Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases

PURPOSE: Bone metastases secondary to solid tumors increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs), including the occurrence of pathological fracture (PF), radiation to bone (RB), surgery to bone (SB), and spinal cord compression (SCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SREs on patients' pain, analgesic use, and pain interference with daily functioning. METHODS: Data were combined from patients with solid tumors and bone metastases who received denosumab or zoledronic acid across three identically designed phase 3 trials (N = 5543). Pain severity (worst pain) and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and each monthly visit. Analgesic use was quantified using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use generally increased in the 6 months preceding an SRE and remained elevated, while they remained relatively consistent over time in patients without an SRE. Regression analysis indicated that all SRE types were significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use. PF, RB, and SCC were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference overall. Results were similar for pain interference with emotional well-being. All SRE types were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: SREs are associated with increased pain and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases. Treatments that prevent SREs may decrease pain and the need for opioid analgesics and reduce the impact of pain on daily functioning

Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases

PURPOSE: Bone metastases secondary to solid tumors increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs), including the occurrence of pathological fracture (PF), radiation to bone (RB), surgery to bone (SB), and spinal cord compression (SCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SREs on patients' pain, analgesic use, and pain interference with daily functioning. METHODS: Data were combined from patients with solid tumors and bone metastases who received denosumab or zoledronic acid across three identically designed phase 3 trials (N = 5543). Pain severity (worst pain) and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and each monthly visit. Analgesic use was quantified using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use generally increased in the 6 months preceding an SRE and remained elevated, while they remained relatively consistent over time in patients without an SRE. Regression analysis indicated that all SRE types were significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use. PF, RB, and SCC were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference overall. Results were similar for pain interference with emotional well-being. All SRE types were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: SREs are associated with increased pain and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases. Treatments that prevent SREs may decrease pain and the need for opioid analgesics and reduce the impact of pain on daily functioning

Experiences of living with chronic back pain: The physical disabilities

Purpose. Back-related functional limitations are largely assessed using lists of activities, each scored on a yes/no basis and the scores then summed. This provides little information about how chronic back pain (CBP) patients live with their condition. This study describes the consequences of living day-to-day with CBP and documents the 'insider' accounts of its impact on daily life. Method. Unstructured interviews, using the 'Framework' approach with topic guide, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Subjects were sampled for age, sex, ethnicity and occupation from new referrals with back pain to a rheumatology outpatient clinic. Eleven subjects (5 male, 6 female) were interviewed either in English (n = 9) or their preferred language (n = 2). Interviews were read in-depth twice to identify the topics. Data were extracted in phrases and sentences using thematic content analysis. Results. Four themes emerged: sleep/rest, mobility, independence and leisure. All subjects reported issues about sleep and rest, nine about mobility, seven about independence and six on leisure. Most descriptions concerned loss and limitation in daily life. Strategies for coping with sleep disruption and physical limitations were described. Conclusions. Subjects provided graphic 'in-depth' descriptions of experiences living with CBP every day; expressed regret at the loss of capabilities and distress at the functional consequences of those losses. Facilitating 'adjustment' to 'loss' may be more helpful than inferring the potential for a life free of pain as a result of therapeutic endeavours

Pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer: assessment and management with bone-targeting agents

Bone metastases in advanced cancer frequently cause painful complications that impair patient physical activity and negatively affect quality of life. Pain is often underreported and poorly managed in these patients. The most commonly used pain assessment instruments are visual analogue scales, a single-item measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory Questionnaire-Short Form. The World Health Organization analgesic ladder and the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm are used to evaluate analgesic use. Bone-targeting agents, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, prevent skeletal complications (i.e., radiation to bone, pathologic fractures, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression) and can also improve pain outcomes in patients with metastatic bone disease. We have reviewed pain outcomes and analgesic use and reported pain data from an integrated analysis of randomized controlled studies of denosumab versus the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZA) in patients with bone metastases from advanced solid tumors. Intravenous bisphosphonates improved pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Compared with ZA, denosumab further prevented pain worsening and delayed the need for treatment with strong opioids. In patients with no or mild pain at baseline, denosumab reduced the risk of increasing pain severity and delayed pain worsening along with the time to increased pain interference compared with ZA, suggesting that use of denosumab (with appropriate calcium and vitamin D supplementation) before patients develop bone pain may improve outcomes. These data also support the use of validated pain assessments to optimize treatment and reduce the burden of pain associated with metastatic bone disease

The brief pain inventory and its "pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item: Clinical trial endpoint considerations

Context: In 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft Guidance for Industry on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Measures in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. This draft guidance outlines psychometric aspects that should be considered when designing a PRO measure, including conceptual framework, content validity, construct validity, reliability, and the ability to detect clinically meaningful score changes. When finalized, it may provide a blueprint for evaluations of PRO measures that can be considered by sponsors and investigators involved in PRO research and drug registration trials. Objective: In this review we examine the short form of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and particularly the " pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item in the context of the FDA draft guidance, to assess its utility in clinical trials that include pain as a PRO endpoint. Results and Conclusions: After a systematic evaluation of the psychometric aspects of the BPI, we conclude that the BPI and its " pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item generically satisfy most key recommendations outlined in the draft guidance for assessing a pain-reduction treatment effect. Nonetheless, when the BPI is being considered for assessment of pain endpoints in a registration trial, sponsors and investigators should consult with the appropriate FDA division early during research design to discuss whether there is sufficient precedent to use the instrument in the population of interest or whether additional evaluations of measurement properties are advisable

Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients

Background: We aimed to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), which could be considered as clinically meaningful in brain cancer patients. Materials and methods: World Health Organisation performance status (PS) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors appropriate to related subscales to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in HRQoL change scores (range 0-100) in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) (small effect) was used to exclude anchor-based MCID estimates considered too small to inform interpretation. Results: Based on PS, our findings support the following integer estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration, respectively: physical (6, 9), role (14, 12), and cognitive functioning (8, 8); global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9), and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and for communication deficit were (9, 7). Estimates with asterisks were <0.2 SD and were excluded from our MCID range of 5-14. Conclusion: These estimates can help clinicians evaluate changes in HRQoL over time, assess the value of a health care intervention and can be useful in determining sample sizes in designing future clinical trial

The PAMINO-project: evaluating a primary care-based educational program to improve the quality of life of palliative patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The care of palliative patients challenges the health care system in both quantity and quality. Especially the role of primary care givers needs to be strengthened to provide them with the knowledge and the confidence of applying an appropriate end-of-life care to palliative patients. To improve health care services for palliative patients in primary care, interested physicians in and around Heidelberg, Germany, are enabled to participate in the community-based program 'Palliative Medical Initiative North Baden (PAMINO)' to improve their knowledge in dealing with palliative patients. The impact of this program on patients' health and quality of life remains to be evaluated.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The evaluation of PAMINO is a non-randomized, controlled study. Out of the group of primary care physicians who took part in the PAMINO program, a sample of 45 physicians and their palliative patients will be compared to a sample of palliative patients of 45 physicians who did not take part in the program. Every four weeks for 6 months or until death, patients, physicians, and the patients' family caregivers in both groups answer questions to therapy strategies, quality of life (QLQ-C15-PAL, POS), pain (VAS), and burden for family caregivers (BSFC). The inclusion of physicians and patients in the study starts in March 2007.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Although participating physicians value the increase in knowledge they receive from PAMINO, the effects on patients remain unclear. If the evaluation reveals a clear benefit for patients' quality of life, a larger-scale implementation of the program is considered. </p> <p><b>Trial registration</b>: The study was registered at ‘current controlled trials (CCT)’, registration number: ISRCTN78021852.</p