Impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on medical technology uptake: analysis of the uptake of spinal cord stimulation in England 2008–2012

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Guidance on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was published in 2008 and updated in 2012 with no change. This guidance recommends SCS as a cost-effective treatment for patients with neuropathic pain. Objective: To assess the impact of NICE guidance by comparing SCS uptake in England pre-NICE (2008–2009) and post-NICE (2009–2012) guidance. We also compared the English SCS uptake rate with that of Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany. Design: SCS implant data for England was obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database and compared with other European countries where comparable data were available. Results: The HES data showed small increases in SCS implantation and replacement/revision procedures, and a large increase in SCS trials between 2008 and 2012. The increase in the total number of SCS procedures per million of population in England is driven primarily by revision/replacements and increased trial activity. Marked variability in SCS uptake at both health regions and primary care trust level was observed. Conclusions: Despite the positive NICE recommendation for the routine use of SCS, we found no evidence of a significant impact on SCS uptake in England. Rates of SCS implantation in England are lower than many other European countries

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Patients with “refractory angina” (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health‐related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting. Methods: RA patients deemed suitable were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SCS plus UC (SCS group) or UC alone (UC group). We sought to assess: recruitment, uptake, and retention of patients; feasibility and acceptability of SCS treatment; the feasibility and acceptability of standardizing UC; and the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed trial outcome measures. Patient outcomes were assessed at baseline (prerandomization) and three and six months postrandomization. Results: We failed to meet our planned recruitment target (45 patients) and randomized 29 patients (15 SCS group, 14 UC group) over a 42‐month period across four sites. None of the study participants chose to withdraw following consent and randomization. With exception of two deaths, all completed evaluation at baseline and follow‐up. Although the study was not formally powered to compare outcomes between groups, we saw a trend toward larger improvements in both primary and secondary outcomes in the SCS group. Conclusions: While patient recruitment was found to be challenging, levels of participant retention, outcome completion, and acceptability of SCS therapy were high. A number of lessons are presented in order to take forward a future definitive pragmatic randomized trial

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background: The RASCAL (R efractory A ngina S pinal C ord stimulation and usuAL care) pilot study seeks to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess if addition of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to usual care is clinically superior and more cost-effective than usual care alone in patients with refractory angina. Methods/design: This is an external pilot, patient-randomized controlled trial. The study will take place at three centers in the United Kingdom - South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital), Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The subjects will be 45 adults with refractory angina, that is, limiting angina despite optimal anti-angina therapy, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification Class III and IV, angiographically documented coronary artery disease not suitable for revascularization, satisfactory multidisciplinary assessment and demonstrable ischemia on functional testing. The study will be stratified by center, age and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification. Interventions will involve spinal cord stimulation plus usual care (‘SCS group’) or usual care alone (‘UC group’). Usual care received by both groups will include consideration of an education session with a pain consultant, trial of a transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation, serial thoracic sympathectomy and oral/systemic analgesics. Expected outcomes will be recruitment and retention rates; reasons for agreeing/declining participation; variability in primary and secondary outcomes (to inform power calculations for a definitive trial); and completion rates of outcome measures. Trial patient-related outcomes include disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, angina exercise capacity, intake of angina medications, frequency of angina attacks, complications and adverse events, and satisfaction. Discussion: The RASCAL pilot trial seeks to determine the feasibility and design of a definitive randomized controlled trial comparing the addition of spinal cord stimulation to usual care versus usual care alone for patients with refractory angina. Fifteen patients have been recruited since recruitment opened in October 2011. The trial was originally scheduled to end in April 2013 but due to slow recruitment may have to be extended to late 2013

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain in England From 2010 to 2020: A Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized intervention for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence has recommended SCS as a management option for chronic neuropathic pain since 2008. The aim of this study is to undertake an assessment of SCS uptake across the National Health Service in England up to 2020. Hospital Episode Statistics were obtained for patients with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS and patients receiving an SCS-related procedure. Data were retrieved nationally and per region from the years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020. There were 50,288 adults in England attending secondary care with neuropathic pain in 2010-2011, increasing to 66,376 in 2019-2020. The number of patients with neuropathic pain with an SCS procedure increased on a year-to-year basis until 2018-2019. However, less than 1% of people with neuropathic pain received an SCS device with no evidence of an increase over time when considering the background increase in neuropathic pain prevalence. Only a small proportion of patients in England with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS receives this intervention. The recommendation for routine use of SCS for management of neuropathic pain has not resulted in an uptake of SCS over the last decade

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England—a budget impact analysis

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000–£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be >£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. Methods/design The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients’ Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost–utility analysis. Discussion The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient’s view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781. Registered on 15 August 2017

Shoot first and ask questions later: media coverage of the 2003 Iraq war

Based on extensive original research, Shoot First and Ask Questions Later provides a comprehensive analysis of media coverage of the war in Iraq in 2003. The authors look closely at the main actors involved through a broad range of interviews with journalists (both embedded and non-embedded), news editors, news heads, and with key planners at the Pentagon and the UK Ministry of Defence. This book also investigates how the war was represented on television, employing both a systematic content analysis of the broadcast news coverage of the war and a series of case studies that unravel key moments of good and bad reporting during the war. Finally, it examines how people responded to and interpreted the information they received from the media, drawing upon both large-scale surveys and focus groups. What emerges, for all its blemishes, is a picture of a sophisticated, military public-relations campaign - one that had less to do with censorship than with promoting certain kinds of coverage. At the heart of this was the embedded journalists program, which has clearly changed the way war is reported. In future, the authors argue, journalists need to understand their role in this public relations effort, and to ask questions not only when access is denied, but also when it is granted

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundScreening 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.ObjectiveTo report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThirty 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.ConclusionThe long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial

Additional file 1: of Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

SPIRIT checklist. (DOC 135 kb