Disease applications of spinal cord stimulation: Chronic nonmalignant pain.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition representing a significant burden for society. It is estimated 1 out of 10 people over the age of 30 that in the US have been diagnosed with neuropathic pain. Most of the available treatments for neuropathic pain have moderate efficacy over time which limit their use; therefore, other therapeutic approaches are needed for patients. Spinal cord stimulation is an established and cost-effective modality for treating severe chronic pain. In this article we will review the current approved indications for the use of spinal cord stimulation in the US and the novel therapeutic options which are now available using this therapy.

A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms. APPROACH: We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain. RESULTS: We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

Postural Changes in Spinal Cord Stimulation Thresholds: Current and Voltage Sources.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) thresholds are known to change with body position; however, these changes have not been fully characterized for both "constant-voltage" and "constant-current" pulse generators. This study aimed to evaluate and quantify changes in psychophysical thresholds resulting from postural changes that may affect both conventional paresthesia-based SCS and novel paresthesia-free SCS technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured perceptual, usage, and discomfort thresholds in four body positions (prone, supine, sitting, standing) in 149 consecutive patients, with temporary lower thoracic percutaneous epidural electrodes placed for treating persistent low back and leg pain. We trialed 119 patients with constant-voltage stimulators and 30 patients with constant-current stimulators. RESULTS: Moving from supine to the sitting, standing, or prone positions caused all three thresholds (perceptual, usage, and discomfort) to increase by 22% to 34% for constant-voltage stimulators and by 44% to 82% for constant-current stimulators. Changing from a seated to a supine position caused stimulation to exceed discomfort threshold significantly more often for constant-current (87%) than for constant-voltage (63%) stimulators (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Posture-induced changes in SCS thresholds occurred consistently as patients moved from lying (supine or prone) to upright (standing or sitting) positions. These changes were more pronounced for constant-current than for constant-voltage pulse generators and more often led to stimulation-evoked discomfort. These observations are consistent with postural changes in spinal cord position measured in imaging studies, and with computer model predictions of neural recruitment for these different spinal cord positions. These observations have implications for the design, implantation, and clinical application of spinal cord stimulators, not only for conventional paresthesia-based SCS but also for paresthesia-free SCS.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England-A budget impact analysis.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000-£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be >£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems.

Glossary of Neurostimulation Terminology: A Collaborative Neuromodulation Foundation, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society Project.

OBJECTIVE: Consistent terminology is necessary to facilitate communication, but limited efforts have addressed this need in the neurostimulation community. We set out to provide a useful and updated glossary for our colleagues and prospective patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This collaborative effort of the Neuromodulation Foundation (NF), the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN), and the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) expands a glossary first published in 2007 for spinal cord stimulation. Peripheral nerve, dorsal root ganglion, deep brain, and motor cortex stimulation have been added to our scope. Volunteers from the collaborating entities used a nominal group process, consensus development panels, and the Delphi technique to reach consensus on inclusion and definition of terms. We created a glossary suitable for print and for expansion on the websites of the collaborating entities, which will offer the possibility of explaining definitions for a general audience. We excluded proprietary and brand names but included terms that have attracted proprietary interest without becoming brands or trademarks. We made an effort to be inclusive while also being concise and economical with space. RESULTS: We identified and defined 91 terms for this print edition and created an accompanying list of acronyms. As appropriate, we provided figures to illustrate the definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Although we refer to the glossary presented herein as the print edition, it can of course be viewed and searched electronically. NF, IoN, and INS will continue to collaborate on expanded web editions that can include hyperlinks for internal and external navigation. We believe this glossary will benefit our growing field by facilitating communication and mitigating inappropriate use of neurostimulation terms.

Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trial Protocols and Reports of Implantable Neurostimulation Devices: Protocol for the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim Extensions.

OBJECTIVES: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statements have been shown to improve the quality of reporting of trial protocols and randomized controlled trials. Extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements specific to certain interventions have the potential to address methodological considerations that would otherwise be overlooked. The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods to develop reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions will be developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation. The initial list of candidate items will be informed by findings from previous systematic reviews and published protocols and clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices. The candidate items will be included in a two-round Delphi survey. In the first round, participants will be invited to vote on the importance of each item and to suggest additional relevant items. In the second round, participants will be invited to re-score the items considering feedback received and the suggested additional items. A consensus meeting will then take place to discuss the results of the Delphi survey and reach consensus on the items to include in the extensions. DISCUSSION: Development of the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions has the potential to lead to improvements and increase in transparency of the reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices.

Trends in Utilization and Cost of Inpatient Spinal Cord Stimulation: Analysis of Data from 2008 to 2014.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to characterize contemporary trends in cost and utilization of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample was queried for inpatient admissions from 2008 to 2014 where SCS was performed. We then determined the rates and costs of SCS performed in this time frame to treat diagnoses that we classified as device-related complications, degenerative spine disease, pain syndromes, and neuropathies/neuritis/nerve lesions. Least-squares regression was performed to determine the yearly trends for each indication adjusted by the total number of yearly hospitalizations for that diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified a total of 6876 admissions in whom an SCS was performed. The overall rate of inpatient SCS procedures performed has decreased by 45% from 2008 to 2014 (14.0 to 7.7 procedures per 100,000 admissions). Adjusted analysis for yearly trends also demonstrated a declining trend for all indications; however, this was not found to be statistically significant, except for device-related complications (P = 0.004). The median inflation-adjusted cost of an admission where SCS was performed increased slightly by 7.4% from $26,200 (IQR: $16,700-$33,800) in 2008 to $28,100 (IQR: $19,600-$36,900) in 2014. Billed hospital charges demonstrated a significant increase with median inflation-adjusted admission charge of $66,068 in 2008 to $110,672 in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a declining contemporary trend in inpatient SCS, an increase was noted in admission costs and hospital charges. A significant declining trend was noted in revision SCS implantations due to device-related complications.

Examining the Need to Standardize Implanted Stimulator Connectors: NANS Survey Results.

INTRODUCTION: Connectors between implanted stimulator electrodes and pulse generators allow revisions, including battery changes or generator upgrades, to proceed without disturbing uninvolved components, such as the electrode. As new devices are introduced, however, connector incompatibility, even with updated hardware from the same manufacturer, can lead to additional procedures, expense, and morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the example of the cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator industry, the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN) met to explore the possibility of creating connector standards for implanted neurostimulation devices. At a subsequent meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, which coordinates the development of such standards, industry representatives asked for data defining the need for a new standard. Accordingly, IoN prepared an online survey to be sent to the North American Neuromodulation Society mailing list regarding experience with the connectivity of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) generators and electrodes. RESULTS: The 87 respondents of 9657 surveyed included 77 clinicians, who reported a total of 42,572 SCS implants and revisions. More than a quarter of revisions (2741 of 9935) required the interconnection of devices made by separate manufacturers, in most cases (n = 1528) to take advantage of a new feature (e.g., rechargeability, new waveform) or because an original component could not be replaced (n = 642). Connector adapters provided by manufacturers were used in less than half (n = 1246) of these cases. Nearly all (94%) of the clinicians agreed that standardized connectors should be developed for SCS, and 86% opined that standardized connectors should be developed for other neurostimulation therapies. CONCLUSION: Those who responded to our survey support the development of standard connectors for implanted stimulators, with voluntary compliance by manufacturers, to mitigate the need for adapters and facilitate interchanging components when appropriate. Other advantages to patients and manufacturers might accrue from the adoption of standards, as technology evolves and diversifies.

Cost-Effectiveness Model Shows Superiority of Wireless Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation Without a Separate Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of wireless spinal cord stimulation (Wireless SCS) with single stage "direct to permanent" implantation vs. screening with temporary electrodes and an external pulse generator followed by implantation of a system for long-term use (IPG SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a cost model that takes a 2019 United States (U.S.) payer perspective and is based on IPG SCS cost models for subjects with chronic back and/or leg pain. Our six-month decision tree includes the screening trial period (success ≥50% relief) and leads to various levels of pain relief with or without complications for IPG SCS and Wireless SCS and without complications for conventional medical management (CMM). Every three months in the follow-on 15-year Markov model (with costs and quality-adjusted life years discounted 3.5% annually), subjects remain stable or transition to deteriorated health or death. Subjects who fail SCS receive CMM. After 60 Markov cycles, a 100,000-sample simulation reveals the impact of maximum willingness-to-pay (WTP) from $10,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year on net monetary benefit (NMB). Sensitivity analyses considered the impact of the Wireless SCS screening success rate, Wireless SCS device cost, and IPG SCS device longevity. RESULTS: Compared with IPG SCS, Wireless SCS offers higher clinical effectiveness at a lower cost and a higher NMB for our WTP thresholds and is, thus, dominant. Wireless SCS is also cost-effective compared with CMM. Results remain robust with 1) Wireless SCS screening success rates as low as 85% (dominant), 2) the cost of the Wireless SCS devices as high as $55,000 (cost-effective), and 3) IPG SCS devices lasting 12 years (dominant). CONCLUSIONS: In this model, compared with IPG SCS or with CMM, Wireless SCS is a superior strategy.

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain.

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.

Randomized Placebo-/Sham-Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and high-frequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies. CONCLUSIONS: To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo-/sham-controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.

Redefining Spinal Cord Stimulation "Trials": A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Single-Stage Wireless Permanent Implantable Devices.

BACKGROUND: "Traditional" spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trials with percutaneous electrodes externalized to a pulse generator (PG) are typically limited in duration due to risk of infection. Newer miniaturized wireless SCS technology eliminates the percutaneous extension (as well as PGs implanted for chronic use), thus facilitating a single-stage implantation after which the device can remain indefinitely. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fully implanted wireless SCS devices during a 30-day screening trial in subjects with chronic low back pain and leg pain and a history of lumbosacral spine surgery. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial of single-stage wireless SCS using a wireless percutaneous system, 99 subjects received either 10 kHz high frequency stimulation (HFS) or lower frequency stimulation (LFS) below 1500 Hz (Bolash R, Creamer M, Rauck R, et al. Wireless high frequency spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz) compared to multi-waveform low frequency spinal cord stimulation in the management of chronic pain in failed back surgery syndrome subjects: preliminary results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz019). In this report, we assess the 30-day trial success rate (≥50% pain relief from baseline) and complications. RESULTS: The overall trial success rate was 88% (87/99): 92% (46/50) for HFS and 84% (41/49) for LFS (NS). The trial success rate in the 64 subjects with predominant low back pain was 92% (59/64) vs. 80% (28/35) in those with leg pain ≥ low back pain (NS). During the screening trial, one infection occurred (1%) and one subject withdrew and was explanted (1%). Electrode migrations were seen on routine follow-up x-rays in 10 cases (10%). CONCLUSION: Using wireless SCS devices that allow for an extended trial period and evaluation of various waveforms, we observed a high rate trial success rate with both HFS and LFS waveforms, with minimal incidence of infection. Long-term follow-up will address the cost-effectiveness and morbidity associated with this technology, which facilitates single-stage treatment.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo/sham controlled randomised trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain.

The aims of this review were to systematically identify the current evidence base of placebo (or "sham") randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for neuropathic pain and to undertake a meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of SCS when compared with a placebo comparator arm. Electronic databases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. Searches identified 8 eligible placebo-controlled randomised trials of SCS for neuropathic pain. Meta-analysis shows a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity during the active stimulation treatment periods compared with the control treatment periods, pooled mean difference -1.15 (95% confidence interval -1.75 to -0.55, P = 0.001) on a 10-point scale. Exploratory study-level subgroup analysis suggests a larger treatment effect in RCTs using a placebo control (defined as studies where the device was inactive and at least one of the study procedures was different between the arms) than a sham control (defined as all study procedures being equal between arms including SCS device behaviour). Our findings demonstrate limited evidence that SCS is effective in reducing pain intensity when compared with a placebo intervention. Our analyses suggest that the magnitude of treatment effect varies across trials and, in part, depends on the quality of patient blinding and minimisation of carryover effects. Improved reporting and further methodological research is needed into placebo and blinding approaches in SCS trials. Furthermore, we introduce a differentiation between placebo and sham concepts that may be generalisable to trials evaluating surgical or medical procedures.