Guirguis, Maged

Background The efficacy of EVOKE therapy, a closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system, has been demonstrated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). RCT evidence, however, may not be generalizable to clinical practice, while limitations of real-world evidence may affect its validity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EVOKE therapy in routine clinical practice employing a rigorous data collection approach. Methods The ECAP study was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, pragmatic study that enrolled SCS candidates with chronic, intractable trunk and/or limb pain in 22 US investigational sites. PROMIS-29 questionnaire and objective neurophysiological metrics were collected, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were used to characterize baseline dysfunction and response to EVOKE therapy both at trial end and maximal analgesic effect post-implant visit. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted based on diagnosis. Results EVOKE therapy observed included a dose ratio of 1.3 and neural dose accuracy of 2.8 μV. Improvements of >1 MCID were observed for all domains and improvements of ≥2 MCIDs were observed for six of the seven domains. Improvements observed at trial end were maintained or improved at post-implant visit, with statistically significant improvement in holistic MCID (MD 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4, p=0.004), and a significantly greater proportion of patients considered holistic MCID responders (p=0.047). Subgroup analysis by diagnosis showed similar outcomes. Conclusions EVOKE therapy was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in a real-world chronic pain population across different subgroups and disease pathologies, with effects observed at trial end reproduced at post-implant visit.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a painful and sometimes debilitating disease that often affects patients for years. Current treatments include short-lasting and often repetitive nonsurgical options, followed by surgical intervention for appropriate candidates. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of pain related to knee osteoarthritis. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of CRFA with those of a single hyaluronic acid (HA) injection. Methods: Two hundred and sixty subjects with knee osteoarthritis pain that was inadequately responsive to prior nonoperative modalities were screened for enrollment in this multicenter, randomized trial. One hundred and eighty-two subjects who met the inclusion criteria underwent diagnostic block injections and those with a minimum of 50% pain relief were randomized to receive either CRFA on 4 genicular nerves or a single HA injection. One hundred and seventy-five subjects were treated (88 with CRFA and 87 with HA). Evaluations for pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), quality of life (Global Perceived Effect [GPE] score and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L] questionnaire), and safety were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Results: Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the 2 study groups. A total of 158 subjects (76 in the CRFA group and 82 in the HA group) completed the 6-month post-treatment follow-up. In the CRFA group, 71% of the subjects had ≥50% reduction in the NRS pain score (primary end point) compared with 38% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, the mean NRS score reduction was 4.1 ± 2.2 for the CRFA group compared with 2.5 ± 2.5 for the HA group (p < 0.0001). The mean WOMAC score improvement at 6 months from baseline was 48.2% in the CRFA group and 22.6% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, 72% of the subjects in the CRFA group reported improvement in the GPE score compared with 40% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: CRFA-treated subjects demonstrated a significant improvement in pain relief and overall function compared with subjects treated with a single injection of HA. No serious adverse events related to either procedure were noted, and the overall adverse-event profiles were similar. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.