The BraveNet prospective observational study on integrative medicine treatment approaches for pain

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects nearly 116 million American adults at an estimated cost of up to $635 billion annually and is the No. 1 condition for which patients seek care at integrative medicine clinics. In our Study on Integrative Medicine Treatment Approaches for Pain (SIMTAP), we observed the impact of an integrative approach on chronic pain and a number of other related patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: Our prospective, non-randomized, open-label observational evaluation was conducted over six months, at nine clinical sites. Participants received a non-standardized, personalized, multimodal approach to chronic pain. Validated instruments for pain (severity and interference levels), quality of life, mood, stress, sleep, fatigue, sense of control, overall well-being, and work productivity were completed at baseline and at six, 12, and 24 weeks. Blood was collected at baseline and week 12 for analysis of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Repeated-measures analysis was performed on data to assess change from baseline at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Of 409 participants initially enrolled, 252 completed all follow-up visits during the 6 month evaluation. Participants were predominantly white (81%) and female (73%), with a mean age of 49.1 years (15.44) and an average of 8.0 (9.26) years of chronic pain. At baseline, 52% of patients reported symptoms consistent with depression. At 24 weeks, significantly decreased pain severity (−23%) and interference (−28%) were seen. Significant improvements in mood, stress, quality of life, fatigue, sleep and well-being were also observed. Mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels increased from 33.4 (17.05) ng/mL at baseline to 39.6 (16.68) ng/mL at week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants completing an integrative medicine program for chronic pain, significant improvements were seen in pain as well as other relevant patient-reported outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0118634

Surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: characterising and quantifying the problem, identifying effective treatments, and assessing the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care

Background: Most surgical incisions heal by primary intention (i.e. wound edges are apposed with sutures, clips or glue); however some heal by secondary intention (i.e. the wound is left open and heals by formation of granulation tissue). There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding the epidemiology, management, and impact on patients’ quality of life of these surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI), resulting in uncertainty regarding effective treatments and difficulty in planning care and research. Objectives: To derive a better understanding of the nature, extent, costs, impact and outcomes of SWHSI, effective treatments and the value and nature of further research. Design: Cross-sectional survey; inception cohort; cost-effectiveness and value of implementation analyses; qualitative interviews; and a pilot, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Setting: Acute and community care settings in Leeds and Hull, Yorkshire, UK. Participants: Adults with (or for qualitative interviews, patients or practitioners with previous experience of) a SWHSI. Inclusion criteria varied between the individual Workstreams. Interventions: The pilot, feasibility RCT compared negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) – a device applying a controlled vacuum to a wound via a dressing - with Usual Care (no NPWT). Results: Survey data estimated that treated SWHSI have a point prevalence of 4.1 per 10,000 population (95% CI: 3.5 to 4.7). SWHSI most frequently occurred following colorectal surgery (n=80, 42.8% - Cross-sectional survey, n=136, 39.7% - Inception cohort), and were often planned before surgery (n=89, 47.6% - Survey, n=236, 60.1% - Cohort). Wound care was frequently delivered in community settings (n=109, 58.3%) and most patients (n=184, 98.4%) received active wound treatment. Cohort data identified hydrofibre dressings (n=259, 65.9%) as the most common treatment, although 29.3% (n=115) participants used NPWT at some time during the study. SWHSI healing occurred in 81.4% (n=320) of participants at a median of 86 days (95% CI: 75 to 103). Baseline wound area (p=<0.01), surgical wound contamination (determined during surgery) (p=0.04) and wound infection at any time (p=<0.01) (i.e. at baseline or post-operatively) were found to be predictors of prolonged healing. Econometric models, using observational, cohort study data, identified that with little uncertainty, that NPWT treatment is more costly and less effective than standard dressing treatment for the healing of open surgical wounds: Model A (ordinary least squares with imputation): Effectiveness: 73 days longer than those who did not receive NPWT (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 33.8 to 112.8); Cost Effectiveness (Associated incremental quality adjusted life years): -0.012 (SE 0.005) (Observables); -0.008 (SE 0.011) (Unobservables) , Model B (Two Stage Model – Logistic and linear regression): Effectiveness: 46 days longer the those who did not receive NPWT (95% CrI: 19.6 to 72.5); Cost Effectiveness (Associated incremental quality adjusted life years): -0.007 (Observables) and -0.027 (Unobservables) (SE 0.017). Patient interviews (n=20) identified initial reactions to SWHSI of shock and disbelief. Impaired quality of life characterised the long healing process, with particular impact on daily living for patients with families or in paid employment. Patients were willing to try any treatment promising wound healing. Health professionals (n=12) had variable knowledge of SWHSI treatments, and frequently favoured NPWT despite the lack of robust evidence, The pilot, feasibility RCT screened 248 patients for eligibility and subsequently recruited and randomised 40 participants to receive NPWT or Usual Care (no NPWT). Data indicated that it was feasible to complete a full RCT to provide definitive evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT as a treatment for SWHSI. Key elements and recommendations for a larger RCT were identified. Limitations: This research programme was conducted in a single geographical area (Yorkshire and the Humber, UK) and local guidelines and practices may have affected treatment availability and so may not represent UK wide treatment choices. A wide range of wound types were included, however, some wound types may be underrepresented meaning this research may not represent the overall SWHSI population. The lack of RCT data on the relative effects of NPWT in SWHSI resulted in much of the economic modelling being based on observational data. Observational data, even with adjustment, does not negate the potential for unresolved confounding to affect the results. This may reduce confidence in the conclusions drawn and may lead to calls for definitive evidence from an RCT. Conclusions: This research has provided new information regarding the nature, extent, costs, impacts and outcomes of SWHSI, treatment effectiveness and the value and nature of future research; addressing previous uncertainties regarding the problem of SWHSI. Aspects of our research indicate that NPWT is more costly and less effective than standard dressing for the healing of open surgical wounds. However, because this conclusion is based solely on observational data it may be affected by unresolved confounding. Should a future RCT be considered necessary, its design should reflect careful consideration of the findings of this programme of research

Supporting cancer survivors’ participation in peer review: perspectives from NCI’s CARRA program

PURPOSE: Including cancer survivors in the peer review of cancer-related research is increasingly valued as a strategy for bringing the “patient perspective” to discussions of research merit and human subjects protection. Because integrating lay stakeholders into peer review poses challenges, this qualitative study explored the perspectives of experienced patient advocates to identify programmatic supports for survivors’ participation. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 19 cancer survivors and 6 administrators involved in NCI’s Consumer Advocates in Research and Related Activities program. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed via thematic content analysis. Participants were highly educated and included survivors of breast, prostate, and blood-related cancers. RESULTS: Interviewees emphasized the importance of adequately preparing survivors to serve as advocates. Given the intellectual challenge of peer review, interviewees noted the need for intensive and ongoing training on how to review proposals, and they identified mock reviews and peer mentoring as effective strategies to complement didactic instruction. Participants also stressed the need to address social challenges inherent in advocate-scientist encounters. In addition to training for both advocates and scientists, participants reported that opportunities for informal social interaction were important for facilitating collaboration. Finally, participants recommended structuring advocates’ role so as to give them a voice via equal voting privileges and protected opportunities to speak. CONCLUSIONS: Programs that seek to include cancer survivors in peer review can prepare advocates’ for the intellectual and social challenges of working with scientists through careful attention to training, networking, and programmatic design. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors have been leaders in developing a role for patient advocates in the peer review of research. As the concept of patient-centered outcomes continues to gain currency, lessons learned from early programs for patient inclusion in peer review can help to inform future efforts aimed at giving patients a voice in shaping agendas for health-related research

Patient Perspectives on Tobacco Use Treatment in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions increase quit rates, yet most smokers do not use them. Every primary care visit offers the potential to discuss such options, but communication can be tricky for patients and provider alike. We explored smokers’ personal interactions with health care providers to better understand what it is like to be a smoker in an increasingly smoke-free era and the resources needed to support quit attempts and to better define important patient-centered outcomes. METHODS: Three 90-minute focus groups, involving 33 patients from 3 primary care clinics, were conducted. Participants were current or recent (having quit within 6 months) smokers. Topics included tobacco use, quit attempts, and interactions with providers, followed by more pointed questions exploring actions patients want from providers and outcome measures that would be meaningful to patients. RESULTS: Four themes were identified through inductive coding techniques: 1) the experience of being a tobacco user (inconvenience, shame, isolation, risks, and benefits), 2) the medical encounter (expectations of providers, trust and respect, and positive, targeted messaging), 3) high-value actions (consistent dialogue, the addiction model, point-of-care nicotine patches, educational materials, carbon monoxide monitoring, and infrastructure), and 4) patient-centered outcomes. CONCLUSION: Engaged patient-centered smoking cessation counseling requires seeking the patient voice early in the process. Participants desired honest, consistent, and pro-active discussions and actions. Participants also suggested creative patient-centered outcome measures to consider in future research