Search

Recent recommendations on starting dose, smaller dose increments, and longer intervals between dose increase have the potential to increase the safety of ziconotide administration in addition to improving its value for money. Ziconotide is not routinely commissioned in England, with one of the concerns being whether it represents the best use of resources. The aim of this project is to conduct a budget impact analysis to estimate the costs or savings associated with the changes in ziconotide dosage in addition to its use in combination with morphine for the management of cancer pain.An open, Markov-like cohort decision analytic model was developed to estimate the budget impact of ziconotide in combination with morphine (ziconotide combination therapy) vs morphine monotherapy through intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) for the management of cancer pain. The perspective adopted was that of the UK National Health Service, with a five-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios.Ziconotide combination therapy was more expensive than treatment with morphine monotherapy. The total costs of ziconotide combination therapy and morphine monotherapy for the first year were £395,748 and £136,628 respectively. The estimated five-year cumulative budget impact of treatment with ziconotide combination therapy for the five-year time horizon was £2,487,539, whereas that of morphine monotherapy was £913,804. The additional costs in any of the first five years are below the resource impact significance level of £1 million for medical technologies in England.The results of this budget impact analysis suggest that although a combination of intrathecal ziconotide in combination with morphine is associated with higher costs to the health care system in England, the incremental costs are not significant. Routine commissioning of ziconotide alone or in combination with morphine would provide an alternative for a population with limited ITDD treatment options.

Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective.To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study.The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates.Thirty patients allocated to the "Trial Group" (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the "No Trial Group" (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up.The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.

Patients who suffer from long-term, neuropathic pain that proves refractory to conventional medical management are high consumers of health care resources and experience poorer physical and mental health than people with other forms of pain. Pharmacologic treatments have adverse effects; nonpharmacologic interventions have limitations. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for neuropathic pain, although 30% to 40% of patients fail to achieve acceptable levels of pain relief. There are currently no objective methods to predict the success of SCS to treat neuropathic pain, and therefore, it is important to understand which patient factors may be predictive of a lack of response to SCS, to inform future patient treatment options. This study proposes a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to examine these predictive factors.Several bibliographic databases will be searched to identify relevant studies published since 2012 that provide data on patient characteristics (eg, age, gender, pain severity) as predictors of SCS outcomes of pain, function, and health-related quality of life. Two independent reviewers will screen citations; data will be extracted after full-text screening. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.A formal quantitative synthesis is planned in which data from studies with the same predictive factors are available; this will be considered for pooling into separate meta-analyses. In cases of high heterogeneity or inconsistency in the data, subgroup analysis will be conducted.This study seeks to provide a contemporary review of patient predictors of success of neuromodulation for neuropathic pain. We anticipate that findings may guide the use of neuromodulation in patient subgroups and the design and reporting of future clinical studies in this field.

Initial clinical studies have shown that the stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) can significantly reduce chronic intractable pain. However, clinical data on long-term results and complications of these systems are limited. The aim of this prospective study is to report on a single center long-term follow-up of DRG stimulation for intractable chronic pain. Participants were implanted with DRG stimulation devices between 2013 and 2015 with an observation period of 24 months. Patients were contacted again in 2020 for a final follow-up (ie, between 5 and 7 years postimplantation). Forty-two participants were recruited, of whom 32 received the fully implantable pulse generator (IPG). At the final follow-up, 50% (16/32) of participants were still using DRG stimulation. Two participants still had the original IPG and 14 had received a replacement IPG. Pain scores were significantly reduced at 24 months, mean difference 1.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.2-3.3, P = 0.03), and at the last follow-up, mean difference 2.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.3-4, P = 0.03). Significant improvements were observed for health-related quality of life. The findings were generally robust to imputation methods of missing data. Implantable pulse generators of 8 patients were explanted because of dissatisfaction with pain relief. In conclusion, DRG stimulation can provide effective pain relief and improved quality of life in patients suffering with neuropathic pain, although this study had a revision rate of 42% within the first 24 months, and 56% of IPGs that were replaced because of battery depletion had a shorter than expected battery life.

Objectives Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine suitability for a permanent implant, its evidence base is limited. The recent TRIAL‐STIM study (a randomized controlled trial at three centers in the United Kingdom) found no evidence that an SCS screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes as compared with a no trial approach. As part of the TRIAL‐STIM study, we undertook a nested qualitative study to ascertain patients' preferences in relation to undergoing a screening trial or not. Materials and Methods We interviewed 31 patients sampled from all three centers and both study arms (screening trial/no trial) prior to SCS implantation, and 23 of these patients again following implantation (eight patients were lost to follow‐up). Interviews were undertaken by telephone and audio‐recorded, then transcripts were subject to thematic analysis. In addition, participants were asked to state their overall preference for a one‐stage (no screening trial) versus two‐stage (screening trial) implant procedure on a five‐point Likert scale, before and after implantation. Results Emergent themes favoured the option for a one‐stage SCS procedure. Themes identified include: saving time (off work, in hospital, attending appointments), avoiding the worry about having “loose wires” in the two‐stage procedure, having only one period of recovery, and saving NHS resources. Participants' rated preferences show similar support for a one‐stage procedure without a screening trial. Conclusions Our findings indicate an overwhelming preference among participants for a one‐stage SCS procedure both before and after the implant, regardless of which procedure they had undergone. The qualitative study findings further support the TRIAL‐STIM RCT results.

Background Chronic upper extremity pain (UEP) has complex etiologies and is often disabling. It has been shown that 10 kHz SCS can provide paresthesia-free and durable pain relief in multiple pain types and improve the quality of life of patients. Objective To gain additional evidence on the safety and effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for the treatment of chronic UEP. Study design It was a prospective, multicenter, and observational study. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov prospectively (clinical trial identifier: NCT02703818). Setting Multicenter. Patients intervention and main outcomes A total of 43 subjects with chronic UEP of ≥5 cm (on a 0-10 cm visual analog scale; VAS) underwent a trial of 10 kHz SCS, and subjects with ≥40% pain relief received a permanent implant. All subjects had upper limb pain at baseline, while some had concomitant shoulder or neck pain. Subject outcomes were assessed for 12 months, and the primary outcome was the responder rate (percentage of subjects experiencing ≥50% pain relief from baseline) at three months. Results Thirty-eight subjects successfully completed the trial (88.3% success rate), 33 received permanent implants (five withdrew consent), and 32 had device activation (per protocol population). There were no paresthesias or uncomfortable changes in stimulation related to changes in posture during the study and there were no neurological deficits. Responder rates at 12 months for upper limb, shoulder, and neck pain in per protocol population (N=32) were 78.1%, 85.2%, and 75.0%, respectively. At 12 months, 84.4% of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied with 10 kHz SCS, and 38.7% either reduced or eliminated opioid usage. Conclusion This study further supports the effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for chronic UEP treatment and documents the safety profile of the therapy. Clinical trial identifier NCT02703818.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. The TRIAL-STIM randomised controlled trial found no evidence that a spinal cord stimulation screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes compared to a no trial screening approach., Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine whether a patient should receive permanent SCS implant, its evidence base is limited. We aimed to establish the clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of an SCS screening trial. A multicentre single-blind, parallel two-group randomised controlled superiority trial was undertaken at 3 centres in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomised 1:1 to either SCS screening trial strategy (TG) or no trial screening strategy (NTG). Treatment was open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome measure was numerical rating scale (NRS) pain at 6-month follow-up. Between June 2017 and September 2018, 105 participants were enrolled and randomised (TG = 54, NTG = 51). Mean numerical rating scale pain decreased from 7.47 at baseline (before SCS implantation) to 4.28 at 6 months in TG and from 7.54 to 4.49 in NTG (mean group difference: 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.2 to 0.9, P = 0.89). We found no difference between TG and NTG in the proportion of pain responders or other secondary outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation screening trial had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 78-100) and specificity of 8% (95% CI: 1-25). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TG vs NTG was £78,895 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. In conclusion, although the SCS screening trial may have some diagnostic utility, there was no evidence that an SCS screening TG provides superior patient outcomes or is cost-effective compared to a no trial screening approach.

Background Chronic upper extremity pain (UEP) has complex etiologies and is often disabling. It has been shown that 10 kHz SCS can provide paresthesia-free and durable pain relief in multiple pain types and improve the quality of life of patients. Objective To gain additional evidence on the safety and effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for the treatment of chronic UEP. Study Design It was a prospective, multicenter, and observational study. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov prospectively (clinical trial identifier: NCT02703818). Setting Multicenter. Patients, Intervention and Main Outcomes A total of 43 subjects with chronic UEP of ≥5 cm (on a 0–10 cm visual analog scale; VAS) underwent a trial of 10 kHz SCS, and subjects with ≥40% pain relief received a permanent implant. All subjects had upper limb pain at baseline, while some had concomitant shoulder or neck pain. Subject outcomes were assessed for 12 months, and the primary outcome was the responder rate (percentage of subjects experiencing ≥50% pain relief from baseline) at three months. Results Thirty-eight subjects successfully completed the trial (88.3% success rate), 33 received permanent implants (five withdrew consent), and 32 had device activation (per protocol population). There were no paresthesias or uncomfortable changes in stimulation related to changes in posture during the study and there were no neurological deficits. Responder rates at 12 months for upper limb, shoulder, and neck pain in per protocol population (N=32) were 78.1%, 85.2%, and 75.0%, respectively. At 12 months, 84.4% of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied with 10 kHz SCS, and 38.7% either reduced or eliminated opioid usage. Conclusion This study further supports the effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for chronic UEP treatment and documents the safety profile of the therapy. Clinical Trial Identifier NCT02703818.