| Literature DB >> 35814185 |
Erika A Petersen1, Thomas G Stauss2, James A Scowcroft3, Elizabeth S Brooks4, Judith L White5, Shawn M Sills6, Kasra Amirdelfan7, Maged N Guirguis8, Jijun Xu9, Cong Yu10, Ali Nairizi11, Denis G Patterson11, Kostandinos C Tsoulfas2, Michael J Creamer12, Vincent Galan13, Richard H Bundschu14, Neel D Mehta15, Dawood Sayed16, Shivanand P Lad17, David J DiBenedetto18, Khalid A Sethi19, Johnathan H Goree20, Matthew T Bennett19, Nathan J Harrison8, Atef F Israel3, Paul Chang13, Paul W Wu21, Charles E Argoff22, Christian E Nasr23, Rod S Taylor24, David L Caraway4, Nagy A Mekhail9.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate high-frequency (10-kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment in refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Patients andEntities:
Keywords: CMM, conventional medical management; DN4, Douleur Neuropathique; DSPN, diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; IPG, implantable pulse generator; NNT, number needed to treat; PDN, painful diabetic neuropathy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SCS, spinal cord stimulation; VAS, visual analog scale
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814185 PMCID: PMC9256824 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.05.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes ISSN: 2542-4548
Figure 1Disposition of all participants through 12 months. ∗Trial SCS was discontinued for 2 patients: 1 patient removed trial leads at home, whereas the other patient had a significant lead migration. †Participants without the 3-month primary end point assessment were included only in the SG for AE reporting for the remainder of the study; other outcomes were not aggregated for analysis. AE, adverse event; CMM, conventional medical management; f/u, follow-up; SCS, spinal cord stimulation; SG, safety group; WC, withdrew consent.
Baseline Characteristics
| Characteristic | 10-kHz SCS+CMM n=104 | CMM crossover to 10-kHz SCS n=77 | CMM continuers n=18 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y), mean ± SD | 60.5±11.3 | 60.3±10.1 | 62.4±10.3 |
| Female, n (%) | 38 (37%) | 27 (35%) | 6 (33%) |
| Male, n (%) | 66 (63%) | 50 (65%) | 12 (67%) |
| Race | |||
| White, n (%) | 81 (77.9%) | 66 (85.7%) | 13 (72.2%) |
| Black or African American, n (%) | 15 (14.4%) | 8 (10.4%) | 3 (16.7%) |
| Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, n (%) | 3 (2.9%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0 |
| American Indian or Alaska Native, n (%) | 2 (1.9%) | 0 | 0 |
| Asian, n (%) | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0 |
| Other, n (%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (1.3%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| Diabetes | |||
| Type 1, n (%) | 8 (8%) | 3 (4%) | 0 |
| Type 2, n (%) | 96 (92%) | 74 (96%) | 18 (100%) |
| Duration (y) | |||
| Diabetes, mean ± SD | 13.1±8.5 | 12.5±9.1 | 11.7±6.8 |
| Peripheral neuropathy, mean ± SD | 7.5±5.8 | 6.8±4.9 | 7.6±5.9 |
| HbA1c, mean ± SD | 7.3%±1.1% | 7.5%±1.2% | 7.2%±1.0% |
| <7.0%, n (%) | 40 (38%) | 30 (39%) | 7 (39%) |
| <8.0%, n (%) | 73 (70%) | 53 (69%) | 15 (83%) |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD | 33.7±5.3 | 34.0±5.3 | 34.1±5.0 |
| Lower limb pain VAS (cm), mean ± SD | 7.6±1.6 | 7.2±1.6 | 6.1±1.3 |
| <7.5 cm, n (%) | 48 (46%) | 38 (49%) | 17 (94%) |
| ≥7.5 cm, n (%) | 56 (54%) | 39 (51%) | 1 (6%) |
| Severity of neuropathic pain | |||
| DN4, mean ± SD | 6.6±1.7 | 6.4±2.0 | 6.6±1.9 |
| <4, n (%) | 2 (2%) | 5 (7%) | 1 (6%) |
| ≥4, n (%) | 102 (98%) | 71 (93%) | 17 (94%) |
BMI, body mass index; CMM, conventional medical management; DN4, Douleur Neuropathique; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; SCS, spinal cord stimulation; VAS, visual analog scale.
Figure 2A, Individual pain responses among all 10-kHz SCS implanted participants (n=142) at 12 months. Each line represents the improvement in a single participant’s lower limb pain score relative to the baseline. Treatment responders (n=121) are those with at least 50% pain relief, shown in blue, with nonresponders (n=21) shown in orange. The average pain relief among all implanted participants at 12 months was 74%. B, The 5-level EQ-5D-5L measures health-related quality of life. Participants rate 5 items each with 5 levels of response that are converted to an index value on the basis of the US population norms, ranging from −0.109 (a state worse than death) to 1.000 (perfect health). The average scores are plotted over time for the 10-kHz SCS+CMM group participants (n=84, blue line, open squares) and CMM group participants who crossover after 6 months (n=57, orange line preimplant, blue line postimplant, open circles). C, The PSQ-3 evaluates the impact of pain on falling asleep and staying asleep with three 10-cm VASs, where 0 cm means “never” and 10 cm means “always.” The average scores are plotted over time for the 10-kHz SCS+CMM group participants (n=84, blue line, open squares) and CMM group participants who crossover after 6 months (n=58, orange line preimplant, blue line postimplant, open circles). D, The BPI-DPN scale has been validated in patients with PDN and assesses pain interference with activity, mood, and activities of daily living via 7 items on a scale of 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes). The average scores are plotted over time for the 10-kHz SCS+CMM group participants (n=84, blue line, open squares) and CMM group participants who crossover after 6 months (n=57, orange line preimplant, blue line postimplant, open circles). E, The GAF scale requires clinician assessment of the patient’s mental health and well-being on a scale of 1 (persistent danger to oneself or others OR unable to maintain personal hygiene OR serious suicidality) to 100 (superior functioning in a wide range of activities/no symptoms). The average scores are shown over time for the 10-kHz SCS+CMM group participants (n=80, orange bar preimplant, blue bars postimplant) and CMM group participants who crossover after 6 months (n=56, orange bars preimplant, blue bars postimplant). F, The participants rated their satisfaction with treatment on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” at 12 months. Proportions are shown for all implanted participants (n=142). Error bars: 95% CI, ∗P<.05, ∗∗P<.01, ∗∗∗P<.001. BPI-DPN, Brief Pain Inventory for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy; CMM, conventional medical management; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; PDN, painful diabetic neuropathy; PSQ-3, Pain and Sleep Questionnaire 3-Item Index; SCS, spinal cord stimulation; VAS, visual analog scale.
Outcomes in the Per-Protocol Population Over 12 Monthsa,b
| Outcome | 10-kHz SCS+CMM | CMM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 6 mos | 12 mos | Baseline | 6 mos | 12 mos | |
| HbA1c, n | 70 | 51 | ||||
| mean ± SD | 7.5%±1.2% | 7.6%±1.4% | 7.3%±1.2% | 7.5%±1.1% | 7.6%±1.3% | 7.6%±1.2% |
| Lower limb pain, n | 84 | 58 | ||||
| 10-cm pain VAS score (cm), mean ± SD | 7.6±1.6 | 1.7±1.9 | 1.7±1.8 | 7.2±1.6 | 7.4±1.6 | 2.0±1.6 |
| Percent change from baseline, mean ± SD | - | −76%±26% | −77%±25% | - | 7%±32% | −70%±27% |
| Proportion of responders (%) | - | 86% | 86% | - | 0 | 84% |
| DN4, n | 77 | 52 | ||||
| Total score, mean ± SD | 6.6±1.8 | 3.4±2.4 | 3.5±2.3 | 6.6±2.0 | 6.7±2.1 | 3.5±2.4 |
| Proportion with score ≥4 (%) | 97% | 51% | 51% | 96% | 92% | 46% |
| Proportion with score <4 (%) | 3% | 49% | 49% | 4% | 8% | 54% |
| SF-MPQ-2, n | 84 | 58 | ||||
| Continuous pain, mean ± SD | 5.2±2.5 | 1.6±1.7 | 1.6±2.0 | 5.4±2.6 | 5.7±2.4 | 1.7±1.6 |
| Intermittent pain, mean ± SD | 5.4±2.5 | 1.7±2.1 | 1.5±1.9 | 5.6±2.2 | 6.0±2.5 | 1.4±1.6 |
| Neuropathic pain, mean ± SD | 5.5±2.0 | 1.9±1.6 | 1.9±1.7 | 5.4±2.1 | 5.7±2.1 | 1.9±1.5 |
| Affective descriptors, mean ± SD | 4.0±2.7 | 1.1±1.6 | 1.0±1.7 | 3.6±2.7 | 4.6±2.7 | 0.7±1.1 |
| Total, mean ± SD | 5.1±2.0 | 1.6±1.6 | 1.6±1.7 | 5.1±2.0 | 5.6±2.1 | 1.5±1.3 |
| Neurological assessment, n | 76 | 52 | ||||
| Proportion with overall improvement (%) | - | 59% | 68% | - | 0% | 62% |
| Proportion with sensory improvement (%) | - | 56% | 66% | - | 4% | 58% |
| EQ-5D-5L, n | 84 | 57 | ||||
| Overall health VAS, mean ± SD | 58.7±18.7 | 73.3±16.1 | 75.6±18.6 | 58.1±21.1 | 56.8±20.3 | 75.4±14.6 |
| Index, mean ± SD | 0.644±0.145 | 0.767±0.131 | 0.780±0.123 | 0.630±0.132 | 0.604±0.144 | 0.761±0.087 |
| DQOL, n | 83 | 58 | ||||
| Satisfaction, mean ± SD | 3.0±0.7 | 2.2±0.8 | 2.0±0.8 | 3.0±0.8 | 3.2±0.7 | 2.2±0.8 |
| Impact, mean ± SD | 2.5±0.7 | 1.9±0.7 | 1.8±0.6 | 2.7±0.7 | 2.7±0.6 | 1.9±0.5 |
| Worry: social/vocational, mean ± SD | 1.7±0.7 | 1.4±0.6 | 1.4±0.6 | 1.7±0.6 | 1.7±0.7 | 1.3±0.4 |
| Worry: diabetes-related, mean ± SD | 2.1±0.8 | 1.8±0.8 | 1.6±0.7 | 2.3±0.8 | 2.4±0.9 | 1.8±0.7 |
| Total, mean ± SD | 2.5±0.6 | 1.9±0.6 | 1.8±0.6 | 2.6±0.7 | 2.7±0.6 | 1.9±0.5 |
| CGIC, n | 80 | 57 | ||||
| Better, great deal better (%) | - | 72% | 79% | - | 0% | 77% |
| Little, somewhat, moderately better (%) | - | 27% | 20% | - | 5% | 19% |
| No change, almost the same (%) | - | 1% | 1% | - | 95% | 4% |
| PGIC, n | 84 | 58 | ||||
| Better, great deal better (%) | - | 67% | 73% | - | 0% | 71% |
| Little, somewhat, moderately better (%) | - | 32% | 23% | - | 7% | 28% |
| No change, almost the same (%) | - | 1% | 5% | - | 93% | 2% |
CGIC, Clinician Global Impression of Change; CMM, conventional medical management; DN4, Douleur Neuropathique; DQOL, Diabetes Quality of Life; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; PGIC, Patient Global Impression of Change; SCS, spinal cord stimulation; SF-MPQ-2: Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2; VAS, visual analog scale.
Outcomes assessed in the per-protocol population at baseline and at 6 and 12 months for participants randomized to 10-kHz SCS+CMM and to CMM who crossed over after 6 months. HbA1c: laboratory assessment of percentage glycated hemoglobin; lower limb pain: participants reported pain intensity using a 10-cm VAS, where 0 indicates “no pain” and 10 indicates “worst pain imaginable,” responders are defined as participants with at least 50% pain relief from the baseline; the DN4 is a validated neuropathic pain measure, and a score of 4 or greater is consistent with a clinical diagnosis of painful diabetic neuropathy; the SF-MPQ-2 is a patient-reported outcome rating the intensity of 22 pain descriptors on a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible) and categorized into 4 subscales: continuous pain, intermittent pain, neuropathic pain, and affective component; neurologic assessment included motor strength and reflex testing, as well as sensory testing for light touch, pinprick, and 10-g monofilament. All follow-up assessments were compared with baseline, and the investigator categorized motor, reflex, and sensory separately as an “improvement,” “no change,” or a “deficit.” Overall neurologic improvement is defined as an improvement of motor, reflex, or sensory, without a deficit in any; the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire measures health-related quality of life, with an overall health VAS from 0 (the worst health you can imagine) to 100 (the best health you can imagine) and 5 items each with 5 levels of response that are converted to an index value on the basis of US population norms, ranging from −0.109 (a state worse than death) to 1.000 (perfect health); the DQOL measure is a 46-item patient questionnaire that assesses how diabetes impacts one’s life and can be divided into 4 subscales: satisfaction, impact, worry about social and vocational issues, and diabetes-related worry; the CGIC and PGIC ask the clinician and patient, respectively, to evaluate change since baseline in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions, and overall quality of life on a 7-point Likert scale.
P<.001.
P<.05.
P<.01.
Number Needed to Treat for PDN Treatments
| PDN treatment | Number needed to treat |
|---|---|
| High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches | 10.6 (7.4-19) |
| Gabapentin, extended-release | 8.3 (6.2-13.0) |
| Pregabalin | 7.7 (6.5-9.4) |
| Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors | 6.4 (5.2-8.4) |
| Gabapentin | 6.3 (5.0-8.3) |
| Weak opioid agonists | 4.7 (3.6-6.7) |
| Strong opioid agonists | 4.3 (3.4-5.8) |
| Tricyclic antidepressants | 3.6 (3.0-4.4) |
| 10-kHz SCS | 1.3 (1.1-1.4) |
SCS, spinal cord stimulation.
The number needed to treat represents the number of patients that need to be treated with an intervention to achieve 1 more responder with at least 50% pain relief compared with the control intervention. Finnerup et al completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain medications vs placebo. The current study results were used to calculate the number needed to treat for 10-kHz SCS compared with continued conventional medical management.