Patterns of analgesic use, pain and self-efficacy: a cross-sectional study of patients attending a hospital rheumatology clinic

Background: Many people attending rheumatology clinics use analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for persistent musculoskeletal pain. Guidelines for pain management recommend regular and pre-emptive use of analgesics to reduce the impact of pain. Clinical experience indicates that analgesics are often not used in this way. Studies exploring use of analgesics in arthritis have historically measured adherence to such medication. Here we examine patterns of analgesic use and their relationships to pain, self-efficacy and demographic factors. Methods: Consecutive patients were approached in a hospital rheumatology out-patient clinic. Pattern of analgesic use was assessed by response to statements such as 'I always take my tablets every day.' Pain and self-efficacy (SE) were measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES). Influence of factors on pain level and regularity of analgesic use were investigated using linear regression. Differences in pain between those agreeing and disagreeing with statements regarding analgesic use were assessed using t-tests. Results: 218 patients (85% of attendees) completed the study. Six (2.8%) patients reported no current pain, 26 (12.3%) slight, 100 (47.4%) moderate, 62 (29.4%) severe and 17 (8.1%) extreme pain. In multiple linear regression self efficacy and regularity of analgesic use were significant (p < 0.01) with lower self efficacy and more regular use of analgesics associated with more pain. Low SE was associated with greater pain: 40 (41.7%) people with low SE reported severe pain versus 22 (18.3%) people with high SE, p < 0.001. Patients in greater pain were significantly more likely to take analgesics regularly; 13 (77%) of those in extreme pain reported always taking their analgesics every day, versus 9 (35%) in slight pain. Many patients, including 46% of those in severe pain, adjusted analgesic use to current pain level. In simple linear regression, pain was the only variable significantly associated with regularity of analgesic use: higher levels of pain corresponded to more regular analgesic use (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Our study confirms that there is a strong inverse relationship between self-efficacy and pain severity. Analgesics are often used irregularly by people with arthritis, including some reporting severe pain

“Clinical features of women with gout arthritis.” A systematic review

Clinically, gout is generally considered as a preferential male disease. However, it definitely does not occur exclusively in males. Our aim was to assess differences in the clinical features of gout arthritis between female and male patients. Five electronic databases were searched to identify relevant original studies published between 1977 and 2007. The included studies had to focus on adult patients with primary gout arthritis and on sex differences in clinical features. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies. Out of 355 articles, 14 were selected. Nine fulfilled the quality and score criteria. We identified the following sex differences in the clinical features of gout in women compared to men: the onset of gout occurs at a higher age, more comorbidity with hypertension or renal insufficiency, more often use of diuretics, less likely to drink alcohol, less often podagra but more often involvement of other joints, less frequent recurrent attacks. We found interesting sex differences regarding the clinical features of patients with gout arthritis. To diagnose gout in women, knowledge of these differences is essential, and more research is needed to understand and explain the differences , especially in the general population

Hardness, function, emotional well-being, satisfaction and the overall sexual experience in men using 100-mg fixed-dose or flexible-dose sildenafil citrate

The prescribing information for sildenafil citrate (VIAGRA, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) recommends flexible dosing (50 mg initially, adjusted to 100 or 25 mg based on effectiveness and tolerability) in most men with erectile dysfunction (ED). In many men, however, 100 mg may be the most appropriate initial dose because it would reduce the need for titration and could prevent discouragement and treatment abandonment should 50 mg be insufficient. Results of two previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled sildenafil trials of similar design except for a fixed-dose vs flexible-dose regimen were analyzed. Relative to the flexible-dose, approximately one-third more men were satisfied with an initial and fixed dose of 100 mg. In addition, tolerability was similar, and improvements from baseline in outcomes on validated, ED-specific, patient-reported questionnaires were either similar (erectile function and the percentage of completely hard and fully rigid erections) or greater (emotional well-being and the overall sexual experience). The similarity in outcomes is not surprising given that almost 90% of the men in the flexible-dose trial titrated to 100 mg after 2 weeks. These data suggest prescription of an initial dose of 100 mg for men with ED, except in those for whom it is inappropriate

Use of warfarin in long-term care: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of warfarin in older patients requires special consideration because of concerns with comorbidities, interacting medications, and the risk of bleeding. Several studies have suggested that warfarin may be underused or inconsistently prescribed in long-term care (LTC); no published systematic review has evaluated warfarin use for stroke prevention in this setting. This review was conducted to summarize the body of published original research regarding the use of warfarin in the LTC population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 1985 to August 2010 to identify studies that reported warfarin use in LTC. Studies were grouped by (1) rates of warfarin use and prescribing patterns, (2) association of resident and institutional characteristics with warfarin prescribing, (3) prescriber attitudes and concerns about warfarin use, (4) warfarin management and monitoring, and (5) warfarin-related adverse events. Summaries of study findings and quality assessments of each study were developed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was the most common indication for warfarin use in LTC and use of warfarin for stroke survivors was common. Rates of warfarin use in AF were low in 5 studies, ranging from 17% to 57%. These usage rates were low even among residents with high stroke risk and low bleeding risk. Scored bleeding risk had no apparent association with warfarin use in AF. In physician surveys, factors associated with not prescribing warfarin included risk of falls, dementia, short life expectancy, and history of bleeding. International normalized ratio was in the target range approximately half of the time. The combined overall rate of warfarin-related adverse events and potential events was 25.5 per 100 resident months on warfarin therapy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Among residents with AF, use of warfarin and maintenance of INR levels to prevent stroke appear to be suboptimal. Among prescribers, perceived challenges associated with warfarin therapy often outweigh its benefits. Further research is needed to explicitly consider the appropriate balancing of risks and benefits in this frail patient population.</p

Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Performance of specialty referrals is coming under scrutiny, but a lack of identifiable measures impedes measurement efforts. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify published measures that assess specialty referrals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a systematic review of the literature for measures of specialty referral. Searches were made of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases, references of eligible papers, and citations provided by content experts. Measures were eligible if they were published from January 1973 to June 2009, reported on validity and/or reliability of the measure, and were applicable to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development healthcare systems. We classified measures according to a conceptual framework, which underwent content validation with an expert panel.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 2,964 potentially eligible papers. After abstract and full-text review, we selected 214 papers containing 244 measures. Most measures were applied in adults (57%), assessed structural elements of the referral process (60%), and collected data via survey (62%). Measures were classified into non-mutually exclusive domains: need for specialty care (N = 14), referral initiation (N = 73), entry into specialty care (N = 53), coordination (N = 60), referral type (N = 3), clinical tasks (N = 19), resource use (N = 13), quality (N = 57), and outcomes (N = 9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Published measures are available to assess the specialty referral process, although some domains are limited. Because many of these measures have been not been extensively validated in general populations, assess limited aspects of the referral process, and require new data collection, their applicability and preference in assessment of the specialty referral process is needed.</p