strategies on pain suppression was confirmed. Both stimulation strategies led to a large, sustainable, clinically relevant pain suppression and improvement in quality of life.

Intrathecal pain management with ziconotide: Time for consensus?

This article summarizes recommendations made by six pain specialists who discussed the rationale for ziconotide intrathecal analgesia (ITA) and the requirement for evidence-based guidance on its use, from a European perspective. Riemser Pharma GmbH (Greifswald, Germany), which holds the European marketing authorization for ziconotide, hosted the meeting. The group agreed that ITA is under-used in Europe, adding that ziconotide ITA has potential to be a first-line alternative to morphine; both are already first-line options in the USA. Ziconotide ITA (initiated using a low-dose, slow-titration approach) is suitable for many patients with noncancer- or cancer-related chronic refractory pain and no history of psychosis. Adopting ziconotide as first-line ITA could reduce opioid usage in these patient populations. The group advocated a risk-reduction strategy for all candidate patients, including compulsory prescreening for neuropsychosis, and requested US-European alignment of the licensed starting dose for ziconotide: the low-and-slow approach practiced in the USA has a better tolerability profile than the fixed high starting dose licensed in Europe. Of note, an update to the European Summary of Product Characteristics is anticipated in early 2021. The group acknowledged that the Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) treatment algorithms for ziconotide ITA provide useful guidance, but recommendations tailored specifically for European settings are required. Before a consensus process can formally begin, the group called for additional European prospective studies to investigate ziconotide in low-and-slow dosing strategies, in different patient settings. Such data would enable European guidance to have the most appropriate evidence at its core.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Clinical Review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical review on outcomes using burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of chronic, intractable pain. DESIGN: Narrative clinical literature review conducted utilizing a priori search terms including key words for burst spinal cord stimulation. Synthesis and reporting of data from publications including an overview of comparative SCS outcomes. RESULTS: Burst SCS demonstrated greater pain relief over tonic stimulation in multiple studies, which included blinded, sham-controlled, randomized trials. Additionally, burst stimulation impacts multiple dimensions of pain, including somatic pain as well as emotional and psychological elements. Patient preference is weighted toward burst over tonic due to increased pain relief, a lack of paresthesias, and impression of change in condition. CONCLUSION: Burst SCS has been shown to be both statistically and clinically superior to tonic stimulation and may provide additional benefits through different mechanisms of action. Further high-quality controlled studies are warranted to not only elucidate the basic mechanisms of burst SCS but also address how this unique stimulation signature/pattern may more adequately handle the multiple affective dimensions of pain in varying patient populations.

Mechanism of Action in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Review and Recent Advances.

OBJECTIVE: This is a comprehensive, structured review synthesizing and summarizing the current experimental data and knowledge about the mechanisms of action (MOA) underlying spinal cord stimulation with the burst waveform (as defined by De Ridder) in chronic pain treatment. METHODS: Multiple database queries and article back-searches were conducted to identify the relevant literature and experimental findings for results integration and interpretation. Data from recent peer-reviewed conference presentations were also included for completeness and to ensure that the most up-to-date scientific information was incorporated. Both human and animal data were targeted in the search to provide a translational approach in understanding the clinical relevance of the basic science findings. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Burst spinal cord stimulation likely provides pain relief via multiple mechanisms at the level of both the spinal cord and the brain. The specific waveforms and temporal patterns of stimulation both play a role in the responses observed. Differential modulation of neurons in the dorsal horn and dorsal column nuclei are the spinal underpinnings of paresthesia-free analgesia. The burst stimulation pattern also produces different patterns of activation within the brain when compared with tonic stimulation. The latter may have implications for not only the somatic components of chronic pain but also the lateral and affective pathway dimensions as well.

Prospective Cohort Analysis of DRG Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Pain Following Lumbar Discectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical lumbar discectomy is a commonly performed routine spinal procedure that is usually undertaken to alleviate lumbar radicular symptoms caused by a herniated intervertebral disc. Surgical lumbar discectomy can also lead to chronic postsurgical leg and/or back pain (failed back surgery syndrome [FBSS]), a condition that can be refractory to conventional medical management. Early clinical results on the use of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for FBSS have supported the use of this treatment alternative. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, observational cohort study enrolled patients who had chronic pain following surgical lumbar discectomy, had failed conservative treatments, and reported pain intensity of at least 6 out of 10 in the primary region of pain. Data were collected on pain, quality of life, disability, and mood at baseline and through 12 months. RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent a trial of DRG stimulation; 11 (84.6%; 95% confidence interval = 57.8% to 95.7%) had good outcomes and underwent permanent device placement. Pain was reduced from a score of 8.64 (±0.92) at baseline to 2.40 (±2.38; n = 9) after 12 months of treatment, a 72.05% average reduction (P < 0.001). Similar improvements were observed across the secondary clinical measures, and safety data were in line with published rates. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that DRG stimulation induces pain relief in subjects diagnosed with FBSS. These reductions in pain were also associated with improvements in quality of life and disability. Additional prospective studies are warranted to further investigate this potential application of DRG stimulation, as well as to optimize patient selection, lead placement, and programming strategies.

Terlipressin as an adjunct vasopressor in refractory hypotension after tricyclic antidepressant intoxication.

AIM OF STUDY: To report the management of cardiovascular failure refractory to standard catecholamine therapy with terlipressin in a patient with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) intoxication. CASE REPORT: A 41-year-old woman, with suicidal ingestion of 11.25 g amitriptyline and 1500 mg diclofenac, was admitted to the emergency department. After 30 min in ventricular fibrillation, with ongoing CPR, she regained a potentially perfusing rhythm, but with hypotension refractory to standard catecholamine therapy with adrenaline, 2 microg/kg/min (norepinephrine); adrenaline, 1 microg/kg/min (epinephrine) until 55 min after admission. An injection of 1 mg terlipressin restored mean arterial blood pressure >65 mmHg within 10 min. Ten hours after admission to the intensive care unit, catecholamine support could be withdrawn because of a stable haemodynamic state. Within 7 days, all organ function recovered, and the patient regained full neurological function. CONCLUSIONS: Successful management of cardiovascular failure with terlipressin after TCA intoxication refractory to catecholamines suggests a potential role for terlipressin as an adjunct vasopressor in severely hypotensive patients.