Linking changes in pain severity to changes in other outcomes in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain treated with pregabalin [POSTER]

No abstract available

Psychometric properties of a single-item scale to assess sleep quality among individuals with fibromyalgia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sleep disturbances are a common and bothersome symptom of fibromyalgia (FM). This study reports psychometric properties of a single-item scale to assess sleep quality among individuals with FM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Analyses were based on data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin (studies 1056 and 1077). In a daily diary, patients reported the quality of their sleep on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 ("best possible sleep") to 10 ("worst possible sleep"). Test re-test reliability of the Sleep Quality Scale was evaluated by computing intraclass correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between baseline Sleep Quality scores and baseline pain diary and Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep scores. Responsiveness to treatment was evaluated by standardized effect sizes computed as the difference between least squares mean changes in Sleep Quality scores in the pregabalin and placebo groups divided by the standard deviation of Sleep Quality scores across all patients at baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Studies 1056 and 1077 included 748 and 745 patients, respectively. Most patients were female (study 1056: 94.4%; study 1077: 94.5%) and white (study 1056: 90.2%; study 1077: 91.0%). Mean ages were 48.8 years (study 1056) and 50.1 years (study 1077). Test re-test reliability coefficients of the Sleep Quality Scale were 0.91 and 0.90 in the 1056 and 1077 studies, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients between baseline Sleep Quality scores and baseline pain diary scores were 0.64 (p < 0.001) and 0.58 (p < 0.001) in the 1056 and 1077 studies, respectively. Correlations between the Sleep Quality Scale and the MOS Sleep subscales were statistically significant (p < 0.01), except for the MOS Snoring subscale. Across both studies, standardized effect sizes were generally moderate (0.46 to 0.52) for the 300 mg group and moderate (0.59) or moderate-to-large (0.70) for the 450 mg group. In study 1056, the effect size for the 600 mg group was moderate-to-large (0.73). In study 1077, the effect size for the 600 mg group was large (0.82).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results provide evidence of the reproducibility, convergent validity, and responsiveness to treatment of the Sleep Quality Scale and provide a foundation for its further use and evaluation in FM patients.</p

Relationships between changes in pain severity and other patient-reported outcomes: an analysis in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this study is to use the pain numeric rating scale (NRS) to evaluate associations between change in pain severity and changes in sleep, function, and mood assessed via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with posttraumatic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial evaluating pregabalin in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (N = 254). Regression models were used to determine associations between changes in pain (0-10 NRS) as the predictor and scores on the following PRO measures as the outcome: Pain Interference Index; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety and depression subscales; Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale 9-item Sleep Problems Index and Sleep Disturbance subscale; and Daily Sleep Interference Scale (0-10 NRS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Change in pain severity showed clear, direct relationships with changes in function, anxiety, depression, and sleep PROs, all of which were statistically significant (<it>P </it><.001). Results from subgroup analyses (≥30% or ≥50% pain responders, pregabalin or placebo treatment, age ≤ 51 years or > 51 years) tended to be consistent with results from the overall sample.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Overall, a direct relationship exists between pain and various aspects of patient's well-being and functioning, which can provide a quantitative assessment of how improvements in pain may be expected to relate to other patient outcomes. (<url>http://ClinicalTrials.gov</url> Identifier number NCT00292188; EudraCT #2005-003048-78).</p

Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Background: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. Objective: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naive) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). Methods: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, >/=75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. Results: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naive patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naive and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naive or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naive patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). Conclusions: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naive to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX)

Rapid reduction versus abrupt quitting for smokers who want to stop soon: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Background: The standard way to stop smoking is to stop abruptly on a quit day with no prior reduction in consumption of cigarettes. Many smokers feel that reduction is natural and if reduction programmes were offered, many more might take up treatment. Few trials of reduction versus abrupt cessation have been completed. Most are small, do not use pharmacotherapy, and do not meet the standards necessary to obtain a marketing authorisation for a pharmacotherapy.\ud Design/Methods: We will conduct a non-inferiority andomised trial of rapid reduction versus standard abrupt cessation among smokers who want to stop smoking. In the reduction arm,participants will be advised to reduce smoking consumption by half in the first week and to 25% of baseline in the second, leading up to a quit day at which participants will stop smoking completely.This will be assisted by nicotine patches and an acute form of nicotine replacement therapy. In the abrupt arm participants will use nicotine patches only, whilst smoking as normal, for two weeks prior to a quit day, at which they will also stop smoking completely. Smokers in either arm will have standard withdrawal orientated behavioural support programme with a combination of nicotine patches and acute nicotine replacement therapy post-cessation.\ud Outcomes/Follow-up: The primary outcome of interest will be prolonged abstinence from smoking, with secondary trial outcomes of point prevalence, urges to smoke and withdrawal\ud symptoms. Follow up will take place at 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 6 months post-quit day

Relationships of the Psychological Influence of Food and Barriers to Lifestyle Change to Weight and Utilization of Online Weight Loss Tools

Abstract: Introduction: The psychological influence of food (PFS) and perceived barriers to lifestyle change (PBLC) were considered as predictors of body mass index and website tool utilization (TU) in an online weight loss program. Materials and Methodology: An archival analysis of all (N = 1361) overweight/obese (BMI M = 31.6 + 6.24 kg/m 2), adult (M = 42.0 + 10.72 years) users (82.4 % female) of an evidence-based, multidisciplinary Internet weight loss program was performed. Predictor variables included: PFS and PBLC, age, and longest maintained weight loss in relation to 1) BMI 2

Investigating diagnosis, treatment, and burden of disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis in Central Eastern Europe and the United States: a real-world study.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated condition. We compared AS diagnosis, treatment, and burden in Central Eastern European countries (CEE), where this has been less researched, and the United States (US) from a real-world perspective. METHODS: Point-in-time survey of rheumatologists and their AS patients was conducted in the US (Apr-Oct 2018) and CEE (Aug-Nov 2019) via physician- and patient-completed record forms, including clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and generalized linear models. RESULTS: In total, 487 patients were recruited from 88 rheumatologists in the US and 922 patients from 126 rheumatologists in CEE. Time from onset of symptoms to final AS diagnosis was longer in CEE than the US (4.2 vs 2.7 years, p < 0.05). At diagnosis, a greater use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and injected steroids was reported in CEE vs the US (43.7% vs 27.6%, p < 0.05; 19.3% vs 8.7%, p < 0.05). 22.9% of US patients received a biologic DMARD at diagnosis vs 10% of CEE patients (p < 0.05). At current consultation, biologic DMARD use in CEE was lower vs the US (27.9% vs 71.0%, p < 0.05). CEE vs US patients had greater disease activity (mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 4.2 vs 3.1, p < 0.05) and worse quality of life (QoL; mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score 6.2 vs 8.4, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AS patients in CEE vs the US faced slower diagnosis and worse access to biologics, disease activity, and QoL. Whether early access to biologics can improve symptoms, QoL, and daily activities in AS patients in CEE remains to be seen. Key Points • The study provided evidence on the real-world approach to the diagnosis, treatment, and burden of axSpA (axial spondyloarthritis) in CEE compared with the US. • The study reported patients in CEE experienced longer delays in diagnosis and poorer access to biologics than in the US. • This may have resulted in higher disease activity, greater levels of pain, and poorer outcomes, as reported by patients with axSpA in CEE

How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infliximab is usually administered by two monthly intravenous (iv) infusions, therefore requiring visits to hospital. Adalimumab is administered by self subcutaneous (sc) injections every other week. Both of these anti-TNF drugs appear to be equally efficacious in the treatment of Crohn's Disease and therefore the decision regarding which drug to choose will depend to some extent on patient choice, which may be based on the mode of administration.</p> <p>The aims of this study were to compare preferences in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients for two currently available anti-TNF agents and the reasons for their choices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to IBD patients who had attended the Gastroenterology service (Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, Belfast, N. Ireland. UK) between January 2007 and December 2007. The patients were asked in a hypothetical situation if the following administering methods of anti-TNF drugs (intravenous or subcutaneous) were available, which drug route of administration would they choose.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and twenty-five patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were issued questionnaires, of these 78 questionnaires were returned (62 percent response). The mean age of respondent was 44 years. Of the total number of respondents, 33 patients (42 percent) preferred infliximab and 19 patients (24 percent) preferred adalimumab (p = 0.07). Twenty-six patients (33 percent) did not indicate a preference for either biological therapy and were not included in the final analysis. The commonest reason cited for those who chose infliximab (iv) was: <it>"I do not like the idea of self-injecting," </it>(67 percent). For those patients who preferred adalimumab (sc) the commonest reason cited was: <it>"I prefer the convenience of injecting at home," </it>(79 percent). Of those patients who had previously been treated with an anti-TNF therapy (n = 10, all infliximab) six patients stated that they would prefer infliximab if given the choice in the future (p = 0.75).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was a trend towards patient preference for infliximab (iv) treatment as opposed to adalimumab (sc) in patients with IBD. This difference may be due to the frequency of administration, mode of administration or differing 'times in the market-place', as infliximab had been approved for a longer period of time in Crohn's disease. Further studies are required in IBD patients to investigate whether patient choice will affect compliance, patient satisfaction and efficacy of treatment with anti-TNF therapies.</p