Suppr超能文献

磁外周神经刺激治疗痛性糖尿病神经病变的安全性和有效性

Safety and Efficacy of Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Treating Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.

作者信息

Brown Lora, Gage Emmanuel, Cordner Harold, Kapural Leonardo, Rosenberg Jason, Bedder Marshall

机构信息

TruWell Health, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.

Centurion Spine and Pain Centers, Brunswick, GA, USA.

出版信息

Neuromodulation. 2025 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2025.03.074.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Current treatments for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) have variable effectiveness and known side effects. Noninvasive magnetic peripheral nerve stimulation (mPNS) provides effective pain relief without the side effects associated with interventional approaches. This study measured the differences in pain relief, sensory, and quality of life improvements using mPNS and conventional medical management (CMM) compared with sham and CMM in patients with PDN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 2022 to November 2023. Patients were randomized to receive either mPNS and CMM or sham and CMM. Subjects were randomized to treatment groups in a 3:1 ratio to mPNS+CMM or Sham+CMM and observed for 30 days during the double-blinded phase (phase 1). At 30 days, the subjects in the Sham+CMM group could cross over to the mPNS group, initiating phase 2. All patients were followed up for 90 days after the first mPNS treatment. The primary end point was the between-group comparison of the proportion of responders, a subject who experienced ≥50% reduction from baseline in neuropathic pain measured by visual analog scale on day 30. Secondary end points included between-group comparison of percentage change from baseline for pain and numbness scores (days 30/90), responders to mPNS (day 90), and results from other quality-of-life measures (day 90).

RESULTS

After 92 subjects were screened, 71 met the study inclusion/exclusion criteria and were treated. Subjects were similar in the groups, except for sex: 24 men (48%) in the mPNS group (n = 50) and 18 (85.7%) in the sham group (n = 21) (p = 0.0096). In the per-protocol analysis set, the mPNS group had a 72.3% responder rate (day 30) compared with 0% for sham (72.3% difference; 95% CI, 54.3-84.8; p < 0.0001), and 57.8% pain reduction from baseline, with 12.1% for sham. At day 90, mPNS had an 81.4% responder rate with 75.7% average pain reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The data revealed that mPNS+CMM is superior to Sham+CMM at day 30 when used for treating pain from PDN. mPNS should be considered earlier in the treatment algorithm for PDN.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT05620225 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05620225). The study was first posted on November 9, 2022, and the first patient was enrolled on December 15, 2022.

摘要

目的

目前用于治疗疼痛性糖尿病神经病变(PDN)的疗法疗效各异且存在已知的副作用。非侵入性磁外周神经刺激(mPNS)可有效缓解疼痛,且无介入治疗相关的副作用。本研究比较了mPNS联合传统药物治疗(CMM)与假刺激联合CMM在缓解疼痛、改善感觉及提高生活质量方面对PDN患者的差异。

材料与方法

2022年12月至2023年11月进行了一项多中心随机临床试验。患者被随机分为接受mPNS联合CMM或假刺激联合CMM治疗。受试者按3:1的比例随机分配至mPNS+CMM或假刺激+CMM治疗组,并在双盲阶段(第1阶段)观察30天。30天时,假刺激+CMM组的受试者可交叉至mPNS组,进入第2阶段。所有患者在首次mPNS治疗后随访90天。主要终点是第30天时两组间反应者比例的比较,反应者是指在第30天通过视觉模拟量表测量的神经病理性疼痛较基线降低≥50%的受试者。次要终点包括两组间疼痛和麻木评分较基线变化百分比(第30天/第90天)、对mPNS有反应者(第90天)以及其他生活质量指标结果(第90天)的组间比较。

结果

在筛选的92名受试者中,71名符合研究纳入/排除标准并接受治疗。除性别外,各治疗组受试者情况相似:mPNS组(n = 50)中有24名男性(48%),假刺激组(n = 21)中有18名男性(占85.7%)(p = 0.0096)。在符合方案分析集中,mPNS组第30天的反应者率为72.3%,而假刺激组为0%(差异为72.3%;95%CI,54.3 - 84.8;p < 0.0001),mPNS组较基线疼痛减轻57.8%,假刺激组为12.1%。在第90天,mPNS的反应者率为81.4%,平均疼痛减轻75.7%。

结论

数据显示,在用于治疗PDN疼痛时,第30天时mPNS+CMM优于假刺激+CMM。在PDN治疗方案中应更早考虑使用mPNS。

临床试验注册

该研究在Clinicaltrials.gov上的注册号为NCT05620225(https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05620225)。该研究于2022年11月9日首次发布,首例患者于2022年12月15日入组。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验