Changes in quantitative sensory testing and patient perspectives following spinal cord stimulation for persistent spinal pain syndrome:an observational study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can impact sensory, pain and tolerance thresholds in various ways, which can be accessed via quantitative sensory testing (QST). The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the subjective sensory responses using QST in patients following SCS therapy for PSPS and (2) to get a clinical impression of the results of SCS during an interview of these patients with PSPS and SCS during long term follow-up. METHODS: Forty patients with PSPS who received SCS treatment underwent QST via electrical and mechanical pressure stimuli. QST was performed at four different moments (1. pre-implantation SCS, 2. two weeks postoperatively, 3. three months after permanent SCS implantation and 4. six months after permanent SCS implantation. Patients' perspectives on pain, use of drugs and quality of life were assessed via semi-structured interviews during a follow-up between five and eleven years. RESULTS: We found statistical differences in the changes of sensory, pain and tolerance thresholds. A decrease in pain complaints and analgesics use were reported by the patients during follow-up. The quality of life in patients increased from three to eight (NRS 0 (worst QoL imaginable) -10 (best QoL imaginable) after receiving SCS. CONCLUSIONS: The increased thresholds on areas without pain or being covered by the SCS induced paresthesias may indicate that there are central changes contributing to these deviations in thresholds. The overall QoL in patients improved greatly after receiving SCS

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire in Dutch Healthy Volunteers

Contains fulltext : 221714.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Decision Making About Change of Medication for Comorbid Disease at the End of Life: An Integrative Review

Abstract The main goal of palliative care is to improve quality of life by treating symptoms in patients with lifethreatening illnesses. Most patients suffer from more than five severe comorbidities in the last 6 months of life. However, for patients receiving palliative care, interventions to prevent possible long-term complications of these comorbidities are no longer the primary aim of care. This paper aimed to review the literature regarding decision making about medication for comorbid disease at the end of life, defined as a life expectancy \3 months, and to formulate preliminary recommendations based on the existing literature. An integrative review approach was used. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CI-NAHL databases. Papers were included if they had been published in the English language between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2013, with an abstract. Additional studies were identified by searching bibliographies. Factors to consider when systematically reviewing medications are the goals of care, remaining life expectancy, treatment targets, time until benefit, number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and adverse drug reactions. Existing research focuses particularly on the use of certain drug classes during end-of-life care, including statins, antihypertensive agents, anticoagulants, antihyperglycaemic agents and antibiotics. Based on the results of this review, we made preliminary recommendations for these medication groups. Medication that does not benefit the patient in any way should be avoided. The aim of medication at the end of life should be symptom control. There is a need for prospective trials to give further insight into the decisionmaking process of medication management at the end of life

The added value of bedside examination and screening QST to improve neuropathic pain identification in patients with chronic pain

Background: The assessment of a neuropathic pain component (NePC) to establish the neurological criteria required to comply with the clinical description is based on history taking, clinical examination, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) and includes bedside examination (BSE). The objective of this study was to assess the potential association between the clinically diagnosed presence or absence of an NePC, BSE, and the Nijmegen-Aalborg screening QST (NASQ) paradigm in patients with chronic (>= 3 months) low back and leg pain or with neck shoulder arm pain or in patients with chronic pain due to suspected peripheral nerve damage. Methods: A total of 291 patients participated in the study. Pain (absence or presence of neuropathic pain) was assessed independently by two physicians and compared with BSE (measurements of touch [finger, brush], heat, cold, pricking [safety pin, von Frey hair], and vibration). The NASQ paradigm (pressure algometry, electrical pain thresholds, and conditioned pain modulation) was assessed in 58 patients to generate new insights. Results: BSE revealed a low association of differences between patients with either absent or present NePC: heat, cold, and pricking sensations with a von Frey hair were statistically significantly less common in patients with present NePC. NASQ did not reveal any differences between patients with and without an NePC. Conclusion: Currently, a standardized BSE appears to be more useful than the NASQ paradigm when distinguishing between patients with and without an NePC

Avoiding Catch-22:Validating the PainDETECT in a in a population of patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called "Catch-22 situation:" "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule". The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT-Dlv) in a large population of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT-Dlv validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients' pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians ("gold standard"). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison. RESULTS: In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician's classification, PainDETECT-Dlv had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%. CONCLUSION: Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT-Dlv is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT-Dlv as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030

Technical-efficiency analysis of end-of-life care in long-term care facilities within Europe : a cross-sectional study of deceased residents in 6 EU countries (PACE)

Background : An ageing population in the EU leads to a higher need of long-term institutional care at the end of life. At the same time, healthcare costs rise while resources remain limited. Consequently, an urgency to extend our knowledge on factors affecting efficiency of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) arises. This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In this study, technical efficiency reflects the LTCFs' ability to obtain maximal quality of life (QoL) and quality of dying (QoD) for residents from a given set of resource inputs (personnel and capacity). Methods : Cross-sectional data were collected by means of questionnaires on deceased residents identified by LTCFs over a three-month period. An output-oriented data-envelopment analysis (DEA) was performed, producing efficiency scores, incorporating personnel and capacity as input and QoL and QoD as output. Scenario analysis was conducted. Regression analysis was performed on explanatory (country, LTCF type, ownership, availability of palliative care and opioids) and case mix (disease severity) variables. Results : 133 LTCFs of only one type (onsite nurses and offsite GPs) were considered in order to reduce heterogeneity. Variation in LTCF efficiency was found across as well as within countries. This variation was not explained by country, ownership, availability of palliative care or opioids. However, in the 'hands-on care at the bedside' scenario, i.e. only taking into account nursing and care assistants as input, Poland (p = 0.00) and Finland (p = 0.04) seemed to be most efficient. Conclusions : Efficiency of LTCFs differed extensively across as well as within countries, indicating room for considerable efficiency improvement. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously, as comprehensive comparative EU-wide research is challenging as it is influenced by many factors

Decreased costs and retained QoL due to the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ intervention in LTCFs : cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The number of residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in need of palliative care is growing in the Western world. Therefore, it is foreseen that significantly higher percentages of budgets will be spent on palliative care. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of palliative care interventions in these settings are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention. PACE (Palliative Care for Older People) is a 1-year palliative care programme aiming at integrating general palliative care into day-to-day routines in LTCFs, throughout seven EU countries. METHODS: A cluster RCT was conducted. LTCFs were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care. LTCFs reported deaths of residents, about whom questionnaires were filled in retrospectively about resource use and quality of the last month of life. A health care perspective was adopted. Direct medical costs, QALYs based on the EQ-5D-5L and costs per quality increase measured with the QOD-LTC were outcome measures. RESULTS: Although outcomes on the EQ-5D-5L remained the same, a significant increase on the QOD-LTC (3.19 points, p value 0.00) and significant cost-savings were achieved in the intervention group (€983.28, p value 0.020). The cost reduction mainly resulted from decreased hospitalization-related costs (€919.51, p value 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Costs decreased and QoL was retained due to the PACE Steps to Success intervention. Significant cost savings and improvement in quality of end of life (care) as measured with the QOD-LTC were achieved. A clinically relevant difference of almost 3 nights shorter hospitalizations in favour of the intervention group was found. This indicates that timely palliative care in the LTCF setting can prevent lengthy hospitalizations while retaining QoL. In line with earlier findings, we conclude that integrating general palliative care into daily routine in LTCFs can be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14741671

Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain

Neuropathic pain is clinically described as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Dutch version of the DN4, in a cross-sectional multicentre design, as a screening tool for detecting a neuropathic pain component in a large consecutive, not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome, population of patients with chronic pain. Patients' pain was classified by two independent (pain-)physicians as the gold standard. The analysis was initially performed on the outcomes of those patients (n = 228 out of 291) in whom both physicians agreed in their pain classification. Compared to the gold standard the DN4 had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 76%. The DN4-symptoms (seven interview items) solely resulted in a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 67%. For the DN4-signs (three examination items) it was respectively 75% and 75%. In conclusion, because it seems that the DN4 helps to identify a neuropathic pain component in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain in a moderate way, a comprehensive (physical-) examination by the physician is still obligate

Side effects of analgesia may significantly reduce quality of life in symptomatic multiple myeloma: a cross-sectional prevalence study

Background Pain is a common symptom in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Many patients are dependent on analgesics and in particular opioids, but there is limited information on the impact of these drugs and their side effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Method In a cross-sectional study, semi-structured interviews were performed in 21 patients attending the hospital with symptomatic MM on pain medications. HRQoL was measured using items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. Results Patients were able to recall a median of two (range 0–4) analgesics. They spontaneously identified a median of two (range 1–5) side effects attributable to their analgesic medications. Patients’ assessment of HRQoL based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questions 29/30 was mean 48.3 (95 % CI; 38.7–57.9) out of 100. Patients’ assessment of their HRQoL in the hypothetical situation, in which they would not experience any side effects from analgesics, was significantly higher: 62.6 (53.5–71.7) (t test, p=0.001). Conclusion This study provides, for the first time, evidence that side effects of analgesics are common in symptomatic MM and may result in a statistically and clinically significant reduction of self-reported HRQoL

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