Using opioid therapy for pain in clinically challenging situations. Questions for clinicians

Healthcare professionals and organizations increasingly face the conundrum of treating patients with active substance use disorder, a history of personal or familial substance use disorder, or those at elevated risk for substance abuse. Such patients need compassionate care when facing painful conditions; in fact, denying them pain control makes it likely that they will seek out ways to self-medicate with illicit drugs. Yet it remains unclear how to safely and effectively treat patients in these challenging situations. The authors have formulated ten questions to address in order to provide adequate analgesia for such patients. These questions demand a highly individualized approach to analgesia. These ten questions involve understanding the painful condition (presumed trajectory, duration, type of pain), using validated metrics such as risk assessment tools, guidelines, protocols, and safeguards within the system, selection of the optimal analgesic product(s) or combination therapy, and never starting opioid therapy without clear treatment objectives and a definitive exit plan. It is tempting but inaccurate to label these individuals as “inappropriate patients,” rather they are high-risk individuals in very challenging clinical situations. The challenge is that both options — being in pain or being treated with opioids to control pain — expose the patient to a risk of rekindling an addiction. The question is how do we, as clinicians, adequately respond to these very perplexing clinical challenges

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Context: In 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft Guidance for Industry on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Measures in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. This draft guidance outlines psychometric aspects that should be considered when designing a PRO measure, including conceptual framework, content validity, construct validity,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 pilot, prospective evaluation of a novel alternative for maintenance therapy of breast cancer-associated lymphedema [ISRCTN76522412]

BACKGROUND: Prospective investigations of complete decongestive lymphatic physiotherapy (CDPT), including manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), have validated the efficacy of these interventions for the initial reduction of edema and long-term maintenance of limb volume in lymphedema. However, CDPT demands substantial time and effort from patients to maintain these benefits; the treatments are not always well-accepted, and patients may suffer from a deterioration in quality-of-life or a time-dependent loss of initial treatment benefits. A new device designed for home use by the patient, the Flexitouch™, has been developed to mechanically simulate MLD. We have undertaken a prospective, randomized, crossover study of the efficacy of the Flexitouch™, when compared to massage, in the self-administered maintenance therapy of lymphedema. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover study of maintenance therapy was performed in 10 patients with unilateral breast cancer-associated lymphedema of the arm. Each observation phase included self-administered treatment with the Flexitouch™ or massage, 1 hour daily for 14 days, respectively, followed by crossover to the alternate treatment phase. Each treatment phase was preceded by a 1 week treatment washout, with use of garment only. The sequence of treatment was randomly assigned. The potential impact of treatment modality on quality of life was assessed with serial administration of the SF-36. RESULTS: Statistical analysis disclosed that the order of treatment had no outcome influence, permitting 10 comparisons within each treatment group. Post-treatment arm volume reduced significantly after the Flexitouch™, but not after self-administered massage. The patients' mean weight decreased significantly with Flexitouch™ use, but not with massage. The Flexitouch™ device was apparently well-tolerated and accepted by patients. Serial SF-36 administration showed no deterioration in physical or psychosocial scores compared to baseline measurements; there were no statistical differences in scores when the two treatment modalities were compared. CONCLUSION: This short-term prospective evaluation of the Flexitouch™ suggests that the device may provide better maintenance edema control than self-adiminstered massage in breast cancer-associated lymphedema. The apparent ease of use and reliability of response to the device suggest that further broad-scale testing is warranted

Pancreatic cancer and depression: myth and truth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Various studies reported remarkable high incidence rates of depression in cancer patients compared with the general population. Pancreatic cancer is still one of the malignancies with the worst prognosis and therefore it seems quite logical that it is one of the malignancies with the highest incidence rates of major depression.</p> <p>However, what about the scientific background of this relationship? Is depression in patients suffering from pancreatic cancer just due to the confrontation with a life threatening disease and its somatic symptoms or is depression in this particular group of patients a feature of pancreatic cancer per se?</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Several studies provide evidence of depression to precede the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and some studies even blame it for its detrimental influence on survival. The immense impact of emotional distress on quality of life of cancer patients enhances the need for its early diagnosis and adequate treatment. Knowledge about underlying pathophysiological mechanisms is required to provide the optimal therapy.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>A review of the literature on this issue should reveal which are the facts and what is myth.</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

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 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