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.

Identifying SCS Trial Responders Immediately After Postoperative Programming with ECAP Dose-Controlled Closed-Loop Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Drawbacks of fixed-output spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trials may lead to compromised trial outcomes and poor predictability of long-term success. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) dose-controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS allows objective confirmation of therapeutic neural activation and pulse-to-pulse stimulation adjustment. We report on the immediate patient-reported and neurophysiologic treatment response post-physiologic CL-SCS and feasibility of early SCS trial responder prediction. METHODS: Patient-reported pain relief, functional improvement, and willingness to proceed to permanent implant were compared between the day of the trial procedure (Day 0) and end of trial (EOT) for 132 participants in the ECAP Study undergoing a trial stimulation period. ECAP-based neurophysiologic measurements from Day 0 and EOT were compared between responder groups. RESULTS: A high positive predictive value (PPV) was achieved with 98.4% (60/61) of patients successful on the Day 0 evaluation also responding at EOT. The false-positive rate (FPR) was 5.6% (1/18). ECAP-based neurophysiologic measures were not different between patients who passed all Day 0 success criteria ("Day 0 successes") and those who did not ("needed longer to evaluate the therapy"). However, at EOT, responders had higher therapeutic usage and dose levels compared to non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: The high PPV and low FPR of the Day 0 evaluation provide confidence in predicting trial outcomes as early as the day of the procedure. Day 0 trials may be beneficial for reducing patient burden and complication rates associated with extended trials. ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy may provide objective data and rapid-onset pain relief to improve prognostic ability of SCS trials in predicting outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ECAP Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04319887).

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for Spinal Cord Stimulation Long-term Outcome Optimization and Salvage Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has recognized a need to establish best practices for optimizing implantable devices and salvage when ideal outcomes are not realized. This group has established the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® to offer guidance on matters needed for both our members and the broader community of those affected by neuromodulation devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The executive committee of the INS nominated faculty for this NACC® publication on the basis of expertise, publications, and career work on the issue. In addition, the faculty was chosen in consideration of diversity and inclusion of different career paths and demographic categories. Once chosen, the faculty was asked to grade current evidence and along with expert opinion create consensus recommendations to address the lapses in information on this topic. RESULTS: The NACC® group established informative and authoritative recommendations on the salvage and optimization of care for those with indwelling devices. The recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion and will be expected to evolve as new data are generated for each topic. CONCLUSIONS: NACC® guidance should be considered for any patient with less-than-optimal outcomes with a stimulation device implanted for treating chronic pain. Consideration should be given to these consensus points to salvage a potentially failed device before explant.

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.

Current Waveforms in Spinal Cord Stimulation and Their Impact on the Future of Neuromodulation: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Neuromodulation is a standard and well-accepted treatment for chronic refractory neuropathic pain. There has been progressive innovation in the field over the last decade, particularly in areas of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulation. Improved outcomes using proprietary waveforms have become customary in the field, leading to an unprecedented expansion of these products and a plethora of options for the management of pain. Although advances in waveform technology have improved our fundamental understanding of neuromodulation, a scoping review describing new energy platforms and their associated clinical effects and outcomes is needed. The authors submit that understanding electrophysiological neuromodulation may be important for clinical decision-making and programming selection for personalized patient care. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to characterize ways differences in mechanism of action and clinical outcomes of current spinal neuromodulation products may affect contemporary clinical decision-making while outlining a possible path for the future SCS. STUDY DESIGN: The study is a scoping review of the literature about newer generation SCS waveforms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature report was performed on PubMed and chapters to include articles on spine neuromodulation mechanism of action and efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 8469 studies were identified, 75 of which were included for the scoping review after keywords defining recent waveform technology were added. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical data suggest that neuromodulation remains a promising tool in the treatment of chronic pain. The evidence for SCS for treating chronic pain seems compelling; however, more long-term and comparative data are needed for a comparison of waveforms when it comes to the etiology of pain. In addition, an exploration into combination waveform therapy and waveform cycling may be paramount for future clinical studies and the development of new technologies.

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.

Remote Management of Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices for Chronic Pain: Expert Recommendations on Best Practices for Proper Utilization and Future Considerations.

OBJECTIVE: Emerging spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remote monitoring and programming technologies provide a unique opportunity to address challenges of in-person visits and improve patient care, although clinical guidance on implementation is needed. The goal of this document is to establish best clinical practices for integration of remote device management into the care of patients with SCS, including remote monitoring and remote programming. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of experts in SCS met in July 2022, and additional experts contributed to the development of recommendations after the meeting via survey responses and correspondence. RESULTS: Major goals of remote SCS device management were identified, including prompt identification and resolution of SCS-related issues. The panel identified metrics for remote monitoring and classified them into three categories: device-related (eg, stimulation usage); measurable physiologic or disease-related (eg, patient physical activity or pedometry); and patient-reported (eg, sleep quality and pain intensity). Recommendations were made for frequency of reviewing remote monitoring metrics, although providers should tailor follow-up to individual patient needs. Such periodic reviews of remote monitoring metrics would occur separately from automatic monitoring system notifications (if key metrics fall outside an acceptable range). The guidelines were developed in consideration of reimbursement processes, privacy concerns, and the responsibilities of the care team, industry professionals, manufacturers, patients, and caregivers. Both existing and needed clinical evidence were covered, including outcomes of interest for future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given the expansion of SCS device capabilities, this document provides critical guidance on best practices for using remote device management, although medical necessity should drive all remote monitoring decisions, with individualized patient care. The authors also describe the potential of these emerging technologies to improve outcomes for patients with SCS, although more clinical evidence is needed.

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.

Multiphase Spinal Cord Stimulation in Participants With Chronic Back or Leg Pain: Results of the BENEFIT-02 Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new charge-distributed multiphase stimulation paradigm during an extended spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, feasibility study included participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain and baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) for overall pain intensity ≥6. After a successful commercial SCS trial, participants were randomized to multiphase SCS therapy A (approximately 600-1500 Hz) or B (approximately 300-600 Hz), delivered via an investigational external pulse generator and existing leads during an 11-to-12-day testing period. Primary end points were mean NRS change from baseline to final in-office visit for each multiphase therapy and between therapies. Secondary end points included mean NRS change from end of commercial trial to final study visit and incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs). Additional measures included patient-reported outcomes collected at home through electronic watches and written diaries. Power usage was compared between multiphase and commercial therapies. RESULTS: A total of 122 participants initiated a commercial trial; 77 were randomized to a multiphase arm, and 65 completed the study. Reductions in mean NRS scores from baseline to final study visit were significant for multiphase therapy A and B (-4.3 and -4.7, respectively; both p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean NRS reduction or percent pain relief between multiphase therapies. In an additional analysis, 63.9% of participants reported greater pain relief with multiphase than with commercial SCS therapy in the at-home setting. On average, multiphase required less power than did commercial devices. One non-serious device-related AE was reported, and no infections occurred during the extended trial. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase SCS effectively reduced pain in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain during a trial, with no unanticipated device-related AEs reported. Future studies should evaluate long-term effectiveness of multiphase stimulation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03594266.

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.

Posterior intra-articular fixation stabilizes both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints: a cadaveric study and comparison to lateral trans-articular fixation literature.

BACKGROUND: Posterior and lateral techniques have been described as approaches to sacroiliac joint arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the stabilizing effects of a novel posterior stabilization implant and technique to a previously published lateral approach in a cadaveric multidirectional bending model. We hypothesized that both approaches would have an equivalent stabilizing effect in flexion-extension and that the posterior approach would exhibit better performance in lateral bending and axial rotation. We further hypothesized that unilateral and bilateral posterior fixation would stabilize both the primary and secondary joints. METHODS: Ranges of motion (RoMs) of six cadaveric sacroiliac joints were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 N-m applied moment in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions. RESULTS: Intact RoMs were equivalent between both samples. For the posterior intra-articular technique, unilateral fixation reduced the RoMs of both primary and secondary joints in all loading planes (flexion-extension RoM by 45%, lateral bending RoM by 47%, and axial RoM by 33%), and bilateral fixation maintained this stabilizing effect in both joints (flexion-extension at 48%, lateral bending at 53%, and axial rotation at 42%). For the lateral trans-articular technique, only bilateral fixation reduced mean RoM of both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints, and only under flexion-extension loads (60%). CONCLUSION: During flexion-extension, the posterior approach is equivalent to the lateral approach, while producing superior stabilization during lateral bend and axial rotation.

Best Practices for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Pain: Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and it has broad applicability across a wide range of other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the American Society for Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN), this best practices consensus document has been developed for the selection, implantation, and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. This document is composed of a comprehensive narrative literature review that has been performed regarding the role of the DRG in chronic pain and the clinical evidence for DRG-S as a treatment for multiple pain etiologies. Best practice recommendations encompass safety management, implantation techniques, and mitigation of the potential complications reported in the literature. Looking to the future of neuromodulation, DRG-S holds promise as a robust intervention for otherwise intractable pain.

Clinical Longevity of 106,462 Rechargeable and Primary Cell Spinal Cord Stimulators: Real World Study in the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are available with either primary cell (PC) or rechargeable cell (RC) batteries. Although RC systems are proposed to have a battery longevity upward of nine years, in comparison with four years for PC systems, there are few studies of longevity of SCS in the real world. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, nonrandomized, retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries who received neurostimulator implants in the outpatient hospital. This study used Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2020. The clinical longevity of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), defined as the duration from implant until removal for any reason, was compared between PC and RC devices. Life distribution analysis was used to approximate device lifespan. The secondary analysis separated removals into explant or replacements. The statistics were adjusted for relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: A total of 25,856 PC and 79,606 RC systems were included in the study. At seven years after implant, 53.8% of PC IPGs and 55.0% of RC IPGs remained in use. The life distribution modeling analysis projected a median lifespan of 8.2 years for PC and 9.0 years for RC devices. The rate of explant was lower for PC devices (19.2%) than for RC devices (22.0%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.082), whereas the rate of replacements was higher for PC devices (33.7%) than for RC devices (29.5%, HR = 1.31, p < 0.001). An analysis of the battery type used in device replacements showed an increasing adoption of PC devices over time. CONCLUSIONS: This large, retrospective, real-world analysis of Medicare claims data demonstrated that the clinical longevity of neurostimulator devices is similar for PC and RC batteries. In the past, clinicians may have defaulted to RC devices based on the assumption that they provided extended battery life. Considering this longevity data, clinicians should now consider the choice between PC and RC devices based on other individual factors pertinent to the patient experience and not on purported longevity claims.

Association Between Levels of Functional Disability and Health-Related Quality of Life With Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Pain score, functional disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials. Although greater levels of pain reduction have been shown to be linked to larger gains in HRQoL, little is known of the association between HRQoL and disability in the setting of chronic pain. The aims of this study were to 1) investigate the association between functional disability and HRQoL and 2) estimate the utility values associated with levels of functional disability in patients treated with evoked compound action potential (ECAP) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on functional disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L) were collected from 204 patients with an Evoke ECAP-SCS device and followed up to 12 months. SF-6D utility scores also were retrieved for 134 of these patients. Multivariable linear regression models adjusted for baseline utility values and patient demographics were used to compare differences in utility values across ODI categories. RESULTS: Significant improvements in functional disability and HRQoL were observed at three- and 12-month follow-up after SCS. Patients reporting "minimum disability," "moderate disability," "severe disability," and "crippled" had mean EQ-5D scores of 0.82, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.45, respectively. The mean change in EQ-5D score was 0.007 per unit change in total ODI score. The R2 statistic showed a moderate level association (49%-64% of variance in EQ-5D explained by ODI). CONCLUSION: ECAP-SCS results in significant improvements in functional disability and HRQoL. This study shows that improvement in function of people with chronic pain before and after ECAP-SCS is associated with improvement in HRQoL.

Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from - unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are "better" and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.

Durability of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Evoke Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. Objective: To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. Interventions: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Results: Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. Conclusions and Relevance: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.