Holistic treatment response: an international expert panel definition and criteria for a new paradigm in the assessment of clinical outcomes of spinal cord stimulation

Background: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. Aim: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a ”holistic treatment response”. Discussion: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings

The current state of training in pain medicine fellowships: An Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) survey of program directors

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization