Literature DB >> 11068116

Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures.

J T Farrar1, R K Portenoy, J A Berlin, J L Kinman, B L Strom.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of change on standard pain scales that represent clinically important differences to patients. Data from analgesic studies are often difficult to interpret because the clinical importance of the results is not obvious. Differences between groups, as summarized by a change in mean values over time, can be difficult to apply to clinical care. Baseline scores vary widely and group mean differences could reflect large changes in a few patients, small changes in many patients, or any combination of these outcomes. Determination of the proportion of patients who have a clinically important improvement in their pain would provide a more interpretable result with direct clinical implications. However, determining a clinically important outcome requires information about the degree of change over time that is clinically important. Data from the titration phase of a multiple cross-over randomized clinical trial of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the treatment of cancer-related breakthrough pain were re-analyzed to examine the differences in pain scores between treatment episodes that did and did not yield adequate pain relief. The scales evaluated were absolute pain intensity difference (PID, 0-10 scale), percentage pain intensity difference (PID%, 0-100% scale), pain relief (PR, 0 (none), 1 (slight), 2 (moderate), 3 (lots), 4 (complete)), sum of the pain intensity difference (SPID over 60 min), percentage of maximum total pain relief (% Max TOTPAR over 60 min), and global medication performance (0 (poor), 1 (fair), 2 (good), 3 (very good), 4 (excellent)). Adequate relief was defined by the patient's decision not to use another dose of opioid medication as a rescue, in addition to the study medication, to treat each painful episode. One hundred thirty OTFC naive patients contributed data on 1268 episodes of breakthrough pain. The scales that were converted to a percentage change yielded the best accuracy in predicting adequate relief, with balanced sensitivity and specificity. The best cut-off point for both the % Max TOTPAR and the PID% was 33%. The best cut-off points for the absolute scales were absolute pain intensity difference of 2, pain relief of 2 (moderate), and SPID of 2. The global medication performance of 2 (good) had excellent values as well. This study presents data-derived cut-off points for the changes in several pain scales, each reflecting the clinically important improvement for patients treating breakthrough cancer pain episodes with OTFC. Confirmation in other patient populations and different pain syndromes will be needed. The use of consistent clinically important cut-off points as the primary outcome in future pain therapy clinical trials will enhance their validity, comparability, and clinical applicability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11068116     DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00339-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  220 in total

1.  [Expert assessment of peripheral nerve damage--evaluation of pain syndromes].

Authors:  F Kohl
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.107

2.  Effect of Milnacipran on Pain in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Widespread Pain: A Randomized Blinded Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Yvonne C Lee; Elena Massarotti; Robert R Edwards; Bing Lu; ChihChin Liu; Yuanyu Lo; Alyssa Wohlfahrt; Nancy D Kim; Daniel J Clauw; Daniel H Solomon
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.666

3.  What Preoperative Factors are Associated With Not Achieving a Minimum Clinically Important Difference After THA? Findings from an International Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Pakdee Rojanasopondist; Vincent P Galea; James W Connelly; Sean J Matuszak; Ola Rolfson; Charles R Bragdon; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Is balneotherapy effective for fibromyalgia? Results from a 6-month double-blind randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Antonella Fioravanti; Patrizia Manica; Roberto Bortolotti; Gabriele Cevenini; Sara Tenti; Giuseppe Paolazzi
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Dose-response of minor analgesics in acute pain.

Authors:  Alain Li Wan Po
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Do analgesics improve functioning in patients with chronic low back pain? An explorative triple-blinded RCT.

Authors:  Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper; Jan H B Geertzen; Marten van Wijhe; Anne M Boonstra; Barbara H W Molmans; Pieter U Dijkstra; Michiel F Reneman
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A randomised trial of electro-acupuncture for arthralgia related to aromatase inhibitor use.

Authors:  Jun J Mao; Sharon X Xie; John T Farrar; Carrie T Stricker; Marjorie A Bowman; Deborah Bruner; Angela DeMichele
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Predictors of response to palliative care intervention for chronic nausea in advanced cancer outpatients.

Authors:  Wadih Rhondali; Sriram Yennurajalingam; Gary Chisholm; Jeanette Ferrer; Sun Hyun Kim; Jung Hun Kang; Marilene Filbet; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Does the cannabinoid dronabinol reduce central pain in multiple sclerosis? Randomised double blind placebo controlled crossover trial.

Authors:  Kristina B Svendsen; Troels S Jensen; Flemming W Bach
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-16

10.  Opioid switching and variability in response in pain cancer patients.

Authors:  O Corli; A Roberto; N Corsi; F Galli; M Pizzuto
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.