Five-Year Longitudinal Follow-up of Restorative Neurostimulation Shows Durability of Effectiveness in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Associated With Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Adults with refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscle have few treatment options that provide long-term clinical benefit. This study hypothesized that restorative neurostimulation, a rehabilitative treatment that activates the lumbar multifidus muscles to overcome underlying dysfunction, is safe and provides relevant and durable clinical benefit to patients with this specific etiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective five-year longitudinal follow-up of the ReActiv8-B pivotal trial, participants (N = 204) had activity-limiting, moderate-to-severe, refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain, a positive prone instability test result indicating impaired multifidus muscle control, and no indications for spine surgery. Low back pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol's "EQ-5D-5L" index) were compared with baseline and following the intent-to-treat principle, with a supporting mixed-effects model for repeated measures that accounted for missing data. RESULTS: At five years (n = 126), low back pain VAS had improved from 7.3 to 2.4 cm (-4.9; 95% CI, -5.3 to -4.5 cm; p < 0.0001), and 71.8% of participants had a reduction of ≥50%. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 39.1 to 16.5 (-22.7; 95% CI, -25.4 to -20.8; p < 0.0001), and 61.1% of participants had reduction of ≥20 points. The EQ-5D-5L index improved from 0.585 to 0.807 (0.231; 95% CI, 0.195-0.267; p < 0.0001). Although the mixed-effects model attenuated completed-case results, conclusions and statistical significance were maintained. Of 52 subjects who were on opioids at baseline and had a five-year visit, 46% discontinued, and 23% decreased intake. The safety profile compared favorably with neurostimulator treatments for other types of back pain. No lead migrations were observed. CONCLUSION: Over a five-year period, restorative neurostimulation provided clinically substantial and durable benefits with a favorable safety profile in patients with refractory chronic low back pain associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354; registration date: October 15, 2016; principal investigator: Christopher Gilligan, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. The study was conducted in Australia (Broadmeadow, New South Wales; Noosa Heads, Queensland; Welland, South Australia; Clayton, Victoria), Belgium (Sint-Niklaas; Wilrijk), The Netherlands (Rotterdam), UK (Leeds, London, Middlesbrough), and USA (La Jolla, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Aurora, CO; Carmel, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Royal Oak, MI; Durham, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Cleveland, OH; Providence, RI; Spartanburg, SC; Spokane, WA; Charleston, WV).

A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms. APPROACH: We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain. RESULTS: We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

A Novel, Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveform for Chronic Neuropathic Low Back Pain: Six-Month Results of a Prospective, Single-Arm, Dose-Response Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective, single-blinded, dose-response study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel, paresthesia-free (subperception) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform designed to target dorsal horn dendrites for the treatment of chronic neuropathic low back pain (LBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven participants with chronic neuropathic LBP were implanted with a commercial SCS system after a successful trial of SCS therapy. Devices were programmed to deliver the investigative waveform (100 Hz, 1000 µs, T9/T10 bipole) at descending stimulation perception threshold amplitudes (80%, 60%, 40%). Programs were evaluated at six, ten, and 14 weeks, after which participants selected their preferred program, with more follow-up at 26 weeks (primary outcomes). Participants were blinded to the nature of the programming. Pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and health status (36-Item Short Form [SF-36]) were measured at baseline and follow-ups. Responder rate, treatment satisfaction, clinician global impression of change, and adverse events (AEs) also were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) baseline VAS was 72.5 ± 11.2 mm. At 26 weeks (n = 26), mean change from baseline in VAS was -51.7 mm (95% CI, -60.7 to -42.7; p < 0.001), with 76.9% of participants reporting ≥50% VAS reduction, and 46.2% reporting ≥80% VAS reduction. BPI, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-36 scores were all statistically significantly improved at 26 weeks (p < 0.001), and 100% of participants were satisfied with their treatment. There were no unanticipated AEs related to the study intervention, device, or procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This novel, paresthesia-free stimulation waveform may be a safe and effective option for patients with chronic neuropathic LBP eligible for SCS therapy and is deliverable by all current commercial SCS systems. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on anzctr.org.au with identifier ACTRN12618000647235.

Long-term safety of spinal cord stimulation systems in a prospective, global registry of patients with chronic pain.

Aim: The availability of long-term (>2 years) safety outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. We evaluated safety in a global SCS registry for chronic pain. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled globally at 79 implanting centers and followed out to 3 years after device implantation. Results: Of 1881 participants enrolled, 1289 received a permanent SCS implant (1776 completed trial). The annualized rate of device explant was 3.5% (all causes), and 1.1% due to inadequate pain relief. Total incidence of device explantation >3 years was 7.6% (n = 98). Of these, 32 subjects (2.5%) indicated inadequate pain relief as cause for removal. Implant site infection (11 events) was the most common device-related serious adverse event (<1%). Conclusion: This prospective, global, real-world study demonstrates a high-level of safety for SCS with low rate of explant/serious adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01719055 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.

Educational Curriculum for Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Developed by the North American Neuromodulation Society.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an effective neuromodulation therapy for chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain. Although the total number of PNS implantations has increased over the last decade, no curriculum exists to guide training and learning of this therapy. The goal of the North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS) education committee is to develop a series of competency-based curriculums for neuromodulation therapies. The PNS curriculum is the latest part of such series, following the curriculums for spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal drug delivery system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary task force (anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurosurgery, preventive medicine and public health, and neurology) was created by the educational committee of NANS to develop a PNS curriculum in accordance with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. The curriculum was created based on the best available evidence and expert knowledge (from our task force members) of available PNS systems. The final PNS curriculum was approved by the NANS board. RESULTS: A PNS curriculum was developed by the task force. Milestones included professionalism, practice-based learning, interpersonal communication, medical knowledge, systems-based practice, procedural skills, and patient care. Each milestone was defined into three categories: early learner, advanced learner, and practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript provides a PNS training curriculum developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the NANS educational committee in accordance with the milestones described by ACGME for basic learners, advanced learners, and practitioners. This curriculum will help provide a structured training and evaluation process for obtaining proficiency in PNS treatment(s).

Gabapentin-Friend or foe?

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is a recommended first-line agent for treating neuropathic pain; however, its efficacy rate is reportedly low, and the risk of adverse events is high. A plausible explanation for this lies with its wide range of actions, the entirety of which have yet to be fully elucidated. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted on gabapentin's known and proposed analgesic mechanisms of action, as well as potentially opposing or detrimental actions. RESULTS: Gabapentin's classical analgesic mechanisms involve direct attenuation of excitatory neurotransmission in the spinal cord via inhibition of neuronal ion channels, while indirect mechanisms include descending inhibition and block of injury-evoked synaptogenesis. Glial effects have also been reported; however, whether they are neuroprotective or detrimental is unknown. Furthermore, data from animal models do not reflect clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin's clinical use should be reconsidered according to the net effects of its numerous assumed actions, including the tripartite synapse and oligodendrocyte effects. Whether it is doing more harm than good, especially in the scenarios of incomplete or loss of response, warrants consideration when prescribing gabapentin.

Practice Trends of Neuromodulation Therapies for Pain and Spasticity in India.

BACKGROUND: Neuromodulation has been successfully used globally to address severe refractory chronic pain for over five decades. Compared to the wide acceptance that it enjoys in United States and Europe, it is fairly underutilized in Asia, including India. OBJECTIVES: We conducted the first systematic nationwide survey to provide an overview of neuromodulation in the past 20 years to investigate the practice trends for severe refractory chronic pain and barriers for the uptake of neuromodulation therapies for pain in India. DESIGN: A 20-point detailed questionnaire survey was sent out for online completion in August 2020 to practitioners in India involved in interventions for pain. The survey was completed by 112 practitioners (10% return rate). The response data collected were analyzed, tabulated, and presented as percentages. RESULTS: The average duration of pain practice in India for the majority of respondents was less than a decade. About 70% of practitioners expressed that they manage severe refractory pain without neuromodulation. This survey confirms that neuromodulation is grossly underutilized for pain, comprising only 10% of total neuromodulation implants performed per annum in India. The most common indications were neuropathic pain (45%) and failed back surgery syndrome (42%). The respondents expressed the main barriers to be related to the cost (85%), lack of awareness (68%), and lack of good training (59%). More than 50% of respondents also expressed difficulty of access to neuromodulation therapies for pain and acceptance by patients. CONCLUSION: The younger generation of pain practitioners in India is becoming more aware and convinced about the role of neuromodulation to alleviate severe pain and suffering. An all-round approach combining improved training, awareness at various levels, more flexible options of newer technology and reimbursement approval can positively influence its use. This can be achieved with the collective efforts of physicians, insurers, industry, and focused academic activities of clinical societies.

Long-Term Outcomes of Restorative Neurostimulation in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Multifidus Dysfunction: Two-Year Results of the ReActiv8-B Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Impaired neuromuscular control and degeneration of the multifidus muscle have been linked to the development of refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP). An implantable restorative-neurostimulator system can override the underlying multifidus inhibition by eliciting episodic, isolated contractions. The ReActiv8-B randomized, active-sham-controlled trial provided effectiveness and safety evidence for this system, and all participants received therapeutic stimulation from four months onward. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the two-year effectiveness of this restorative neurostimulator in patients with disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Open-label follow-up of 204 participants implanted with a restorative neurostimulation system (ReActiv8, Mainstay Medical, Dublin, Ireland) was performed. Pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry disability index [ODI]), quality-of-life (EQ-5D-5L), and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after activation. RESULTS: At two years (n = 156), the proportion of participants with ≥50% CLBP relief was 71%, and 65% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5 cm); 61% had a reduction in ODI of ≥20 points, 76% had improvements of ≥50% in VAS and/or ≥20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 87% of participants had continued device use during the second year for a median of 43% of the maximum duration, and 60% (34 of 57) had voluntarily discontinued (39%) or reduced (21%) opioid intake. CONCLUSIONS: At two years, 76% of participants experienced substantial, clinically meaningful improvements in pain, disability, or both. These results provide evidence of long-term effectiveness and durability of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP, secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT02577354.

Ambroxol for neuropathic pain: hiding in plain sight?

ABSTRACT: Ambroxol is a multifaceted drug with primarily mucoactive and secretolytic actions, along with anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and local anaesthetic properties. It has a long history of use in the treatment of respiratory tract diseases and has shown to be efficacious in relieving sore throat. In more recent years, ambroxol has gained interest for its potential usefulness in treating neuropathic pain. Research into this area has been slow, despite clear preclinical evidence to support its primary analgesic mechanism of action-blockade of voltage-gated sodium (Na v ) channels in sensory neurons. Ambroxol is a commercially available inhibitor of Na v 1.8, a crucial player in the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain, and Na v 1.7, a particularly exciting target for the treatment of chronic pain. In this review, we discuss the analgesic mechanisms of action of ambroxol, as well as proposed synergistic properties, followed by the preclinical and clinical results of its use in the treatment of persistent pain and neuropathic pain symptoms, including trigeminal neuralgia, fibromyalgia, and complex regional pain syndrome. With its well-established safety profile, extensive preclinical and clinical drug data, and early evidence of clinical effectiveness, ambroxol is an old drug worthy of further investigation for repurposing. As a patent-expired drug, a push is needed to progress the drug to clinical trials for neuropathic pain. We encourage the pharmaceutical industry to look at patented drug formulations and take an active role in bringing an optimized version for neuropathic pain to market.

Association Between Levels of Functional Disability and Health-Related Quality of Life With Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Pain score, functional disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials. Although greater levels of pain reduction have been shown to be linked to larger gains in HRQoL, little is known of the association between HRQoL and disability in the setting of chronic pain. The aims of this study were to 1) investigate the association between functional disability and HRQoL and 2) estimate the utility values associated with levels of functional disability in patients treated with evoked compound action potential (ECAP) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on functional disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L) were collected from 204 patients with an Evoke ECAP-SCS device and followed up to 12 months. SF-6D utility scores also were retrieved for 134 of these patients. Multivariable linear regression models adjusted for baseline utility values and patient demographics were used to compare differences in utility values across ODI categories. RESULTS: Significant improvements in functional disability and HRQoL were observed at three- and 12-month follow-up after SCS. Patients reporting "minimum disability," "moderate disability," "severe disability," and "crippled" had mean EQ-5D scores of 0.82, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.45, respectively. The mean change in EQ-5D score was 0.007 per unit change in total ODI score. The R2 statistic showed a moderate level association (49%-64% of variance in EQ-5D explained by ODI). CONCLUSION: ECAP-SCS results in significant improvements in functional disability and HRQoL. This study shows that improvement in function of people with chronic pain before and after ECAP-SCS is associated with improvement in HRQoL.