Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Sam Eldabe, Ashish Gulve, Simon Thomson, Ganesan Baranidharan, Rui Duarte, Susan Jowett, Harbinder Sandhu, Raymond Chadwick, Morag Brookes, Anisah Tariq, Jenny Earle, Jill Bell, Anu Kansal, Shelley Rhodes, Rod S. Taylor

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device.

Methods/design

The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients’ Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost–utility analysis.

Discussion

The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient’s view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781. Registered on 15 August 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bouhassira D, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population. Pain. 2008;136(3):380–7.CrossRef Bouhassira D, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population. Pain. 2008;136(3):380–7.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Breivik H, et al. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287–333.CrossRef Breivik H, et al. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287–333.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Torrence N, et al. The epidemiology of chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin. Results from a general population survey. J Pain. 2006;7(4):281–9.CrossRef Torrence N, et al. The epidemiology of chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin. Results from a general population survey. J Pain. 2006;7(4):281–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Smith BH, et al. Health and quality of life associated with chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin in the community. Clin J Pain. 2007;23(2):143–9.CrossRef Smith BH, et al. Health and quality of life associated with chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin in the community. Clin J Pain. 2007;23(2):143–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Torrance N, Smith BH, Lee AJ. Analyzing the SF-36 in population-based research. A comparison of methods of statistical approaches using chronic pain as an example. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):328–34.CrossRef Torrance N, Smith BH, Lee AJ. Analyzing the SF-36 in population-based research. A comparison of methods of statistical approaches using chronic pain as an example. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):328–34.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Galvez R. Varaiable use of opioid pharmacotherapy fro chronic noncancer pain in Europe: causes and consequences. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2009;23(4):346–56.CrossRef Galvez R. Varaiable use of opioid pharmacotherapy fro chronic noncancer pain in Europe: causes and consequences. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2009;23(4):346–56.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Simpson EL, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(17):iii–ix–x 1–154.CrossRef Simpson EL, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(17):iii–ix–x 1–154.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chincholkar M, et al. Prospective analysis of the trial period for spinal cord stimulation treatment for chronic pain. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2011;14(6):523–8 discussion 528–529.CrossRef Chincholkar M, et al. Prospective analysis of the trial period for spinal cord stimulation treatment for chronic pain. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2011;14(6):523–8 discussion 528–529.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Deer TR, et al. The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(6):515–50 discussion 550.CrossRef Deer TR, et al. The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(6):515–50 discussion 550.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kumar K, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain. 2007;132(1–2):179–88.CrossRef Kumar K, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain. 2007;132(1–2):179–88.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference North RB, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomised, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(1):98–106.CrossRef North RB, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomised, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(1):98–106.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kapural L, et al. Novel 10-kHz high-frequency therapy (HF-10 Therapy) is superior to traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: the SENZA-RCT randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(4):851–60.CrossRef Kapural L, et al. Novel 10-kHz high-frequency therapy (HF-10 Therapy) is superior to traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: the SENZA-RCT randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(4):851–60.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Oakley JC, et al. Successful long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation despite limited pain relief during temporary trialing. Neuromodulation. 2008;11(1):66–73.CrossRef Oakley JC, et al. Successful long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation despite limited pain relief during temporary trialing. Neuromodulation. 2008;11(1):66–73.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Weinand ME, et al. Acute vs. prolonged screening for spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain. Neuromodulation. 2003;6(1):15–9.CrossRef Weinand ME, et al. Acute vs. prolonged screening for spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain. Neuromodulation. 2003;6(1):15–9.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference NICE. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 159: Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008. NICE. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 159: Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
16.
go back to reference NIHR. A Pocket Guide to Good Clinical Practice, Including the Declaration of Helsinki. Vol. Version 2.1. Leeds: NIHR Clinical Research Network; 2011. NIHR. A Pocket Guide to Good Clinical Practice, Including the Declaration of Helsinki. Vol. Version 2.1. Leeds: NIHR Clinical Research Network; 2011.
17.
go back to reference Kemler MA, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(9):618–24.CrossRef Kemler MA, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(9):618–24.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Eldabe S, et al. The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14(1):57.CrossRef Eldabe S, et al. The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14(1):57.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Dworkin RH, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19.CrossRef Dworkin RH, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.CrossRef Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Fairbank JC, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.PubMed Fairbank JC, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.PubMed
22.
go back to reference Guy W. Clinical global impressions, ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville: National Institute of Mental Health; 1976. Guy W. Clinical global impressions, ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville: National Institute of Mental Health; 1976.
23.
go back to reference Eldabe S, et al. The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): a pilot randomized controlled study. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2016;19:60–70.CrossRef Eldabe S, et al. The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): a pilot randomized controlled study. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2016;19:60–70.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bossuyt PM, et al. An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.CrossRef Bossuyt PM, et al. An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Schultz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRef Schultz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2018. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2018.
29.
go back to reference Fereday J, Muir-Cochrance E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):1–11.CrossRef Fereday J, Muir-Cochrance E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):1–11.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Joffe H. Thematic analysis. In: Harper D, Thompson AR, editors. Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: a guide for students and practitioners. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2011. Joffe H. Thematic analysis. In: Harper D, Thompson AR, editors. Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: a guide for students and practitioners. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2011.
31.
go back to reference Slangen R, et al. Spinal cord stimulation and pain relief in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a prospective two-center randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(11):3016–24.CrossRef Slangen R, et al. Spinal cord stimulation and pain relief in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a prospective two-center randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(11):3016–24.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Deer TR, et al. The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(1):15–30.CrossRef Deer TR, et al. The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(1):15–30.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Manca A, et al. Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial). Eur J Pain. 2008;12(8):1047–58.CrossRef Manca A, et al. Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial). Eur J Pain. 2008;12(8):1047–58.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Moriyama K, et al. A prospective, open-label, multicenter study to assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation and identify patients who would benefit. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2012;15:7–12.CrossRef Moriyama K, et al. A prospective, open-label, multicenter study to assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation and identify patients who would benefit. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2012;15:7–12.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Sam Eldabe
Ashish Gulve
Simon Thomson
Ganesan Baranidharan
Rui Duarte
Susan Jowett
Harbinder Sandhu
Raymond Chadwick
Morag Brookes
Anisah Tariq
Jenny Earle
Jill Bell
Anu Kansal
Shelley Rhodes
Rod S. Taylor
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2993-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue