UNASSIGNED: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites.
UNASSIGNED: The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae.
UNASSIGNED: DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

BACKGROUND: Drawbacks of fixed-output spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trials may lead to compromised trial outcomes and poor predictability of long-term success. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) dose-controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS allows objective confirmation of therapeutic neural activation and pulse-to-pulse stimulation adjustment. We report on the immediate patient-reported and neurophysiologic treatment response post-physiologic CL-SCS and feasibility of early SCS trial responder prediction.
METHODS: Patient-reported pain relief, functional improvement, and willingness to proceed to permanent implant were compared between the day of the trial procedure (Day 0) and end of trial (EOT) for 132 participants in the ECAP Study undergoing a trial stimulation period. ECAP-based neurophysiologic measurements from Day 0 and EOT were compared between responder groups.
RESULTS: A high positive predictive value (PPV) was achieved with 98.4% (60/61) of patients successful on the Day 0 evaluation also responding at EOT. The false-positive rate (FPR) was 5.6% (1/18). ECAP-based neurophysiologic measures were not different between patients who passed all Day 0 success criteria (\"Day 0 successes\") and those who did not (\"needed longer to evaluate the therapy\"). However, at EOT, responders had higher therapeutic usage and dose levels compared to non-responders.
CONCLUSIONS: The high PPV and low FPR of the Day 0 evaluation provide confidence in predicting trial outcomes as early as the day of the procedure. Day 0 trials may be beneficial for reducing patient burden and complication rates associated with extended trials. ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy may provide objective data and rapid-onset pain relief to improve prognostic ability of SCS trials in predicting outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The ECAP Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04319887).

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for severe, chronic, neuropathic pain. It is based on one to two lead(s) implanted in the epidural space, stimulating the dorsal column. It has long been assumed that when deactivating SCS, there is a variable interval before the patient perceives the return of the pain, a phenomenon often termed echo or carryover effect. Although the carryover effect has been problematized as a source of error in crossover studies, no experimental investigation of the effect has been published. This open, prospective, international multicenter study aimed to systematically document, quantify, and investigate the carryover effect in SCS.
METHODS: Eligible patients with a beneficial effect from their SCS treatment were instructed to deactivate their SCS device in a home setting and to reactivate it when their pain returned. The primary outcome was duration of carryover time defined as the time interval from deactivation to reactivation. Central clinical parameters (age, sex, indication for SCS, SCS treatment details, pain score) were registered and correlated with carryover time using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis) for categorical data and linear regression for continuous data.
RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were included in the analyses. A median carryover time of five hours was found (interquartile range 2.5;21 hours). Back pain as primary indication for SCS, high-frequency stimulation, and higher pain score at the time of deactivation were correlated with longer carryover time.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the existence of the carryover effect and indicates a remarkably high degree of interindividual variation. The results suggest that the magnitude of carryover may be correlated to the nature of the pain condition and possibly stimulation paradigms.
BACKGROUND: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03386058.

Refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after surgery (PSPS-T2) can be successfully addressed by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). While conventional stimulation generates paresthesia, recent systems enable the delivery of paresthesia-free stimulation. Studies have claimed non-inferiority/superiority of selected paresthesia-free stimulation compared with paresthesia-based stimulation, but the comparative efficacy between different waveforms still needs to be determined in a given patient. We designed a randomized controlled 3-month crossover trial to compare pain relief of paresthesia-based stimulation versus high frequency versus burst in 28 PSPS-T2 patients implanted with multiwave SCS systems. Our secondary objectives were to determine the efficacy of these 3 waveforms on pain surface, quality of life, functional capacity, psychological distress, and validated composite multidimensional clinical response index to provide holistic comparisons at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 15-month post-randomization. The preferred stimulation modality was documented during the follow-up periods. No difference between the waveforms was observed in this study (P = .08). SCS led to significant pain relief, quality of life improvement, improvement of multidimensional clinical response index, and of all other clinical outcomes at all follow-up visits. Forty-four percent of the patients chose to keep the paresthesia-based stimulation modality after the 15-month follow-up period. By giving the possibility to switch and/or to combine several waveforms, the overall rate of SCS responders further increased with 25%. In this study, high frequency or burst do not appear superior to paresthesia-based stimulation, wherefore paresthesia-based stimulation should still be considered as a valid option. However, combining paresthesia-based stimulation with paresthesia-free stimulation, through personalized multiwave therapy, might significantly improve SCS responses. PERSPECTIVE: This article assesses clinical SCS efficacy on pain relief, by comparing paresthesia-based stimulation and paresthesia-free stimulation (including high frequency and burst) modalities in patient presenting with PSPS-T2. Switching and/or combining waveforms contribute to increasing the global SCS responders rate.

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3 month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a device-based therapy for chronic pain that delivers electrical impulses to the spinal cord, disrupting pain signals to the brain. Pain relief can be achieved using different SCS techniques that use or do not use paresthesia (stimulation that produces a tingling sensation). These approaches affect patients in different ways, suggesting that different biological processes are involved in enabling pain relief. Research also suggests that better long-term results occur when patients can choose the therapy that is best for their own needs. This clinical study compared pain relief and other functional activities in those receiving combination therapy (simultaneous use of SCS that does and does not produce tingling sensation) against those receiving monotherapy (only SCS therapy producing tingling sensation) for 3 months. In the study, 88% of those receiving combination therapy and 71% with monotherapy alone reported a 50% (or greater) decrease in overall pain (the ‘responder rate’) without an increased dose of opioid drugs at 3 months after the start of therapy. This responder rate was found to be 84% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years (with all SCS therapy options available). Analysis of functional activities or disability showed that patients improved from ‘severely disabled’ at study start to ‘moderately disabled’ after 2 years, indicating that effective long-term (2 year) improvement can be achieved using SCS-based combination therapy for chronic pain.

We evaluated the effect of repetitive trans-spinal magnetic stimulation (rTSMS) in patients with Parkinson\'s disease (PD) in a randomised, single-blind study. Participants were hospitalised and administered a single trial of rTSMS or sham treatment 2 days a week for 4 weeks. In addition, all participants underwent rehabilitation 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference between the two groups in the mean change from baseline to post-training in the total score on the Unified Parkinson\'s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Secondary endpoints included the differences between the two groups in the mean change on the UPDRS part III (motor) score and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) score. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the rTSMS group (n = 50) or sham group (n = 50). The between-group difference in mean change in the total UPDRS score was 10.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.42 to 16.13; P = 0.014) immediately after intervention from baseline, 5.04 (95% CI, - 5.41 to 15.50; P = 0.024) 3 months after intervention from baseline and 2.38 (95% CI, 7.18 to 11.85; P = 0.045) 6 months after intervention from baseline. Significant differences between groups in UPDRS part III and TUG scores were maintained more strictly than those in the UPDRS total score. These results strongly indicate that rTSMS promotes the effect of rehabilitation on motor function in patients with PD.

Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion (HOPE) of the liver can reduce the incidence of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and failure in extended criteria donors (ECD) grafts, although data from prospective studies are very limited. In this monocentric, open-label study, from December 2018 to January 2021, 110 patients undergoing transplantation of an ECD liver graft were randomized to receive a liver after HOPE or after static cold storage (SCS) alone. The primary endpoint was the incidence of EAD. The secondary endpoints included graft and patient survival, the EASE risk score, and the rate of graft or other graft-related complications. Patients in the HOPE group had a significantly lower rate of EAD (13% vs. 35%, p = .007) and were more frequently allocated to the intermediate or higher risk group according to the EASE score (2% vs. 11%, p = .05). The survival analysis confirmed that patients in the HOPE group were associated with higher graft survival one year after LT (p = .03, log-rank test). In addition, patients in the SCS group had a higher re-admission and overall complication rate at six months, in particular cardio-vascular adverse events (p = .04 and p = .03, respectively). HOPE of ECD grafts compared to the traditional SCS preservation method is associated with lower dysfunction rates and better graft survival.

BACKGROUND: In adult scoliosis, dorsal instrumentation and fusion can provide significant improvement of pain and disability scores (Owestry Index); however, complication rates of up to 39% have been reported. As such, recent attempts have been made at expanding the surgical spectrum to include less invasive techniques in patients such as neuromodulation, specifically spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We therefore aimed to evaluate its use in a larger cohort of adult scoliosis patients in the form of a pilot study.
METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from 18 adult scoliosis patients receiving SCS treatment in our institution between February 2019 and May 2020. Clinical follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months following implantation of an epidural SCS System. Patients reported numeric rating scale (NRS) values for the categories of lower back pain (LBP) and regional pain (RP) both at rest and in motion. Further, SF-36, ADS-K, PSQI, and ODI forms were completed. The study was approved by the institutional Ethics Committee (EA2/093/13).
RESULTS: Initial preoperative NRS of LBP at rest was significantly reduced following SCS at three (45% reduction, p = 0.005) and six (43% reduction, p = 0.009) months follow-up. LBP in motion was also reduced at three (27% reduction, p = 0.002) and six (33% reduction vs. preoperative, p = 0.005) months. RP at rest was reduced at three (38% reduction, p = 0.003) and six (37% reduction, p = 0.007) and in movement at three (29% reduction, 0.006) and six (32% reduction, p = 0.011). Loss of thoracic kyphosis and increased pelvic incidence were associated with worse NRS response to SCS stimulation at six months follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: In overweight, older adults for whom the risks of corrective surgery must be carefully considered, neuromodulation can significantly reduce LBP as well as regional pain in the first six months following implantation. These findings may provide a reasonable alternative in patients not willing or eligible to undergo extensive corrective surgery.

BACKGROUND: In the PROMISE study, a multinational randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with multicolumn surgical leads as a treatment of low back pain, clinicians followed their usual practice. An early, unplanned safety analysis revealed that the infection rate in Belgium (5/23), where trial duration was a median 21.5 days, was significantly higher than the 1/64 rate observed in the other study countries (median 5.8 days, p < 0.01). This report reviews infections observed in the PROMISE study after study completion.
METHODS: For all infections related to SCS, we used descriptive statistics and tests of independent variables to analyze potentially contributing factors (age, sex, coexisting medical conditions, tobacco use, lead type, and trial duration) between subjects with infections versus those without. Cumulative incidence curves were created using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the two strata using a log-rank test.
RESULTS: Among nine (5.2%) infections in 174 subjects trialed, the only significant contributing factor to infection was trial duration: median 21 days (range 3-56) for those with infection vs. six days (1-41) for those without (p = 0.001; Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The cumulative incidence of infection for subjects trialed >10 days was 24.1% vs. 1.4% for subjects trialed ≤10 days (p < 0.001). After the protocol was amended to limit trial duration to 10 days, 14 infection-free trials were performed in Belgium.
CONCLUSIONS: Although not part of the preplanned analysis, our observation supports the hypothesis of a cause-effect relationship between trial duration and the risk of infection and the conclusion that prolonged SCS trials should be avoided.

BACKGROUND: Dual-purpose cattle are more adaptive to environmental challenges than single-purpose dairy or beef cattle. Balance among milk, reproductive, and mastitis resistance traits in breeding programs is therefore more critical for dual-purpose cattle to increase net income and maintain well-being. With dual-purpose Xinjiang Brown cattle adapted to the Xinjiang Region in northwestern China, we conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to dissect the genetic architecture related to milk, reproductive, and mastitis resistance traits. Phenotypic data were collected for 2410 individuals measured during 1995-2017. By adding another 445 ancestors, a total of 2855 related individuals were used to derive estimated breeding values for all individuals, including the 2410 individuals with phenotypes. Among phenotyped individuals, we genotyped 403 cows with the Illumina 150 K Bovine BeadChip.
RESULTS: GWAS were conducted with the FarmCPU (Fixed and random model circulating probability unification) method. We identified 12 markers significantly associated with six of the 10 traits under the threshold of 5% after a Bonferroni multiple test correction. Seven of these SNPs were in QTL regions previously identified to be associated with related traits. One identified SNP, BovineHD1600006691, was significantly associated with both age at first service and age at first calving. This SNP directly overlapped a QTL previously reported to be associated with calving ease. Within 160 Kb upstream and downstream of each significant SNP identified, we speculated candidate genes based on functionality. Four of the SNPs were located within four candidate genes, including CDH2, which is linked to milk fat percentage, and GABRG2, which is associated with milk protein yield.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings are beneficial not only for breeding through marker-assisted selection, but also for genome editing underlying the related traits to enhance the overall performance of dual-purpose cattle.