Ecological momentary assessment of pelvic pain and urinary urgency variability in urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome and their association with illness impact and quality of life: Findings from the multidisciplinary approach to the study of chronic pelvic pain symptom patterns study.

PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of pelvic pain (PP) and urinary urgency (UU) would reveal unique Urologic Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (UCPPS) phenotypes that would be associated with disease specific quality of life (QOL) and illness impact metrics (IIM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A previously validated smart phone app (M-app) was provided to willing Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) participants. M-app notifications were sent 4-times daily for 14 days inquiring about PP and UU severity. A clustering algorithm that accounted for variance placed participants into PP and UU variability? clusters. Associations between clusters and QOL and IIM were then determined. RESULTS: A total of 204 participants enrolled in the M-app study (64% female). M-app compliance was high (median 63% of surveys). Cluster analysis revealed k = 3 (high, low, none) PP clusters and k = 2 (high, low) UU clusters. When adjusting for baseline pain severity, high PP variability, but not UU variability, was strongly associated with QOL and IIM; specifically worse mood, worse sleep and higher anxiety. UU and PP clusters were associated with each other (p < 0.0001), but a large percentage (33%) of patients with high PP variability had low UU variability. CONCLUSIONS: PP variability is an independent predictor of worse QOL and more severe IIM in UCPPS participants after controlling for baseline pain severity and UU. These findings suggest alternative pain indices, such as pain variability and unpredictability, may be useful adjuncts to traditional measures of worst and average pain when assessing UCPPS treatment responses.

Validation of a simple body map to measure widespread pain in urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A MAPP Research Network study.

PURPOSE: In patients with urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome (UCPPS), the presence of widespread pain appears to identify a distinct phenotype, with a different symptom trajectory and potentially different response to treatment than patients with pelvic pain only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 76-site body map was administered four times, at weekly intervals, to 568 male and female UCPPS participants in the MAPP Network protocol. The 76 sites were classified into 13 regions (1 pelvic region and 12 nonpelvic regions). The degree of widespread pain was scored from 0 to 12 based on the number of reported nonpelvic pain regions. This continuous body map score was regressed over other measures of widespread pain, with UCPPS symptom severity, and with psychosocial variables to measure level of association. These models were repeated using an updated body map score (0-12) that incorporated a threshold of pain ≥ 4 at each site. RESULTS: Body map scores showed limited variability over the 4 weekly assessments, indicating that a single baseline assessment was sufficient. The widespread pain score correlated highly with other measures of widespread pain and correlated with worsened UCPPS symptom severity and psychosocial functioning. Incorporating a pain severity threshold ≥4 resulted in only marginal increases in these correlations. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of this 13-region body map in the baseline clinical assessment of UCPPS patients. It provides reliable data about the presence of widespread pain and does not require measurement of pain severity, making it relatively simple to use for clinical purposes.

Validation of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision-Clinical Modification Diagnostic Code for Essential Tremor.

Background: The positive predictive value (PPV) of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code for "essential and other specified forms of tremor" in identifying essential tremor (ET) cases was found to be less than 50%. The ability of the ICD-10-CM G25.0 code for "essential tremor" to identify ET has not been determined. The study objective was to determine the PPV of the G25.0 code. Methods: Patients in a tertiary health system with a primary care encounter associated with ICD-10-CM code G25.0 in 2022 underwent medical record review to determine if the consensus criteria from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society for an ET diagnosis were met. Results: 442 patients were included. The PPV of G25.0 in identifying probable ET cases was 74.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 70.4-78.5%). Among patients prescribed propranolol, the PPV improved to 87.8% (95% CI 78.0-93.6%). Discussion: Compared to the ICD-9-CM code 333.1, G25.0 is superior for identifying ET cases. A potential limitation of this study is that the consensus criteria applied relies on nonspecific physical exam findings which may lead to an overestimation of the PPV of G25.0. Highlights: The ICD-10-CM diagnosis code for essential tremor has not been previously validated. The objective of this study was to determine the PPV of the G25.0 code. The PPV in identifying essential tremor cases was 74.7%. The PPV improved among patients prescribed propranolol.

Association between systemic medication use and severity of dry eye signs and symptoms in the DRy eye assessment and management (DREAM) study.

PURPOSE: Some systemic medications are reported to be associated with dry eye disease (DED), yet their associations with the severity of DED signs and symptoms are not well studied. To evaluate these associations, we performed a secondary analysis of data from the DRy Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) Study. METHODS: Participants (N = 535) were assessed for DED signs using tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer testing, corneal fluorescein staining, conjunctival lissamine green staining, meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), and tear osmolarity and DED symptoms using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). We derived a composite signs severity score from the 6 DED signs and categorized participant-reported systemic medications into antidepressants, antihistamines, aspirin, corticosteroids, diuretics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton pump inhibitors, statins, vitamin D3, and medications for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypothyroidism, migraine, and seizure. Generalized linear models were used to compare DED symptom and sign scores between medication users and non-users, with adjustment for factors associated with DED severity. RESULTS: Compared to non-users, antihistamine users had lower TBUT (p = 0.01) and higher OSDI score (p = 0.02); aspirin users had lower TBUT (p = 0.02); corticosteroid users had lower TBUT (p = 0.02), lower Schirmer test scores (p = 0.03), higher cornea fluorescein staining (p = 0.01), higher composite severity score (p = 0.01), and higher OSDI score (p = 0.03); seizure medication users had higher composite severity score (p = 0.02); vitamin D3 users had lower TBUT (p = 0.001) and greater MGD (p = 0.03); and diuretic users had less MGD (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Certain systemic medications may be associated with more severe DED. This may guide prescription practices in patients with DED.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.