Back

Divergent treatment responses in chronic pain: Identifying subgroups of patients through cluster analysis.

Rijsdijk, M.; Smits, H. M.; Azizoglu, H. R.; Brugman, S.; van de Burgt, Y.; van Charldorp, T. C.; van Gelder, D. J.; de Grauw, J. C.; van Lange, E. A.; Meye, F. J.; Strick, M.; Walravens, H.; Winkens, L. H. H.; Huygen, F. J. P. M.; Drylewicz, J.; Willemen, H. L.

2024-02-24 pain medicine
10.1101/2024.02.23.24302234
Show abstract

BackgroundChronic pain is an ill-defined disease with complex biopsychosocial aspects, posing treatment challenges. We hypothesize that treatment failure results, at least partly, from limited understanding of diverse patient subgroups. We aim to identify subgroups through psychometric data, allowing for more tailored interventions. MethodsFor this retrospective cohort study, we extracted patient-reported data from two Dutch tertiary multidisciplinary outpatient pain clinics (2018-2023) for unsupervised hierarchical clustering. Clusters were defined by anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia. Sociodemographics, pain characteristics, diagnosis, lifestyle, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment efficacy were compared among clusters. A prediction model was built utilizing a minimum set of questions to reliably assess cluster allocation. ResultsAmong 5,454 patients with chronic pain, three clusters emerged. Cluster 1 (n=750) was characterized by high psychological burden, low HRQoL, lower educational levels and employment rates, and more smoking. Cluster 2 (n=1,795) showed low psychological burden, intermediate HRQoL, higher educational levels and employment rates, and more alcohol consumption. Cluster 3 (n=2,909) showed intermediate features. Pain reduction following treatment was least in cluster 1 (28.6% after capsaicin patch, 18.2% after multidisciplinary treatment), compared to >50% in clusters 2 and 3. A model incorporating 15 psychometric questions reliably predicted cluster allocation. In conclusion, our study identifies distinct chronic pain patient clusters through 15 psychometric questions, revealing one cluster with notably poorer response to conventional treatment. Our prediction model may help clinicians improve treatment by allowing patient-subgroup targeted therapy according to cluster allocation. In briefHierarchical clustering of chronic pain patients revealed three clusters based on pain experience and psychological welfare, with diverse sociodemographics and treatment effects suggesting potential for tailored interventions.

Matching journals

1
Pain
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 15 published papers
Top 0.1%
195× avg
2
The Journal of Pain
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
#1
260× avg
3
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 58%
7.6%
4
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 16%
1.8× avg
5
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 32%
5.6%
6
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Frontiers Media SA · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.2%
77× avg
7
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Elsevier BV · based on 13 published papers
Top 0.6%
24× avg
8
Social Science & Medicine
Elsevier BV · based on 15 published papers
Top 0.3%
31× avg
9
Science Advances
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) · based on 52 published papers
Top 0.5%
15× avg
10
eLife
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd · based on 262 published papers
Top 14%
2.0× avg
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 81 published papers
Top 8%
2.7× avg
12
BJGP Open
Royal College of General Practitioners · based on 12 published papers
Top 1%
20× avg
13
Blood Advances
American Society of Hematology · based on 16 published papers
Top 0.8%
20× avg
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
Frontiers Media SA · based on 18 published papers
Top 2%
10× avg
15
BMC Neurology
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
16
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
Top 1%
8.2× avg
17
PLOS Digital Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 88 published papers
Top 10%
1.7× avg
18
Clinical and Translational Science
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
Top 2%
8.8× avg
19
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Elsevier BV · based on 19 published papers
Top 3%
6.8× avg
20
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ · based on 15 published papers
Top 3%
4.8× avg
21
Brain
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 69 published papers
Top 8%
0.5%
22
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers Media SA · based on 56 published papers
Top 9%
1.5× avg
23
Frontiers in Immunology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 140 published papers
Top 9%
1.5× avg