Quality of life among symptomatic compared to PSA-detected prostate cancer survivors - results from a UK wide patient-reported outcomes study

Background: Quality of life among prostate cancer survivors varies by socio-demographic factors and treatment type received; however, less in known about differences in functional outcomes by method of presentation. We investigate differences in reported urinary, bowel, sexual and hormone-related problems between symptomatic and PSA-detected prostate cancer survivors. Methods: A UK wide cross-sectional postal survey of prostate cancer survivors conducted 18-42 months post-diagnosis. Questions were included on presentation method and treatment. Functional outcome was determined using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Reported outcomes were compared for symptomatic and PSA-detected survivors using ANOVA and multivariable log-linear regression. Results: Thirty-five thousand eight hundred twenty-three men responded (response rate: 60.8%). Of these, 31.3% reported presenting via PSA test and 59.7% symptomatically. In multivariable analysis, symptomatic men reported more difficulty with urinary incontinence (Adjusted mean ratio (AMR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.97), urinary irritation (AMR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96), bowel function (AMR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.97-0.98), sexual function (AMR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92), and vitality/hormonal function (AMR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.96) than PSA-detected men. Differences were consistent across respondents of differing age, stage, Gleason score and treatment type. Conclusion: Prostate cancer survivors presenting symptomatically report poorer functional outcomes than PSA-detected survivors. Differences were not explained by socio-demographic or clinical factors. Clinicians should be aware that men presenting with symptoms are more likely to report functional difficulties after prostate cancer treatment and may need additional aftercare if these difficulties persist. Method of presentation should be considered as a covariate in patient-reported outcome studies of prostate cancer

A self-report comorbidity questionnaire for haemodialysis patients

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise statedBackground: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have multiple comorbid conditions. Obtaining comorbidity data from medical records is cumbersome. A self-report comorbidity questionnaire is a useful alternative. Our aim in this study was to examine the predictive value of a self-report comorbidity questionnaire in terms of survival in ESRD patients. Methods. We studied a prospective cross-sectional cohort of 282 haemodialysis (HD) patients in a single centre. Participants were administered the self-report questionnaire during an HD session. Information on their comorbidities was subsequently obtained from an examination of the patient's medical records. Levels of agreement between parameters derived from the questionnaire, and from the medical records, were examined. Participants were followed-up for 18 months to collect survival data. The influence on survival of comorbidity scores derived from the self-report data (the Composite Self-report Comorbidity Score [CSCS]) and from medical records data - the Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] were compared. Results: The level of agreement between the self-report items and those obtained from medical records was almost perfect with respect the presence of diabetes (Kappa score κ 0.97), substantial for heart disease and cancer (κ 0.62 and κ 0.72 respectively), moderate for liver disease (κ 0.51), only fair for lung disease, arthritis, cerebrovascular disease, and depression (κ 0.34, 0.35, 0.34 and 0.29 respectively). The CSCS was strongly predictive of survival in regression models (Nagelkerke R2value 0.202), with a predictive power similar to that of the CCI (Nagelkerke R2value 0.211). The influences of these two parameters were additive in the models - suggesting that these parameters make different contributions to the assessment of comorbidity. Conclusion: This self-report comorbidity questionnaire is a viable tool to collect comorbidity data and may have a role in the prediction of short-term survival in patients with end-stage renal disease on haemodialysis. Further work is required in this setting to refine the tool and define its role.Peer reviewe

Evaluation of objective and subjective indicators of death in a period of one year in a sample of prevalent patients under regular hemodialysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify objective and subjective indicators of death in prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients in a follow-up study of 12 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study included end-stage renal disease patients undergoing HD and analyzed demographic and laboratory data from the dialysis unit's records. Baseline data concerning socioeconomic status, comorbidity, quality of life level, coping style and depression were also assessed. For variables that differed in the comparison between survivors and non-survivors, Cox proportional hazards for death were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mortality rate was 13.0%. Non-survivors differed in age, comorbidity, inclusion on the transplant waiting list and physical functioning score. The hazard ratios of death were 8.958 (2.843-28.223; <it>p </it>< 0.001) for comorbidity, 3.992 (1.462-10.902; <it>p </it>= 0.007) for not being on the transplant waiting list, 1.038 (1.012-1.066; <it>p </it>= 0.005) for age, and 0.980 (0.964-0.996; <it>p </it>= 0.014) for physical functioning.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Comorbidity, not being on the transplant waiting list, age and physical functioning, which reflects physical status, must be seen as risk indicators of death among patients undergoing HD.</p

The influence of heart disease on characteristics, quality of life, use of health resources, and costs of COPD in primary care settings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate the influence of heart disease on clinical characteristics, quality of life, use of health resources, and costs of patients with COPD followed at primary care settings under common clinical practice conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Epidemiologic, observational, and descriptive study (EPIDEPOC study). Patients ≥ 40 years of age with stable COPD attending primary care settings were included. Demographic, clinical characteristics, quality of life (SF-12), seriousness of the disease, and treatment data were collected. Results were compared between patients with or without associated heart disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 9,390 patients with COPD were examined of whom 1,770 (18.8%) had heart disease and 78% were males. When comparing both patient groups, significant differences were found in the socio-demographic characteristics, health profile, comorbidities, and severity of the airway obstruction, which was greater in patients with heart disease. Differences were also found in both components of quality of life, physical and mental, with lower scores among those patients with heart disease. Higher frequency of primary care and pneumologist visits, emergency-room visits and number of hospital admissions were observed among patients with heart diseases. The annual total cost per patient was significantly higher in patients with heart disease; 2,937 ± 2,957 vs. 1,749 ± 2,120, p < 0.05. Variables that were showed to be independently associated to COPD in subjects with hearth conditions were age, being inactive, ex-smokers, moderate physical exercise, body mass index, concomitant blood hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, the SF-12 physical and mental components and per patient per year total cost.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients with COPD plus heart disease had greater disease severity and worse quality of life, used more healthcare resources and were associated with greater costs compared to COPD patients without known hearth disease.</p

BODE index versus GOLD classification for explaining anxious and depressive symptoms in patients with COPD – a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anxiety and depression are common and treatable risk factors for re-hospitalisation and death in patients with COPD. The degree of lung function impairment does not sufficiently explain anxiety and depression. The BODE index allows a functional classification of COPD beyond FEV₁. The aim of this cross-sectional study was (1) to test whether the BODE index is superior to the GOLD classification for explaining anxious and depressive symptoms; and (2) to assess which components of the BODE index are associated with these psychological aspects of COPD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>COPD was classified according to the GOLD stages based on FEV_1%predictedin 122 stable patients with COPD. An additional four stage classification was constructed based on the quartiles of the BODE index. The hospital anxiety and depression scale was used to assess anxious and depressive symptoms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall prevalence of anxious and depressive symptoms was 49% and 52%, respectively. The prevalence of anxious symptoms increased with increasing BODE stages but not with increasing GOLD stages. The prevalence of depressive symptoms increased with both increasing GOLD and BODE stages. The BODE index was superior to FEV_1%predictedfor explaining anxious and depressive symptoms. Anxious symptoms were explained by dyspnoea. Depressive symptoms were explained by both dyspnoea and reduced exercise capacity.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The BODE index is superior to the GOLD classification for explaining anxious and depressive symptoms in COPD patients. These psychological consequences of the disease may play a role in future classification systems of COPD.</p

Generalist care managers for the treatment of depressed medicaid patients in North Carolina: A pilot study

BACKGROUND: In most states, mental illness costs are an increasing share of Medicaid expenditures. Specialized depression care managers (CM) have consistently demonstrated improvements in patient outcomes relative to usual primary care (UC), but are costly and may not be fully utilized in smaller practices. A generalist care manager (GCM) could manage multiple chronic conditions and be more accepted and cost-effective than the specialist depression CM. We designed a pilot program to demonstrate the feasibility of training/deploying GCMs into primary care settings. METHODS: We randomized depressed adult Medicaid patients in 2 primary care practices in Western North Carolina to a GCM intervention or to UC. GCMs, already providing services in diabetes and asthma in both study arms, were further trained to provide depression services including self-management, decision support, use of information systems, and care management. The following data were analyzed: baseline, 3- and 6-month Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) scores; baseline and 6-month Short Form (SF) 12 scores; Medicaid claims data; questionnaire on patients' perceptions of treatment; GCM case notes; physician and office staff time study; and physician and office staff focus group discussions. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled, the majority with preexisting depression. Both groups improved; the GCM group did not demonstrate better clinical and functional outcomes than the UC group. Patients in the GCM group were more likely to have prescriptions of correct dosing by chart data. GCMs most often addressed comorbid conditions (36%), then social issues (27%) and appointment reminders (14%). GCMs recorded an average of 46 interactions per patient in the GCM arm. Focus group data demonstrated that physicians valued using GCMs. A time study documented that staff required no more time interacting with GCMs, whereas physicians spent an average of 4 minutes more per week. CONCLUSION: GCMs can be trained in care of depression and other chronic illnesses, are acceptable to practices and patients, and result in physicians prescribing guideline concordant care. GCMs appear to be a feasible intervention for community medical practices and to warrant a larger scale trial to test their appropriateness for Medicaid programs nationally