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Context: In 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft Guidance for Industry on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Measures in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. This draft guidance outlines psychometric aspects that should be considered when designing a PRO measure, including conceptual framework, content validity, construct validity,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Pain Inventory (BPI) and particularly the " pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item in the context of the FDA draft guidance, to assess its utility in clinical trials that include pain as a PRO endpoint.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BPI and its " pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item generically satisfy most key recommendations outlined in the draft guidance for assessing a pain-reduction treatment effect.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

A primary care, multi-disciplinary disease management program for opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain and a high burden of psychiatric comorbidity

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common problem that is often accompanied by psychiatric comorbidity and disability. The effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary pain management program was tested in a 3 month before and after trial. METHODS: Providers in an academic general medicine clinic referred patients with chronic non-cancer pain for participation in a program that combined the skills of internists, clinical pharmacists, and a psychiatrist. Patients were either receiving opioids or being considered for opioid therapy. The intervention consisted of structured clinical assessments, monthly follow-up, pain contracts, medication titration, and psychiatric consultation. Pain, mood, and function were assessed at baseline and 3 months using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale scale (CESD) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). Patients were monitored for substance misuse. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Mean age was 51 years, 60% were male, 78% were Caucasian, and 93% were receiving opioids. Baseline average pain was 6.5 on an 11 point scale. The average CESD score was 24.0, and the mean PDI score was 47.0. Sixty-three patients (73%) completed 3 month follow-up. Fifteen withdrew from the program after identification of substance misuse. Among those completing 3 month follow-up, the average pain score improved to 5.5 (p = 0.003). The mean PDI score improved to 39.3 (p < 0.001). Mean CESD score was reduced to 18.0 (p < 0.001), and the proportion of depressed patients fell from 79% to 54% (p = 0.003). Substance misuse was identified in 27 patients (32%). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care disease management program improved pain, depression, and disability scores over three months in a cohort of opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Substance misuse and depression were common, and many patients who had substance misuse identified left the program when they were no longer prescribed opioids. Effective care of patients with chronic pain should include rigorous assessment and treatment of these comorbid disorders and intensive efforts to insure follow up

Examining the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on cognition and the impact of any cognitive impairment on quality of life in colorectal cancer patients: study protocol

Background: Research suggests that chemotherapy can cause deficits in both patients’ objectively measured and self-reported cognitive abilities which can in turn affect their quality of life (QoL). The majority of research studies have used post-treatment retrospective designs or have not included a control group in prospective cohorts. This has limited the conclusions that can be drawn from the results. There have also been a disproportionate number of studies focussed on women with breast cancer, which has limited the generalisability of the results to other cancer populations. Aim: This study aims to identify the extent and impact of chemotherapy-induced cognitive decline in colorectal cancer patients. Possible associations with poorer QoL will also be explored. Design: This will be a longitudinal controlled cohort study. Questionnaires measuring subjective cognitive functioning, QoL, fatigue and mood, and neuropsychological assessments of objective cognitive function will be collected pre-, mid- and post- chemotherapy treatment from a consecutive sample of 78 colorectal cancer patients from five London NHS Trusts. A further 78 colorectal cancer surgery only patients will be assessed at equivalent time points; this will allow the researchers to compare the results of patients undergoing surgery, but not chemotherapy against those receiving both treatments. Pre- and post-chemotherapy difference scores will be calculated to detect subtle changes in cognitive function as measured by the objective neuropsychological assessments and the self-reported questionnaires. A standardised zscore will be computed for every patient on each neuropsychological test, and for each test at each time point. The post-chemotherapy score will then be subtracted from the pre-chemotherapy score to produce a relative difference score for each patient. ANCOVA will be used to compare mean difference z-scores between the chemotherapy and surgery-only groups while controlling for the effects of gender, age, depression, anxiety, fatigue and education. Discussion: The result from this study will indicate whether a decline in cognitive functioning can be attributed to chemotherapy or to disease, surgical or some other confounding factor. Identification of risk factors for cognitive deficits may be used to inform targeted interventions, in order to improve QoL and help patients’ cope

Factor analysis of the Zung self-rating depression scale in a large sample of patients with major depressive disorder in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to examine the symptomatic dimensions of depression in a large sample of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the primary care (PC) setting by means of a factor analysis of the Zung self-rating depression scale (ZSDS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A factor analysis was performed, based on the polychoric correlations matrix, between ZSDS items using promax oblique rotation in 1049 PC patients with a diagnosis of MDD (DSM-IV).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A clinical interpretable four-factor solution consisting of a <it>core depressive </it>factor (I); a <it>cognitive </it>factor (II); an <it>anxiety </it>factor (III) and a <it>somatic </it>factor (IV) was extracted. These factors accounted for 36.9% of the variance on the ZSDS. The 4-factor structure was validated and high coefficients of congruence were obtained (0.98, 0.95, 0.92 and 0.87 for factors I, II, III and IV, respectively). The model seemed to fit the data well with fit indexes within recommended ranges (GFI = 0.9330, AGFI = 0.9112 and RMR = 0.0843).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that depressive symptoms in patients with MDD in the PC setting cluster into four dimensions: <it>core depressive, cognitive, anxiety </it>and <it>somatic</it>, by means of a factor analysis of the ZSDS. Further research is needed to identify possible diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic implications of the different depressive symptomatic profiles.</p

Screening for psychological distress in patients with lung cancer: results of a clinical audit evaluating the use of the patient Distress Thermometer

Patients with lung cancer frequently suffer psychological distress and guidelines in the United Kingdom recommend screening of all cancer patients for this problem. The audit investigated use of the Distress Thermometer in terms of staff adherence to locally developed guidelines, patient willingness to use the tool, its impact on referral rates to clinical psychology services and concordance between the tool and the clinical assessment. Use of the Distress Thermometer was audited over a 3-month period in one lung cancer outpatient clinic. Referrals to clinical psychology services in response to clearly delineated referral indicators were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes were compared with practitioner assessment of need during clinical consultations to see whether the tool was measuring distress effectively. Thirty three of 34 patients used the Distress Thermometer during the audit period. Ten reported distress levels above 4 in the emotional or family problems domains. On ten occasions, the clinical interview identified problems not elicited by the Distress Thermometer. Guidelines were adhered to by staff, and patients were offered information about local support services and referral to clinical psychology services where indicated. Whilst all patients were happy to receive written information about further sources of support, none wanted to be referred to psychological services at that time. The Distress Thermometer is acceptable to patients with lung cancer in outpatient settings but it did not increase referrals for psychological support. Staff found it to be a useful tool in opening up communication about patient issues although it should not replace a comprehensive clinical interview

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and a single screening question as screening tools for depressive disorder in Dutch advanced cancer patients

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: Depression is highly prevalent in advanced cancer patients, but the diagnosis of depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer is difficult. Screening instruments could facilitate diagnosing depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and a single screening question as screening tools for depressive disorder in advanced cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic disease, visiting the outpatient palliative care department, were asked to fill out a self-questionnaire containing the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and a single screening question "Are you feeling depressed?" The mood section of the PRIME-MD was used as a gold standard. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with advanced metastatic disease were eligible to be included in the study. Complete data were obtained from 46 patients. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics analysis of the BDI-II was 0.82. The optimal cut-off point of the BDI-II was 16 with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 69%. The single screening question showed a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The BDI-II seems an adequate screening tool for a depressive disorder in advanced cancer patients. The sensitivity of a single screening question is poor.1 februari 201

The usefulness and feasibility of a screening instrument to identify psychosocial problems in patients receiving curative radiotherapy: a process evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Psychosocial problems in cancer patients are often unrecognized and untreated due to the low awareness of the existence of these problems or pressures of time. The awareness of the need to identify psychosocial problems in cancer patients is growing and has affected the development of screening instruments. This study explored the usefulness and feasibility of using a screening instrument (SIPP: Screening Inventory of Psychosocial Problems) to identify psychosocial problems in cancer patients receiving curative radiotherapy treatment (RT).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was conducted in a radiation oncology department in the Netherlands. Several methods were used to document the usefulness and feasibility of the SIPP. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires completed by seven radiotherapists and 268 cancer patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regarding the screening procedure 33 patients were offered to consult a psychosocial care provider (e.g. social worker, psychologist) during the first consultation with their radiotherapist. Of these patients, 31 patients suffered from at least sub-clinical symptoms and two patients hardly suffered from any symptoms. Patients' acceptance rate 63.6% (21/33) was high. Patients were positive about the content of the SIPP (mean scores vary from 8.00 to 8.88, out of a range between 0 and 10) and about the importance of discussing items of the SIPP with their radiotherapist (mean score = 7.42). Radiotherapists' perspectives about the contribution of the SIPP to discuss the different psychosocial problems were mixed (mean scores varied from 3.17 to 4.67). Patients were more positive about discussing items of the SIPP if the radiotherapists had positive attitudes towards screening and discussing psychosocial problems.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The screening procedure appeared to be feasible in a radiotherapy department. In general, patients' perspectives were at least moderate. Radiotherapists considered the usefulness and feasibility of the SIPP generally to be lower, but their evaluations were mixed. A positive attitude to using screening instruments like the SIPP needs to be encouraged among radiotherapists, as this may not only improve the usefulness of a screening instrument, but also patients' satisfaction with care.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00859768">NCT00859768</a></p

Screening for Emotional Distress in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Assessment Instruments

Screening for emotional distress is becoming increasingly common in cancer care. This systematic review examines the psychometric properties of the existing tools used to screen patients for emotional distress, with the goal of encouraging screening programs to use standardized tools that have strong psychometrics. Systematic searches of MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases for English-language studies in cancer patients were performed using a uniform set of key words (eg, depression, anxiety, screening, validation, and scale), and the retrieved studies were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Evaluation criteria included the number of validation studies, the number of participants, generalizability, reliability, the quality of the criterion measure, sensitivity, and specificity. The literature search yielded 106 validation studies that described a total of 33 screening measures. Many generic and cancer-specific scales satisfied a fairly high threshold of quality in terms of their psychometric properties and generalizability. Among the ultrashort measures (ie, those containing one to four items), the Combined Depression Questions performed best in patients receiving palliative care. Among the short measures (ie, those containing five to 20 items), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. Among the long measures (ie, those containing 21–50 items), the Beck Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionaire–28 met all evaluation criteria. The PsychoSocial Screen for Cancer, the Questionnaire on Stress in Cancer Patients–Revised, and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist are long measures that can also be recommended for routine screening. In addition, other measures may be considered for specific indications or disease types. Some measures, particularly newly developed cancer-specific scales, require further validation against structured clinical interviews (the criterion standard for validation measures) before they can be recommended

Risk factors for alcohol and other drug use by healthcare professionals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Given the increasingly stressful environment due to manpower shortages in the healthcare system in general, substance induced impairment among some healthcare professions is anticipated to grow. Though recent studies suggest that the prevalence of substance abuse is no higher in healthcare professionals (HPs) than the general population, given the responsibility to the public, any impairment could place the public at increased risk for errors. Few studies have ever reported predictors or risk factors for alcohol and other drug use (AOD) across a sample of HPs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study used a cross-sectional, descriptive self-report survey in a small northeastern state. A 7-page survey was mailed to a stratified random sample of 697 dentists, nurses, pharmacists and physicians registered in a northeastern state. The main outcome measures were demographic characteristics, lifetime, past year and past month prevalence of AOD use, the frequency of use, drug related dysfunctions, drug misuse and abuse potential. Six contacts during the summer of 2002 resulted in a 68.7% response rate (479/697).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Risk factors contributing to any reported past year AOD use, as well as significant (defined as the amount of AOD use by the top 25% of respondents) past year AOD use by HPs were examined using logistic regression. Risk factors of any self-reported past year AOD use included moderate or more frequency of alcohol use, being in situations when offered AODs, feeling immune to the addictive effects of drugs (pharmaceutical invincibility) and socializing with substance abusers. Risk factors of significant past year AOD use were HPs with younger licensees, a moderate pattern of alcohol use and not socializing with substance abusers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>National and state organizations need to develop policies that focus on prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of alcohol and other drug-using healthcare professionals. The results of this study may help to delineate the characteristics of HPs abusing drugs, leading to the development of more effective policies designed to protect the public, and move toward more tailored and effective intervention strategies for HPs.</p