Michael Leong
Stanford University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Michael Leong.
Neuromodulation | 2012
Timothy R. Deer; Joshua Prager; Robert M. Levy; James P. Rathmell; Eric Buchser; Allen W. Burton; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; José De Andrés; Sudhir Diwan; Michael A. Erdek; Eric Grigsby; Marc A. Huntoon; Marilyn S. Jacobs; Philip Kim; Krishna Kumar; Michael Leong; Liong Liem; Gladstone McDowell; Sunil Panchal; Richard Rauck; Michael Saulino; B. Todd Sitzman; Peter S. Staats; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Lisa Stearns; Mark T. Wallace; K. Dean Willis; William W. Witt; Tony L. Yaksh
Introduction: The use of intrathecal (IT) infusion of analgesic medications to treat patients with chronic refractory pain has increased since its inception in the 1980s, and the need for clinical research in IT therapy is ongoing. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) panel of experts convened in 2000, 2003, and 2007 to make recommendations on the rational use of IT analgesics based on preclinical and clinical literature and clinical experiences.
Neuromodulation | 2014
Timothy R. Deer; Nagy Mekhail; David A. Provenzano; Jason E. Pope; Elliot S. Krames; Michael Leong; Robert M. Levy; David Abejón; Eric Buchser; Allen W. Burton; Asokumar Buvanendran; Kenneth D. Candido; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; Mike J. L. DeJongste; Sudhir Diwan; Sam Eldabe; Kliment Gatzinsky; Robert D. Foreman; Salim M. Hayek; Philip Kim; Thomas M. Kinfe; David Kloth; Krishna Kumar; Syed Rizvi; Shivanand P. Lad; Liong Liem; Bengt Linderoth; S. Mackey; Gladstone McDowell
The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications.
Neuromodulation | 2014
Timothy R. Deer; Nagy Mekhail; David A. Provenzano; Jason E. Pope; Elliot S. Krames; Michael Leong; Robert M. Levy; David Abejón; Eric Buchser; Allen W. Burton; Asokumar Buvanendran; Kenneth D. Candido; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; Mike J. L. DeJongste; Sudhir Diwan; Sam Eldabe; Kliment Gatzinsky; Robert D. Foreman; Salim M. Hayek; Philip Kim; Thomas M. Kinfe; David Kloth; Krishna Kumar; Syed Rizvi; Shivanand P. Lad; Liong Liem; Bengt Linderoth; S. Mackey; Gladstone McDowell
The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications.
Neuromodulation | 2012
Timothy R. Deer; Robert M. Levy; Joshua Prager; Eric Buchser; Allen W. Burton; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; José De Andrés; Sudhir Diwan; Michael A. Erdek; Eric Grigsby; Marc A. Huntoon; Marilyn S. Jacobs; Philip Kim; Krishna Kumar; Michael Leong; Liong Liem; Gladstone McDowell; Sunil Panchal; Richard Rauck; Michael Saulino; B. Todd Sitzman; Peter S. Staats; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Lisa Stearns; Mark S. Wallace; K. Dean Willis; William W. Witt; Tony L. Yaksh; Nagy Mekhail
Introduction: Targeted intrathecal drug infusion to treat moderate to severe chronic pain has become a standard part of treatment algorithms when more conservative options fail. This therapy is well established in the literature, has shown efficacy, and is an important tool for the treatment of both cancer and noncancer pain; however, it has become clear in recent years that intrathecal drug delivery is associated with risks for serious morbidity and mortality.
Neuromodulation | 2012
Timothy R. Deer; Joshua Prager; Robert M. Levy; Allen W. Burton; Eric Buchser; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; José De Andrés; Sudhir Diwan; Michael A. Erdek; Eric Grigsby; Marc A. Huntoon; Marilyn S. Jacobs; Phillip Kim; Krishna Kumar; Michael Leong; Liong Liem; Gladstone McDowell; Sunil Panchal; Richard Rauck; Michael Saulino; Peter S. Staats; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Lisa Stearns; B. Todd Sitzman; Mark S. Wallace; K. Dean Willis; William W. Witt; Tony L. Yaksh; Nagy Mekhail
Introduction: Trialing for intrathecal pump placement is an essential part of the decision‐making process in placing a permanent device. In both the United States and the international community, the proper method for trialing is ill defined.
Neuromodulation | 2012
Timothy R. Deer; Joshua Prager; Robert M. Levy; James P. Rathmell; Eric Buchser; Allen W. Burton; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; José De Andrés; Sudhir Diwan; Michael A. Erdek; Eric Grigsby; Marc A. Huntoon; Marilyn S. Jacobs; Philip Kim; Krishna Kumar; Michael Leong; Liong Liem; Gladstone McDowell; Sunil Panchal; Richard Rauck; Michael Saulino; B. Todd Sitzman; Peter S. Staats; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Lisa Stearns; Mark S. Wallace; K. Dean Willis; William W. Witt; Tony L. Yaksh
Introduction: Continuous intrathecal infusion of drugs to treat chronic pain and spasticity has become a standard part of the algorithm of care. The use of opioids has been associated with noninfectious inflammatory masses at the tip of the intrathecal catheter, which can result in neurologic complications.
Pain Medicine | 2008
Mark S. Wallace; Peter S. Kosek; Peter S. Staats; Robert S. Fisher; David M. Schultz; Michael Leong
OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of adding intrathecal ziconotide to intrathecal morphine in patients being treated with a stable intrathecal morphine dose. DESIGN Phase II, multicenter, open-label study with a 5-week titration phase and an extension phase. SETTING Outpatient clinics. PATIENTS Patients with suboptimal pain relief receiving stable intrathecal morphine doses (2-20 mg/day). INTERVENTIONS Intrathecal morphine dosing remained constant during the titration phase. Ziconotide therapy began at 0.60 microg/day and was titrated to a maximum of 7.2 microg/day. During the extension phase, ziconotide and intrathecal morphine dosing were adjusted at the investigators discretion. OUTCOME MEASURES Safety was assessed primarily via adverse event reports. Efficacy was analyzed via percentage change on the visual analog scale of pain intensity and in weekly systemic opioid consumption. RESULTS Twenty-six patients were enrolled. Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild or moderate; the most common (> or = 15% of patients in either study phase) study drug-related (i.e., ziconotide/morphine combination [or ziconotide monotherapy in the extension phase only]) events were confusion, dizziness, abnormal gait, hallucinations, and anxiety. The mean percentage improvement in visual analog scale of pain intensity scores was 14.5% (95% confidence interval: -9.4% to 38.5%) from baseline to week 5 and varied during the extension phase (range: -0.4% to 42.8%). Mean percentage change from baseline in systemic opioid consumption was -14.3% at week 5 and varied considerably during the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS Ziconotide, combined with stable intrathecal morphine, may reduce pain and decrease systemic opioid use in patients with pain inadequately controlled by intrathecal morphine alone.
Neuromodulation | 2014
Timothy R. Deer; Nagy Mekhail; David A. Provenzano; Jason E. Pope; Elliot S. Krames; Simon Thomson; Lou Raso; Allen W. Burton; Jose DeAndres; Eric Buchser; Asokumar Buvanendran; Liong Liem; Krishna Kumar; Syed Rizvi; Claudio Feler; David Abejón; Jack Anderson; Sam Eldabe; Philip Kim; Michael Leong; Salim M. Hayek; Gladstone McDowell; Lawrence Poree; Elizabeth S. Brooks; Tory McJunkin; Paul Lynch; Robert D. Foreman; David Caraway; Ken Alo; Samer Narouze
The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need for guidance regarding safety and risk reduction for implantable neurostimulation devices. The INS convened an international committee of experts in the field to explore the evidence and clinical experience regarding safety, risks, and steps to risk reduction to improve outcomes.
Pain | 2014
Jennifer S. Gewandter; Robert H. Dworkin; Dennis C. Turk; Michael P. McDermott; Ralf Baron; Marc R. Gastonguay; Ian Gilron; Nathaniel P. Katz; Cyrus R. Mehta; Srinivasa N. Raja; Stephen Senn; Charles P. Taylor; Penney Cowan; Paul J. Desjardins; Rozalina Dimitrova; Raymond A. Dionne; John T. Farrar; David J. Hewitt; Smriti Iyengar; Gary W. Jay; Eija Kalso; Robert D. Kerns; Richard Leff; Michael Leong; Karin L. Petersen; Bernard Ravina; Christine Rauschkolb; Andrew S.C. Rice; Michael C. Rowbotham; Cristina Sampaio
Summary This article presents general considerations discussed at an IMMPACT consensus meeting regarding proof‐of‐concept (POC) clinical trials and major POC trial designs as well as their advantages and limitations when used to evaluate chronic pain treatments. ABSTRACT Proof‐of‐concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no‐go decision in a cost‐effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia, with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single‐dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade‐off between parallel‐group and crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N‐of‐1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and sequential parallel comparison designs, are summarized, and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.
Neuromodulation | 2014
Timothy R. Deer; Elliot S. Krames; Nagy Mekhail; Jason E. Pope; Michael Leong; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Stan Golovac; Ken Alo; Jack Anderson; Robert D. Foreman; David Caraway; Samer Narouze; Bengt Linderoth; Asokumar Buvanendran; Claudio Feler; Lawrence Poree; Paul Lynch; Tory McJunkin; Ted Swing; Peter S. Staats; Liong Liem; Kayode Williams
The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need to provide an expert consensus that defines the appropriate use of neuromodulation technologies for appropriate patients. The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) was formed to give guidance to current practice and insight into future developments.