Comment on ‘A sham-controlled, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis’ by Gulisano et al.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1002/ejp.4715
Jan Willem Kallewaard, Rui V. Duarte, Sam Eldabe, Simon Thomson
{"title":"Comment on ‘A sham-controlled, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis’ by Gulisano et al.","authors":"Jan Willem Kallewaard,&nbsp;Rui V. Duarte,&nbsp;Sam Eldabe,&nbsp;Simon Thomson","doi":"10.1002/ejp.4715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We read with interest the sham-controlled randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to assess pain response in patients with chronic pancreatitis (Gulisano et al., <span>2024</span>). We are grateful to and applaud the authors' efforts who have conducted a challenging study in a population not routinely considered for SCS and for which there is scarce evidence on the use of this intervention, limited to case reports and small case series (Bieze et al., <span>2024</span>). Despite the authors' best efforts and unquestionable value of this addition to the SCS literature, we have some concerns with the study that should be highlighted.</p><p>We are unaware of any studies that evaluated high-frequency SCS (1000 Hz or other) in patients with chronic pancreatitis and as such its efficacy for this population is unknown. Besides the ability to produce paraesthesia-free stimulation and therefore enable patient blinding, we are unsure as to why this frequency was selected by the authors if no evidence of potential effect was previously available. We would also query whether stimulation at 75% subthreshold of sensation would be as effective as at the level of or above sensation threshold. A main limitation of the current evidence base of SCS and sham-controlled trials is that spinal cord fibre activation has not been evaluated; how is it possible to determine if what the patients received was actually an ‘active intervention’ if it was not confirmed whether spinal cord activation occurred (Mekhail et al., <span>2024</span>)?</p><p>We note there was no eligibility criterion for baseline pain intensity. An entry criterion of ≥4 for chronic pain clinical trials has been recommended (Langford et al., <span>2023</span>). The baseline pain score in Gulisano et al. was 5.2 ± 1.9 and while we acknowledge that patients with pain intensity levels ≥5 are considered for SCS in routine clinical practice, these baseline scores are considerably lower than previous reports in the same population (Bieze et al., <span>2024</span>) or SCS studies in a neuropathic pain population evaluated in sham-controlled trials (Duarte et al., <span>2020</span>). Despite already low pain intensity levels at baseline, patients in the study reported approximately 40% reduction in pain intensity during the open-label extension to 12-month follow-up. This reduction represents a clinically meaningful change and as the authors mention, larger than a 20% response observed during sham-controlled phases of pain therapies. Due to the limited evidence of SCS in this population, it would be of interest to understand if clinically meaningful improvements were also observed in other patient-reported outcomes measures collected (Levy et al., <span>2023</span>).</p><p>We note that after anatomical positioning and on-table testing of paraesthesia pain mapping topography, the stimulation was left ‘activated’ until the next day. Only following confirmation of adequate mapping and x-ray position was the sub-perception or sham mode selected which can introduce expectation bias. The crossover phase occurred during the subsequent screening trial period; therefore, it was not possible to ascertain in advance if any of these patients would respond to any form of SCS therapy. The reasons to proceed to permanent SCS implant when no differences were observed between sham stimulation and 1000 Hz stimulation should be further explored. If there were limited benefits, why did 12 out of 16 patients elect to have another procedure of potential limited value and with associated risks? We suggest that future sham-controlled randomized trials start by evaluating treatment response to the type of SCS being investigated during an on-table trial or screening trial phase, followed by a wash-out period of sufficient duration to allow return to baseline scores. Randomization to active or sham arms would only then ensue. Confirmation that SCS therapy achieved the desired effect in the active intervention (i.e. spinal cord activation) or was definitely not achieving this effect in a sham intervention that still uses stimulation is essential to evaluate the true effect of SCS.</p><p>Finally, we agree with the authors that the evidence for the use of different SCS stimulation paradigms in patients with chronic pancreatitis is underwhelming and further studies are warranted. We wish to emphasize that the findings from the current study apply to SCS at 1000 Hz only and are not generalizable to other forms of SCS therapy.</p><p>There was no funding received in relation to this letter.</p><p>JWK is an advisory board member for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott and Saluda Medical. RVD has previously received consultancy fees from Mainstay Medical, Medtronic and Saluda Medical outside the submitted work. He is an employee of Saluda Medical. SE reports consultancy fees from Medtronic, and Mainstay Medical outside the submitted work. He has received department research funding from the National Institute of Health Research, Saluda Medical and Medtronic. ST has received consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Mainstay Medical, and Saluda Medica outside the submitted work. He has received department research funding from the National Institute for Health Research, Boston Scientific, Saluda Medical and Mainstay Medical.</p>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejp.4715","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.4715","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We read with interest the sham-controlled randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to assess pain response in patients with chronic pancreatitis (Gulisano et al., 2024). We are grateful to and applaud the authors' efforts who have conducted a challenging study in a population not routinely considered for SCS and for which there is scarce evidence on the use of this intervention, limited to case reports and small case series (Bieze et al., 2024). Despite the authors' best efforts and unquestionable value of this addition to the SCS literature, we have some concerns with the study that should be highlighted.

We are unaware of any studies that evaluated high-frequency SCS (1000 Hz or other) in patients with chronic pancreatitis and as such its efficacy for this population is unknown. Besides the ability to produce paraesthesia-free stimulation and therefore enable patient blinding, we are unsure as to why this frequency was selected by the authors if no evidence of potential effect was previously available. We would also query whether stimulation at 75% subthreshold of sensation would be as effective as at the level of or above sensation threshold. A main limitation of the current evidence base of SCS and sham-controlled trials is that spinal cord fibre activation has not been evaluated; how is it possible to determine if what the patients received was actually an ‘active intervention’ if it was not confirmed whether spinal cord activation occurred (Mekhail et al., 2024)?

We note there was no eligibility criterion for baseline pain intensity. An entry criterion of ≥4 for chronic pain clinical trials has been recommended (Langford et al., 2023). The baseline pain score in Gulisano et al. was 5.2 ± 1.9 and while we acknowledge that patients with pain intensity levels ≥5 are considered for SCS in routine clinical practice, these baseline scores are considerably lower than previous reports in the same population (Bieze et al., 2024) or SCS studies in a neuropathic pain population evaluated in sham-controlled trials (Duarte et al., 2020). Despite already low pain intensity levels at baseline, patients in the study reported approximately 40% reduction in pain intensity during the open-label extension to 12-month follow-up. This reduction represents a clinically meaningful change and as the authors mention, larger than a 20% response observed during sham-controlled phases of pain therapies. Due to the limited evidence of SCS in this population, it would be of interest to understand if clinically meaningful improvements were also observed in other patient-reported outcomes measures collected (Levy et al., 2023).

We note that after anatomical positioning and on-table testing of paraesthesia pain mapping topography, the stimulation was left ‘activated’ until the next day. Only following confirmation of adequate mapping and x-ray position was the sub-perception or sham mode selected which can introduce expectation bias. The crossover phase occurred during the subsequent screening trial period; therefore, it was not possible to ascertain in advance if any of these patients would respond to any form of SCS therapy. The reasons to proceed to permanent SCS implant when no differences were observed between sham stimulation and 1000 Hz stimulation should be further explored. If there were limited benefits, why did 12 out of 16 patients elect to have another procedure of potential limited value and with associated risks? We suggest that future sham-controlled randomized trials start by evaluating treatment response to the type of SCS being investigated during an on-table trial or screening trial phase, followed by a wash-out period of sufficient duration to allow return to baseline scores. Randomization to active or sham arms would only then ensue. Confirmation that SCS therapy achieved the desired effect in the active intervention (i.e. spinal cord activation) or was definitely not achieving this effect in a sham intervention that still uses stimulation is essential to evaluate the true effect of SCS.

Finally, we agree with the authors that the evidence for the use of different SCS stimulation paradigms in patients with chronic pancreatitis is underwhelming and further studies are warranted. We wish to emphasize that the findings from the current study apply to SCS at 1000 Hz only and are not generalizable to other forms of SCS therapy.

There was no funding received in relation to this letter.

JWK is an advisory board member for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott and Saluda Medical. RVD has previously received consultancy fees from Mainstay Medical, Medtronic and Saluda Medical outside the submitted work. He is an employee of Saluda Medical. SE reports consultancy fees from Medtronic, and Mainstay Medical outside the submitted work. He has received department research funding from the National Institute of Health Research, Saluda Medical and Medtronic. ST has received consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Mainstay Medical, and Saluda Medica outside the submitted work. He has received department research funding from the National Institute for Health Research, Boston Scientific, Saluda Medical and Mainstay Medical.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
就 Gulisano 等人撰写的 "脊髓刺激治疗慢性胰腺炎疼痛的假对照随机试验 "发表评论。
ST 从波士顿科学公司(Boston Scientific)、Mainstay Medical 和 Saluda Medica 获得了所提交工作之外的顾问费。他曾获得国家健康研究所、波士顿科学公司、Saluda Medical 和 Mainstay Medical 提供的部门研究经费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
期刊最新文献
Chronic pain among primary fentanyl users: The concept of self-medication. Plasma neurofilament light chain in fibromyalgia: A case control study exploring correlation with clinical and cognitive features. Pain-related impairment in daily activities after lung cancer surgery: A 1-year prospective cohort study. Neural correlates of pain acceptance and the role of the cerebellum: Comment. Prescription time trends in patients with high-impact chronic pain: A National Patient Registry Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1