Patient acceptable symptom state for patient-reported outcomes in people with non-specific chronic low back pain

Perspective on Intradiscal Therapies for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: State of the Science, Knowledge Gaps, and Imperatives for Clinical Adoption

Specific clinical diagnostic criteria have established a consensus for defining patients with lumbar discogenic pain. However, if conservative medical management fails, these patients have few treatment options short of surgery involving discectomy often coupled with fusion or arthroplasty. There is a rapidly-emerging research effort to fill this treatment gap with intradiscal therapies that can be delivered minimally-invasively via fluoroscopically guided injection without altering the normal anatomy of the affected vertebral motion segment. Viable candidate products to date have included mesenchymal stromal cells, platelet-rich plasma, nucleus pulposus structural allograft, and other cell-based compositions. The objective of these products is to repair, supplement, and restore the damaged intervertebral disc as well as retard further degeneration. In doing so, the intervention is meant to eliminate the source of discogenic pain and avoid surgery. Methodologically rigorous studies are rare, however, and based on the best clinical evidence, the safety as well as the magnitude and duration of clinical efficacy remain difficult to estimate. Further, we summarize the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidance regarding the interpretation of the minimal manipulation and homologous use criteria, which is central to designating these products as a tissue or as a drug/device/biologic. We also provide perspectives on the core evidence and knowledge gaps associated with intradiscal therapies, propose imperatives for evaluating effectiveness of these treatments and highlight several new technologies on the horizon.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State in Orthopaedic Spine Surgery: A Review

»

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) are both metrics at interpreting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

»

MCID values tend to vary significantly depending on the baseline pain and function in both acute and chronic symptom states while PASS thresholds are more stable.

»

MCID values are more easily attainable than PASS thresholds.

»

Although PASS is more relevant to the patient, it should continue to be used in tandem with MCID when interpreting PROM data.

Patient acceptable symptom state for burden from appearance changes in people with systemic sclerosis: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

People with systemic sclerosis (SSc) often report substantial burden from appearance changes. We aimed to estimate the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for burden from appearance changes in people with SSc.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the SCISCIF II study, a cross-sectional survey of 113 patients with SSc from France enrolled in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort. Burden from appearance changes was assessed with a self-administered numeric rating scale (0, no burden to 10, maximal burden). Acceptability of the symptom state was assessed with a specific anchoring question. Participants who answered "yes" were in the group of patients who considered their symptom state as acceptable. The PASS for the burden from appearance changes was estimated with the 75th percentile method.

RESULTS

Assessments of burden from appearance changes and answers to the anchoring question were available in 82/113 (73%) participants from the SCISCIF II study. Mean age was 55.9 (14.3) years, disease duration 9.6 (6.5) years and 32/82 (40%) participants had diffuse cutaneous SSc. The PASS estimate for the burden from appearance changes was 4.8 (95% CI from 1.0 to 7.0) of 10 points.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides a PASS estimate for burden from appearance changes. Our estimate could serve as a binary response criterion to assess the efficacy of treatments targeting burden from appearance changes.

Conservative treatment for chronic coccydynia: a 36-month prospective observational study of 115 patients

PURPOSE

To describe long-term outcomes of conservative treatment for chronic coccydynia.

METHODS

We conducted a 36-month prospective observational study. Adults with chronic coccydynia (> 2 months) were included. The first-line treatment was coccygeal corticosteroid injection. The second-line treatment was either manual therapy or coccygectomy. The primary endpoint was the mean variation from baseline of coccydynia intensity at 6 and 36 months, using a numeric rating scale (0, no pain; 10, maximal pain). Evolution was considered unfavorable when coccydynia intensity was > 3 of 10 points at 36 months or coccygectomy had been performed. We carried out bivariate and multivariate analyses to identify variables associated with an unfavorable evolution.

RESULTS

We included 115 participants. Mean (SD) age was 43.5 (12.3) years, duration of coccydynia 18.4 (21.6) months and coccydynia intensity 6.5 (2.0) of 10 points. Mean variations for coccydynia intensity were - 1.5 (3.0) at 6 months and - 2.8 (3.2) at 36 months. At 36 months, 59/115 (51%) participants had an unfavorable evolution. In bivariate analysis, posterior coccyx dislocations were numerically more frequent in participants with an unfavorable evolution compared to others (29/59 (48%) versus 17/56 (30%), p = 0.057). In multivariate analysis, longer duration of coccydynia was associated with an unfavorable evolution (OR = 1.04, 95% CI from 1.01 to 1.07, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In adults with chronic coccydynia receiving conservative treatment, symptoms decrease overtime, but significantly persist at 36 months in more than half of them. For patients with posterior coccyx dislocation, coccygectomy may be considered rapidly.