University of Washington

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine

http://rehab.washington.edu/research/articles/showref.asp?id=4279


Search Again

Title:

Sensitivity of single- versus multiple-domain outcome measures to identify responders in chronic low back pain: Pooled analysis of two placebo-controlled trials of etoricoxib

Author(s):

Jensen MP, Schnitzer TJ, Wang H, Smugar SS, Peloso PM, Gammaitoni A

Year:

2012

Publication Info:

The Clinical Journal of Pain, 28(1):1-7

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: A composite responder index for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) has recently been proposed to evaluate the efficacy of CLBP treatments in clinical trials. We compared the responsiveness of this composite measure with a number of single-item responder definitions.
METHODS: We pooled data from 2 placebo-controlled studies of etoricoxib in CLBP to evaluate 5 response criteria: 30% pain intensity (PI) reduction; 50% PI reduction; 20 mm absolute reduction (100 mm PI visual analog scale); patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART); and the composite criteria of 30% reduction in PI+30% improvement in PGART of disease status+no worsening in function. We used bootstrap analysis and logistic regression to assess the ability to differentiate etoricoxib and placebo, and the ? coefficient to assess agreement among the responder criteria.
RESULTS: The criterion of a 20 mm improvement in PI resulted in the greatest proportion (71.5%) of patients being classified as responders and all criteria separated etoricoxib from placebo (P=0.0001). PGART had the highest discriminant ability (odds ratio 5.90), and was significantly (P<0.05) more discriminant than the 20 mm and =30% improvements and the composite criteria. After adjusting for all other measures, only PGART continued to show a significant treatment effect for etoricoxib versus placebo (P=0.0003). Kappa values contrasting the composite criteria and the single-item measures ranged from 0.59 to 0.85.
DISCUSSION: These findings do not support the superiority of a composite index over single-item ratings of PI and PGART ratings, but do suggest that PGART ratings may be more responsive to treatment, perhaps because they measure something in addition to change in PI.

Link to Article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21705875


© Copyright 2000-2017 University of Washington