Network Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neurostimulation Interventions for Chronic Non-surgical Refractory back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Different types of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have now been evaluated for the management of chronic non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). A direct comparison between the different types of SCS or between closed-loop SCS with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with NSRBP has not been previously conducted, and therefore, their relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, network meta-analysis (NMA) and economic evaluation of closed-loop SCS compared with fixed-output SCS and CMM for patients with NSRBP. METHODS: Databases were searched to 8th September 2023. Randomised controlled trials of SCS for NSRBP were included. Results of studies were combined using fixed-effect NMA models. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service with results reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Closed-loop SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (mean difference [MD] 32.72 [95% CrI 15.69-49.78]) and improvements in secondary outcomes compared to fixed-output SCS at 6-months follow-up. Compared to CMM, both closed-loop and fixed-output SCS result in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (closed-loop SCS vs. CMM MD 101.58 [95% CrI 83.73-119.48]; fixed-output SCS versus CMM MD 68.86 [95% CrI 63.43-74.31]) and improvements in secondary outcomes. Cost-utility analysis shows that closed-loop SCS dominates fixed-output SCS and CMM, and fixed-output SCS also dominates CMM. DISCUSSION: Current evidence shows that closed-loop and fixed-output SCS provide more benefits and are cost-saving compared to CMM for patients with NSRBP.

Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a physiologic closed-loop (CL) feedback mechanism controlled by evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose and the accuracy of the stimulation, not possible with any other commercially available SCS systems. The report of objective spinal cord measurements is essential to increase the transparency and reproducibility of SCS therapy. Here, we report a cohort of the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial treated with CL-SCS for 36 months to evaluate the ECAP dose and accuracy that sustained the durability of clinical improvements. METHODS: 41 patients randomized to CL-SCS remained in their treatment allocation and were followed up through 36 months. Objective neurophysiological data, including measures of spinal cord activation, were analyzed. Pain relief was assessed by determining the proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥80% reduction in overall back and leg pain. RESULTS: The performance of the feedback loop resulted in high-dose accuracy by keeping the elicited ECAP within 4µV of the target ECAP set on the system across all timepoints. Percent time stimulating above the ECAP threshold was >98%, and the ECAP dose was ≥19.3µV. Most patients obtained ≥50% reduction (83%) and ≥80% reduction (59%) in overall back and leg pain with a sustained response observed in the rates between 3-month and 36-month follow-up (p=0.083 and p=0.405, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a physiological adherence to supra-ECAP threshold therapy that generates pain inhibition provided by ECAP-controlled CL-SCS leads to durable improvements in pain intensity with no evidence of loss of therapeutic effect through 36-month follow-up.

Contact Heat in Magnetoencephalography: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Contact heat is commonly used in experimental research to evoke brain activity, most frequently acquired with electroencephalography (EEG). Although magnetoencephalography (MEG) improves spatial resolution, using some contact heat stimulators with MEG can present methodological challenges. This systematic review assesses studies that utilise contact heat in MEG, their findings and possible directions for further research. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched for relevant studies, in addition to the selected papers' reference lists, citations and ConnectedPapers maps. Best practice recommendations for systematic reviews were followed. Papers met inclusion criteria if they used MEG to record brain activity in conjunction with contact heat, regardless of stimulator equipment or paradigm. RESULTS: Of 646 search results, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated effective electromagnetic artefact removal from MEG data, the ability to elicit affective anticipation and differences in deep brain stimulation responders. We identify contact heat stimulus parameters that should be reported in publications to ensure comparisons between data outcomes are consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Contact heat is a viable alternative to laser or electrical stimulation in experimental research, and methods exist to successfully mitigate any electromagnetic noise generated by PATHWAY CHEPS equipment - though there is a dearth of literature exploring the post-stimulus time window.

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Regulatory Framework for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices: Comparison of Systems in the US and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Implantable neurostimulation devices must be authorized before they are placed on the market. For this purpose, requirements, and processes for assessing their fulfillment, have been defined in different jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to address differences between the US and European Union (EU) regulatory systems and their relationship to innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review and analysis were conducted using legal texts and guidance documents. RESULTS: The US system has one central body, the Food and Drug Administration, whereas the EU system has several bodies with different responsibilities. The devices themselves are divided into risk classes, which are based on the vulnerability of the human body. This risk class determines the intensity of the review by the market authorization body. In addition to the requirements for development, manufacture, and distribution, the device itself must meet technical and clinical requirements. Compliance with technical requirements is indicated by nonclinical laboratory studies. Proof of efficacy is provided by means of clinical investigations. Procedures are defined for reviewing these elements. Once the market authorization process has been completed, the devices can be placed on the market. In the postmarketing phase, the devices must continue to be monitored, and measures must be initiated, if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Both US and EU systems are intended to ensure that only safe and effective devices find their way to and remain on the market. The basic approaches of the two systems are comparable. In detail, however, there are differences in ways these goals are achieved.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Cost-utility Analysis of Evoke Closed-loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of Evoke closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS), a novel modality of neurostimulation, has been demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to develop a de novo economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Evoke CL-SCS when compared with open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) for the management of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: A decision tree followed by a Markov model was used to estimate the costs and outcomes of Evoke CL-SCS versus OL-SCS over a 15-year time horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective. A "high-responder" health state was included to reflect improved levels of SCS pain reduction recently reported. Results are expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to assess uncertainty in the model inputs. RESULTS: Evoke CL-SCS was estimated to be the dominant treatment strategy at ~5 years postimplant (ie, it generates more QALYs while cost saving compared with OL-SCS). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Evoke CL-SCS has a 92% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. Results were robust across a wide range of scenario and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The results indicate a strong economic case for the use of Evoke CL-SCS in the management of chronic back and leg pain with or without prior spinal surgery with dominance observed at ~5 years.

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.

Cross-Country Differences in Pain Medication Before and After Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data From Two Prospective Studies in the United Kingdom and Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can reduce the need for opioids; however, the influence on the full spectrum of pain medication is less known. The aims of this study were to explore general prescription practices for patients scheduled for SCS, potential differences in prescriptions between Belgium and United Kingdom, and the influence of SCS on pain medication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from the TRIAL-STIM study in the United Kingdom and DISCOVER in Belgium were pooled. Medication use was collected before SCS and three months after SCS from 180 chronic pain patients. The Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS) was used to calculate a total score for medication use, as well as subscores for several classes. Differences in prescription practices between United Kingdom and Belgium were evaluated with two-sided Wilcoxon tests. To evaluate differences in medication use after three months of SCS between United Kingdom and Belgium, Tweedie-generalized linear models were calculated. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (-6.40 [95% CI from -3.40 to -9.10]) between the median total MQS score in United Kingdom and Belgium before SCS. Additionally, a significant difference was found for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (-3.40 [95% CI -3.40 to -6.80]), neuropathic agents (-2.30 [95% CI -0.40 to -3.80]), and benzodiazepines (1.83e-05 [95% CI 2.64-05 to 7.45-05]) between United Kingdom and Belgium, before SCS. Tweedie-generalized models revealed a statistically significant interaction between country and time for MQS, neuropathic agents, and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Our combined analysis revealed differences in prescription practice in patients scheduled for SCS implantation between Belgium and United Kingdom. NSAIDs and neuropathic mood agents are more frequently used in the United Kingdom, presumably due to easier access to repeat prescriptions and over the counter medications. After three months of SCS, a decrease in medication use is observed in both countries, with higher reductions in Belgium, presumably due to strict regulations concerning reimbursement criteria.

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.

Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain.

INTRODUCTION: The most prominent outcome measurement in the field of neuromodulation is pain relief. Nevertheless, the number of studies that rely on composite outcomes has increased. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to evaluate which measures are important to include in a composite outcome and (2) to develop this new composite outcome to evaluate the degree of being a clinical holistic responder with a corresponding minimal clinical important difference (MCID). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation (HD-SCS) were used. Pain intensity for low back and leg pain, disability, health-related quality of life, medication use, and patient satisfaction were measured at baseline and after 12 months of HD-SCS. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to evaluate which measures should be included in the composite outcome. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the MCID of the newly developed outcome measurement. RESULTS: A three-factor model was the most appropriate for this data set, in which leg pain intensity, EQ5D VAS, and disability had the largest loading on these factors. A clinical holistic outcome was created with a total score ranging from 0 (=better [no pain, no disability, and perfect health status]) to 300 (=worse [maximal pain, maximal disability, and worst health status]). The MCID value based on an absolute change score from baseline up to 12 months of HD-SCS was 87.97. When calculating with percentage changes, a MCID value of 48.4% was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: This new composite outcome evaluating the degree of deviation from being a holistic responder is a step toward a meaningful, overall outcome assessment for patients who are treated with SCS. Further studies to evaluate the psychometric properties and the generalizability toward other patient populations still need to be performed.

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.

A Clinical Evaluation of the Accuracy of an Intrathecal Drug Delivery Device.

INTRODUCTION: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) devices are used to treat severe pain and spasticity refractory to conventional medical management. Although off-label medications and drug admixtures are commonly used in clinical practice and recommended by international guidelines, manufacturers state that this practice can result in device failure. The impact of off-label drugs and drug combinations on pump accuracy has hitherto never been assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multinational, three-center, retrospective review of patient records was undertaken. The inclusion criterion was the presence of an ITDD device implantation in adult patients, with the pump in situ for the expected battery lifespan. Residual drug volumes at each refill, drug mixtures and concentrations, and rate and flow pattern of the pump (simple or flex) were recorded. A normalized flow rate ratio was calculated (actual to theoretical flow rate). The impact of nonapproved drugs, battery life, pump size, and flow program on drug delivery accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Data from 1402 pump refills were collected (73 patients). The overall mean accuracy ratio was 0.995 (95% CI = 0.986-1.004). The ratio for approved drug status was 0.990 vs 0.997 in nonapproved, with a difference of -0.007 (-0.032 to 0.017). At the tenth centile for remaining battery life (14 months), the ratio was 0.983 vs 1.009 for the 90th centile (69 months), with a difference of -0.026 (-0.038 to -0.014). The ratio for flex administration was 0.982 vs 1.006 for simple, with a difference of -0.024 (-0.040 to -0.008). For pump size of 40 mL, the ratio was 0.975 vs 1.010 for 20 mL, with a difference of -0.035 (-0.063 to -0.008). The 95% prediction interval for individual refill ratios was ±0.15. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, the ITDD pumps retained high levels of accuracy and acceptable precision across their lifespan despite using unapproved drugs or admixtures and under various flow modes and rates.

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.

Health-related quality of life in persons post-COVID-19 infection in comparison to normative controls and chronic pain patients.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic exerted a tremendous pressure on the healthcare system, people's social life, mental health and financial status with profound implications for the general population. The exact impact of the pandemic on the overall physical, mental and social wellbeing of COVID-19 infection survivors on the long term has not yet been explored in a thorough way. Based on the reporting of persistent pain, fatigue and dyspnea symptoms by these survivors, it is our hypothesis that their quality of life will be extremely impacted, as is observed in patients with chronic pain. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to perform an in-depth evaluation of the quality of life of post-COVID-19 infected persons. The second aim was to compare the quality of life of these persons with a normative population and with patients with chronic pain. Health-related quality of life, as a measure for a person's overall physical, mental, and social wellbeing, was measured with the 3-level EQ5D in 547 post-COVID-19 infected persons. These data were compared to reference data from normal population records for Belgium and to data from patients with chronic pain after spinal surgery with two-way analyses of variance. In total, 89.58% of the post-COVID-19 infected persons reported pain/discomfort and 82.45% indicated limitations when performing usual activities, when evaluated 287 days (SD: 150) after the infection. Self-care was preserved in most post-COVID-19 persons, whereby only 13.16% indicated problems. The mean EQ5D-3L index score was 0.57 (SD: 0.23) and EQ5D VAS mean score was 56.6 (SD: 18.2). The mean index score for the normative population was significantly higher than for COVID-19 infected persons [mean difference of 0.31 (95% from 0.29 to 0.33), p < 0.01] while the mean score of chronic pain patients was significantly lower than the score of COVID-19 infected persons [mean difference of -0.31 (95% from -0.29 to -0.33), p < 0.01]. Compared to age-and sex adjusted reference data, health-related quality of life of persons with long COVID is severely impacted. In relation to patients with chronic pain after spinal surgery, the quality of life of post-COVID-19 infected persons seemed to be better. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier: NCT04912778.