A proposed definition of remission from chronic pain, based on retrospective evaluation of 24-month outcomes with spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of chronic diseases, remission is commonly used as a meaningful treatment goal, synonymous with the absence of significant clinical signs and symptoms of a disease, but not representing a cure. The objective of this paper is to propose a definition for remission for use as an outcome to evaluate the long-term efficacy of therapies for chronic pain. METHODS: Data from a randomized clinical trial (NCT01609972) testing the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in low back and leg pain subjects was used to evaluate the association between pain and functional outcomes and identify the cut-off value to predict remission. Available data over 24-month assessment period included visual analog score (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), patient and clinician global impression of change (PGIC and CGIC), and patient satisfaction. Cluster analysis, Pearson\u27s correlation coefficients, sensitivity, and specificity analyses were used to evaluate its utility in predicting higher patient functionality and satisfaction. RESULTS: Though the term remission has been used in the chronic pain field, a consistent definition has not been previously established. Based on the analysis of the clinical data, we propose that a sustained (≥6 months) pain score of ≤3.0 cm out of 10 cm on VAS be defined as remission. Applying this definition to the clinical trial data: subjects in remission at 24 months versus non-remitters were significantly more likely to be in the highest functional category of minimally disabled according to the ODI (31.5 vs. 8.2%, respectively, p = 0.001), and be \u27very satisfied\u27 (75.7 vs 22.6%, respectively, p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The validity of the proposed definition of remission is supported by the persistence of remission in this study group, and its correspondence with patient satisfaction, and reduced disability. Further evaluation of the definition using clinical data from other long-term studies is needed

High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation at 10 kHz for the Treatment of Combined Neck and Arm Pain: Results From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Intractable neck and upper limb pain has historically been challenging to treat with conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) being limited by obtaining effective paresthesia coverage. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the 10-kHz SCS system, a paresthesia-independent therapy, in the treatment of neck and upper limb pain. METHODS: Subjects with chronic, intractable neck and/or upper limb pain of ≥5 cm (on a 0-10 cm visual analog scale [VAS]) were enrolled in 6 US centers following an investigational device exemption from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and institutional review board approval. Each subject was implanted with 2 epidural leads spanning C2-C6 vertebral bodies. Subjects with successful trial stimulation were implanted with a Senza® system (Nevro Corp) and included in the evaluation of the primary safety and effectiveness endpoints. RESULTS: In the per protocol population, the primary endpoint (≥50% pain relief at 3 mo) was achieved in 86.7% (n = 39/45) subjects. Compared to baseline, subjects reported a significant reduction (P \u3c .001) in their mean (± standard error of the mean) VAS scores at 12-mo assessment for neck pain (7.6 ± 0.2 cm, n = 42 vs 1.5 ± 0.3 cm, n = 37) and upper limb pain (7.1 ± 0.3 cm, n = 24 vs 1.0 ± 0.2 cm, n = 20). At 12-mo assessment, 89.2% of subjects with neck pain and 95.0% with upper limb pain had ≥50% pain relief from baseline, 95.0% reported to be satisfied/very satisfied and 30.0% either eliminated or reduced their opioid intake. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, 10-kHz SCS can treat intractable neck and upper limb pain with stable long-term outcomes

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