ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Essential Tremor , International Classification of Diseases , Humans , Essential Tremor/diagnosis , Essential Tremor/classification , International Classification of Diseases/standards , Female , Male , Aged , Middle Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Propranolol/therapeutic useABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Dry Eye Syndromes , Severity of Illness Index , Tears , Humans , Dry Eye Syndromes/diagnosis , Dry Eye Syndromes/drug therapy , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Tears/metabolism , Aged , AdultABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Pain , Patient Participation , Humans , Research DesignABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Quality of Life , Humans , Female , Male , Ecological Momentary Assessment , Chronic Pain/diagnosis , Pelvic Pain/diagnosis , Pain MeasurementABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Cystitis, Interstitial , Prostatitis , Humans , Male , Female , Pelvic Pain/diagnosis , Pelvic Pain/psychology , Chronic Pain/diagnosis , Chronic Pain/psychology , Syndrome , Pain Threshold , Pain Measurement , Cystitis, Interstitial/diagnosisABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although allusions to the importance of a good physician-patient relationship are present throughout the interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) literature, qualitative analysis of patients' perspectives on the clinical encounter is lacking, particularly among women who are most commonly affected by IC/BPS. Therefore, we adopted a patient-centered experiential approach to understanding female patients' perception of clinical encounters. METHODS: We re-analyzed previously collected data from a qualitative study on patient flare experiences including eight focus groups of female IC/BPS patients (n = 57, mean = 7/group). Qualitative analysis applied grounded theory to index all physician-patient interactions, then thematically coded these interactions to elucidate common experiences of clinical encounters. RESULTS: Women with IC/BPS shared common experiences of provider disbelief and pain dismissal. Discussions with participants demonstrated the extent to which these negative encounters shape patients' health care-seeking behavior, outlook, and psychosocial well-being. Appearing in more than one guise, provider disbelief and dismissal occurred as tacit insinuations, explicit statements, silence, oversimplification, and an unwillingness to listen and discuss alternative treatment. As a result, women adopted several strategies including: rotating specialists; "testing" physicians; self-advocacy; self-management; avoiding the stigma of chronic pain; crying; and opting for alternative medicine over biomedicine. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of provider disbelief and pain dismissal among women with IC/BPS indicates a need to improve physician-patient communication, informed by the struggles, anxieties, and gendered inequities that female patients with chronic pain experience in their diagnostic journey. Results suggest that further investigation into the power dynamics of clinical encounters might be required.
Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Cystitis, Interstitial , Humans , Female , Cystitis, Interstitial/drug therapy , Anxiety , Focus Groups , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
Importance: Pain is challenging for patients with advanced cancer. While recent guidelines recommend acupuncture and massage for cancer pain, their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To compare the effects of acupuncture and massage on musculoskeletal pain among patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted at US cancer care centers consisting of a northeastern comprehensive cancer center and a southeastern cancer institute from September 19, 2019, through February 23, 2022. The principal investigator and study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed (linear mixed models). Participants included patients with advanced cancer with moderate to severe pain and clinician-estimated life expectancy of 6 months or more. Patient recruitment strategy was multipronged (eg, patient database queries, mailings, referrals, community outreach). Eligible patients had English or Spanish as their first language, were older than 18 years, and had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60 (range, 0-100; higher scores indicating less functional impairment). Interventions: Weekly acupuncture or massage for 10 weeks with monthly booster sessions up to 26 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in worst pain intensity score from baseline to 26 weeks. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. The Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate worse pain intensity or interference) was used to measure the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. Results: A total of 298 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [14.1] years, 200 [67.1%] were women, 33 [11.1%] Black, 220 [74.1%] White, 46 [15.4%] Hispanic, and 78.5% with solid tumors). The mean (SD) baseline worst pain score was 6.9 (1.5). During 26 weeks, acupuncture reduced the worst pain score, with a mean change of -2.53 (95% CI, -2.92 to -2.15) points, and massage reduced the Brief Pain Inventory worst pain score, with a mean change of -3.01 (95% CI, -3.38 to -2.63) points; the between-group difference was not significant (-0.48; 95% CI, -0.98 to 0.03; P = .07). Both treatments also improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life without significant between-group differences. Adverse events were mild and included bruising (6.5% of patients receiving acupuncture) and transient soreness (15.1% patients receiving massage). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among patients with advanced cancer, both acupuncture and massage were associated with pain reduction and improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life over 26 weeks; however, there was no significant different between the treatments. More research is needed to evaluate how best to integrate these approaches into pain treatment to optimize symptom management for the growing population of people living with advanced cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04095234.
Subject(s)
Acupuncture Therapy , Musculoskeletal Pain , Neoplasms , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Fatigue , Massage , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life , Adult , AgedABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The FDA recommends the use of anchor-based methods and empirical cumulative distribution function (eCDF) curves to establish a meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) for a clinical outcome assessment (COA). In practice, the estimates obtained from model-based methods and eCDF curves may not closely align, although an anchor is used with both. To help interpret their results, we investigated and compared these approaches. METHODS: Both repeated measures model (RMM) and eCDF approaches were used to estimate an MWPC on a target COA. We used both real-life (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02697773) and simulated data sets that included 688 patients with up to six visits per patient, target COA (range 0 to 10), and an anchor measure on patient global assessment of osteoarthritis from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the MWPC were calculated by the bootstrap method. RESULTS: The distribution of the COA score changes affected the degree of concordance between RMM and eCDF estimates. The COA score changes from simulated normally distributed data led to greater concordance between the two approaches than did COA score changes from the actual clinical data. The confidence intervals of MWPC estimate based on eCDF methods were much wider than that by RMM methods, and the point estimate of eCDF methods varied noticeably across visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our data explored the differences of model-based methods over eCDF approaches, finding that the former integrates more information across a diverse range of COA and anchor scores and provides more precise estimates for the MWPC.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in diagnosis of headache and migraine in a large pediatric neurology cohort, and test whether an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated headache questionnaire can increase specificity of diagnosis and likelihood of prescribing migraine treatment. BACKGROUND: Under-diagnosis of migraine contributes to the burden of disease. As we founded our Pediatric Headache Program in 2013, we recognized that the proportion of patients with headache who were given a diagnosis of migraine was much lower than expected. METHODS: We developed a patient headache questionnaire, initially on paper (2013-2014), then in an electronic database (2014-2016), and finally integrated into our electronic health record (pilot: 2016, full: May 2017). We compared diagnoses and prescribed treatments for new patients who were given a headache diagnosis, looking at trends in the proportion of patients given specific diagnoses (migraine, etc.) versus the non-specific diagnosis, "headache." Next, we conducted a prospective cohort study to test for association between provider use of the form and the presence of a specific diagnosis, then for an association between specific diagnosis and prescription of migraine treatment. RESULTS: Between July 2011 and December 2022 the proportion of new headache patients who were given a diagnosis of migraine increased 9.7% and non-specific headache diagnoses decreased 21.0%. In the EHR cohort (June 2017-December 2022, n = 15,122), use of the provider form increased the rate of specific diagnosis to 87.2% (1839/2109) compared to 75.5% (5708/7560) without a patient questionnaire, nearly doubling the odds of making a specific diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-2.19). Compared to those given only a non-specific headache diagnosis who were prescribed a migraine therapy 53.7% (1766/3286) of the time, 75.3% (8914/11836) of those given a specific diagnosis received a migraine therapy, more than doubling the odds of prescription (OR 2.39, 95% CI: 2.20-2.60). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve specificity of diagnosis were effective and led to increased rates of prescription of migraine treatments. These results have been sustained over several years. This headache questionnaire was adapted into the Foundation system of EpicCare, so it is broadly available as a clinical and research tool for institutions that use this EHR software.
Subject(s)
Migraine Disorders , Neurology , Humans , Child , Prospective Studies , Headache/diagnosis , Headache/therapy , Migraine Disorders/therapy , Migraine Disorders/drug therapy , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Introduction: Persons with Parkinson disease (PD) are hospitalized at higher rates, have longer lengths of stay, and are more likely to die in the hospital than age-matched peers. Although prior studies have compared inpatient outcomes between persons with and without PD, little is known about inpatient outcomes across the PD trajectory, or whether hospitalizations occurring in the last 6 months of life differ from earlier hospitalizations. Methods: This cross-sectional study compared Medicare Part A and B beneficiaries aged 65 and older with a qualifying PD diagnosis who were hospitalized in 2017: decedents who died between 7/1/2017 and 12/31/2017 from all causes and were hospitalized at least once in their last 6 months of life, and non-decedents who were hospitalized between 1/1/2017 and 6/30/2017 and lived 6 or more months after discharge. End-of-life (EoL) hospitalizations were defined as those occurring in the last 6 months of life. Descriptive analyses compared patient-level variables (e.g., demographics, comorbidities, treatment intensity) and encounter-level variables (e.g., length of stay, total charges) between groups. Multivariable logistic regression models also compared rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and 30-day readmission between hospitalized decedents and hospitalized non-decedents, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, rural residence, and Charlson Comorbidity Index Score. Results: Of 26,492 Medicare decedents with PD, 16,187 (61.1%) were hospitalized in their last 6 months of life. Of 347,512 non-decedents with PD, 62,851 (18.1%) were hospitalized in a 6-month period. Hospitalized decedents were slightly older than hospitalized non-decedents (82.3 [SD 7.40] vs. 79.5 [SD 7.54] years) and had significantly more comorbidities. Compared to non-EoL hospitalizations, EoL hospitalizations were slightly longer (5 [IQR 3-9] vs. 4 [IQR 3-7] days) and more expensive based on total charges per admission ($36,323 [IQR 20,091-69,048] vs. $32,309 [IQR 18,789-57,756]). In covariate-adjusted regression models using hospitalized non-decedents as the reference group, hospitalized decedents were more likely to experience an ICU admission (AOR 2.36; CI 2.28-2.45) and 30-day readmission (AOR 2.43; CI 2.34-2.54). Discussion: Hospitalizations occurring in the last 6 months of life among persons with PD in the United States are longer, more costly, and more resource intensive than earlier hospitalizations and may stem from medical comorbidities. Once hospitalized, ICU admission and 30-day readmission may aid in prognostication and serve as markers of transition to the EoL period.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objective: Current studies of end-of-life care in Parkinson disease (PD) do not focus on diverse patient samples or provide national views of end-of-life resource utilization. We determined sociodemographic and geographic differences in end-of-life inpatient care intensity among persons with PD in the United States (US). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare Part A and Part B beneficiaries 65 years and older with a qualifying PD diagnosis who died between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and those with atypical or secondary parkinsonism were excluded. Primary outcomes included rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital death, and hospice discharge in the last 6 months of life. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression models compared differences in end-of-life resource utilization and treatment intensity. Adjusted models included demographic and geographic variables, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and Social Deprivation Index score. The national distribution of primary outcomes was mapped and compared by hospital referral region using Moran I. Results: Of 400,791 Medicare beneficiaries with PD in 2017, 53,279 (13.3%) died. Of decedents, 33,107 (62.1%) were hospitalized in the last 6 months of life. In covariate-adjusted regression models using White male decedents as the reference category, odds of hospitalization was greater for Asian (AOR 1.38; CI 1.11-1.71) and Black (AOR 1.23; CI 1.08-1.39) male decedents and lower for White female decedents (AOR 0.80; CI 0.76-0.83). ICU admissions were less likely in female decedents and more likely in Asian, Black, and Hispanic decedents. Odds of in-hospital death was greater among Asian (AOR 2.49, CI 2.10-2.96), Black (AOR 1.11, CI 1.00-1.24), Hispanic (AOR 1.59; CI 1.33-1.91), and Native American (AOR 1.49; CI 1.05-2.10) decedents. Asian and Hispanic male decedents were less likely to be discharged to hospice. In geographical analyses, rural-dwelling decedents had lower odds of ICU admission (AOR 0.77; CI 0.73-0.81) and hospice discharge (AOR 0.69; CI 0.65-0.73) than urban-dwelling decedents. Nonrandom clusters of primary outcomes were observed across the US, with highest rates of hospitalization in the South and Midwest (Moran I = 0.134; p < 0.001). Discussion: Most persons with PD in the US are hospitalized in the last 6 months of life, and treatment intensity varies by sex, race, ethnicity, and geographic location. These group differences emphasize the importance of exploring end-of-life care preferences, service availability, and care quality among diverse populations with PD and may inform new approaches to advance care planning.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement for migraine day between self-report and diagnostic guidelines for children and adolescents using a headache diary. BACKGROUND: Trial guidelines recommend prospective collection of headache features and adoption of migraine day as an outcome measure, but there is no clear consensus on the definition of migraine day. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from two projects-a prospective cohort study validating a pediatric scale of treatment expectancy and a clinical trial of occipital nerve blocks to treat status migrainosus. Participants completed a text message-based diary for 4 or 12 weeks (depending on treatment), and a detailed headache assessment on a random 20% of headache days. Using this assessment, we determined whether a headache day qualified for migraine or probable migraine, based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3). RESULTS: Of 122 enrolled children and adolescents, 106 (86.9%) completed ≥1 detailed headache assessment (438 entries). We found moderate agreement between self-reported and ICHD-derived migraine day, with a Cohen's Kappa of 0.50 (positive predictive value [PPV]: 0.66; negative predictive value [NPV]: 0.85; correlation: 0.51). Allowing for ICHD-derived probable migraine significantly increased PPV (0.66 vs. 0.94; 95% CI: 0.57-0.74 vs. 0.90-0.97), but decreased NPV (0.85 vs. 0.293; CI: 0.77-0.90 vs. 0.199-0.40), Cohen's Kappa (0.50 vs. 0.237; CI: 0. 389-0.60 vs. 0.139-0.352), and correlation (r = 0.51 vs. 0.302; CI: 0.41-0.61 vs. 0.192-0.41). Pain severity (OR: 5.7; CI: 2.39-13.8), photophobia (OR: 4.1; CI: 1.02-16.6), and phonophobia (OR: 7.5; CI: 1.95-29.3) were significantly associated with participants' perception of migraine. CONCLUSION: We found only moderate agreement between self-reported and ICHD-derived migraine day, suggesting both measures are not equal but may represent overlapping aspects of migraine as a disease. This highlights the difficulty of applying ICHD criteria to individual attacks. We recommend greater methodological transparency in future research to avoid readers conflating both measures.
Subject(s)
Headache Disorders , Migraine Disorders , Humans , Child , Adolescent , Self Report , Prospective Studies , Migraine Disorders/diagnosis , Migraine Disorders/epidemiology , HeadacheABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.
Subject(s)
Analgesics , Pain Management , Humans , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Consensus , Pain/drug therapy , Research Design , Pragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Symptom heterogeneity in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, collectively termed urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome, has resulted in difficulty in defining appropriate clinical trial endpoints. We determine clinically important differences for 2 primary symptom measures, pelvic pain severity and urinary symptom severity, and evaluate subgroup differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain Symptom Patterns Study enrolled individuals with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome. We defined clinically important differences by associating changes in pelvic pain severity and urinary symptom severity over 3 to 6 months with marked improvement on a global response assessment using regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. We evaluated clinically important differences for absolute and percent change and examined differences in clinically important differences by sex-diagnosis, presence of Hunner lesions, pain type, pain widespreadness, and baseline symptom severity. RESULTS: An absolute change of -4 was clinically important in pelvic pain severity among all patients, but clinically important difference estimates differed by pain type, presence of Hunner lesions, and baseline severity. Pelvic pain severity clinically important difference estimates for percent change were more consistent across subgroups and ranged from 30% to 57%. The absolute change urinary symptom severity clinically important difference was -3 for female participants and -2 for male participants with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome only. Patients with greater baseline severity required larger decreases in symptoms to feel improved. Estimated clinically important differences had lower accuracy among participants with low baseline symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction of 30%-50% in pelvic pain severity is a clinically meaningful endpoint for future therapeutic trials in urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Urinary symptom severity clinically important differences are more appropriately defined separately for male and female participants.
Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Cystitis, Interstitial , Prostatitis , Humans , Male , Female , Prostatitis/complications , Prostatitis/diagnosis , Pelvic Pain/diagnosis , Pelvic Pain/etiology , Chronic Pain/diagnosis , Chronic Pain/etiology , Cystitis, Interstitial/complications , Cystitis, Interstitial/diagnosis , Depression/diagnosisABSTRACT
The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify patient risk factors associated with prescription opioid misuse and abuse as well as groupings of misuse and abuse behaviors as measured by the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ). METHODS: Adults with chronic pain requiring long-term treatment with opioids completed the POMAQ and other study questionnaires. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to examine underlying subgroups exhibiting particular risk profiles. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were examined as covariates and the concordance between the identified latent classes at-risk classifications and the POMAQ clinical scoring algorithm was assessed. RESULTS: Analysis of data from 809 patients revealed four classes: "chronic pain, low risk" (n = 473, low to no prevalence of POMAQ behaviors), "chronic pain, comorbid condition" (n = 152, high prevalence of anti-anxiety, sleeping pill, and antihistamine use), "at risk" (n = 154, taking more opioids than prescribed and drinking alcohol with opioids more frequently than other groups), and "high risk" (n = 30, highest prevalence of each behavior). The "high risk" group was associated with being younger, less educated, and unemployed compared to other groups. When examining the LCA classes by groups defined by the original POMAQ clinical scoring algorithm, the "high risk" class had the highest proportion of participants identified with abuse behaviors (46.7%), compared to just 4.7% in the "chronic pain, low risk" group. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest there are four distinct subgroups of patients defined by chronic opioid misuse and abuse behaviors and support the use of the POMAQ to identify risk factors associated with prescription opioid misuse and abuse.
Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Opioid-Related Disorders , Prescription Drug Misuse , Adult , Humans , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Chronic Pain/epidemiology , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires , Risk Factors , Prescription Drug Misuse/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Prediction of treatment responses is essential to move forward translational science. Our question was to identify patient-based variables that predicted responses to treatments. We conducted secondary analyses on pooled data from two randomized phase III clinical trials (NCT02697773 and NCT02709486) conducted in participants with moderate to severe osteoarthritis randomized to subcutaneous placebo (n = 514) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 514). We used gradient boosted regression trees to identify variables that predicted Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale scores at Week 16 and marginal plots to determine the directional relationship between each variable category and responses to placebo or tanezumab within the models. We also used Virtual Twins models to identify potential subgroups of response to the active treatment vs. placebo. We found that responses to placebo were predicted by baseline WOMAC Physical Function, baseline WOMAC Pain, the radiographic classification of the index joint, and the standard deviation of diary pain scores at baseline. In contrast, baseline WOMAC Pain along with failure of prior medications, duration of disease, and standard deviation of diary pain scores at baseline were predictive of tanezumab responses as expressed by the WOMAC Pain scores at Week 16. Those who responded to tanezumab vs. placebo were identified based on the radiographic classification of the index joint and either age or smoking status. These secondary-data analyses identified distinct and common patient-based variables to predict response to placebo or tanezumab. These findings will inform the design of future clinical trials, helping to move forward clinical pharmacology and translational science.
Subject(s)
Osteoarthritis, Knee , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Osteoarthritis, Knee/complications , Osteoarthritis, Knee/drug therapy , Pain Measurement/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Pain/drug therapy , Double-Blind MethodABSTRACT
Variability in pain-related outcomes can hamper assay sensitivity of chronic pain clinical trials. Expectations of outcome in such trials may account for some of this variability, and thereby impede development of novel pain treatments. Measurement of participants' expectations prior to initiating study treatment (active or placebo) is infrequent, variable, and often unvalidated. Efforts to optimize and standardize measurement, analysis, and management of expectations are needed. In this Focus Article, we provide an overview of research findings on the relationship between baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in clinical trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatments. We highlight the potential benefit of adjusting for participants' expectations in clinical trial analyses and draw on findings from patient interviews to discuss critical issues related to measurement of expectations. We conclude with suggestions regarding future studies focused on better understanding the utility of incorporating these measures into clinical trial analyses. PERSPECTIVE: This focus article provides an overview of the relationship between participants' baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in the setting of clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Systematic research focused on the measurement of expectations and the impact of adjusting for expectations in clinical trial analyses may improve assay sensitivity.