Pain, comorbidities, and clinical decision-making: conceptualization, development, and pilot testing of the Pain in Aging, Educational Assessment of Need instrument

IntroductionPain is highly prevalent in older adults and often contextualized by multiple clinical conditions (pain comorbidities). Pain comorbidities increase with age and this makes clinical decisions more complex. To address gaps in clinical training and geriatric pain management, we established the Pain in Aging—Educational Assessment of Need (PAEAN) project to appraise the impacts of medical and mental health conditions on clinical decision-making regarding older adults with pain. We here report development and pilot testing of the PAEAN survey instrument to assess clinician perspectives.MethodsMixed-methods approaches were used. Scoping review methodology was applied to appraise both research literature and selected Medicare-based data. A geographically and professionally diverse interprofessional advisory panel of experts in pain research, medical education, and geriatrics was formed to advise development of the list of pain comorbidities potentially impacting healthcare professional clinical decision-making. A survey instrument was developed, and pilot tested by diverse licensed healthcare practitioners from 2 institutions. Respondents were asked to rate agreement regarding clinical decision-making impact using a 5-point Likert scale. Items were scored for percent agreement.ResultsScoping reviews indicated that pain conditions and comorbidities are prevalent in older adults but not universally recognized. We found no research literature directly guiding pain educators in designing pain education modules that mirror older adult clinical complexity. The interprofessional advisory panel identified 26 common clinical conditions for inclusion in the pilot PAEAN instrument. Conditions fell into three main categories: “major medical”, i.e., cardio-vascular-pulmonary; metabolic; and neuropsychiatric/age-related. The instrument was pilot tested by surveying clinically active healthcare providers, e.g., physicians, nurse practitioners, who all responded completely. Median survey completion time was less than 3 min.ConclusionThis study, developing and pilot testing our “Pain in Aging—Educational Assessment of Need” (PAEAN) instrument, suggests that 1) many clinical conditions impact pain clinical decision-making, and 2) surveying healthcare practitioners about the impact of pain comorbidities on clinical decision-making for older adults is highly feasible. Given the challenges intrinsic to safe and effective clinical care of older adults with pain, and attendant risks, together with the paucity of existing relevant work, much more education and research are needed

Limited educational attainment and radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional analysis using data from the Johnston County (North Carolina) Osteoarthritis Project

Abstract Introduction Applying a cross-sectional analysis to a sample of 2,627 African-American and Caucasian adults aged ≥ 45 years from the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project, we studied the association between educational attainment and prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Methods Age- and race-adjusted associations between education and osteoarthritis outcomes were assessed by gender-stratified logistic regression models, with additional models adjusting for body mass index, knee injury, smoking, alcohol use, and occupational factors. Results In an analysis of all participants, low educational attainment (<12 years) was associated with higher prevalence of four knee osteoarthritis outcomes (unilateral and bilateral radiographic and symptomatic osteoarthritis). Women with low educational attainment had 50% higher odds of having radiographic knee osteoarthritis and 65% higher odds of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis compared with those with higher educational attainment (≥ 12 years), by using fully adjusted models. In the subset of postmenopausal women, these associations tended to be weaker but little affected by adjustment for hormone replacement therapy. Men with low educational attainment had 85% higher odds of having symptomatic knee osteoarthritis by using fully adjusted models, but the association with radiographic knee osteoarthritis was explained by age. Conclusions After adjustment for known risk factors, educational attainment, as an indicator of socioeconomic status, is associated with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in both men and women and with radiographic knee osteoarthritis in women

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Objective To develop an evidence‐based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). Methods We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. Results The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment‐naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin‐12/23 inhibitors (IL‐12/23i), IL‐17 inhibitors, CTLA4‐Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat‐to‐target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. Conclusion The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.</p

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Objective. To develop an evidence- based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). Methods. We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/compara-tor/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. Results. The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment- naive and those who con-tinue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin- 12/23 inhibitors (IL- 12/23i), IL- 17 inhibitors, CTLA4- Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofaciti nib). We also de-veloped recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat- to- target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indi-cating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. Conclusion. The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Objective: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). Methods: We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. Results: The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. Conclusion: The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.</p

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE:To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). METHODS:We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS:The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. CONCLUSION:The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Objective. To develop an evidence- based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). Methods. We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/compara-tor/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. Results. The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment- naive and those who con-tinue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin- 12/23 inhibitors (IL- 12/23i), IL- 17 inhibitors, CTLA4- Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofaciti nib). We also de-veloped recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat- to- target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indi-cating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. Conclusion. The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA