High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation at 10 kHz for the Treatment of Nonsurgical Refractory Back Pain: Design of a Pragmatic, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

A single-center real-world review of 10 kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation outcomes for treatment of chronic pain

Objective

To compare pragmatic real-world 10-kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) outcomes at a single academic center to the industry-sponsored SENZA-RCT and Stauss et al. study.

Methods

This single-center retrospective study included patients with refractory back or limb pain trialed and/or permanently implanted with the Nevro HF-SCS system from 2016 to 2021. Demographic and outcome data were obtained from the electronic medical record (EMR) and real-world global database maintained by Nevro Corp. Data obtained from the global database were confirmed using the EMR. Main outcome measures included positive responder status (≥50% patient-reported percentage pain reduction (PRPPR)), improvement in function, improvement in sleep, and reduction in pain medication usage. Comparison groups included patient outcomes from the SENZA-RCT and Stauss et al. study.

Results

Patients (N = 147) trialed with HF-SCS were reviewed, with data available for 137. Positive trialed patient responder rate (≥50% PRPPR) was 77% (106/137, 95CI 70-84%) vs. 87% (1393/1607, 95CI 85-89%) Stauss et al. vs. 93% (90/97, 95CI 88-98%) SENZA-RCT HF-SCS. At the last available follow-up, positive implanted patient responder rate was 73% (58/80, 95CI 63-82%) vs. 78% (254/326, 95CI 73-82%) Stauss et al. vs. 79% (71/90, 95CI 70-87%) SENZA-RCT HF-SCS. Sixty-seven percent (59/88, 95CI 57-77%) reported improved function vs. 72% (787/1088, 95CI 70-75%) Stauss et al.; 45% (31/69, 95CI 33-57%) reported improved sleep vs. 68% (693/1020, 95CI 65-71%) Stauss et al. and 16% (9/56, 95CI 6-26%) reported decrease in medication use vs. 32% (342/1070, 95CI 29-35%) Stauss et al.

Conclusion

Patient responder rates in this retrospective pragmatic real-world study of HF-SCS are consistent with previous industry-sponsored studies. However, improvements in quality-of-life measures and reduction in medication usage were not as robust as reported in industry-sponsored studies. The findings of this non-industry-sponsored, independent study of HF-SCS complement those of previously published studies by reporting patient outcomes collected in the absence of industry sponsorship.

Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one other database for published trials. We also searched three clinical trials registers for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials comparing SCS with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The primary comparison was SCS versus placebo, at the longest time point measured in the trials. Major outcomes were mean low back pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Our primary time point was long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 699 participants: 55% of participants were female; mean age ranged from 47 to 59 years; and all participants had chronic low back pain with mean duration of symptoms ranging from five to 12 years. Ten cross-over trials compared SCS with placebo. Three parallel-group trials assessed the addition of SCS to medical management. Most studies were at risk of performance and detection bias from inadequate blinding and selective reporting bias. The placebo-controlled trials had other important biases, including lack of accounting for period and carryover effects. Two of the three parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management were at risk of attrition bias, and all three had substantial cross-over to the SCS group for time points beyond six months. In the parallel-group trials, we considered the lack of placebo control to be an important source of bias. None of our included studies evaluated the impact of SCS on mean low back pain intensity in the long term (≥ 12 months). The studies most often assessed outcomes in the immediate term (less than one month). At six months, the only available evidence was from a single cross-over trial (50 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that SCS probably does not improve back or leg pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo. Pain was 61 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no pain) at six months with placebo, and 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse) with SCS. Function was 35.4 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no disability or best function) at six months with placebo, and 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse) with SCS. Health-related quality of life was 0.44 points out of 1 (0 to 1 index, 0 = worst quality of life) at six months with placebo, and 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse) with SCS. In that same study, nine participants (18%) experienced adverse events and four (8%) required revision surgery. Serious adverse events with SCS included infections, neurological damage, and lead migration requiring repeated surgery. We could not provide effect estimates of the relative risks as events were not reported for the placebo period. In parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management, it is uncertain whether, in the medium or long term, SCS can reduce low back pain, leg pain, or health-related quality of life, or if it increases the number of people reporting a 50% improvement or better, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that adding SCS to medical management may slightly improve function and slightly reduce opioid use. In the medium term, mean function (0- to 100-point scale; lower is better) was 16.2 points better with the addition of SCS to medical management compared with medical management alone (95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4 points better to 13.0 points better; I2 = 95%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). The number of participants reporting opioid medicine use was 15% lower with the addition of SCS to medical management (95% CI 27% lower to 0% lower; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events with SCS were poorly reported but included infection and lead migration. One study found that, at 24 months, 13 of 42 people (31%) receiving SCS required revision surgery. It is uncertain to what extent the addition of SCS to medical management increases the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, or serious adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data in this review do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial. Current evidence suggests SCS probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation therapy compared with conventional medical management over the first 12 months of therapy for patients with nonsurgical back pain: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This analysis evaluated if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 10 kHz plus conventional medical management (CMM) is cost-effective compared with CMM alone for the treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP).

METHODS

NSRBP subjects were randomized 1:1 into the 10-kHz SCS (n = 83) or CMM (n = 76) group. Outcomes assessed at 6 months included EQ-5D 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), medication usage, and healthcare utilization (HCU). There was an optional crossover at 6 months and follow-up to 12 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with cost including all HCU and medications except for the initial device and implant procedure, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of < $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

RESULTS

Treatment with 10-kHz SCS resulted in a significant improvement in quality of life (QOL) over CMM (EQ-5D-5L index score change of 0.201 vs -0.042, p < 0.001) at a lower cost, based on reduced frequency of HCU resulting in an ICER of -$4964 at 12 months. The ICER was -$8620 comparing the 6 months on CMM with postcrossover on 10-kHz SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with 10-kHz SCS provides higher QOL at a lower average cost per patient compared with CMM. Assuming an average reimbursement for device and procedure, 10-kHz SCS therapy is predicted to be cost-effective for the treatment of NSRBP compared with CMM within 2.1 years.

Retrospective Efficacy and Cost-Containment Assessment of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in Non-Surgical Refractory Back Pain Patients

Background

Non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) is persistent, severe back pain that is not considered surgically correctable. Published studies have demonstrated clinically important long-term improvement in pain and functional capacity when 10kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used to treat NSRBP. This study examines if real-world patients in interventional pain practice obtain the same outcomes, and have any reduction in health care utilization (HCU) following 10kHz SCS implant.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 105 patients from two clinical sites who underwent implantation of 10kHz SCS for NSRBP. The three most frequent diagnoses were lumbosacral radiculopathy, degenerative disc disease (DDD)/discogenic back pain and foraminal stenosis. The complete set of patient-level electronic data, including clinical outcomes, HCU, and at least 12 months (12M) follow-up were available in 90 subjects.

Results

The 90 analyzed patients were 63.9 years old (median 67) with an average of 10.2 years since back pain diagnosis. Reported pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased from 7.78±1.3 cm to 3.4±2.4 cm at 12M after SCS implant (p<0.001). Opioid usage (n = 65) decreased from 57.9±89.9 mg to 34.3±66.4 mg MSO4 equivalents (p = 0.004) at 12M. There were 46 patients on various doses of anticonvulsants, mostly gabapentin. The average dose decreased from 1847.91±973.6 mg at baseline to 1297.9±1184.6 mg at 12M after implant (p = 0.016). HCU was analyzed comparing the 12M before to the 12M after implant. Number of office visits decreased from 10.83±8.0 per year to 8.86±7.64 (p = 0.036), number of procedures to control chronic pain decreased from 2.2±1.9 to 0.6±1.2 (p<0.001). There was no significant change in number of imaging procedures, hospital admissions, or days spent in the hospital.

Conclusion

10kHz SCS warrants consideration as a therapeutic option for NSRBP patients and appears to provide a substantial reduction in HCU in the year following implant.

Treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz: 12-month results of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 10 kHz (10-kHz SCS) is a safe and effective therapy for treatment of chronic low-back pain. However, it is unclear from existing evidence whether these findings can be generalized to patients with chronic back pain that is refractory to conventional medical management (CMM) and who have no history of spine surgery and are not acceptable candidates for spine surgery. The authors have termed this condition "nonsurgical refractory back pain" (NSRBP) and conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare CMM with and without 10-kHz SCS in this population.

METHODS

Patients with NSRBP, as defined above and with a spine surgeon consultation required for confirmation, were randomized 1:1 to patients undergoing CMM with and without 10-kHz SCS. CMM included nonsurgical treatment for back pain, according to physicians' best practices and clinical guidelines. Primary and secondary endpoints included the responder rate (≥ 50% pain relief), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), global impression of change, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and change in daily opioid use and were analyzed 3 and 6 months after randomization. The protocol allowed for an optional crossover at 6 months for both arms, with observational follow-up over 12 months.

RESULTS

In total, 159 patients were randomized; 76 received CMM, and 69 (83.1%) of the 83 patients who were assigned to the 10-kHz SCS group received a permanent implant. At the 3-month follow-up, 80.9% of patients who received stimulation and 1.3% of those who received CMM were found to be study responders (primary outcome, ≥ 50% pain relief; p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference between the treatment groups in all secondary outcomes at 6 months (p < 0.001). In the 10-kHz SCS arm, outcomes were sustained, including a mean 10-cm visual analog scale score of 2.1 ± 2.3 and 2.1 ± 2.2 and mean ODI score of 24.1 ± 16.1 and 24.0 ± 17.0 at 6 and 12 months, respectively (p = 0.9). In the CMM arm, 74.7% (56/75) of patients met the criteria for crossover and received an implant. The crossover arm obtained a 78.2% responder rate 6 months postimplantation. Five serious adverse events occurred (procedure-related, of 125 total permanent implants), all of which resolved without sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results, which included follow-up over 12 months, provide important insights into the durability of 10-kHz SCS therapy with respect to chronic refractory back pain, physical function, quality of life, and opioid use, informing the current clinical practice for pain management in patients with NSRBP.

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.

Systematic Literature Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Back Pain Without Prior Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and one of the most common reasons for seeking healthcare. Despite numerous care strategies, patients with low back pain continue to exhibit poor outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an evidence-based therapeutic modality for patients with failed back surgery syndrome. For patients without a surgical lesion or history, minimally invasive interventions that provide long-term reduction of chronic back pain are needed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the evidence on SCS therapy in patients with chronic back pain who have not undergone spinal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes for SCS in chronic back pain patients (with or without secondary radicular leg pain) without prior surgery using date limits from database inception to February 2021. Study results were analyzed and described qualitatively.

RESULTS

A total of ten primary studies (16 publications) were included. The included studies consistently demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of pain reduction and functional improvement following SCS therapy. Improvements also occurred in quality of life scores; however, not all studies reported statistically significant findings. Additionally, the studies reported that SCS resulted in high patient satisfaction, reductions in opioid use, and an acceptable safety profile, although these data were more limited.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that SCS is a promising, safe, minimally invasive, and reversible alternative option for managing chronic back pain in patients who have not undergone spinal surgery.