Core patient-reported outcome measures for chronic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation or dorsal root ganglia stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulation is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of chronic Intractable pain, however, due to the complexity of pain, measuring a subject's long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to reflect multiple aspects of subjects' pain is a crucial step in determining therapy outcomes. However, collecting full-length PROs is burdensome for both patients and clinicians. The objective of this work is to identify the reduced set of questions from multiple validated PROs that can accurately characterize chronic pain patients' responses to neurostimulation therapies. METHODS: Validated PROs were used to capture pain, physical function and disability, as well as psychometric, satisfaction, and global health metrics. PROs were collected from 509 patients implanted with Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators enrolled in the prospective, international, post-market REALITY study (NCT03876054, Registration Date: March 15, 2019). A combination of linear regression, Pearson's correlation, and factor analysis were used to eliminate highly correlated questions and find the minimal meaningful set of questions within the predefined domains of each scale. RESULTS: The shortened versions of the questionnaires presented almost identical accuracy for classifying the therapy outcomes as compared to the validated full-length versions. In addition, principal component analysis was performed on all the PROs and showed a robust clustering of pain intensity, psychological factors, physical function, and sleep across multiple PROs. A selected set of questions captured from multiple PROs can provide adequate information for measuring neurostimulation therapy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are important subjective measures to evaluate the physiological and psychological aspects of pain. However, these measures are cumbersome to collect. These shorter and more targeted PROs could result in better patient engagement, and enhanced and more frequent data collection processes for digital health platforms that minimize patient burden while increasing therapeutic benefits for chronic pain patients.

Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

Cephalad extraspinal spinal cord stimulator lead migration & salvage: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation is an important therapy option for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain of spinal or peripheral etiology. As with any implantable device, complications may arise. These must be promptly identified and managed to maintain patients in successful therapy. CASE REPORT: We report an unusual case of cephalad and extraspinal lead migration requiring surgical intervention in order to salvage therapy. CONCLUSION: Lead migration is one of the most common complications of spinal cord stimulation, and left untreated can lead to loss of therapy and possible device explant. A strategy for correcting this issue is needed, and we present an unusual case to consider when faced with a loss of therapy from lead migration.

Ultra-Low Energy Cycled Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Yields Robust Outcomes in Pain, Function, and Affective Domains: A Subanalysis From Two Prospective, Multicenter, International Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: DeRidder's burst stimulation design has become a key spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform because it reduces the intensity of pain as well as its associated emotional distress. The brain pathways underlying these outcomes may also allow for the effects of stimulation to carry over after stimulation is turned off, making it amenable to intermittent application. Here, the utility of intermittently cycled burst was evaluated using data from two large real-world prospective studies (TRIUMPH, REALITY). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects used intermittent dosing in a 1:3 ratio (30 sec on, 90 sec off; N = 100) in TRIUMPH and 1:12 ratio in REALITY (30-sec on, 360-sec off; N = 95) for six months. Pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), pain-related emotions on the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and physical function on PROMIS questionnaires were compared with preimplant baseline ratings and by group. RESULTS: In both groups, mean pain intensity decreased by nearly 50% relative to baseline, PCS scores significantly decreased, and physical function improved. Importantly, no differences between the 1:3 and 1:12 groups were identified. A high proportion, 80% and 77% of the 1:3 and 1:12 groups, respectively, were considered responders on a multiple measures. No adverse events were associated with intermittent stimulation. DISCUSSION: Intermittent cycling of burst SCS lowers the overall electric charge delivered to the spinal cord and preserves battery consumption, without compromising pain relief and associated symptoms.

Anatomic Lead Placement Without Paresthesia Mapping Provides Effective and Predictable Therapy During the Trial Evaluation Period: Results From the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, DELIVERY Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant. RESULTS: Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p < 0.0001). Decrease in the mean NRS pain score was similar between groups (53.2%, AP group; 53.8%, PM group, p = 0.79). Trial success for patients who went on to an extended trial with tonic stimulation was 50% (5/10) vs. 79% (11/14) for AP group and PM group, respectively (p = 0.2). A total of 13 adverse events were observed (4.5%), most commonly lead migrations and pain around implant site, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: When using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern, anatomic or PM lead placement technique may be used. Nonresponders to subthreshold stimulation had a higher conversion rate when a PM technique was used. AP resulted in shorter procedure times with a similar safety profile and was strongly preferred by trialing physicians.

Precision Rehabilitation After Neurostimulation Implantation for Multifidus Dysfunction in Nociceptive Mechanical Chronic Low Back Pain.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a debilitating, painful, and costly condition. Implantable neuromuscular electrical stimulation targeting the multifidus musculature is growing as a non-pharmacologic option for patients with recalcitrant nociceptive mechanical CLBP who have failed conservative treatments (including medications and physical therapy) and for whom surgery is not indicated. Properly selecting patients who meet specific criteria (based on historical results from randomized controlled trials), who diligently adhere to implant usage and precisely implement neuromuscular rehabilitation, improve success of significant functional recovery, as well as pain medication reductions. Patients with nociceptive mechanical CLBP who underwent implanted multifidus neurostimulation have been treated by physicians and rehabilitation specialists who have honed their experience working with multifidus neurostimulation. They have collaborated on consensus and evidence-driven guidelines to improve quality outcomes and to assist providers when encountering patients with this device. Physicians and physical therapists together provide precision patient-centric medical management with quality neuromuscular rehabilitation to encourage patients to be experts of both their implants and quality spine motion to help override long-standing multifidus dysfunction related to their CLBP.

Comparing Conventional Medical Management to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Cohort of DISTINCT RCT Patients.

Aim: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a more effective, long-term treatment compared to conventional medical management (CMM). The DISTINCT study enrolled and randomized chronic LBP patients with no indication of traditional spine surgery. This analysis focuses comparing study outcomes on patients initially randomized to receive CMM treatment and subsequently crossed over to SCS after 6 months. Purpose: To compare the therapeutic effectiveness and cost-efficiency of passive recharge burst SCS to CMM. Patients and Methods: A total of 269 patients were enrolled with 162 randomly assigned to SCS and 107 to CMM. The DISTINCT study design allowed a crossover to the alternative treatment arm after 6 months. Patients underwent a trial and received a permanent implant if they reported ≥50% pain reduction. Outcome analysis included pain (NRS), disability (ODI), catastrophizing (PCS), quality of life (PROMIS-29) and health care utilization. Results: Seventy out of eighty-one patients opted to cross over to trial SCS at 6M with 94% (66/70) undergoing a trial. Among those, 88% (58/66) reported a ≥50% or more pain relief and 55 received a permanent implant. At 12M visit, 71.4% reported a ≥50% pain improvement sustained at the 18M visit, with 24.5% (12/49) indicating a ≥80% improvement. Disability reductions (79% meeting the minimally important difference of a 13-point decrease), decreased catastrophizing, and significant improvements in all PROMIS-29 domains were noted. Furthermore, 42% of the patients reported decreased or discontinued opioid usage. Clinical benefits at the 12M visit were sustained through the 18M visit accompanied by a significant reduction in healthcare utilization and a $1214 cost savings. Conclusion: SCS demonstrates superior, long-term performance and safety outcomes compared to CMM therapy in LBP patients who received both CMM and SCS therapy. Additionally, SCS patients experienced reduced healthcare resource utilization and lower costs compared to those receiving CMM.

Surgical treatment of refractory low back pain using implanted BurstDR spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a cohort of patients without options for corrective surgery: Findings and results from the DISTINCT study, a prospective randomized multi-center-controlled trial.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites. Results: The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae. Conclusion: DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

Objective wearable measures correlate with self-reported chronic pain levels in people with spinal cord stimulation systems.

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for treating chronic pain. However, perceived treatment response to SCS therapy may vary among people with chronic pain due to diverse needs and backgrounds. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from standard survey questions do not provide the full picture of what has happened to a patient since their last visit, and digital PROs require patients to visit an app or otherwise regularly engage with software. This study aims to assess the feasibility of using digital biomarkers collected from wearables during SCS treatment to predict pain and PRO outcomes. Twenty participants with chronic pain were recruited and implanted with SCS. During the six months of the study, activity and physiological metrics were collected and data from 15 participants was used to develop a machine learning pipeline to objectively predict pain levels and categories of PRO measures. The model reached an accuracy of 0.768 ± 0.012 in predicting the pain intensity of mild, moderate, and severe. Feature importance analysis showed that digital biomarkers from the smartwatch such as heart rate, heart rate variability, step count, and stand time can contribute to modeling different aspects of pain. The results of the study suggest that wearable biomarkers can be used to predict therapy outcomes in people with chronic pain, enabling continuous, real-time monitoring of patients during the use of implanted therapies.

Objective wearable measures and subjective questionnaires for predicting response to neurostimulation in people with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulation is an effective therapy for treating and management of refractory chronic pain. However, the complex nature of pain and infrequent in-clinic visits, determining subject's long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of pain in this population can help with early diagnosis, disease progression monitoring, and evaluating long-term therapeutic efficacy. This paper compares the utilization of the common subjective patient-reported outcomes with objective measures captured through a wearable device for predicting the response to neurostimulation therapy. METHOD: Data is from the ongoing international prospective post-market REALITY clinical study, which collects long-term patient-reported outcomes from 557 subjects implanted by Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators. The REALITY sub-study was designed for collecting additional wearables data on a subset of 20 participants implanted with SCS devices for up to six months post implantation. We first implemented a combination of dimensionality reduction algorithms and correlation analyses to explore the mathematical relationships between objective wearable data and subjective patient-reported outcomes. We then developed machine learning models to predict therapy outcome based on the subject's response to the numerical rating scale (NRS) or patient global impression of change (PGIC). RESULTS: Principal component analysis showed that psychological aspects of pain were associated with heart rate variability, while movement-related measures were strongly associated with patient-reported outcomes related to physical function and social role participation. Our machine learning models using objective wearable data predicted PGIC and NRS outcomes with high accuracy without subjective data. The prediction accuracy was higher for PGIC compared with the NRS using subjective-only measures primarily driven by the patient satisfaction feature. Similarly, the PGIC questions reflect an overall change since the study onset and could be a better predictor of long-term neurostimulation therapy outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of this study is to introduce a novel use of wearable data collected from a subset of patients to capture multi-dimensional aspects of pain and compare the prediction power with the subjective data from a larger data set. The discovery of pain digital biomarkers could result in a better understanding of the patient's response to therapy and their general well-being.

Restorative Neurostimulation: A Clinical Guide for Therapy Adoption.

In this review, we present a comprehensive clinical approach to restorative neurostimulation, a novel form of stimulation for refractory chronic mechanical low back pain, targeting impaired neuromuscular control and degeneration of the multifidus muscle. We focus on patient identification, technique guidance, and review of the scientific background and clinical evidence. As our understanding of back pain grows, there is clear evidence that impaired neuromuscular control and consequent degeneration of the multifidus muscle contribute to mechanical low back pain development and maintenance. We provide clinical guidance regarding an implantable restorative neurostimulation system that targets impaired neuromuscular control. Supported by results from a randomized, active-sham-controlled clinical trial with long-term follow-up, we provide clinicians with a comprehensive overview and practical clinical guidance for the adoption of this therapy modality.

A Retrospective, Multicenter, Quantitative Analysis of Patients' Baseline Pain Quality (PROMIS-29) Entering into Pain and Spine Practices in the United States (ALIGN).

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary patient-reported outcomes are a critical part of assessing patients to better understand their well-being during treatment. The use of multidisciplinary patient-reported outcomes is recommended in many areas of medicine. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) has been utilized as a common measurement language across universally relevant domains, including pain, mood, sleep, social participation, and function. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Subjects were identified and consecutively enrolled upon entry into chronic pain centers across 24 sites in the United States. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 and the numerical rating scale (NRS) were recorded. The pain impact score and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) were calculated. Statistical differences were assessed between genders and among age groups comprising subjects less than 40, 41-60, 61-80, and over 80 years of age. RESULTS: A total of 19,546 patients were assessed over the enrollment period from 2018 to 2020. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was evaluated across the seven domains, along with the numerical rating sale (NRS). The mean scores of the population for PROMIS SF v1.0 Pain Interference 4a, PROMIS SF v1.0 Sleep Disturbance 4a, PROMIS SF v1.0 Fatigue 4a, PROMIS SF v1.0 Anxiety 4a, PROMIS SF V1.0 Depression 4a, PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities 4a, and PROMIS SF v1.0 Physical Function 4a, measuring pain interference, sleep disturbance, fatigue, anxiety, depression, social participation, and physical function, were 64.61, 57.19, 58.50, 53.94, 54.45, 40.06, and 36.23, respectively. Pain intensity was 6.38 on an 11-point NRS scale. The pain impact score (PIS) and health utilities index mark 3 (HUI-3) scores, calculated across the designated age groups, were 33.19 and 0.67, respectively. Statistical differences were observed for the domains of sleep disturbance and physical function for age groups less than 40 and greater than 80 years of age. CONCLUSION: This data set is the first published normative data set describing the PROMIS-29 assessment in the chronic pain population. The patient population is more homogeneous than expected, and females were found to have higher levels of dysfunction.