Validation of the composite autonomic symptom scale 31 (COMPASS-31) in patients with and without small fiber polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The recently developed composite autonomic symptom score 31 (COMPASS-31) is a questionnaire that assess symptoms of dysautonomia. It was distilled from the well-established Autonomic Symptom Profile questionnaire. COMPASS-31 has not yet been externally validated. To do so, its psychometric properties and convergent validity in patients with and without objective diagnosis of small fiber polyneuropathy (SFPN) were assessed. METHODS: Internal validity and reliability of COMPASS-31 were assessed in participants with or without SFPN spanning the full range of severity of autonomic symptoms. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing results of the COMPASS-31 with the "gold standard" autonomic function testing that measures cardiovagal, adrenergic and sudomotor functions. Additionally, relationships between COMPASS-31 and the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Short Form Health Survey and 0-10 numeric pain scale were measured. COMPASS-31 and all other questionnaire results were compared between patients with or without evidence of SFPN, objectively confirmed by distal-leg PGP9.5-immunolabeled skin biopsy. RESULTS: Amongst 66 participants (28 SFPN+, 38 SFPN-), COMPASS-31 total scores had excellent internal validity (Cronbach's α = 0.919), test-retest reliability (r(s) = 0.886; P < 0.001) and good convergent validity (r(s) = 0.474; P < 0.001). COMPASS-31 scores differed between subjects with or without SFPN (Z = -3.296, P < 0.001) and demonstrated fair diagnostic accuracy. Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve was 0.749 (P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.627-0.871). CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS-31 has good psychometric properties in the population of patients being evaluated for SFPN and thus it might be useful as an initial screening tool for the more expensive SFPN objective tests.

Certainty in ascending sensory signals - The unexplored driver of analgesic placebo response.

Previous frameworks have failed to adequately explain the observed correlation between within-subject variability in pain reporting and analgesic placebo response. These relationships have been observed in both clinical and experimental setups. Within-subject variability of clinical pain scores is traditionally assessed based on daily pain diaries collected during the pre-intervention stage. Experimental variability can be assessed by the Focused Analgesia Selection Test (FAST), which calculates the relationship between noxious stimuli administrated at various intensities and pain reports. The variability, either clinical or experimental, has been shown to predict the placebo response. In explaining the placebo response, Bayesian Brain Hypothesis (BBH) posits that pain perception (posterior), is composed of certainty (precision) of expectations (priors due to belief or conditioning) and incoming sensory information (likelihood), with the bulk of research focused on the precision of priors. Virtually all placebo analgesia research has focused on the priors and their certainty, rather than on the certainty of the likelihood, mainly because it cannot be assessed directly. We propose that the within-subject variability, as encapsulated by the FAST, is a proxy for certainty in (or, precision of) ascending sensory signals, and our results suggest that it could not only be assessed, but also manipulated. If true, our hypothesis will facilitate new lines of research and could potentially promote precision analgesic medicine by use of variability of pain scores as a diagnostic method to identify pain patients who will benefit from specific treatments.