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.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)®: Intrathecal Drug Delivery Guidance on Safety and Therapy Optimization When Treating Chronic Noncancer Pain.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians and scientists based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on intrathecal drug delivery in treating chronic pain. This Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)® project, created more than two decades ago, intends to provide evidence-based guidance for important safety and efficacy issues surrounding intrathecal drug delivery and its impact on the practice of neuromodulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when PACC® last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence is scant. RESULTS: The PACC® examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The PACC® recommends best practices regarding intrathecal drug delivery to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

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.

Estimated health effects from domestic use of gaseous fuels for cooking and heating in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to household air pollution from polluting domestic fuel (solid fuel and kerosene) represents a substantial global public health burden and there is an urgent need for rapid transition to clean domestic fuels. Gas for cooking and heating might possibly affect child asthma, wheezing, and respiratory health. The aim of this review was to synthesise the evidence on the health effects of gaseous fuels to inform policies for scalable clean household energy. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarised the health effects from cooking or heating with gas compared with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) and clean energy (eg, electricity and solar energy). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Environment Complete, GreenFile, Google Scholar, Wanfang DATA, and CNKI for articles published between Dec 16, 2020, and Feb 6, 2021. Studies eligible for inclusion had to compare gas for cooking or heating with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) or clean energy (eg, electricity or solar energy) and present data for health outcomes in general populations. Studies that reported health outcomes that were exacerbations of existing underlying conditions were excluded. Several of our reviewers were involved in screening studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (including risk of bias) of included studies; 20% of studies were independently screened, extracted and quality assessed by another reviewer. Disagreements were reconciled through discussion with the wider review team. Included studies were appraised for quality using the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tools. Key health outcomes were grouped for meta-analysis and analysed using Cochrane's RevMan software. Primary outcomes were health effects (eg, acute lower respiratory infections) and secondary outcomes were health symptoms (eg, respiratory symptoms such as wheeze, cough, or breathlessness). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021227092. FINDINGS: 116 studies were included in the meta-analysis (two [2%] randomised controlled trials, 13 [11%] case-control studies, 23 [20%] cohort studies, and 78 [67%] cross-sectional studies), contributing 215 effect estimates for five grouped health outcomes. Compared with polluting fuels, use of gas significantly lowered the risk of pneumonia (OR 0·54, 95% CI 0·38-0·77; p=0·00080), wheeze (OR 0·42, 0·30-0·59; p<0·0001), cough (OR 0·44, 0·32-0·62; p<0·0001), breathlessness (OR 0·40, 0·21-0·76; p=0·0052), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 0·37, 0·23-0·60; p<0·0001), bronchitis (OR 0·60, 0·43-0·82; p=0·0015), pulmonary function deficit (OR 0·27, 0·17-0·44; p<0·0001), severe respiratory illness or death (OR 0·27, 0·11-0·63; p=0·0024), preterm birth (OR 0·66, 0·45-0·97; p=0·033), and low birth weight (OR 0·70, 0·53-0·93; p=0·015). Non-statistically significant effects were observed for asthma in children (OR 1·04, 0·70-1·55; p=0·84), asthma in adults (OR 0·65, 0·43-1·00; p=0·052), and small for gestational age (OR 1·04, 0·89-1·21; p=0·62). Compared with electricity, use of gas significantly increased risk of pneumonia (OR 1·26, 1·03-1·53; p=0·025) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1·15, 1·06-1·25; p=0·0011), although smaller non-significant effects were observed for higher-quality studies. In addition, a small increased risk of asthma in children was not significant (OR 1·09, 0·99-1·19; p=0·071) and no significant associations were found for adult asthma, wheeze, cough, and breathlessness (p>0·05). A significant decreased risk of bronchitis was observed (OR 0·87, 0·81-0·93; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Switching from polluting fuels to gaseous household fuels could lower health risk and associated morbidity and mortality in resource-poor countries where reliance on polluting fuels is greatest. Although gas fuel use was associated with a slightly higher risk for some health outcomes compared with electricity, gas is an important transitional option for health in countries where access to reliable electricity supply for cooking or heating is not feasible in the near term. FUNDING: WHO.

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.

Does industry funding and study location impact findings from randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. FINDINGS: Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I2=0%, τ2=0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I2=97%, τ2=2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I2 and τ2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding.

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.

Small-vessel vasculitis leading to severe acute kidney injury after ipilimumab: a case report.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are effective monoclonal antibodies used in cancer treatment, particularly in metastatic melanoma. They target proteins responsible for cancer cells evading the immune system. However, their use can lead to immune-related adverse events, with the skin and gastrointestinal tract being commonly affected. Kidney involvement is rarer, with interstitial nephritis being the most common manifestation. In a unique case, kidney biopsy-proven small-vessel vasculitis with arteriolar immune deposition was observed following ipilimumab administration.

Risk factors for low humoral response to BNT-162b2 in hemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients are at higher risk of both infection and mortality associated with the new SARS-CoV-2. Immunization through large-scale vaccination is the cornerstone of infection prevention in this population. This study aims to identify risk factors for low response to the BNT-162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) vaccine in an HD cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational prospective study of an HD group followed in a Portuguese Public Founded Hemodialysis Center who received BNT-162b2 vaccination. Specific anti-Spike IgG was evaluated as arbitrary units per milliliter (AU/mL) and compared against risk factors. RESULTS: Humoral response evaluated by IgG anti-Spike levels showed a strong correlation with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and intact parathormone (iPTH) after each inoculation (1st dose: rho = -0.64/0.54; 2nd dose: rho = -0.66/0.63, respectively; p < 0.01 throughout). After completing both doses: 1) no response (NR) was associated with female sex (p < 0.01), lower albumin and iPTH (p = 0.01); 2) weak response (WR) showed higher CCI, older age, lower iPTH, and lower albumin (p = < 0.01, p = 0.03, p < 0.01, p = 0.05, respectively). A binary regression model using CCI, sex (male), and central venous catheter (CVC) was statistically significant in prediction of WR after the 2nd dose with OR (95% CI): 1.81 (1.06 - 3.08); 0.05 (0.01 - 0.65); 13.55 (1.06 - 174.18), respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Older age, higher CCI, lower iPTH and albumin as well as CVC as vascular access were associated with lower response to vaccination in our study. Comorbidity burden is suggested as a preferred indirect method to predict worst response when compared to age alone.

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Objectives: The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Data sources: The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results. Results: The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters. Limitations: Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891. Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease includes a range of conditions that are caused by a build-up of fat in the liver, and not by alcohol consumption. This build-up of fat can cause inflammation. Persistent inflammation can cause scar tissue (fibrosis) to develop. It is important to identify patients with fibrosis because severe fibrosis can cause permanent liver damage (cirrhosis), which can lead to liver failure and liver cancer. In the National Health Service, patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease undergo tests to determine whether they have fibrosis. The test results are not always accurate and multiple tests can give conflicting results. Some of the tests may not be suitable for patients who have a very high body mass index. In the National Health Service, a liver biopsy may be offered to patients with inconclusive or conflicting test results or to those patients for whom other tests are unsuitable. However, liver biopsy is expensive, and is associated with side-effects such as pain and bleeding. Magnetic resonance imaging-based testing could be used as an extra test to help clinicians assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and identify patients who may need a liver biopsy. We assessed two magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic tests, LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography. LiverMultiScan is imaging software that is used alongside magnetic resonance imaging to measure markers of liver disease. Magnetic resonance elastography is used in some National Health Service centres to assess liver fibrosis; however, magnetic resonance elastography requires more equipment than just an magnetic resonance imaging scanner. We reviewed all studies examining how well LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography assess patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. We also built an economic model to estimate the costs and benefits of using LiverMultiScan to identify patients who should be sent for a biopsy. Results from the model showed that LiverMultiScan may not provide good value for money to the National Health Service.

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.

2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The management of antidiabetic therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has evolved beyond glycemic control. In this context, Brazil and Portugal defined a joint panel of four leading diabetes societies to update the guideline published in 2020. METHODS: The panelists searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) for the best evidence from clinical studies on treating T2D and its cardiorenal complications. The panel searched for evidence on antidiabetic therapy in people with T2D without cardiorenal disease and in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), or diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All people with T2D need to have their cardiovascular (CV) risk status stratified and HbA1c, BMI, and eGFR assessed before defining therapy. An HbA1c target of less than 7% is adequate for most adults, and a more flexible target (up to 8%) should be considered in frail older people. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended during all phases of treatment. In treatment naïve T2D individuals without cardiorenal complications, metformin is the agent of choice when HbA1c is 7.5% or below. When HbA1c is above 7.5% to 9%, starting with dual therapy is recommended, and triple therapy may be considered. When HbA1c is above 9%, starting with dual therapyt is recommended, and triple therapy should be considered. Antidiabetic drugs with proven CV benefit (AD1) are recommended to reduce CV events if the patient is at high or very high CV risk, and antidiabetic agents with proven efficacy in weight reduction should be considered when obesity is present. If HbA1c remains above target, intensification is recommended with triple, quadruple therapy, or even insulin-based therapy. In people with T2D and established ASCVD, AD1 agents (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA with proven CV benefit) are initially recommended to reduce CV outcomes, and metformin or a second AD1 may be necessary to improve glycemic control if HbA1c is above the target. In T2D with HF, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce HF hospitalizations and mortality and to improve HbA1c. In patients with DKD, SGLT2 inhibitors in combination with metformin are recommended when eGFR is above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. SGLT2 inhibitors can be continued until end-stage kidney disease.

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.

Dual Kidney Transplantation: Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Dual and en bloc kidney transplantation are strategies used to mitigate the disparity between a reduced organ pool and an ever-increasing need for organ procurement. En bloc refers to the implantation of 2 kidneys from a pediatric donor, compensating for small renal mass, whereas dual expanded criteria donor (DECD) transplantation refers to older donors with grafts otherwise rejected for single transplant, including expanded. This study describes one center's experience with dual and en bloc transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of dual kidney transplants (en bloc and DECD) from 1990 through 2021. The analysis included demographic, clinical, and survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 46 patients who underwent dual kidney transplantation, 17 (37 %) received en-bloc transplantation. The overall mean recipient age was 49.4 ± 13.9 years old, younger in the en-bloc subgroup (39.2 vs 59.8 years old, P < .01). The mean time on dialysis was 37 ± 25 months. Delayed graft function was present in 17.4 % and primary nonfunction in 6.4 %, all from the DECD group. The estimated glomerular filtration rates at 1 and 5 years were 76.7 ± 28.7 and 80.4 ± 24.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, lower in the DECD group (65.9 vs 88.7 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.02). Eleven recipients lost their graft during the study period: 63.6% from death with a functioning graft, 27.3% due to chronic graft dysfunction (a mean of 76.3 months after transplantation), and 9.1% due to vascular complications. Subgroup comparison found no differences regarding cold ischemia time or length of hospitalization. Kaplan-Meier estimates, censored for death with a functioning graft, resulted in a mean graft survival of 21.3 ± 1.3 years, with survival rates of 93.5, 90.5, and 84.1% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively, without significant differences between subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Both DECD and en bloc strategies provide safe and effective options to further expand the use of otherwise rejected kidneys. Neither of the 2 techniques was superior to the other.