James M North1, Kyung-Soo Jason Hong2, Philip Young Cho3. 1. The Center for Clinical Research, Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 2. The Center for Clinical Research, Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. jhong@ccrpain.com. 3. Mathematical Sciences, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain relief via spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has historically revolved around producing paresthesia to replace pain, with success measured by the extent of paresthesia-pain overlap. In a recent murine study, by Shechter et al., showed the superior efficacy of high frequency SCS (1 kHz and 10 kHz) at inhibiting the effects of mechanical hypersensitivity compared to sham or 50 Hz stimulation. In the same study, authors report there were no differences in efficacy between 1 kHz and 10 kHz delivered at subperception stimulation strength (80% of motor threshold). Therefore, we designed a randomized, 2 × 2 crossover study of low frequency supra-perception SCS vs. subperception SCS at 1 kHz frequency in order to test whether subperception stimulation at 1 kHz was sufficient to provide effective pain relief in human subjects. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects with SCS, and inadequate pain relief based on numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores (>5) were enrolled, and observed for total of seven weeks (three weeks of treatment, one week wash off, and another three weeks of treatment). Subjects were asked to rate their pain on NPRS as a primary efficacy variable, and complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Out of 22 subjects that completed the study, 21 subjects (95%) reported improvements in average, best, and worst pain NPRS scores. All NPRS scores were significantly lower with subperception stimulation compared to paresthesia-based stimulation (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, and p < 0.05, respectively). As with NPRS scores, the treatment effect of subperception stimulation was significantly greater than that of paresthesia based stimulation on ODI scores (p = 3.9737 × 10-5 ) and PGIC scores (p = 3.0396 × 10-5 ).
BACKGROUND: Pain relief via spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has historically revolved around producing paresthesia to replace pain, with success measured by the extent of paresthesia-pain overlap. In a recent murine study, by Shechter et al., showed the superior efficacy of high frequency SCS (1 kHz and 10 kHz) at inhibiting the effects of mechanical hypersensitivity compared to sham or 50 Hz stimulation. In the same study, authors report there were no differences in efficacy between 1 kHz and 10 kHz delivered at subperception stimulation strength (80% of motor threshold). Therefore, we designed a randomized, 2 × 2 crossover study of low frequency supra-perception SCS vs. subperception SCS at 1 kHz frequency in order to test whether subperception stimulation at 1 kHz was sufficient to provide effective pain relief in human subjects. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects with SCS, and inadequate pain relief based on numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores (>5) were enrolled, and observed for total of seven weeks (three weeks of treatment, one week wash off, and another three weeks of treatment). Subjects were asked to rate their pain on NPRS as a primary efficacy variable, and complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Out of 22 subjects that completed the study, 21 subjects (95%) reported improvements in average, best, and worst pain NPRS scores. All NPRS scores were significantly lower with subperception stimulation compared to paresthesia-based stimulation (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, and p < 0.05, respectively). As with NPRS scores, the treatment effect of subperception stimulation was significantly greater than that of paresthesia based stimulation on ODI scores (p = 3.9737 × 10-5 ) and PGIC scores (p = 3.0396 × 10-5 ).
Authors: Jacob Caylor; Rajiv Reddy; Sopyda Yin; Christina Cui; Mingxiong Huang; Charles Huang; Rao Ramesh; Dewleen G Baker; Alan Simmons; Dmitri Souza; Samer Narouze; Ricardo Vallejo; Imanuel Lerman Journal: Bioelectron Med Date: 2019-06-28
Authors: Simon J Thomson; Moein Tavakkolizadeh; Sarah Love-Jones; Nikunj K Patel; Jianwen Wendy Gu; Amarpreet Bains; Que Doan; Michael Moffitt Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2017-12-08
Authors: John A Hatheway; Vipul Mangal; Michael A Fishman; Philip Kim; Binit Shah; Rainer Vogel; Vincent Galan; Steven Severyn; Tristan E Weaver; David A Provenzano; Eric Chang; Michael H Verdolin; Gregory Howes; Armando Villarreal; Steven Falowski; Kelly Hendrickson; Katherine Stromberg; Lachlan Davies; Lisa Johanek; Matthew T Kelly Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2020-12-09