Randomized Trial on the Clinical Utility of a Novel Biomarker Panel to Identify Treatable Determinants of Chronic Pain

• Published in: Diagnostics (Basel) 2020-07, Vol.10 (8), p.513
• Main Authors: Peabody, John, Paculdo, David, Tamondong-Lachica, Diana, Cabaluna, Ian Theodore, Gunn, Joshua
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: biomarker; Biomarkers; chronic pain; Clinical trials; clinical utility; Data collection; Diabetes; Gastroesophageal reflux; Homocysteine; Intervention; Metabolism; Narcotics; Nutrition research; Oxidative stress; Pain; pain management; Patients; Physicians; Primary care; Questionnaires; Studies; Urine; Vitamin deficiency
• ISSN: 2075-4418; 2075-4418
• DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10080513

Millions suffer daily from chronic pain diagnosed anatomically and treated with opioids. Research shows that underlying nutritional, metabolic and oxidative stressors, which drive the development or worsening of chronic pain, are not diagnosed despite the fact that treatment of these primary pain pathways relieves pain and increases function. One of the main reasons for this gap in care is the lack of a simple diagnostic assay to help clinicians make these diagnoses. We examined the clinical utility of a urine-based pain biomarker panel. Primary care physicians were randomized into the test group and compared to controls. We measured their ability to make the diagnosis and treat a total of nine standardized patients, with common but challenging cases of chronic pain, over two rounds of data collection in a pre–post design using a fixed-effects model. Intervention doctors received educational materials on a novel pain biomarker panel after the baseline round and had access to biomarker test results. Provider responses were measured against evidence-based criteria. The two study arms at baseline provided similar, poor care for three different primary pain pathways: nutritional deficiencies (5.0% control versus 9.2% intervention treated, p = 0.208), metabolic abnormalities (1.0% control versus 0% for intervention treated, p = 0.314), and oxidative stress (1.2% control versus 0% intervention treated, p = 0.152). After the introduction of the Foundation Pain Index (FPI) biomarker test, physicians in the intervention group were 41.5% more likely to make the diagnosis of a micronutrient deficiency, 29.4% more likely to identify a treatable metabolic abnormality and 26.1% more likely to identify an oxidative stressor. These diagnostic and treatment improvements were seen across all three case types, ranging from a relative +54% (p = 0.004) for chronic neuropathic pain to +35% (p = 0.007) in chronic pain from other causes to +38% (p = 0.002) in chronic pain with associated mental health issues. Intervention doctors were also 75.1% more likely to provide a non-opioid treatment to patients on chronic opioids (O.R. 1.8, 95% C.I. 0.8–3.7), 62% less likely to order unnecessary imaging for their patients with low back pain (O.R. 0.38, 95% C.I. 0.15–0.97) and 66% less likely to order an unnecessary pain referral (O.R. 0.34, 95% C.I. 0.13–0.90). This experimental study showed significant clinical utility of a validated pain biomarker panel that determines nutritional defic