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.

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.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.Access to the QUANTIS database to extract the relevant Hospital Episode Statistics data was funded by Medtronic UK

Assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of subcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with predominant back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (SubQStim study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Chronic radicular pain can be effectively treated with spinal cord stimulation, but this therapy is not always sufficient for chronic back pain. Subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) refers to the placement of percutaneous leads in the subcutaneous tissue within the area of pain. Case series data show that failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients experience clinically important levels of pain relief following SQS and may also reduce their levels of analgesic therapy and experience functional well-being. However, to date, there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of SQS in FBSS.Medtronic Inc

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

Assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of subcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with predominant back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (SubQStim study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background: Chronic radicular pain can be effectively treated with spinal cord stimulation, but this therapy is not always sufficient for chronic back pain. Subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) refers to the placement of percutaneous leads in the subcutaneous tissue within the area of pain. Case series data show that failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients experience clinically important levels of pain relief following SQS and may also reduce their levels of analgesic therapy and experience functional well-being. However, to date, there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of SQS in FBSS. Methods/Design: The SubQStim study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing SQS plus optimized medical management (‘SQS arm’) versus optimized medical management alone (‘OMM arm’) in patients with predominant back pain due to FBSS. Up to 400 patients will be recruited from approximately 33 centers in Europe and Australia and will be randomized 1:1 to the SQS or OMM arms. After 9 months, patients who fail to reach the primary outcome will be allowed to switch treatments. Patients will be evaluated at baseline (prior to randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after randomization. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients at 9 months with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity compared to baseline. The secondary outcomes are: back and leg pain intensity score, functional disability, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, patient global impression of change, healthcare resource utilization/costs, cost-effectiveness analysis and adverse events. Outcomes arms will be compared between SQS and OMM arms at all evaluation points up to and including 9 months. After the 9-month assessment visit, the main analytic focus will be to compare within patient changes in outcomes relative to baseline. Discussion: The SubQStim trial began patient recruitment in November 2012. Recruitment is expected to close in late 2014

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice. POPULATION: All patients with PLP. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phantom limb pain and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies. LIMITATION: There was a lack of robust research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP. FUTURE WORK: Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The Pain Divide: a cross-sectional analysis of chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation in England

Objectives: Our central research question was, in England, are geographical inequalities in opioid use driven by health need (pain)? To answer this question, our study examined: (1) if there are regional inequalities in rates of chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation in England; (2) if opioid use and chronic pain are associated after adjusting for individual-level and area-level confounders. Design: Cross-sectional study design using data from the Health Survey for England 2011. Setting England. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation. Participants: Participant data relating to chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid usage data were obtained at local authority level from the Health Survey for England 2011; in total, 5711 respondents were included in our analysis. Methods: Regional and local authority data were mapped, and a generalised linear model was then used to explore the relationships between the data. The model was adjusted to account for area-level and individual-level variables. Results: There were geographical variations in chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation across the English regions—with evidence of a ‘pain divide’ between the North and the South, whereby people in the North of England more likely to have ‘severely limiting’ or ‘moderately limiting’ chronic pain. The intensity of chronic pain was significantly and positively associated with the use of opioid analgesics. Conclusions: There are geographical differences in chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation across England—with evidence of a ‘pain divide’. Given the public health concerns associated with the long-term use of opioid analgesics—and their questionable activity in the management of chronic pain—more guidance is needed to support prescribers in the management of chronic pain, so the initiation of opioids can be avoided

A randomized controlled trial of subcutaneous nerve stimulation for back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome: the SubQStim study

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of peripheral nerve stimulation utilizing a subcutaneous lead implant technique—subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) plus optimized medical management (SQS + OMM arm) vs. optimized medical management alone (OMM arm) in patients with back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome. Patients and Methods: Patients were recruited from 21 centers, in Europe, Israel, and Australia. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to SQS + OMM or OMM arms. Those in the SQS arm were implanted with a neurostimulator and up to two subcutaneous percutaneous cylindrical leads in the area of pain. Patients were evaluated pre‐randomization and at one, three, six, and nine months post‐randomization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity (“responder”) from baseline to nine months. Secondary outcomes included proportion of responders with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity at six months and ≥30% reduction at nine months, and the mean change from baseline in back pain intensity at six and nine months between the two arms. Results: Due to the slow rate of recruitment, the study was terminated early with 116 subjects randomized. A total of 33.9% (19/56, missing: n = 20 [36%]) of subjects in the SQS + OMM arm and 1.7% (1/60, missing: n = 24 [40%]) in the OMM arm were responders at Month 9 (p < 0.0001). Secondary objectives showed a significant difference in favor of SQS + OMM arm. Conclusion: The results indicate that the addition of SQS to OMM is more effective than OMM alone in relieving low back pain at up to nine months

Persistent postoperative pain and healthcare costs associated with instrumented and non-instrumented spinal surgery: a case-control study

Purpose: To compare rates of persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after lumbar spine surgery—commonly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome—and healthcare costs for instrumented lumbar spinal fusion versus decompression/discectomy. Methods: The UK population-based healthcare data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database from NHS Digital and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were queried to identify patients with PPP following lumbar spinal surgery. Rates of PPP were calculated by type of surgery (instrumented and non-instrumented). Total healthcare costs associated with the surgery and covering the 24-month period after index hospital discharge were estimated using standard methods for classifying health care encounters into major categories of health care resource utilization (i.e., inpatient hospital stays, outpatient clinic visits, accident and emergency attendances, primary care encounters, and medications prescribed in primary care) and applying the appropriate unit costs (expressed in 2013 GBP). Results: Increasing the complexity of surgery with instrumentation was not associated with an increased rate of PPP. However, 2-year healthcare costs following discharge after surgery are significantly higher among patients who underwent instrumented surgery compared with decompression/discectomy. Conclusions: Although there is a not insubstantial risk of ongoing pain following spine surgery, with 1-in-5 patients experiencing PPP within 2 years of surgery, the underlying indications for surgical modality and related choice of surgical procedure do not, by itself, appear to be a driving factor

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

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: The RASCAL (Refractory Angina Spinal Cord 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65254102.This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute of Health. Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) program (grant reference: PB-PG-1208-18031)

The incidence and healthcare costs of persistent post-operative pain following lumbar spine surgery in the United Kingdom: a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) : a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

OBJECTIVE: To characterise incidence and healthcare costs associated with persistent postoperative pain (PPP) following lumbar surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective, population-based cohort study. SETTING: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) databases. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort of 10 216 adults who underwent lumbar surgery in England from 1997/1998 through 2011/2012 and had at least 1 year of presurgery data and 2 years of postoperative follow-up data in the linked CPRD-HES. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Incidence and total healthcare costs over 2, 5 and 10 years attributable to persistent PPP following initial lumbar surgery. RESULTS: The rate of individuals undergoing lumbar surgery in the CPRD-HES linked data doubled over the 15-year study period, fiscal years 1997/1998 to 2011/2012, from 2.5 to 4.9 per 10 000 adults. Over the most recent 5-year period (2007/2008 to 2011/2012), on average 20.8% (95% CI 19.7% to 21.9%) of lumbar surgery patients met criteria for PPP. Rates of healthcare usage were significantly higher for patients with PPP across all types of care. Over 2 years following initial spine surgery, the mean cost difference between patients with and without PPP was £5383 (95% CI £4872 to £5916). Over 5 and 10 years following initial spine surgery, the mean cost difference between patients with and without PPP increased to £10 195 (95% CI £8726 to £11 669) and £14 318 (95% CI £8386 to £19 771), respectively. Extrapolated to the UK population, we estimate that nearly 5000 adults experience PPP after spine surgery annually, with each new cohort costing the UK National Health Service in excess of £70 million over the first 10 years alone. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent pain affects more than one-in-five lumbar surgery patients and accounts for substantial long-term healthcare costs. There is a need for formal, evidence-based guidelines for a coherent, coordinated management strategy for patients with continuing pain after lumbar surgery