Objective Wearable Measures and Subjective Questionnaires for Predicting Response to Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in People with Chronic Pain

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2900316/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Objective Wearable Measures and Subjective Questionnaires for Predicting Response to Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in People with Chronic Pain

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2900316/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 21 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Bioelectronic Medicine →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective therapy for treating and management of refractory chronic pain. However, complex nature of pain and infrequent in-clinic visits, determining subject’s long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of pain in this population can help with early diagnosis, disease progression monitoring, and evaluating long-term therapeutic efficacy. This paper compares the utilization of the common subjective patient-reported outcomes with objective measures captured through a wearable device for predicting the response to SCS therapy.

Method: Data is from the ongoing international prospective post-market REALITY clinical study, which collects long-term patient-reported outcomes from 557 subjects and the sub-study designed for collecting additional wearables data on a subset of participants for up to six months after SCS implantation. We first implemented a combination of dimensionality reduction algorithms and correlation analyses to explore the mathematical relationships between objective wearable data and subjective patient-reported outcomes. We then developed machine learning models to predict SCS therapy outcome based on the subject’s response to NRS or PGIC.

Results: Principal component analysis results showed that psychological aspects of pain were closely associated with heart rate variability, while movement-related measures were closely associated with patient-reported outcomes related to physical function and social role participation. Our machine learning models using objective wearable data predicted both PGIC and NRS outcomes with high accuracy in the absence of subjective data. The prediction accuracy was higher for PGIC compared with the NRS using subjective-only measures primarily driven by the patient satisfaction feature. Similarly, the PGIC questions, reflects an overall change since the study onset and could be a better predictor of long-term therapy outcome.

Conclusions: The significance of this study is to introduce a novel use of wearable data collected from a subset of patients to capture multi-dimensional aspects of pain and compare the prediction power with the subjective data from a larger data set. The discovery of pain digital biomarkers could result in a better understanding of the patient’s response to therapy and their general well-being.

Chronic pain therapy

Spinal cord stimulation

Patient-reported Outcomes

Wearable Technology

Digital Biomarkers for Pain

Dimensionality reduction

Questionnaire Burden

Machine Learning

Predictive Modeling

PGIC

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that affects patients' quality of life by limiting social interaction, physical activity, work participation, and sleep quality as well as increasing the risk of fatigue, anxiety, and depression (1, 2). It is estimated that more than 50.2 million (or one in five) adults in the US experience chronic pain (3). The social and individual burdens associated with this condition have escalated worldwide. Treatment options for chronic pain are varied, depending not only on the underlying etiology of pain, but also on factors such as insurance access, geographic location, and the type of physician a patient may see. Traditional options range from conservative (education and reassurance, physical therapy, exercise, etc.) to intermediate (pharmacologic agents, intervention such as steroid injections, ablations or SCS) and invasive (spine surgery.)

SCS is a recommended intervention for the management of refractory chronic pain syndromes (4–8). One's response to SCS therapy may differ from another's over time and maintaining optimal response to the therapy often demands interactive adjustment of treatment parameters; thus, appropriate patient selection and long-term monitoring of symptoms are crucial in optimizing the outcomes of SCS therapy (9, 10).

Accurate pain measurement in long-term follow up facilitates early diagnosis, disease progression monitoring, and therapeutic efficacy evaluation; thus, it is a vital component in managing chronic pain conditions. While clinical trials have typically relied on unidimensional metrics such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the complexity of chronic pain demands the use of more robust, multidimensional tools to better measure pain and assess outcomes (11, 12). More comprehensive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) include the PROMIS-29 (13, 14), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (15), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (16), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) (17); these metrics are now routinely used to provide deeper insight into pain and the different areas that pain can impact function, mental health, and quality of life (18).

Although collecting of PROMs in person during a clinic visit is usually considered the gold standard in assessing pain (11), frequent collection of these PROMs is cumbersome for both patients and clinicians. In addition, the infrequency of clinic visits can make it difficult to track pain progression and fluctuations over time desirable for optimal treatment of chronic pain. There is also a chance of bias that impacts both the accurate assessment and treatment of chronic pain (19, 20). One potential solution to these challenges is the use of remote monitoring technologies, such as mobile apps and wearable devices, to collect PROMs and other relevant data from patients in real time (21, 22). This approach has the potential to provide more frequent and objective assessments of pain, as well as other related factors such as physical activity and sleep quality, which can inform treatment decisions and help identify early warning signs of pain exacerbation.

Advances in wearable technology have enabled the measurement of “digital biomarkers” including movement and physical activity (23–27), gait and posture (23–27), neuromuscular and physiological signals (28), sleep (10, 22, 29–31), and behavioral data (32, 33). Such markers are best collected in real time, outside of the physical confines of a medical office setting, and the use of wearable devices now makes this possible.

Despite recent research highlighting the importance of using machine learning techniques in pain research, previous works have focused on correlating and monitoring symptoms and side effects of pain with digital biomarkers, and not necessarily predicting the subject’s reported outcomes including response to SCS therapy (27, 30, 34–36).

In this paper, we first utilized dimensionality reduction algorithm to evaluate the similarities between data obtained objectively through wearables and phone applications and subjective patient-reported outcomes. We then applied machine learning techniques to predict SCS therapy outcome evaluated by subject’s response to NRS or PGIC using both subjective questionnaires and objective measures using wearables. We hypothesized that many physical and psychological aspects of chronic pain or its effects on patients can be objectively measured and utilized to accurately predict SCS therapy outcomes.

Data for our analysis were extracted from the ongoing prospective, multicenter, international REALITY (Long-Term Real-World Outcomes Study on Patients Implanted with a Neurostimulator) study (NCT03876054). Before starting the study, Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee approval was received at each site, and all patients were given written informed consent. The devices used in this study are FDA-approved or approved by a corresponding national agency for this indication. Study visits occur at enrollment, at baseline, peri-operatively, and at six months, one year, and yearly thereafter until the subject has been followed for five years post-implantation.

The eligibility criteria included a baseline pain score ≥ 6 on the 0–10 NRS and scheduled for implantation of an Abbott SCS or dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) neurostimulation system (Abbott Neuromodulation, Austin, Texas) within 60 days of the baseline visit. To replicate the range of complex patients seen in daily medical practice, the REALITY study inclusion criteria was developed with few restrictions on the pain indication as permitted by regulatory guidelines in each geographical area and according to standard clinical practice.

Demographics, pain etiology, and chronic pain history were collected at baseline. Various patient-reported outcome measures, as described in detail below, were collected at baseline and each follow-up study visit in accordance with the IMMPACT recommendations (37) to capture the effects of therapy on subjects’ pain, function, disability, and mental health. Pain intensity was measured using NRS, where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable (38). Physical function and pain related disability were measured with the 10-item Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (16). Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Emotional distress was assessed with the 13-item PCS which yields a total score and three subscale scores assessing rumination, magnification, and helplessness (39). PROMIS-29 was used to assess the following nine domains: Physical Function and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities, as well as the seven days average of subject’s Depression, Anxiety, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity (40, 41). Other standardized metrics such PGIC (42), a 7-question scale to assess patient global health and a subject’s impression of clinical change, were also collected at each follow-up. Subjects were also asked to report their satisfaction with pain relief provided by the therapy on a five-scale rating of very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied.

REALITY Wearable Sub Study

The REALITY wearable sub-study was devised to investigate the feasibility of using smartwatch recordings to measure physiological and behavioral markers and to characterize patient experience from baseline to 6 months post-implantation in a subgroup of patients with access to a smartwatch. The sub-study visits occurred at enrollment, baseline, and at three- and six-months post-implantation. All sub-study participants were given an Apple® Watch (Series 3) at enrollment and were instructed to enter NRS scores on a custom watch application daily from baseline to six months after implantation. In addition to the NRS scores, the watch application passively collected several HealthKit metrics for activity, behavior, and cardiac measures, such as step count, stand time, distance walked/run, heart rate, and heart rate variability. Participants were asked to start the watch application at least once a day and the NRS data was sent to secure cloud storage after they selected their current pain level from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the worst pain imaginable). The REALITY iPhone custom application was used to collect behavioral data and to collect PROMs such as PROMIS-29, ODI, PCS, and PHQ-9 on a regular basis (at least 3 times pre-implant, and monthly post-implant). In addition, PGIC was collected at least monthly post-implant. Many subjects reported PGIC multiple times a month.

Data Preprocessing and Missing Data

The statistical features of the daily windowed data were included in the feature set, such as maximum, minimum, sum, mean, standard deviation, and 25, 75, and 90 percentiles of data. To balance weights and missing data for low-resolution wearable features in our analyses, we used daily window averaging for data points with the same pain level. However, due to a high number of missing and low-resolution sleep data acquired through the smartwatch HealthKit app Series 3, this measure was excluded from further analysis. In addition, heart rate variability (HRV) calculated through the Apple® HealthKit had missing data points and inter-beat interval was not accessible, and therefore heart rate values were used to estimate the time interval for calculating HRV using three different methods: root mean square of successive inter-beat intervals of heartbeat differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of the average inter-beat intervals without artifacts (NN intervals) for each 5 minute-period over a 24-hour recording of HRV (SDANN), and the average of standard deviations of all the NN intervals for each 5 minute-period over a 24-hour recording of HRV (SDNNI) (43). To handle missing data for the subjective data from PROs, we used the average score across all data points within the same NRS and PGIC level depends on the output of the machine learning model meaning PGIC was used to do the imputation of missing PROs for NRS modeling and vice versa NRS for PGIC modeling.

Dimensionality Reduction

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to understand the similarities across many subjective measures in both REALITY main study and sub study. The same analysis was performed to compare the subjective and wearable objective measures (WOMs) collected for all REALITY sub-study patients. PCA is a statistical method used for large datasets to reduce the dimensionality of the data while increasing the interpretability with minimal data loss (44). PROMs from all scales and WOMs were treated as unique entries. Data points from various scales were standardized using the z-score (standard score) prior to this analysis. The z-score describes the fractional distance between a data point and the population mean in terms of standard deviation units. Similarities between the clusters of PROMs and WOMs were compared.

Predictive Models using Machine Learning

Machine learning models were developed from baseline demographic and medical history, wearable objective measurements, and subjective PROMs collected as described previously. A balanced number of training sets for each class of different output variables was considered. Subject response to SCS therapy was evaluated based on how various objective and subjective input variables to the machine learning model can predict pain and PGIC categories. For prediction of PGIC, scores of PGIC were categorized into three responder groups; 1) subjects who selected “No change (or the condition has gotten worse)”, “Almost the same, or hardly any change at all”, “A little better, but no noticeable change”, and “Somewhat better, but the change has not made a real difference” were considered non-responders, 2) subjects who selected “Moderately better, and a slight but noticeable change”, “Better and a definite improvement that has made a real and worthwhile difference”, were considered moderate responders, and 3) subjects who selected “A great deal better and a considerable improvement that has made all the difference” were considered super responders. Similarly, for prediction of pain, NRS scores were categorized into three responder groups: mild (NRS < 4), moderate (NRS ≥ 4 and NRS ≤ 6), and severe (NRS > 6).

For the sub-study, Random Forest (RF) model (45) was implemented to predict PGIC and NRS levels using the PROMs and WOMs collected from the Apple® Watch. 80% of the data was used for training the model and model was tested on the remaining 20%. To increase the robustness of the predictions among the training sets, the Random Forest model was trained 50 times using randomly selected 80% of the input data available. The reported outcomes were then averaged across all 50 different runs. Accuracies of predictive models developed on both main study and sub-study with and without the objective measures were compared. The models were tested with different input variables such as PROMs models for REALITY main study meaning PROs were used as inputs to the random forest model to predict NRS and PGIC, and PROMs or WOMs models for REALITY wearable sub-study meaning PROMs and objective measures were used as inputs to predict NRS and PGIC.

At the time of data collection, 557 patients, 324 females and 233 males, at 53 investigational sites (28 in the United States, 23 sites in the European Union, and two sites in Australia) had completed at least one follow-up visit. Table 1 shows the baseline demographic and medical history for all the subjects included in the analysis from the REALITY main study. A total of 1100 follow-up visits were included for the analysis in this paper for the main study; These included patient visits that collected and reported both NRS and PGIC at each visit. These include 336 visits at 6-month, 411 visits at 1-year, 251 visits at 2-years, and 102 visits at 3-years.

Twenty participants (15 males and 5 females) were enrolled as part of the REALITY wearable sub-study. Of those, one participant withdrew consent prior to the permanent SCS system implantation; Two participants withdrew consent after permanent implantation; one participant’s participation was terminated by the investigator; one participant was excluded from analysis due to a lack of wearable data. The average and standard deviation of participant’s age was 52.25 (± 9.7) years and on average sub-study subjects experienced 12.3 (± 11.7) years of chronic pain at baseline. Each study visit was treated as a separate data point in the analysis regardless of the subject identification. Over the course of the 6-month sub study, all 15 subjects provided a total of 142 data points consisting of both subjective and objective data, which were then included in the analysis.

Wearable Data Compliance

The compliance rates for both completing PROMs on the iPhone and wearing the smart watch were relatively high, with median compliance rates of 88.8% and 84.7%, respectively for the sub-study participants. Participants were considered compliant if they completed the PROs at least three times during the baseline and once every month after the implant for a duration of 6 months, or if they wore the smart watch for at least 7 days during the baseline and 180 non-consecutive days after the implant. There was no significant difference in compliance rates between completing PROs on the iPhone and wearing the smart watch, as determined by a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. To ensure compliance, participants who missed providing data for more than 3 consecutive days or completing PROMs on the custom application received follow-up phone calls from clinic staff.

PCA Results

Figure 1a and Fig. 1b show the PCA results on all PROMs in the main study and the PROMs and WOMs in the wearable sub-study, respectively. In both main study and sub-study, psychological aspects of pain characterized by the PCS total score, PCS helplessness, PCS magnification, and PCS rumination were grouped together. Similarly, in both datasets, ODI total score and PROMIS-29 Pain Interference, PROMIS-29 Fatigue and Sleep Disturbance, PROMIS-29 Anxiety and Depression, and PROMIS-29 Social Roles and Physical Function were grouped together. In the wearable sub-study, many objective measures related to PROMIS-29 Physical Function and Social Roles were grouped closely with watch features such as daily step counts, daily walking and running distance, and total daily stand time. The PHQ-9 metrics were only collected as part of the sub-study and were grouped in the same group as the PCS features. The heart rate variability was also grouped with these psychological factors. The NRS and PGIC were highly correlated (correlation = -0.82), but they were grouped in opposite directions of the first principal component. This is due to the way the scoring is defined in both scales (high NRS values mean more pain and high PGIC means better improvement). In the main study, we also collected a satisfaction question that was targeted at understanding how satisfied the subject was with pain relief received from the SCS device. This satisfaction question also grouped closely with the NRS in the main study. The first 3 principal components (PC) account for 72.9% of the variance in the REALITY main study (PC1 = 53.4%, PC2 = 11.6%, and PC3 = 8.1%) and 66.9% of the variance in the REALITY wearable sub-study (PC1 = 40.5%, PC2 = 18.4%, and PC3 = 8.0%) (Fig. 1). Score plots for the PROMs data of the main study and wearable sub-study data are shown in Fig. 2. This figure confirms the overlap of subject’s datapoint distributions in the wearable sub study with the larger Reality main study.

Modeling of Pain and PGIC using Objective and Subjective measures

The physical, physiological, and behavioral data collected actively and passively throughout the study using wearables (sub-study only) and questionnaires (both the main and sub-study) were used to construct machine learning models to classify PGIC and NRS in the study participants. A separate model for each of these two metrics was used. Figure 3 illustrates the flowchart for the prediction models including objective wearable data, subjective questionnaires, and baseline demographic and medical history as inputs for the sub-study. The main difference for the main study was lack of wearable data as an input to the models and PROMs collection happened in the clinic instead of on a custom application. Random Forest classification model was selected based on the superior performance and the ability to produce interpretable features compared with other machine learning techniques to predict both PGIC and NRS.

Figure 4 illustrates the average and standard deviation of the top 10 features across the 50 runs for prediction of the PGIC and NRS in the wearable sub study. For PGIC model using wearable measures (Fig. 4a), step counts, heart rate and heart rate variability post permanent implantation were among the top objective predictors, whereas PROMs such as, ODI total score, and pain average (NRS) were among the top subjective features (Fig. 4b). Baseline Exercise Frequency also showed as an important feature in both models for PGIC.

For NRS, heart rate, step counts, and heart rate variability were among the top objective features (Fig. 4c), whereas PROMs such as PCS rumination, ODI total score, PCS total score, and PGIC, were among the top subjective features (Fig. 4d). Baseline number of years patient is dealing with chronic pain (Pain History) also showed as an important feature in both models for PGIC.

For the REALITY main subjects, only PROMs were available, and the model accuracy was lower compared to the sub-study model (F1 Score = 0.71 ± 0.03 and Accuracy = 0.71 ± 0.02). Figure 5a and 5b illustrates average and standard deviation of the top 10 features across the 50 runs for the prediction of PGIC and NRS using subjective measures in the REALITY main study. For both NRS and PGIC in the main study, PROMIS-29 Pain Interference, Social Roles and Activities, Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, Physical Functions, and ODI total score were selected as the top features. The main difference between the two models’ top features was that the PGIC was an important feature for NRS perdition and vice versa the NRS was an important feature for PGIC prediction.

In this study, we utilized PCA dimensionality reduction to examine the similarities between objective and subjective measurements for chronic pain. We then applied machine learning techniques to predict SCS therapy outcome evaluated by subject’s response to NRS or PGIC using both subjective questionnaires and objective measures. The PCA dimensionality reduction results provided insights and confirmed the proximity of various patient-reported outcome and wearable objective measures in different clusters. The psychological aspects of pain, characterized with PCS subscales of helplessness, magnification, and rumination, were found to be closely associated with heart rate variability features from the wearable. The association between HRV and chronic pain has been previously observed (46–48). Our results confirm and expand on these findings in a more diverse chronic pain population treated with SCS. Not surprisingly, many movement-related wearable measures correlated with PROMs associated physical function, and social role participation. In addition, within the PROMs there were similarities between selected features such as Fatigue and Sleep Disturbance, Depression and Anxiety, and ODI and pain interference. This could allude to the fact that there are overlaps across questionnaires that can potentially be summarized to a shorter set of measures more suitable for frequent digital data collection. Prior research has emphasized the need for improved metrics to better characterize long-term patient response to neurostimulation therapy and overall subject satisfaction with the therapy though combination of global health measures and composite health scores (49–53).

The NRS and PGIC were highly correlated in both studies. While the PGIC was originally developed as a measure of global change in health status, it has been adapted for use in a variety of specific conditions including chronic pain and has been used to assess therapeutic success in the absence of the NRS. Studies have shown that the PGIC can provide useful information about patients' pain experience, including changes in pain intensity, frequency, and impact on daily life (54). Our results showed that objective features were able to predict both PGIC and NRS outcomes with high accuracies even in the absence of subjective data in our sub study population.

Despite similarities of top features selected for predicting both NRS and PGIC, our model prediction accuracy was higher for PGIC compared with the NRS using subjective-only measures tested on the REALITY main study data with over 500 subjects. This was primarily driven by the top feature in the PGIC model, patient satisfaction. This feature had a higher correlation with the PGIC than the NRS as an indicator of response to therapy. Similarly, the PGIC questions, which queried activity limitations, symptoms, emotional state and quality of life, reflected an overall change since the study onset. This indicates that PGIC could be a better predictor of long-term therapy outcome as it allows patients to personalize and customize their response across numerous facets, including pain relief, sleep, and functional improvement over the period of treatment which are all of variable importance to different patient groups.

Subjective measures are crucial for evaluating physiological and psychological aspects of pain, but their frequent collection is burdensome for both patients and clinicians. In addition, subjective outcomes can be manipulated by patients, and third parties are often skeptical of their value in assessing outcomes. Wearable devices can objectively measure several features affected by pain, such as activity, sleep, psychological health, and social participation. The feasibility data from our wearable sub-study provides an objective measurement of many necessary biomarkers for continuous symptom monitoring, with minimal data loss (55). The current study showed that objective features were able to predict both PGIC and NRS outcomes with high accuracy even in the absence of subjective data in our sub study population. Although the accuracy of our models in predicting NRS and PGIC are lower on the main study, the confidence bounds are tighter showing that models are more robust as they are trained on a larger population of patients.

Furthermore, it is important to compare the number of subject-specific data points in the two models developed on the main study and sub-study participants. In the main study, the model included 1100 datapoints from 557 unique subjects, or an average of 1.97 unique data points for each subject (in clinic visits). In contrast, the model included 142 rows of data from 15 subjects, or an average of 9.46 unique data points (through a custom digital application) for each participant. This suggests that integration of digital health applications could increase the frequency of data collection for remote monitoring and help with better prediction of individual’s response over time of the therapy. In addition, collecting data with a higher resolution through the digital application reduces the burden of subjective data collection on people with chronic pain and clinicians by avoiding the need for frequent clinical visits while enabling the development of personalized therapy for individuals. Developing personalized therapy is specifically beneficial given the variations across different patients and could potentially improve the individuals’ overall therapeutic effect and experience.

Our study had limitations as our findings are related to only one study that must be further tested on other studies. The small sample size used for developing machine learning models can affect the generalizability of our predictions across different patients. To mitigate this, we randomized the training and testing data 50 times and reported the average model performance. Additionally, the study lacked reliable sleep data, an important predicting factor for pain, due to inadequate time resolution and binary values provided for sleep data. While this study demonstrated feasibility in a small population of participants, future studies with larger sample sizes of people with chronic pain are necessary to address these limitations. Moreover, improvements in future generations of wearable devices can provide access to additional sensors and data, enhancing the robustness of predictive models for individual pain modeling.

This study provides a foundation for the development of digital biomarkers for pain using wearable devices and other digital technologies. By identifying the key physiological and psychological factors associated with pain, researchers can develop more accurate and precise digital biomarkers that can be used to monitor and treat pain in a more personalized and effective way. These biomarkers could be used to assess pain in real-time, monitor symptoms over time, and to inform clinical decision-making. We applied machine learning algorithms to a multi-dimensional data set consist of subjective and objective measurement to predict chronic pain patient response to SCS therapy assessed using two separate scales of NRS and PGIC.

These models could be beneficial to automate the monitoring of patient symptoms over time which enables remote monitoring of patients’ response to therapy and unlocks therapy for patients with remote geographical locations or limited access to specialized centers. Furthermore, these models can be used to detect adverse events and are the initial effort to develop a clinician-in-the-loop or a fully automated closed-loop system.

This study analyzed data collected from a diverse population of patients with chronic pain to predict their response to SCS therapy using a combination of subjective and objective measures. The results suggest that PGIC can be a superior metric for predicting long-term outcomes and overall patient satisfaction compared to the NRS. Objective measures such as activity and heart rate measures obtained objectively from wearable devices were also found to be feasible in predicting therapy outcomes providing a foundation for developing digital biomarkers for pain. Although the study had limitations, it provides insights into the potential of using digital biomarkers to monitor and treat pain in a more personalized and effective way which could benefit individuals with limited access to healthcare. This work could bring us one step closer to a patient-centric digital health platform which could increase patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation therapy as well as the selection of suitable candidates to receive this therapy.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: Before starting the study, Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee approval was received at each site, and all patients were given written informed consent.

Consent for publication: Not applicable

Availability of data and materials: The data will be available upon reasonable request or by the completion of the study according to the study protocol if a written request is made to and granted in writing by Abbott at Abbott’s sole discretion.

Competing interests: SD, AK, and MM are employees of Abbott.

Funding: The REALITY study is sponsored by Abbott.

Authors' contributions: DP, MF, GM, IS, RH, FH, DS, SF, and DW were investigators of the study, and they were involved in enrolling subjects, data collection, and revising the manuscript. JK was involved in drafting and revising the manuscript. SD and MM performed analyses of the objective and subjective data collected in the study, generated figures, and tables, and were involved in drafting the manuscript. MM and AK were the scientists of the study and were involved in the study design, writing the protocol and consent form, and revising the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Parisa Sarikhani for her help with brainstorming on the machine learning analysis, reviewing figures, and revising the article.

Cohen SP, Vase L, Hooten WM. Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances. The Lancet. 2021;397(10289):2082-97.
Crofford LJ. Psychological aspects of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatology. 2015;29(1):147-55.
Steingrímsdóttir ÓA, Landmark T, Macfarlane GJ, Nielsen CS. Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies. PAIN. 2017;158(11):2092-107.
Deer T, Slavin KV, Amirdelfan K, North RB, Burton AW, Yearwood TL, et al. Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform. Neuromodulation Technology Neural Interface.21(1):56-66-.
Taylor RS, Van Buyten JP, Buchser E. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(2):91-101.
Vos CC, Bom MJ, Vanneste S, Lenders MWPM, Ridder D. Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Evaluated in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and Painful Diabetic Neuropathy. Neuromodulation Technology Neural Interface. 2014;17(2):152-9.
Stelter B, Karri J, Marathe A, Abd‐Elsayed A. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for the Treatment of Non‐Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Related Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Systematic Review. Neuromodulation Technology Neural Interface. 2021.
Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, Eldabe S, Meglio M, Molet J, 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.
Goudman L, Rigoard P, Billot M, Duarte RV, Eldabe S, Moens M. Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model—A Narrative Review. Journal of pain research. 2022;15:1163.
Goudman L, Brouns R, Linderoth B, Moens M. Effects of spinal cord stimulation on heart rate variability in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: comparison between a 2-lead ECG and a wearable device. Neuromodulation Technology Neural Interface. 2021;24(3):512-9.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1-2):9-19.
Levy RM, Mekhail N, Abd-Elsayed A, Abejon D, Anitescu M, Deer TR, et al. Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2023.
Cella D, Choi SW, Condon DM, Schalet B, Hays RD, Rothrock NE, et al. PROMIS® adult health profiles: efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value Health. 2019;22(5):537-44.
Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Schalet BD, Cella D. PROMIS®-29 v2. 0 profile physical and mental health summary scores. Quality of life Research. 2018;27(7):1885-91.
Osman A, Barrios FX, Gutierrez PM, Kopper BA, Merrifield T, Grittmann L. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Further Psychometric Evaluation with Adult Samples. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2000;23(4):351-65.
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940-53.
Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. European Journal of Pain. 2004;8(4):283-91.
Katz N, Dworkin RH, North R, Thomson S, Eldabe S, Hayek SM, et al. Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations. Pain. 2021;162(7):1935-56.
Hoffman KM, Trawalter S, Axt JR, Oliver MN. Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(16):4296-301.
Anderson KO, Green CR, Payne R. Racial and ethnic disparities in pain: causes and consequences of unequal care. J Pain. 2009;10(12):1187-204.
Rejula V, Anitha J, Belfin R, Peter JD. Chronic Pain Treatment and Digital Health Era-An Opinion. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021;9:779328.
Pathak YJ, Greenleaf W, Verhagen Metman L, Kubben P, Sarma S, Pepin B, et al. Digital health integration with neuromodulation therapies: The future of patient-centric innovation in neuromodulation. Frontiers in Digital Health. 2021:43.
Caramia C, Torricelli D, Schmid M, Munoz-Gonzalez A, Gonzalez-Vargas J, Grandas F, et al. IMU-based classification of Parkinson's disease from gait: A sensitivity analysis on sensor location and feature selection. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2018;22(6):1765-74.
Maceira-Elvira P, Popa T, Schmid A-C, Hummel FC. Wearable technology in stroke rehabilitation: towards improved diagnosis and treatment of upper-limb motor impairment. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2019;16(1):1-18.
Yan X, Li H, Li AR, Zhang H. Wearable IMU-based real-time motion warning system for construction workers' musculoskeletal disorders prevention. Automation in construction. 2017;74:2-11.
Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM, Gliottoni RC. Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: intermediary roles of disability, fatigue, mood, pain, self-efficacy and social support. Psychology, health & medicine. 2009;14(1):111-24.
Smuck M, Tomkins-Lane C, Ith MA, Jarosz R, Kao MJ. Physical performance analysis: A new approach to assessing free-living physical activity in musculoskeletal pain and mobility-limited populations. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172804.
Kushioka J, Sun R, Zhang W, Muaremi A, Leutheuser H, Odonkor CA, et al. Gait Variability to Phenotype Common Orthopedic Gait Impairments Using Wearable Sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2022;22(23).
Rodríguez-Fernández A, Lobo-Prat J, Font-Llagunes JM. Systematic review on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait training in neuromuscular impairments. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2021;18(1):1-21.
Avila FR, McLeod CJ, Huayllani MT, Boczar D, Giardi D, Bruce CJ, et al. Wearable electronic devices for chronic pain intensity assessment: A systematic review. Pain Practice. 2021;21(8):955-65.
Xia S, Song S, Jia F, Gao G. A flexible, adhesive and self-healable hydrogel-based wearable strain sensor for human motion and physiological signal monitoring. Journal of Materials Chemistry B. 2019;7(30):4638-48.
Chen J, Abbod M, Shieh J-S. Pain and stress detection using wearable sensors and devices—A review. Sensors. 2021;21(4):1030.
Naeini EK, Shahhosseini S, Subramanian A, Yin T, Rahmani AM, Dutt N, editors. An edge-assisted and smart system for real-time pain monitoring. 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE); 2019: IEEE.
Koenig J, Loerbroks A, Jarczok MN, Fischer JE, Thayer JF. Chronic pain and heart rate variability in a cross-sectional occupational sample. The Clinical journal of pain. 2016;32(3):218-25.
Tomkins-Lane C, Sun R, Muaremi A, Zheng P, Mohan M, Ith MA, et al. Objective features of sedentary time and light activity differentiate people with low back pain from healthy controls: a pilot study. Spine J. 2022;22(4):629-34.
Costa N, Smits EJ, Kasza J, Salomoni S, Rodriguez-Romero B, Ferreira ML, et al. Are objective measures of sleep and sedentary behaviours related to low back pain flares? Pain. 2022;163(9):1829-37.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1-2):9-19.
Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr., LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149-58.
Sullivan MJ. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: user manual. Montreal: Departments of Psychology, Medicine, and Neurology, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy: McGill University; 1995.
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2010;63(11):1179-94.
Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3.
Geisser ME, Clauw DJ, Strand V, Gendreau RM, Palmer R, Williams DA. Contributions of change in clinical status parameters to Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores among persons with fibromyalgia treated with milnacipran. PAIN®. 2010;149(2):373-8.
Shaffer F, Ginsberg JP. An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Frontiers in public health. 2017:258.
Abdi H, Williams LJ. Principal component analysis. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics. 2010;2(4):433-59.
Breiman L. Random Forests. Machine Learning. 2001;45(1):5-32.
Telles S, Sharma SK, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj AK, Balkrishna A. Heart rate variability in chronic low back pain patients randomized to yoga or standard care. BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 2016;16:1-7.
Goudman L, Brouns R, Linderoth B, Moens M. Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation on Heart Rate Variability in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Comparison Between a 2-lead ECG and a Wearable Device. Neuromodulation. 2021;24(3):512-9.
Koenig J, De Kooning M, Bernardi A, Williams DP, Nijs J, Thayer JF, et al. Lower resting state heart rate variability relates to high pain catastrophizing in patients with chronic whiplash‐associated disorders and healthy controls. Pain Practice. 2016;16(8):1048-53.
Hagedorn JM, Romero J, Ha CT, D'Souza RS. Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Cord Stimulation and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Intractable Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuromodulation. 2022.
Gewandter JS, McDermott MP, Evans S, Katz NP, Markman JD, Simon LS, et al. Composite outcomes for pain clinical trials: considerations for design and interpretation. Pain. 2021;162(7):1899-905.
Huygen F, Hagedorn JM, Falowski S, Schultz D, Vesper J, Heros RD, et al. Core Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Pain Patients treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation: Findings from a Prospective, Post-Market Study. 2023.
Pilitsis JG, Fahey M, Custozzo A, Chakravarthy K, Capobianco R. Composite Score Is a Better Reflection of Patient Response to Chronic Pain Therapy Compared With Pain Intensity Alone. Neuromodulation Technology Neural Interface. 2020.
Hagedorn JM, Romero J, Ha CT, D’Souza RS. Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Cord Stimulation and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Intractable Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuromodulation Technology Neural Interface. 2022.
Suzuki H, Aono S, Inoue S, Imajo Y, Nishida N, Funaba M, et al. Clinically significant changes in pain along the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with chronic low back pain. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0229228.
Patterson D, Wilson D, Fishman M, Moore G, Skaribas I, Heros R, et al. Objective Wearable Measures Correlate with Self-Reported Chronic Pain Levels in People with Spinal Cord Stimulation Systems. 2023.

Table 1. Baseline Demographics and Medical History for all the subjects included in the analysis from the REALITY main study.

^aPSPS = Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome; Type I: Non-surgical, Type II: Surgical

^bCRPS = Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

^c(Poly)neuropathies including painful diabetic polyneuropathy and post herpetic neuralgia.

^dOther Chronic Pain” include Visceral Pain, Post-Amputation, and Neck and upper limb pain

Table 2. Evaluation Metrics for Classification Models

Study	Inputs	Output	Accuracy	F1 score	Specificity	Sensitivity
Wearable Sub-study	WOMs	PGIC	0.75 ± 0.07	0.73 ± 0.08	0.86 ± 0.04	0.69 ± 0.08
	PROMs	PGIC	0.81 ± 0.06	0.81 ± 0.07	0.91 ± 0.03	0.77 ± 0.07
	WOMs & PROMs	PGIC	0.82 ± 0.04	0.81 ± 0.05	0.91 ± 0.02	0.77 ± 0.05
	WOMs	NRS	0.78 ± 0.06	0.75 ± 0.07	0.83 ± 0.05	0.63 ± 0.10
	PROMs	NRS	0.81 ± 0.07	0.80 ± 0.07	0.87 ± 0.04	0.69 ± 0.11
	WOMs & PROMs	NRS	0.81 ± 0.06	0.80 ± 0.07	0.87 ± 0.05	0.68 ± 0.10
Main Study	PROMs	PGIC	0.71 ± 0.02	0.71 ± 0.03	0.82 ± 0.02	0.66 ± 0.03
Main Study	PROMs	NRS	0.64 ± 0.02	0.64 ± 0.03	0.81 ± 0.01	0.61 ± 0.02

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 21 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Bioelectronic Medicine →

Editorial decision: Minor revision
26 May, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
11 May, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
11 May, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
11 May, 2023
First submitted to journal
08 May, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Objective Wearable Measures and Subjective Questionnaires for Predicting Response to Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in People with Chronic Pain

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

BACKGROUND

METHOD

REALITY Wearable Sub Study

Data Preprocessing and Missing Data

Dimensionality Reduction

Predictive Models using Machine Learning

RESULTS

Wearable Data Compliance

PCA Results

Modeling of Pain and PGIC using Objective and Subjective measures

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1