Supraspinal stimulation for treatment of refractory pain

A B S T R A C T Refractory pain syndromes often have far reaching effects and are quite a challenge for primary care providers and specialists alike to treat. With the help of site-specific neuromodulation and appropriate patient selection these difficult to treat pain syndromes may be managed. In this article, we focus on supraspinal stimulation (SSS) for treatment of intractable pain and discuss off-label uses of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in context to emerging indications in neuromodulation. Consideration for neuromodulatory treatment begins with rigorous patient selection based on exhaustive conservative management, elimination of secondary gains, and a proper psychology evaluation. Trial stimulation prior to DBS is nearly always performed while trial stimulation prior to MCS surgery is symptom dependent. Overall, a review of the literature demonstrates that DBS should be considered for refractory conditions including nociceptive/neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain, and chronic cluster headache (CCH). MCS should be considered primarily for trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) and central pain. DBS outcome studies for post-stroke pain as well as MCS studies for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) show more modest results and are also discussed in detail

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

Neuroprotection by adenosine in the brain: From A1 receptor activation to A2A receptor blockade

Adenosine is a neuromodulator that operates via the most abundant inhibitory adenosine A1 receptors (A1Rs) and the less abundant, but widespread, facilitatory A2ARs. It is commonly assumed that A1Rs play a key role in neuroprotection since they decrease glutamate release and hyperpolarize neurons. In fact, A1R activation at the onset of neuronal injury attenuates brain damage, whereas its blockade exacerbates damage in adult animals. However, there is a down-regulation of central A1Rs in chronic noxious situations. In contrast, A2ARs are up-regulated in noxious brain conditions and their blockade confers robust brain neuroprotection in adult animals. The brain neuroprotective effect of A2AR antagonists is maintained in chronic noxious brain conditions without observable peripheral effects, thus justifying the interest of A2AR antagonists as novel protective agents in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, ischemic brain damage and epilepsy. The greater interest of A2AR blockade compared to A1R activation does not mean that A1R activation is irrelevant for a neuroprotective strategy. In fact, it is proposed that coupling A2AR antagonists with strategies aimed at bursting the levels of extracellular adenosine (by inhibiting adenosine kinase) to activate A1Rs might constitute the more robust brain neuroprotective strategy based on the adenosine neuromodulatory system. This strategy should be useful in adult animals and especially in the elderly (where brain pathologies are prevalent) but is not valid for fetus or newborns where the impact of adenosine receptors on brain damage is different