A Pilot Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of MC5-A Scrambler Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN)

Thomas J Smith, Abdul Rab Razzak, Amanda L. Blackford, Jennifer Ensminger, Catherine Saiki, Denise Longo-Schoberlein, Charles L. Loprinzi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects 30% to 40% of patients with cancer with long-lasting disability. Scrambler therapy (ST) appeared to benefit patients in uncontrolled trials, so we performed a randomized sham-controlled Phase II trial of ST. Methods: The primary end point was “average pain” after 28 days on the Numeric Rating Scale. Each received ten 30-minute sessions of ST on the dermatomes above the painful areas, or sham treatment on the back, typically at L3-5 where the nerve roots would enter the spinal cord. Outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-CIPN and the EORTC CIPN-20 scale. Patients were evaluated before treatment (day 0), day 10, and days 28, 60, and 90. Results: Data regarding pain as a primary outcome were collected for 33 of the 35 patients. There were no significant differences between the sham and the “real” ST group at day 10, 28, 60, or 90, for average pain, the BPI, or EORTC CIPN-20. Individual responses were noted during the ST treatment on the real arm, but most dissipated by day 30. There was improvement in the sensory subscale of the CIPN-20 at 2 months in the “real” group (P =.14). All “real” patients wanted to continue treatment if available. Discussion: We observed no difference between sham and real ST CIPN treatment. Potential reasons include at least the following: ST does not work; the sham treatment had some effect; small sample size with heterogeneous patients; misplaced electrodes on an area of nonpainful but damaged nerves; or a combination of these factors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Palliative Care
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
Randomized Controlled Trials
Drug Therapy
Pain
Therapeutics
Placebos
Equipment and Supplies
Group Psychotherapy
Sample Size
Spinal Cord
Electrodes

Keywords

  • chemotherapy induced neuropathy
  • neuromodulation
  • scrambler therapy
  • transcutaneous electro modulation pain reprocessing (TEMPR)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A Pilot Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of MC5-A Scrambler Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN). / Smith, Thomas J; Razzak, Abdul Rab; Blackford, Amanda L.; Ensminger, Jennifer; Saiki, Catherine; Longo-Schoberlein, Denise; Loprinzi, Charles L.

In: Journal of Palliative Care, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, Thomas J ; Razzak, Abdul Rab ; Blackford, Amanda L. ; Ensminger, Jennifer ; Saiki, Catherine ; Longo-Schoberlein, Denise ; Loprinzi, Charles L. / A Pilot Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of MC5-A Scrambler Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN). In: Journal of Palliative Care. 2019.
@article{4d6c6ad27be449ae8dc316999438cdd0,
title = "A Pilot Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of MC5-A Scrambler Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN)",
abstract = "Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects 30{\%} to 40{\%} of patients with cancer with long-lasting disability. Scrambler therapy (ST) appeared to benefit patients in uncontrolled trials, so we performed a randomized sham-controlled Phase II trial of ST. Methods: The primary end point was “average pain” after 28 days on the Numeric Rating Scale. Each received ten 30-minute sessions of ST on the dermatomes above the painful areas, or sham treatment on the back, typically at L3-5 where the nerve roots would enter the spinal cord. Outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-CIPN and the EORTC CIPN-20 scale. Patients were evaluated before treatment (day 0), day 10, and days 28, 60, and 90. Results: Data regarding pain as a primary outcome were collected for 33 of the 35 patients. There were no significant differences between the sham and the “real” ST group at day 10, 28, 60, or 90, for average pain, the BPI, or EORTC CIPN-20. Individual responses were noted during the ST treatment on the real arm, but most dissipated by day 30. There was improvement in the sensory subscale of the CIPN-20 at 2 months in the “real” group (P =.14). All “real” patients wanted to continue treatment if available. Discussion: We observed no difference between sham and real ST CIPN treatment. Potential reasons include at least the following: ST does not work; the sham treatment had some effect; small sample size with heterogeneous patients; misplaced electrodes on an area of nonpainful but damaged nerves; or a combination of these factors.",
keywords = "chemotherapy induced neuropathy, neuromodulation, scrambler therapy, transcutaneous electro modulation pain reprocessing (TEMPR)",
author = "Smith, {Thomas J} and Razzak, {Abdul Rab} and Blackford, {Amanda L.} and Jennifer Ensminger and Catherine Saiki and Denise Longo-Schoberlein and Loprinzi, {Charles L.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0825859719827589",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Palliative Care",
issn = "0825-8597",
publisher = "Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Pilot Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of MC5-A Scrambler Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN)

AU - Smith, Thomas J

AU - Razzak, Abdul Rab

AU - Blackford, Amanda L.

AU - Ensminger, Jennifer

AU - Saiki, Catherine

AU - Longo-Schoberlein, Denise

AU - Loprinzi, Charles L.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects 30% to 40% of patients with cancer with long-lasting disability. Scrambler therapy (ST) appeared to benefit patients in uncontrolled trials, so we performed a randomized sham-controlled Phase II trial of ST. Methods: The primary end point was “average pain” after 28 days on the Numeric Rating Scale. Each received ten 30-minute sessions of ST on the dermatomes above the painful areas, or sham treatment on the back, typically at L3-5 where the nerve roots would enter the spinal cord. Outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-CIPN and the EORTC CIPN-20 scale. Patients were evaluated before treatment (day 0), day 10, and days 28, 60, and 90. Results: Data regarding pain as a primary outcome were collected for 33 of the 35 patients. There were no significant differences between the sham and the “real” ST group at day 10, 28, 60, or 90, for average pain, the BPI, or EORTC CIPN-20. Individual responses were noted during the ST treatment on the real arm, but most dissipated by day 30. There was improvement in the sensory subscale of the CIPN-20 at 2 months in the “real” group (P =.14). All “real” patients wanted to continue treatment if available. Discussion: We observed no difference between sham and real ST CIPN treatment. Potential reasons include at least the following: ST does not work; the sham treatment had some effect; small sample size with heterogeneous patients; misplaced electrodes on an area of nonpainful but damaged nerves; or a combination of these factors.

AB - Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects 30% to 40% of patients with cancer with long-lasting disability. Scrambler therapy (ST) appeared to benefit patients in uncontrolled trials, so we performed a randomized sham-controlled Phase II trial of ST. Methods: The primary end point was “average pain” after 28 days on the Numeric Rating Scale. Each received ten 30-minute sessions of ST on the dermatomes above the painful areas, or sham treatment on the back, typically at L3-5 where the nerve roots would enter the spinal cord. Outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-CIPN and the EORTC CIPN-20 scale. Patients were evaluated before treatment (day 0), day 10, and days 28, 60, and 90. Results: Data regarding pain as a primary outcome were collected for 33 of the 35 patients. There were no significant differences between the sham and the “real” ST group at day 10, 28, 60, or 90, for average pain, the BPI, or EORTC CIPN-20. Individual responses were noted during the ST treatment on the real arm, but most dissipated by day 30. There was improvement in the sensory subscale of the CIPN-20 at 2 months in the “real” group (P =.14). All “real” patients wanted to continue treatment if available. Discussion: We observed no difference between sham and real ST CIPN treatment. Potential reasons include at least the following: ST does not work; the sham treatment had some effect; small sample size with heterogeneous patients; misplaced electrodes on an area of nonpainful but damaged nerves; or a combination of these factors.

KW - chemotherapy induced neuropathy

KW - neuromodulation

KW - scrambler therapy

KW - transcutaneous electro modulation pain reprocessing (TEMPR)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061190379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061190379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0825859719827589

DO - 10.1177/0825859719827589

M3 - Article

C2 - 30714486

AN - SCOPUS:85061190379

JO - Journal of Palliative Care

JF - Journal of Palliative Care

SN - 0825-8597

ER -