Search

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Alaa Abd-Elsayed is a consultant for Medtronic. Philip Kim reports consulting fees from Medtronic, personal fees from TerSera, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Biotronik and Medtronic on a medical board; reseach support from Biotronik, Medtronic, Boston, Nevro, Saluda, and Cornerloc; and participation in a data safety monitoring board on RTX on Morton neuroma study. Christophe Perruchoud reports consulting fees, honoraria, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Medtronic. Anjum Bux reports personal fees from Flowonix Corp, Boston Scientific, AIS, Medtronic, and Vertos, outside the submitted work. Rui Duarte reports personal fees from Saluda Medical, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Mainstay Medical, outside the submitted work. Michael Saulino reports research grants from Medtronic and Flowonix; fellowship support from Medtronic, Piramal, and Saol; Denis Dupoiron reports personal fees from Medtronic and Esteve, outside the submitted work. Dennis Patin consults for Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Nevro. Julie G. Pilitsis reports grants and other from Boston Scientific, Nevro, Abbott, TerSera, and Medtronic; other from Saluda, Aim Medical Robotics, and Karuna Labs; grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2R01CA166379-06; and grants from NIH U44NS115111, outside the submitted work. Lawrence R. Poree reports personal fees from Medtronic and Nalu, and grants and personal fees from Saluda, outside the submitted work. Harry Sukumaran reports personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Nevro, and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Vertos Medical, outside the submitted work. Erik Shaw reports support from Pfizer/Lilly for tanezumab articles; consulting fees and/or honoraria from TerSera, Boston Scientific, SPR Therapeutics; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer/Lilly NGF blocker; and stock options from SpineThera and ROM Tech. Tony L. Yaksh reports grants from NIH-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), other from CODA, IONIS, and Medtronic during the conduct of the study; grants from NIH-NINDS, IONIS, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Robert M. Levy is an unpaid and uncompensated consultant for Abbott, Biotronik, Nalu, and Synergia. The remaining authors reported no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aim: Novel minimally invasive short-term and long-term peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) systems have revolutionized targeted treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. We present an international survey of PNS-implanting pain physicians to assess what factors they consider when offering permanent PNS., Methods: This cross-sectional study consisted of a survey (Qualtrics) that was distributed to PNS-implanting physicians in a device supplier's entire email database on November 13, 2020, with 3 weeks of response time. Physicians' contact information in the form of their email addresses had been previously collected by the supplier upon device distribution with permission to use survey responses for research., Results: Of 2032 database physicians, 40 physicians representing 37 institutions responded to the survey. The most common application of PNS was mononeuropathic pain (57%). The most frequently targeted nerve was the suprascapular nerve (29%). 14% of physicians reported 81-100% of their implants were dual-lead. The representative physicians ranged broadly in their most frequently targeted nerves. Although mononeuropathic pain was the most common indication for PNS, there was still varied response regarding other indications such as CRPS and post-surgical chronic pain., Conclusion: In context of a low response rate, identifying such factors can help update the prevailing treatment algorithm for interventional therapies, assist pain physicians in better identifying which patients are the best candidates for PNS, and inform future clinical trial design on PNS efficacy., (© 2022 World Institute of Pain.)

Objectives: High-frequency and burst stimulation are newer waveforms that have demonstrated promise compared to traditional tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS), but more studies are needed to compare their effectiveness. We report the study methods for an ongoing, single center, pragmatic randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of high-frequency and burst SCS in patients with chronic back and/or leg pain., Materials and Methods: Participants who are candidates for spinal cord stimulation are enrolled and screened. Participants will be randomly assigned using point-of-care randomization to receive either high-frequency or burst SCS. Data collection will be through Stanford Pain Management Center's learning healthcare system: CHOIR. CHOIR surveys include National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System item banks, a body map, questions about pain intensity, pain catastrophizing scale, and questions about patients' pain experience and healthcare utilization. Participants will complete online surveys at baseline and then 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after their device implant. All participants will use our routine process of trial and implant. Reported adverse events are monitored throughout the study. Our primary outcome is change from baseline in pain intensity at 12 months., Results: We hypothesize that high-frequency SCS is more effective than burst SCS in improving pain, physical function and pain interference in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain., Conclusions: The pragmatic nature of our proposed trial enables us to recruit a larger participant cohort faster and to follow up these participants longer than currently published clinical trials., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)