Falowski, Steven

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.

Abstract Introduction DISTINCT is a randomized controlled trial evaluating passive recharge burst SCS compared with CMM in improving pain and pain‐related physical function in patients suffering from chronic back pain without prior lumbar surgery, and for whom corrective surgery is not an option. Sub‐analyses of outcome measures are presented for a subset implanted with paddle leads at both 6 and 12 months. Objective To investigate the treatment effect of using BurstDR‐capable SCS in nonsurgical low back pain (NSLBP) patients with paddle leads. Methods An independent board‐certified spine surgeon reviewed each case, confirming a lack of corrective surgical options. Out of 29 sites and 115 implants, 10 sites implanted 50 patients with paddle leads. Primary and secondary endpoints assessed improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), low back pain‐related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and patient global impression of change (PGIC). Results Data for patients with NSLBP and implanted with paddle leads are available for 47 and 44 patients at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Patients reported significant reductions in pain relief at 6 and 12 months, decreasing from 7.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 2.0 ± 1.6 and 2.2 ± 2.2, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Disability was substantially reduced (> 20 points) from severe to mild at 6 and 12 months; ODI reduced from 54.4 ± 15.0 at baseline to 19.9 ± 14.1 and 22.1 ± 13.6, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Pain catastrophizing improved to reflect the average of a non‐chronic pain population; decreased from 27.6 ± 13.1 at baseline to 8.1 ± 8.2 and 7.8 ± 9.9 ( p < 0.0001). 93.2% of patients reported a moderately better‐much‐improved outcome on PGIC. Ten complications occurred in 9 patients, 3 being severe device‐related events. Two explants were required; one due to infection and one due to persistent pain at the IPG site, and one lead‐related event was resolved by surgical repositioning. Conclusions Passive recharge burst using paddle leads provides substantial relief to patients suffering from severe, debilitating, NSLBP. Patients report significant improvements in pain, function, and pain‐related emotional distress. In addition, the rate of adverse events is low, supporting a favorable safety profile.

Abstract Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective therapy for treatment of chronic 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 investigate the feasibility of using limited sets of outcomes from multiple PROs to accurately characterize subjects’ response to SCS therapy. 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 a neurostimulator enrolled in the post-market REALITY study. Combination of Pearson’s correlation and factor analysis was 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 SCS therapy outcome 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 SCS therapy outcomes. Conclusions These shorter and more targeted PROs could result in better patient engagement, enhanced and more frequent data collection processes for digital health platforms, and ultimately increased patient satisfaction with SCS therapy. Trial registration Data for our analysis were extracted from the ongoing prospective, multicenter, international REALITY (Long-Term Real-World Outcomes Study on Patients Implanted with a Neurostimulator) study (NCT03876054).

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for DRG stimulation.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsDRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies.ConclusionsModerate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for SCS.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsSCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT).ConclusionsHigh-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis ( LSS ) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. Methods The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer‐reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment ( MIST ) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [ RCT s]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. Results The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image‐guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. Conclusions MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS , based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer‐reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence‐based decision algorithm.