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).

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.

Three-Year Durability of Restorative Neurostimulation Effectiveness in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Restorative neurostimulation is a rehabilitative treatment for patients with refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with dysfunction of the lumbar multifidus muscle resulting in impaired neuromuscular control. The ReActiv8-B randomized, sham-controlled trial provided evidence of the effectiveness and safety of an implanted, restorative neurostimulator. The two-year analysis previously published in this journal demonstrated accrual of clinical benefits and long-term durability. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of three-year effectiveness and safety in patients with refractory, disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational follow-up of the 204 implanted trial participants. Low back pain visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol quality of life survey, and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, and one, two, and three years after activation. The mixed-effects model repeated measures approach was used to provide implicit imputations of missing data for continuous outcomes and multiple imputation for proportion estimates. RESULTS: Data were collected from 133 participants, and 16 patients missed their three-year follow-up because of coronavirus disease restrictions but remain available for future follow-up. A total of 62% of participants had a ≥ 70% VAS reduction, and 67% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5cm); 63% had a reduction in ODI of ≥ 20 points; 83% 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 71% (36/51) participants on opioids at baseline had voluntarily discontinued (49%) or reduced (22%) opioid intake. The attenuation of effectiveness in the imputed (N = 204) analyses was relatively small and did not affect the statistical significance and clinical relevance of these results. The safety profile remains favorable, and no lead migrations have been observed to date. CONCLUSION: At three years, 83% of participants experienced clinically substantial improvements in pain, disability, or both. The results confirm the long-term effectiveness, durability, and safety of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354.

An Integrated Quantitative Index for Measuring Chronic Multisite Pain: The Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of chronic multisite pain, there is little consensus on methods to characterize it. Commonly used assessments report only one dimension of pain, that is, intensity, thus ignoring the spatial aspect of pain. We developed a novel pain quantification index, the Integrated Pain Quantification Index (IPQI), on a scale of 0 to 1 that integrates multiple distinct pain measures into a single value, thus representing multidimensional pain information with a single value. DESIGN: Single-visit, noninterventional, epidemiological study. SETTING: Fourteen outpatient multidisciplinary pain management programs. PATIENTS: Patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs for at least six months with average overall pain intensity of at least 5 on the numeric rating scale. METHODS: Development of IPQI was performed in a large population (N = 810) of chronic pain patients from the Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) study. RESULTS: Prevalence of two or more noncontiguous painful areas was at 88.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-0.90), with a mean of 6.3 areas (SD = 5.57 areas). Prevalence of more than 10% body area in pain was at 52.8% (95% CI = 0.49-0.56), with a mean at 16.1% (17.16%). On average, IPQI values were near the middle of the scale, with mean and median IPQI at 0.52 (SD = 0.13) and 0.55, respectively. The IPQI was generalizable and clinically relevant across all domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. CONCLUSIONS: IPQI provided a single pain score for representing complex, multidimensional pain information on one scale and has implications for comparing pain populations across longitudinal clinical trials.

Predicting the Collapse of Pain Medicine Using the Economic Recession of 2008 as a Comparator: Lessons Remain Unlearned.

The last decade has seen a boom in pain medicine, basic science and interventional pain management. Concomitantly, there is a need to educate trainees, young attendings, and seasoned attendings on these innovations. There has been a growth in the number of societies that represent pain medicine physicians, each with its own philosophy and guiding principles. The variety of thought within pain management, within the various groups that practice this field, and amongst the societies which protect those missions inherently creates divergence and isolation within these different communities. There is the enormous opportunity for our field to grow, but we need the voices of all different specialties and sub-specialties which practice pain medicine to collectively design the future of our emerging field. The explosion of revolutionary percutaneous surgeries, medications, psychotherapy, and research and development in our field has outpaced the ability of payers to fully embrace them. There is an increased number of pain practitioners using novel therapies, postgraduate training programs do not adequately train users in these techniques thereby creating a potential for sub-optimal outcomes. In part, this is a reason why payers for many of our more novel treatments have decreased patient access or eliminated remuneration for some of them. We believe that society-based collaborative regulation of education, research, and treatment guidelines is needed to improve visibility for payers and end users who provide these treatments. Furthermore, postgraduate chronic pain fellowship education has been deemed by many to be insufficient to educate on all of the necessary requirements needed for the independent practice of pain medicine, especially the consummation of newer technologies. Here, we draw comparison with this tenuous stage in pain management history with the last United States recession to remind us of how poor institutional regulation and neglect for long-term growth hampers a community.

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of SI-6603 (condoliase) in patients with radicular leg pain associated with lumbar disc herniation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: SI-6603 (condoliase) is a chemonucleolytic agent approved in Japan in 2018 for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) associated with radicular leg pain. Condoliase, a mucopolysaccharidase with high substrate specificity for glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), offers a unique mechanism of action through the degradation of GAGs in the nucleus pulposus. As LDH management is currently limited to conservative approaches and surgical intervention, condoliase could offer a less invasive treatment option than surgery for patients with LDH. PURPOSE: The Discover 6603 study (NCT03607838) evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single-dose injection of SI-6603 (condoliase) vs sham for the treatment of radicular leg pain associated with LDH. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, phase 3 study conducted across 41 sites in the United States. PATIENT SAMPLE: Male and female participants (N=352; aged 30-70 years) with contained posterolateral LDH and unilateral radiculopathy/radicular leg pain for greater than 6 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) in average worst leg pain score at 13 weeks, assessed using the 100-mm visual analogue scale. Key secondary endpoints were CFB in average worst leg pain score at 52 weeks, herniation volume at 13 weeks, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 13 weeks. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs) and imaging findings. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive a single intradiscal injection of condoliase (1.25 units) or sham injection followed by 52 weeks of observation. The primary and key secondary endpoints were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis and a protocol-specified multiple imputation (MI) sensitivity analysis on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. A prespecified serial gatekeeping algorithm was used for multiple comparisons. Safety endpoints included AEs, laboratory tests, vital signs, imaging (by X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and occurrence of posttreatment lumbar surgery. RESULTS: Of the 352 randomized participants, 341 constituted the mITT population (condoliase n=169; sham n=172) and the safety population (condoliase n=167; sham n=174). For the primary endpoint, the condoliase group showed significantly greater improvement in CFB in worst leg pain at Week 13 (least squares mean [LSM] CFB: -41.7) compared with sham injection (-34.2; LSM difference: -7.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.1, -0.9; p=.0263) based on the MMRM analysis. CFB in worst leg pain at Week 52 favored condoliase vs sham, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=.0558), which halted the serial gatekeeping testing algorithm and dictated that the CFB in herniation volume and ODI scores at Week 13 would be considered nonsignificant, regardless of their p-values. Treatment group differences in CFB in herniation volume and ODI score favored the condoliase group vs sham at all timepoints. The MI sensitivity analysis showed differences in CFB in worst leg pain at Week 13 (p=.0223) and Week 52 (p=.0433) in favor of the condoliase group. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were more common in the condoliase group (≥1 TEAE: 71.9%; ≥1 treatment-related TEAE: 28.1%) compared with the sham group (≥1 TEAE: 60.3%; ≥1 treatment-related TEAE: 10.3%). Of the TEAEs, spinal MRI abnormalities and back pain occurred most frequently. No treatment-related serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Condoliase met its primary endpoint of significantly improving radicular leg pain at Week 13 and was generally well tolerated in patients with LDH. Chemonucleolysis with condoliase has the potential to provide a less invasive treatment option than surgery for those unresponsive to conservative treatment strategies.

Optical Surgical Navigation: A Promising Low-cost Alternative.

State-of-the-art computer-assisted surgery relies on infrared-based cameras for precise positional measurements. However, the cost of purchasing these systems acts as a barrier for smaller healthcare facilities to adopt them. Recently, low-cost optical tracking with cameras has emerged as a promising alternative, but differences in operating room conditions and patient anatomy can cause inconsistencies between procedures. Therefore, it is essential to identify and evaluate individual factors that may affect a procedure. In this study, we evaluate fiducial ArUco markers as a low-cost alternative to traditional markers. To evaluate their effectiveness, we designed a ground truth testing platform, which enables us to measure the real-time difference between the predicted and actual positions. We investigated the effects of warping, line-of-sight obstruction, and operating room lighting as variables that could influence marker tracking in the operating room. Each variable was isolated and simplified to quantifiable modifications to the physical marker and X-Y platform environment. We find that our navigation system is a promising approach for use in computer-navigated surgery, and future work will focus on implementing image processing techniques to improve the accuracy of optical marker tracking.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial.

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3 month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a device-based therapy for chronic pain that delivers electrical impulses to the spinal cord, disrupting pain signals to the brain. Pain relief can be achieved using different SCS techniques that use or do not use paresthesia (stimulation that produces a tingling sensation). These approaches affect patients in different ways, suggesting that different biological processes are involved in enabling pain relief. Research also suggests that better long-term results occur when patients can choose the therapy that is best for their own needs. This clinical study compared pain relief and other functional activities in those receiving combination therapy (simultaneous use of SCS that does and does not produce tingling sensation) against those receiving monotherapy (only SCS therapy producing tingling sensation) for 3 months. In the study, 88% of those receiving combination therapy and 71% with monotherapy alone reported a 50% (or greater) decrease in overall pain (the 'responder rate') without an increased dose of opioid drugs at 3 months after the start of therapy. This responder rate was found to be 84% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years (with all SCS therapy options available). Analysis of functional activities or disability showed that patients improved from 'severely disabled' at study start to 'moderately disabled' after 2 years, indicating that effective long-term (2 year) improvement can be achieved using SCS-based combination therapy for chronic pain.

Best practices for interventional pain procedures in the setting of an iodinated contrast media shortage: A multisociety practice advisory.

Representatives from the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) have developed the following best practice recommendations for the performance of interventional pain procedures in the setting of an iodinated contrast media shortage. The practice advisory has been endorsed by SIS, AAPM, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPMR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spine Radiology (ASSR), North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS), North American Spine Society (NASS), and Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR).

An implantable restorative-neurostimulator for refractory mechanical chronic low back pain: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Chronic low back pain can be caused by impaired control and degeneration of the multifidus muscles and consequent functional instability of the lumbar spine. Available treatment options have limited effectiveness and prognosis is unfavorable. We conducted an international randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial at 26 multidisciplinary centers to determine safety and efficacy of an implantable, restorative neurostimulator designed to restore multifidus neuromuscular control and facilitate relief of symptoms (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02577354). Two hundred four eligible participants with refractory mechanical (musculoskeletal) chronic LBP and a positive prone instability test indicating impaired multifidus control were implanted and randomized to therapeutic (N = 102) or low-level sham (N = 102) stimulation of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus nerve (multifidus nerve supply) for 30 minutes twice daily. The primary endpoint was the comparison of responder proportions (≥30% relief on the LBP visual analogue scale without analgesics increase) at 120 days. After the primary endpoint assessment, participants in the sham-control group switched to therapeutic stimulation and the combined cohort was assessed through 1 year for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The primary endpoint was inconclusive in terms of treatment superiority (57.1% vs 46.6%; difference: 10.4%; 95% confidence interval, -3.3% to 24.1%, P = 0.138). Prespecified secondary outcomes and analyses were consistent with a modest but clinically meaningful treatment benefit at 120 days. Improvements from baseline, which continued to accrue in all outcome measures after conclusion of the double-blind phase, were clinically important at 1 year. The incidence of serious procedure- or device-related adverse events (3.9%) compared favorably with other neuromodulation therapies for chronic pain.

Comparative efficacy of stellate ganglion block with bupivacaine vs pulsed radiofrequency in a patient with refractory ventricular arrhythmias.

There is increasing interest in interventional therapies targeting the cardiac sympathetic nervous system to suppress ventricular arrhythmias. In this case report, we describe an 80-year-old patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy and multiple implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks due to refractory ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation who was unable to continue biweekly stellate ganglion block procedures using bupivacaine 0.25% for suppression of his arrhythmias. He had previously failed antiarrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone, catheter ablation, and attempted surgical autonomic denervation. He underwent pulsed radiofrequency treatment (3 lesions, 2 minutes each, temperature 42°C, 2-Hz frequency, 20-millisecond pulse width) of the left stellate ganglion resulting in persistent arrhythmia suppression for more than 12 months duration. This represents the first report of a pulsed radiofrequency stellate ganglion lesion providing long-term suppression of ventricular arrhythmias. Further study of this technique in patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation is warranted.

Lumbar transforaminal epidural dexamethasone: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, dose-response trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Serious adverse events related to particulate steroids have curtailed the use of transforaminal epidural steroid injections for radicular pain. Dexamethasone has been proposed as an alternative. We investigated the efficacy, dose-response profile, and safety of 3 doses of epidural dexamethasone. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging design was used. A total of 98 subjects were randomized to transforaminal epidural dexamethasone 4 mg (n = 33), 8 mg (n = 33), or 12 mg (n = 32). The primary outcome measure for this study was reduction in radicular pain according to the visual analog scale from baseline, with 30% reduction or higher considered clinically meaningful. Secondary measures included the Oswestry Low Back Disability Scale, Subject Global Impression of Change, Subject Global Satisfaction Scale, and adverse events. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after injection. Outcome measures, sample size, and statistical analysis were defined before enrollment. RESULTS: Mean radicular pain according to the visual analog scale compared with baseline was reduced 41.7%, 33.5%, and 26.6% at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively, after injection. Oswestry disability ratings declined from "moderate" at baseline to "minimal" at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after injection. There was no statistical difference between groups for either measure (all P values < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected). Parallel effects were observed in "impression of change" and "satisfaction" measures. No serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal epidural dexamethasone provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in radicular pain at 12 weeks after injection, with parallel improvements in disability, impression of change, and satisfaction measures. There was no difference in efficacy for dexamethasone 4 mg compared with 8 or 12 mg. The optimal dose of epidural dexamethasone may be lower than 4 mg, further increasing the long-term safety and tolerability of this treatment. Current data are reassuring with regard to the safety of dexamethasone for transforaminal epidural steroid injection.

Acupuncture in pain medicine: an integrated approach to the management of refractory pain.

As the acupuncture nomenclature permeates medical literature, the artificial barriers to integration of acupuncture and allopathic medicine are disappearing. More patients are looking to their physicians for guidance on how to incorporate acupuncture into their health care, and pain physicians are accepting the challenge. Similar to allopathic medicine, acupuncture is an intricate diagnostic and therapeutic system. However, for practicing physicians, mastery of the skills necessary for safe and effective treatment of many conditions is well within reach. Used in an integrated medical model, acupuncture is well suited to deal with many of the functional problems that allopathic medicine is not equipped to address. The result is patient and physician satisfaction.

Pulsed radiofrequency neurotomy: advances in pain medicine.

In the past three decades, radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) has been established as a safe and effective treatment for facet and sacroiliac arthropathy. However, early reports of deafferentation pain syndromes and motor deficit with the application of radiofrequency lesions to other neural structures effectively halted further development of this technology for other applications until recent years. Pulsed radiofrequency neurotomy (PRFN) represents the most recent advance in radiofrequency technology in clinical practice. PRFN allows for application of radiofrequency current at markedly lower tissue temperatures, thereby minimizing the risk of adverse events. The initial clinical data on PRFN demonstrate response rates similar to conventional high temperature RFN lesions for facet and sacroiliac arthropathy and a host of other chronic pain disorders.