Morag Brookes

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Conventional Medical Management: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (PROCESS Study).

Introduction.  Since its first application in 1967, numerous case series indicate that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for the management of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, only one randomized controlled trial has demonstrated that SCS provides more effective pain relief than re‐operation and conventional medical management. The PROCESS randomized, controlled, multicenter trial aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of SCS when added to conventional medical management compared to conventional medical management alone in patients with FBSS.

Bolus Intrathecal Injection of Ziconotide (Prialt®) to Evaluate the Option of Continuous Administration via an Implanted Intrathecal Drug Delivery (ITDD) System: A Pilot Study

This study evaluated efficacy and safety of bolus doses of ziconotide (Prialt®, Eisai Limited, Hertfordshire, UK) to assess the option of continuous administration of this drug via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery system.

Effects of flow rate modifications on reported analgesia and quality of life in chronic pain patients treated with continuous intrathecal drug therapy.

OBJECTIVE We compared the analgesia and the quality of life of a constant daily dose of intrathecal drug administered at different flow rates in patients treated for chronic pain. We postulate that the quality of the analgesia, at the same daily dose, will show an infusion rate dependent pattern with decreased pain at higher flow rates. PATIENTS Twenty consecutive patients on stable intrathecal treatment were included in a double-blind three-period crossover study where the same daily dose was administered at single, double, and quadruple flow rates in a randomized sequence. OUTCOMES MEASURES   The mean daily pain score and the quality of life (EuroQol measure of health outcome [EQ-5D]) were measured following each flow rate change, after 1 week of stabilization. Results.  Visual analog scale (VAS) scores remained unchanged with all flow rates. Compared with the lowest flow rate, the EQ-5D index decreased with double and even more with quadruple flow rate, suggesting a clinically relevant worsening of the health state with higher flow rates. Adverse events were equally distributed in all groups. CONCLUSION Pain VAS did not significantly change with flow rate. This is consistent with preclinical data showing very limited increase in drug distribution in the cerebrospinal fluid with much larger flow rate augmentation. However, the quality of life decreased consistently as the flow rate increased. This was entirely due to a worsening of the pain and anxiety dimension of the EQ-5D questionnaire, caused presumably by a slight increase in pain rather than adverse events. We suggest that at higher flow rates increased drug dilution results in a decreased effect at the receptor site.

Prospective Analysis of the Trial Period for Spinal Cord Stimulation Treatment for Chronic Pain

Objective:  To determine patient preferences regarding the duration of trial period.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Patients with “refractory angina” (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health‐related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting.

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

BackgroundThe RASCAL (R efractory A ngina S pinal C ord 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/designThis 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationISRCTN65254102

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.

Ziconotide Monotherapy: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION Chronic neuropathic pain is difficult to treat and is often refractory to most modalities of treatment. Ziconotide is a novel, potent, non-opioid, calcium channel blocking agent which has been shown in clinical trials to be effective in treating chronic neuropathic pain. METHODS EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for English language studies. Reference sections of articles were examined for further papers and the manufacturer of ziconotide was contacted for further unpublished data. Three randomised controlled trials in ziconotide monotherapy were included and subjected to a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS All three studies used the similar main outcome measure (visual analogue scale of pain intensity; VASPI) and were therefore comparable. A Jadad score was performed for each paper. Frequent serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed which resulted in two of the studies revising the protocol. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled odds ratio (responders on ziconotide vs. placebo) of 2.77 (95% CI, 1.37 to 5.59). DISCUSSION The results suggest that ziconotide is beneficial for pain reduction in chronic neuropathic pain. However, there remain some methodological issues that may call into question the validity of the results. It is evident that more work needs to be conducted to further validate the efficacy of ziconotide and to discover new areas of use.

Ziconotide for Severe Neuropathic Pain in Metastatic Breast Cancer

ABSTRACT The role of ziconotide in managing severe, neuropathic cancer pain is described. This is illustrated by a case of a 63-year-old woman with breast cancer who had failed more conservative therapy but who responded to intrathecal ziconotide. Clinical efficacy and adverse effects of the drug are discussed. Commentaries on this case from the United Kingdom are provided by pain specialists from Spain and The Netherlands. The content of this case report appeared in: Wells CD (editor). Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Neuropathic Pain. NeuPSIG. Athens (Greece), May 27–30, 2010. Pianoro, Italy, Medimond Srl, 2010. ©MedimondSrl. Reproduced with permission. This feature is adapted from paineurope 2012; Issue 1, ©Haymarket Medical Publications Ltd., and is presented with permission. paineurope is provided as a service to pain management by Mundipharma International, Ltd., and is distributed free of charge to health care professionals in Europe. Archival issues can be accessed via the Web site: http://www.paineurope.com at which European health professionals can register online to receive copies of the quarterly publication.

Spinal cord stimulation vs conventional medical management: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients with failed back surgery sybdrome (PROCESS Study)

Introduction.  Since its first application in 1967, numerous case series indicate that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for the management of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, only one randomized controlled trial has demonstrated that SCS provides more effective pain relief than re‐operation and conventional medical management. The PROCESS randomized, controlled, multicenter trial aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of SCS when added to conventional medical management compared to conventional medical management alone in patients with FBSS.