Paresthesia-Independence: An Assessment of Technical Factors Related to 10 kHz Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been successfully used to treat chronic intractable pain for over 40 years. Successful clinical application of SCS is presumed to be generally dependent on maximizing paresthesia-pain overlap; critical to achieving this is positioning of the stimulation field at the physiologic midline. Recently, the necessity of paresthesia for achieving effective relief in SCS has been challenged by the introduction of 10 kHz paresthesia-free stimulation. In a large, prospective, randomized controlled pivotal trial, HF10 therapy was demonstrated to be statistically and clinically superior to paresthesia-based SCS in the treatment of severe chronic low back and leg pain. HF10 therapy, unlike traditional paresthesia-based SCS, requires no paresthesia to be experienced by the patient, nor does it require paresthesia mapping at any point during lead implant or post-operative programming. OBJECTIVES: To determine if pain relief was related to technical factors of paresthesia, we measured and analyzed the paresthesia responses of patients successfully using HF10 therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, non-controlled interventional study. SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic at 10 centers across the US and Italy. METHODS: Patients with both back and leg pain already implanted with an HF10 therapy device for up to 24 months were included in this multicenter study. Patients provided pain scores prior to and after using HF10 therapy. Each patient\u27s most efficacious HF10 therapy stimulation program was temporarily modified to a low frequency (LF; 60 Hz), wide pulse width (~470 mus), paresthesia-generating program. On a human body diagram, patients drew the locations of their chronic intractable pain and, with the modified program activated, all regions where they experienced LF paresthesia. Paresthesia and pain drawings were then analyzed to estimate the correlation of pain relief outcomes to overlap of pain by paresthesia, and the mediolateral distribution of paresthesia (as a surrogate of physiologic midline lead positioning). RESULTS: A total of 61 patients participated across 11 centers. Twenty-eight men and 33 women with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years of age participated in the study. The average duration of implantable pulse generator (IPG) implant was 19 ± 9 months. The average predominant pain score, as measured on a 0 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), prior to HF10 therapy was 7.8 ± 1.3 and at time of testing was 2.5 ± 2.1, yielding an average pain relief of 70 ± 24%. For all patients, the mean paresthesia coverage of pain was 21 ± 28%, with 43% of patients having zero paresthesia coverage of pain. Analysis revealed no correlation between percentage of LF paresthesia overlap of predominant pain and HF10 therapy efficacy (P = 0.56). Exact mediolateral positioning of the stimulation electrodes was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of pain relief outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized/non-controlled study design; short-term evaluation; certain technical factors not investigated. CONCLUSION: Both paresthesia concordance with pain and precise midline positioning of the stimulation contacts appear to be inconsequential technical factors for successful HF10 therapy application. These results suggest that HF10 therapy is not only paresthesia-free, but may be paresthesia-independent

Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients\u27 therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41-80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924129, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 21, 2017, and Feb 20, 2018, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3 months (62 in the closed-loop group and 63 in the open-loop group) and 118 patients at 12 months (59 in the closed-loop group and 59 in the open-loop group). The primary outcome was achieved in a greater proportion of patients in the closed-loop group than in the open-loop group at 3 months (51 [82·3%] of 62 patients vs 38 [60·3%] of 63 patients; difference 21·9%, 95% CI 6·6-37·3; p=0·0052) and at 12 months (49 [83·1%] of 59 patients vs 36 [61·0%] of 59 patients; difference 22·0%, 6·3-37·7; p=0·0060). We observed no differences in safety profiles between the two groups. The most frequently reported study-related adverse events in both groups were lead migration (nine [7%] patients), implantable pulse generator pocket pain (five [4%]), and muscle spasm or cramp (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: ECAP-controlled closed-loop stimulation provided significantly greater and more clinically meaningful pain relief up to 12 months than open-loop spinal cord stimulation. Greater spinal cord activation seen in the closed-loop group suggests a mechanistic explanation for the superior results, which aligns with the putative mechanism of action for spinal cord stimulation and warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Saluda Medical

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health