In the European Union, the high-concentration capsaicin patch is licensed for the management of neuropathic pain conditions in nondiabetic patients, including postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and HIV-associated distal sensory polyneuropathy (HIV-DSP). However, in the USA, the Food and Drug Administration approved its use only in PHN patients. Capsaicin is a transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 agonist, which increases the intracellular calcium ion concentration. This triggers calcium-dependent protease enzymes causing cytoskeletal breakdown and leads to the loss of cellular integrity and ‘defunctionalization’ of nociceptor fibres. Efficacy and therapeutic effect has been shown in several clinical studies of PHN and HIV-DSP. The high-concentration capsaicin patch and its practical application are different from low-concentration creams; one application can help for up to 3 months. The process of setting up of a service to use the capsaicin 8% patch is also discussed.

Objectives The purpose of the ongoing follow-up of ReActiv8-A clinical trial is to document the longitudinal benefits of episodic stimulation of the dorsal ramus medial branch and consequent contraction of the lumbar multifidus in patients with refractory mechanical chronic low back pain (CLBP). We report the four-year outcomes of this trial. Materials and Methods ReActiv8-A is a prospective, single-arm trial performed at nine sites in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Australia. Eligible patients had disabling CLBP (low back pain Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] ≥6; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≥25), no indications for spine surgery or spinal cord stimulation, and failed conventional management including at least physical therapy and medications for low back pain. Fourteen days postimplantation, stimulation parameters were programmed to elicit strong, smooth contractions of the multifidus, and participants were given instructions to activate the device for 30-min stimulation-sessions twice daily. Annual follow-up through four years included collection of NRS, ODI, and European Quality of Life Score on Five Dimensions (EQ-5D). Background on mechanisms, trial design, and one-year outcomes were previously described. Results At baseline (N = 53) (mean ± SD) age was 44 ± 10 years; duration of back pain was 14 ± 11 years, NRS was 6.8 ± 0.8, ODI 44.9 ± 10.1, and EQ-5D 0.434 ± 0.185. Mean improvements from baseline were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful for all follow-ups. Patients completing year 4 follow-up, reported mean (±standard error of the mean) NRS: 3.2 ± 0.4, ODI: 23.0 ± 3.2, and EQ-5D: 0.721 ± 0.035. Moreover, 73% of participants had a clinically meaningful improvement of ≥2 points on NRS, 76% of ≥10 points on ODI, and 62.5% had a clinically meaningful improvement in both NRS and ODI and 97% were (very) satisfied with treatment. Conclusions In participants with disabling intractable CLBP who receive long-term restorative neurostimulation, treatment satisfaction remains high and improvements in pain, disability, and quality-of-life are clinically meaningful and durable through four years.

Depression and chronic pain are becoming increasingly common and important causes of morbidity in the Western world. Pain is the most common complaint in outpatient clinics; with back pain alone accounting for up to 20% of the UK's health expenditure.¹ Depression is the third most common reason for consultation with a GP and the most common mood complaint.

Objectives Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine suitability for a permanent implant, its evidence base is limited. The recent TRIAL‐STIM study (a randomized controlled trial at three centers in the United Kingdom) found no evidence that an SCS screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes as compared with a no trial approach. As part of the TRIAL‐STIM study, we undertook a nested qualitative study to ascertain patients' preferences in relation to undergoing a screening trial or not. Materials and Methods We interviewed 31 patients sampled from all three centers and both study arms (screening trial/no trial) prior to SCS implantation, and 23 of these patients again following implantation (eight patients were lost to follow‐up). Interviews were undertaken by telephone and audio‐recorded, then transcripts were subject to thematic analysis. In addition, participants were asked to state their overall preference for a one‐stage (no screening trial) versus two‐stage (screening trial) implant procedure on a five‐point Likert scale, before and after implantation. Results Emergent themes favoured the option for a one‐stage SCS procedure. Themes identified include: saving time (off work, in hospital, attending appointments), avoiding the worry about having “loose wires” in the two‐stage procedure, having only one period of recovery, and saving NHS resources. Participants' rated preferences show similar support for a one‐stage procedure without a screening trial. Conclusions Our findings indicate an overwhelming preference among participants for a one‐stage SCS procedure both before and after the implant, regardless of which procedure they had undergone. The qualitative study findings further support the TRIAL‐STIM RCT results.

BACKGROUND: Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study. METHODS: The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates. RESULTS: Thirty patients allocated to the “Trial Group” (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the “No Trial Group” (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: −0.02, 95% CI: −0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.