Efficacy of the latest new stimulation patterns of spinal cord stimulation for intractable neuropathic pain compared to conventional stimulation: study protocol for a clinical trial.
Differential target multiplexed
Fast-acting subperception therapy
Neuropathic pain
Spinal cord stimulation
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Sep 2023
23 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
27
06
2023
accepted:
08
09
2023
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
24
9
2023
entrez:
23
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the neuromodulation therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. The conventional paresthesia-based SCS involves the application of tonic stimulation that induces a sense of paresthesia. Recently, new SCS stimulation patterns without paresthesia have been developed. Differential target multiplexed (DTM) stimulation and fast-acting subperception therapy (FAST) stimulation are the latest paresthesia-free SCS patterns. A single-center, open-label, crossover, randomized clinical trial to investigate the superiority of SCS using the latest new stimulation patterns over conventional tonic stimulation for neuropathic pain is planned. This study consists of two steps: SCS trial (first step) and SCS system implantation (second step). In the SCS trial, participants will be randomly assigned to 4 groups receiving stimulation, including tonic, DTM, and FAST. Each stimulation will then be performed for 2 days, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain will be evaluated before and after each stimulation pattern. A stimulation-off period for 1 day is set between each stimulation pattern to wash out the residual previous stimulation effects. Pain improvement is defined as more than 33% reduction in the pain VAS. The primary analysis will compare pain improvement between the new stimulation patterns and the conventional tonic stimulation pattern in the SCS trial. The secondary outcomes will be evaluated as follows: (1) the relationships between causative disease and improvement rate by each stimulation pattern; (2) comparison of pain improvement between the DTM and FAST stimulation patterns in all cases and by causative disease; (3) changes in assessment items preoperatively to 24 months after the implantation; (4) preoperative factors associated with long-term effects defined as continuing for more than 12 months; and (5) adverse events related to this study 3 months after the implantation. This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of the latest new stimulation patterns compared to the conventional tonic stimulation. In addition, which stimulation pattern is most effective for which kind of causative disease will be clarified. Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) 1,042,220,094. Registered on 21 November 2022, and last modified on 6 January 2023. jRCT is an approved member of the Primary Registry Network of WHO ICTRP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the neuromodulation therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. The conventional paresthesia-based SCS involves the application of tonic stimulation that induces a sense of paresthesia. Recently, new SCS stimulation patterns without paresthesia have been developed. Differential target multiplexed (DTM) stimulation and fast-acting subperception therapy (FAST) stimulation are the latest paresthesia-free SCS patterns.
METHODS
METHODS
A single-center, open-label, crossover, randomized clinical trial to investigate the superiority of SCS using the latest new stimulation patterns over conventional tonic stimulation for neuropathic pain is planned. This study consists of two steps: SCS trial (first step) and SCS system implantation (second step). In the SCS trial, participants will be randomly assigned to 4 groups receiving stimulation, including tonic, DTM, and FAST. Each stimulation will then be performed for 2 days, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain will be evaluated before and after each stimulation pattern. A stimulation-off period for 1 day is set between each stimulation pattern to wash out the residual previous stimulation effects. Pain improvement is defined as more than 33% reduction in the pain VAS. The primary analysis will compare pain improvement between the new stimulation patterns and the conventional tonic stimulation pattern in the SCS trial. The secondary outcomes will be evaluated as follows: (1) the relationships between causative disease and improvement rate by each stimulation pattern; (2) comparison of pain improvement between the DTM and FAST stimulation patterns in all cases and by causative disease; (3) changes in assessment items preoperatively to 24 months after the implantation; (4) preoperative factors associated with long-term effects defined as continuing for more than 12 months; and (5) adverse events related to this study 3 months after the implantation.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of the latest new stimulation patterns compared to the conventional tonic stimulation. In addition, which stimulation pattern is most effective for which kind of causative disease will be clarified.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) 1,042,220,094. Registered on 21 November 2022, and last modified on 6 January 2023. jRCT is an approved member of the Primary Registry Network of WHO ICTRP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37742013
doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07637-x
pii: 10.1186/s13063-023-07637-x
pmc: PMC10517501
doi:
Substances chimiques
Niacinamide
25X51I8RD4
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
604Subventions
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 22H03184
Organisme : Nagoya University Hospital
ID : 71004291
Organisme : Japan Epilepsy Research Foundation
ID : JERF TENKAN 21009
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Mol Pain. 2021 Jan-Dec;17:1744806921999013
pubmed: 33626981
Biol Psychiatry. 2003 Sep 1;54(5):573-83
pubmed: 12946886
Neuromodulation. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(4):363-9; discussion 369
pubmed: 23425338
NMC Case Rep J. 2022 Oct 13;9:349-355
pubmed: 36381134
Neuromodulation. 2016 Oct;19(7):744-751
pubmed: 26990444
NMC Case Rep J. 2023 Jul 13;10:203-208
pubmed: 37539362
Neuromodulation. 2016 Jan;19(1):47-59
pubmed: 26586145
Pain. 2008 Jun;136(3):380-387
pubmed: 17888574
Neuromodulation. 2016 Jun;19(4):398-405
pubmed: 27139915
Eur J Neurol. 2007 Sep;14(9):952-70
pubmed: 17718686
Trials. 2023 Jun 13;24(1):395
pubmed: 37308986
NMC Case Rep J. 2023 Feb 9;10:15-20
pubmed: 36873746
Pain. 2009 Jul;144(1-2):35-42
pubmed: 19356853
Neuromodulation. 2014 Aug;17(6):515-50; discussion 550
pubmed: 25112889
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021 Mar;18(3):299-306
pubmed: 33656411
Ulster Med J. 1990 Oct;59(2):149-54
pubmed: 2278111
Anesthesiology. 2015 Oct;123(4):851-60
pubmed: 26218762
Pain. 2013 Nov;154(11):2249-2261
pubmed: 23748119
Postgrad Med. 2020 Nov;132(sup3):17-21
pubmed: 32403963
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2019 Jun 15;59(6):213-221
pubmed: 31061256
Neurosurgery. 2010 Sep;67(3 Suppl Operative):ons206-12; discussion ons212
pubmed: 20679928
Pain Res Manag. 2021 Apr 26;2021:6656863
pubmed: 33986899
Anesth Essays Res. 2011 Jan-Jun;5(1):20-7
pubmed: 25885295
J Neurosurg. 2021 Jul 02;136(2):601-612
pubmed: 34214987
Cell. 2002 Feb 8;108(3):297-300
pubmed: 11853663
Science. 1965 Nov 19;150(3699):971-9
pubmed: 5320816
Pain Pract. 2021 Nov;21(8):912-923
pubmed: 34363307
Nat Rev Neurol. 2015 May;11(5):290-9
pubmed: 25896085