A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation Comparing Spinal Cord Stimulation With Best Medical Treatment in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

Where does spinal cord stimulation fit into the international guidelines for refractory painful diabetic neuropathy? a consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacotherapy with anticonvulsants and/or antidepressants can be effective for many people with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), albeit with frequent side-effects, a critical juncture occurs when neuropathic pain no longer responds to standard first- and second-step mono- and dual therapy and becomes refractory. Subsequent to these pharmacotherapeutic approaches, third-line treatment options for PDN may include opioids (short-term), capsaicin 8% patches, and spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

AIM

This document summarizes consensus recommendations regarding appropriate treatment for refractory peripheral diabetic neuropathy (PDN), based on outcomes from an expert panel convened on December 10, 2022, as part of the Worldwide Initiative for Diabetes Education Virtual Global Summit, "Advances in the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy."

PARTICIPANTS

Nine attendees, eminent physicians and academics, comprising six diabetes specialists, two pain specialists, and one health services expert.

EVIDENCE

For individuals with refractory PDN, opioids are a high-risk option that do not provide a long-term solution and should not be used. For appropriately selected individuals, SCS is an effective, safe, and durable treatment option. In particular, high-frequency (HF) SCS (10 kHz) shows strong efficacy and improves quality of life. To ensure treatment success, strict screening criteria should be used to prioritize candidates for SCS.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Each participant voiced their opinion after reviewing available data, and a verbal consensus was reached during the meeting.

CONCLUSION

Globally, the use of opioids should rarely be recommended for refractory, severe PDN. Based on increasing clinical evidence, SCS, especially HF-SCS, should be considered as a treatment for PDN that is not responsive to first- or second-line monotherapy/dual therapy.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Neurostimulation for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Different waveforms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have now been evaluated for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). However, no direct or indirect comparison between SCS waveforms has been performed to date.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of SCS for PDN.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and WikiStim were searched from inception until December 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS for PDN were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pain intensity, proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data were extracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Significant reductions in pain intensity were observed for low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) (mean difference [MD] -3.13 [95% CI -4.19 to -2.08], moderate certainty) and high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) (MD -5.20 [95% CI -5.77 to -4.63], moderate certainty) compared with conventional medical management (CMM) alone. There was a significantly greater reduction in pain intensity on HF-SCS compared with LF-SCS (MD -2.07 [95% CI -3.26 to -0.87], moderate certainty). Significant differences were observed for LF-SCS and HF-SCS compared with CMM for the outcomes proportion of patients with at least 50% pain reduction and HRQoL (very low to moderate certainty). No significant differences were observed between LF-SCS and HF-SCS (very low to moderate certainty).

LIMITATIONS

Limited number of RCTs and no head-to-head RCTs conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the pain relief and HRQoL benefits of the addition of SCS to CMM for patients with PDN. However, in the absence of head-to-head RCT evidence, the relative benefits of HF-SCS compared with LF-SCS for patients with PDN remain uncertain.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

Spinal cord stimulation for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient and aggregate data

ABSTRACT

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been suggested as a treatment option for patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). We conducted a systematic review and undertook a meta-analysis on individual patient data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effectiveness of SCS for the management of PDN. Electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2020 for RCTs of SCS for PDN. Searches identified 2 eligible RCTs (total of 93 patients with PDN) and 2 long-term follow-up studies of one of the RCTs. Individual patient data were obtained from the authors of one of these RCTs. Meta-analysis showed significant and clinically meaningful reductions in pain intensity for SCS compared with best medical therapy alone, pooled mean difference (MD) -3.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.19 to -2.08) on a 10-point scale at the 6-month follow-up. More patients receiving SCS achieved at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity compared with best medical therapy, pooled risk ratio 0.08 (95% CI: 0.02-0.38). Increases were observed for health-related quality of life assessed as EQ-5D utility score (pooled MD 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-0.30) and visual analogue scale (pooled MD 11.21, 95% CI: 2.26-20.16). Our findings demonstrate that SCS is an effective therapeutic adjunct to best medical therapy in reducing pain intensity and improving health-related quality of life in patients with PDN. Large well-reported RCTs with long-term follow-up are required to confirm these results.

Assessing the Effect of Including Social Costs in Economic Evaluations of Diabetes-Related Interventions: A Systematic Review

Background

The economic burden of diabetes from a societal perspective is well documented in the cost-of-illness literature. However, the effect of considering social costs in the results and conclusions of economic evaluations of diabetes-related interventions remains unknown.

Objective

To investigate whether the inclusion of social costs (productivity losses and/or informal care) might change the results and conclusions of economic evaluations of diabetes-related interventions.

Methods

A systematic review was designed and launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from the University of Tufts, from the year 2000 until 2018. Included studies had to fulfil the following criteria: i) being an original study published in a scientific journal, ii) being an economic evaluation of an intervention on diabetes, iii) including social costs, iv) being written in English, v) using quality-adjusted life years as outcome, and vi) separating the results according to the perspective applied.

Results

From the 691 records identified, 47 studies (6.8%) were selected. Productivity losses were included in 45 of the selected articles (73% used the human capital approach) whereas informal care costs in only 13 (when stated, the opportunity cost method was used in seven studies and the replacement cost in one). The 47 studies resulted in 110 economic evaluation estimations. The inclusion of social costs changed the conclusions in 8 estimations (17%), 6 of them switching from not cost-effective from the healthcare perspective to cost-effective or dominant from the societal perspective. Considering social costs altered the results from cost-effective to dominant in 9 estimations (19%).

Conclusion

When social costs are considered, the results and conclusions of economic evaluations performed in diabetes-related interventions can alter. Wide methodological variations have been observed, which limit the comparability of studies and advocate for the inclusion of a wider perspective via the consideration of social costs in economic evaluations and methodological guidelines relating to their estimation and valuation.

Management of Neuropathic Pain in Polyneuropathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Many polyneuropathies cause significant neuropathic pain, resulting in substantial morbidity and reduced quality of life. Appropriate management is crucial for maintaining quality of life for patients with painful polyneuropathies. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only approved one new drug for painful diabetic neuropathy in the past decade, a topical capsaicin patch that was initially approved for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia in 2009. Gabapentinoids and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) continue to have an advantage in safety profiles and efficacy. Other antiepileptic medications remain second-line agents because of fewer studies documenting efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

This article reviews recent literature on complementary and pharmacologic therapies for the management of painful polyneuropathies. Exercise has emerged as an important therapeutic tool and may also improve the underlying polyneuropathy in the setting of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes.

SUMMARY

The approach to management of painful polyneuropathies is multifactorial, using both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic measures to improve pain severity and patient quality of life.

[Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain]

Despite the numerous analgesic drugs, the prevalence of intractable neuropathic pain remains high making up about 5%. Intervention methods, including methods of chronic electrostimulation, are used to treat these patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is the most common surgical method worldwide that replaced destructive and ablation procedures. Currently, common tonic SCS, HF-10 stimulation and burst SCS are applied, and the choice of method is based on clinical and neurophysiological data. Also, the introduction of nanomaterial-enabled neural stimulation could significantly minimize surgery risk.

Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain: expert opinion and 5-year outlook

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic pain. There have been relatively few high-level studies that suggest its unequivocal use. The decay of stimulation efficacy over time have opened opportunity for the entrance of new pulse trains and waveforms.

AREAS COVERED

In this state-of-the-art review, we focused on many of the major studies published in the last 10 years that were considered level one evidence. A retrospective narrative approach was taken to conceptualize foundation studies as they pertain to current evidence. A special focus was taken on reported safety outcomes in comparison to foundation studies especially as they pertain to our 5-year outlook on the use of spinal cord stimulation.

EXPERT OPINION

We find there are still significant limitations in the body of reviewed evidence and suggest that long-term data beyond 24 months are lacking in the literature. In addition, adverse event rates, device explantation rates and the sham effect looms as important concepts to address in the future in spite of the existing novel stimulation paradigms.

Invasive Electrical Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulation is a treatment option for people suffering from painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) unresponsive to conventional pharmacotherapy. We systematically examined the pain outcomes of patients with PDN receiving any type of invasive neuromodulation for treatment of neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched through 10 January 2020, without language restriction. All study types were included. Two reviewers independently screened publications and extracted data. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed with pain scores converted to a standard 100-point scale. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) scores were pooled using the inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences.

RESULTS

RCTs of tonic spinal cord stimulation (t-SCS) showed greater pain improvement than best medical therapy at six months (intention-to-treat: 38/100, 95% CI: 29-47). By per-protocol analysis, case series of t-SCS and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) showed improvement by 56 (95% CI: 39-73) and 55 (22-87), respectively, at 12 months. For t-SCS, the rate of failing a therapeutic stimulation trial was 16%, the risk of infection was 4%, and the rate of lead problems requiring surgery to resolve was 4% per year of follow-up. High-frequency SCS and burst SCS both showed efficacy, with few patients studied.

CONCLUSION

Efficacious, lasting and safe surgical pain management options are available to diabetic patients suffering from PDN. Tonic-SCS is the established standard of treatment; however, other SCS paradigms and DRGS are emerging as promising treatments offering comparable pain benefits, but with few cases published to date. Randomized controlled trials are ongoing to assess their relative merits.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: technical advances

Chronic severe pain results in a detrimental effect on the patient’s quality of life. Such patients have to take a large number of medications, including opioids, often without satisfactory effect, sometimes leading to medication abuse and the pain worsening. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the most effective technologies that, unlike other interventional pain treatment methods, achieves long-term results in patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain. The first described mode of SCS was a conventional tonic stimulation, but now the novel modalities (high-frequency and burst), techniques (dorsal root ganglia stimulations), and technical development (wireless and implantable pulse generator-free systems) of SCS are becoming more popular. The improvement of SCS systems, their miniaturization, and the appearance of new mechanisms for anchoring electrodes results in a significant reduction in the rate of complications and revision surgeries, and the appearance of new waves of stimulation allows not only to avoid the phenomenon of addiction, but also to improve the long-term results of chronic SCS. The purpose of this review is to describe the current condition of SCS and up-to-date technical advances.

Effects of LncRNA BC168687 siRNA on Diabetic Neuropathic Pain Mediated by P2X7 Receptor on SGCs in DRG of Rats

Diabetic neuropathic pain (DNP), one of the early symptoms of diabetic neuropathy, relates to metabolic disorders induced by high blood glucose, neurotrophic vascular ischemia and hypoxia, and autoimmune factors. This study was aimed at exploring the effects of long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) BC168687 siRNA on DNP mediated by P2X₇ receptor on SGCs in DRG of rats. The mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT) and thermal withdrawal latency (TWL) of rats, the expression levels of P2X₇ mRNA and protein in the DRG, and nitric oxide (NO) in the serum were, respectively, detected in our study. Our experimental results showed that the level of BC168687 mRNA in DNP group was markedly higher than that of control group; the MWT and TWL of DNP + BC168687 si group were significantly increased, and the expression levels of P2X₇ in DRG and the concentrations of NO in serum of DNP + BC168687 si group were decreased compared to those of the DNP group. In conclusion, lncRNA BC168687 may participate in the pathogenesis of DNP mediated by P2X₇ receptor, which will provide a novel way for the study of the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus complicated with neuropathic pain and its prevention and treatment.

Best Practices in Spinal Cord Stimulation

STUDY DESIGN

A review of clinical best practices for spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to summarize published and evidence based guidelines with regards to utilizing SCS, including patient selection, disease indication, perioperative management, complication mitigation strategies, and device selection. Additional focus has been provided on quality care to individual patients by acknowledging the importance of durable outcomes and care delivery costs.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

For more than 30 years, SCS has successfully alleviated patient suffering and enhanced the lives of patients with refractory pain conditions. Prospective studies of SCS have consistently demonstrated benefits through reduction of pain, improvement in function, and reduced healthcare expenditures in select patient diagnosis groups. Although the benefits of SCS are well-supported, the clinical application of this therapy varies widely based on physician training and experience, regional clinical practice variations, and insurance coverage.

METHODS

This article provides a summary of published studies, case reports, evidence-based guidelines and expert consensus, with the intent of increasing physician competency and enhancing patient care through improved clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A guide to SCS implantation, appropriate patient selection, ranked recommendations for diseases that may most benefit for SCS treatment, complication mitigation strategies, and finally, indications for choosing the most efficacious modality of SCS therapy for specific patients and pain conditions.

CONCLUSION

Although SCS has been shown to be safe and effective for a number of pain conditions, emerging SCS modalities promise even greater efficacy over traditional SCS. To achieve this promise, physicians must carefully select and manage their patients and the SCS device.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N\A.