An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

Objectives. Using patient global impression of change (PGIC) as an anchor, an approximately 30% reduction on an 11-point numeric pain intensity rating scale (PI-NRS) is considered a clinically important difference (CID) in pain. Our objective was to define the CID for another pain measure, the worst...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: James Marcus, Kathryn Lasch, Yin Wan, Mei Yang, Ching Hsu, Domenico Merante
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2018-01-01
Series:Pain Research and Management
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2140420
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832560949514469376
author James Marcus
Kathryn Lasch
Yin Wan
Mei Yang
Ching Hsu
Domenico Merante
author_facet James Marcus
Kathryn Lasch
Yin Wan
Mei Yang
Ching Hsu
Domenico Merante
author_sort James Marcus
collection DOAJ
description Objectives. Using patient global impression of change (PGIC) as an anchor, an approximately 30% reduction on an 11-point numeric pain intensity rating scale (PI-NRS) is considered a clinically important difference (CID) in pain. Our objective was to define the CID for another pain measure, the worst pain severity (WPS) item of the modified Brief Pain Inventory (m-BPI). Methods. In this post hoc analysis of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, 452 randomized patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were followed over 5 weeks, with m-BPI data collected weekly and PGIC at treatment conclusion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (via logistic regression) were used to determine the changes in the m-BPI-WPS score that best predicted ordinal clinical improvement thresholds (i.e., “minimally improved” or better) on the PGIC. Results. Similar to the PI-NRS, a change of −3 (raw) or −33.3% from the baseline on the m-BPI-WPS optimized prediction for the “much improved” or better PGIC threshold and represents a CID. There was a high correspondence between observed and predicted PGIC categories at each PGIC threshold (ROC AUCs were 0.78–0.82). Conclusions. Worst pain on the m-BPI may be used to assess clinically important improvements in DPNP studies. Findings require validation in larger studies.
format Article
id doaj-art-6b71a547bdfa4b93b0029707689c24ea
institution Kabale University
issn 1203-6765
1918-1523
language English
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Pain Research and Management
spelling doaj-art-6b71a547bdfa4b93b0029707689c24ea2025-02-03T01:26:19ZengWileyPain Research and Management1203-67651918-15232018-01-01201810.1155/2018/21404202140420An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic PainJames Marcus0Kathryn Lasch1Yin Wan2Mei Yang3Ching Hsu4Domenico Merante5Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USAPharmerit International, Boston, MA, USAPharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USADaiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USADaiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USADaiichi Sankyo Development Ltd., Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, UKObjectives. Using patient global impression of change (PGIC) as an anchor, an approximately 30% reduction on an 11-point numeric pain intensity rating scale (PI-NRS) is considered a clinically important difference (CID) in pain. Our objective was to define the CID for another pain measure, the worst pain severity (WPS) item of the modified Brief Pain Inventory (m-BPI). Methods. In this post hoc analysis of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, 452 randomized patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were followed over 5 weeks, with m-BPI data collected weekly and PGIC at treatment conclusion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (via logistic regression) were used to determine the changes in the m-BPI-WPS score that best predicted ordinal clinical improvement thresholds (i.e., “minimally improved” or better) on the PGIC. Results. Similar to the PI-NRS, a change of −3 (raw) or −33.3% from the baseline on the m-BPI-WPS optimized prediction for the “much improved” or better PGIC threshold and represents a CID. There was a high correspondence between observed and predicted PGIC categories at each PGIC threshold (ROC AUCs were 0.78–0.82). Conclusions. Worst pain on the m-BPI may be used to assess clinically important improvements in DPNP studies. Findings require validation in larger studies.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2140420
spellingShingle James Marcus
Kathryn Lasch
Yin Wan
Mei Yang
Ching Hsu
Domenico Merante
An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Pain Research and Management
title An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
title_full An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
title_fullStr An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
title_full_unstemmed An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
title_short An Assessment of Clinically Important Differences on the Worst Pain Severity Item of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
title_sort assessment of clinically important differences on the worst pain severity item of the modified brief pain inventory in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2140420
work_keys_str_mv AT jamesmarcus anassessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT kathrynlasch anassessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT yinwan anassessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT meiyang anassessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT chinghsu anassessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT domenicomerante anassessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT jamesmarcus assessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT kathrynlasch assessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT yinwan assessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT meiyang assessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT chinghsu assessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain
AT domenicomerante assessmentofclinicallyimportantdifferencesontheworstpainseverityitemofthemodifiedbriefpaininventoryinpatientswithdiabeticperipheralneuropathicpain