Real-World Evidence of Sustained Improvement Following 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment for Pain: A Cross-Sectional Follow-up Survey

Abstract

Objective: This study presents real-world data from a cross-sectional follow-up survey of patients who previously received 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for pain. Materials & methods: A survey including validated pain and other related outcome measures was distributed to patients who previously underwent implantation of temporary PNS leads for 60-day PNS treatment. Results: Among survey respondents who were at least 3 months from the start of treatment, most reported sustained clinically significant improvements in pain and/or quality of life, with the length of follow-up at the time of survey completion ranging from 3 to 30 months. Conclusion: These real-world data support recent prospective studies indicating that 60-day percutaneous PNS provides significant and sustained relief across a wide range of pain conditions.

Plain language summary

This study presents the findings from a survey that was sent to patients who previously received a 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for their chronic pain. Patients were asked about their current pain levels, how their quality of life and physical function have changed since their PNS treatment, and whether they had changed their usage of pain medications. The survey showed that most patients who were at least 3 months from the start of the PNS treatment continued to have meaningful pain relief and/or improvement in their quality of life. This information is consistent with clinical studies that were previously published and supports that the 60-day PNS treatment can provide patients with long-term relief of chronic pain.

Keywords::

• 60-day PNS
• chronic pain
• neurostimulation
• peripheral nerve stimulation
• real-world evidence

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/pmt-2022-00052022-0019

Author contributions

ND Crosby and JW Boggs designed and conducted the data analysis. MJ Pingree, MFB Hurdle, DA Spinner, A Valimahomed, ND Crosby and JW Boggs contributed to interpretation of the data and writing and review of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study was supported by SPR Therapeutics. MJ Pingree, MFB Hurdle, DA Spinner and A Valimahomed are consultants to the World Academy of Pain Medicine United (WAPMU), which receives support from SPR Therapeutics. DA Spinner and A Valimahomed are consultants to SPR Therapeutics. ND Crosby and JW Boggs are employees of and hold stock options in SPR Therapeutics. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

The authors state that SPR Therapeutics obtained patient consent for all survey participation. Due to the nature of this market research and the use of anonymized data listings, ethical committee approval was not required. Research conducted was consistent with the principles for the protection of research participants outlined in the IA Code of Standards and Ethics for Market Research and Data Analytics.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by SPR Therapeutics. MJ Pingree, MFB Hurdle, DA Spinner and A Valimahomed are consultants to the World Academy of Pain Medicine United (WAPMU), which receives support from SPR Therapeutics. DA Spinner and A Valimahomed are consultants to SPR Therapeutics. ND Crosby and JW Boggs are employees of and hold stock options in SPR Therapeutics. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.