Comorbidity in severe asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid therapy: cross-sectional data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the British Thoracic Difficult Asthma Registry

Objective: To determine the prevalence of systemic corticosteroid-induced morbidity in severe asthma.
Design: Cross-sectional observational study.Setting The primary care Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry.
Participants: Optimum Patient Care Research Database (7195 subjects in three age- and gender-matched groups)—severe asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment step 5 with four or more prescriptions/year of oral corticosteroids, n=808), mild/moderate asthma (GINA treatment step 2/3, n=3975) and non-asthma controls (n=2412). 770 subjects with severe asthma from the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry (442 receiving daily oral corticosteroids to maintain disease control).
Main outcome measures: Prevalence rates of morbidities associated with systemic steroid exposure were evaluated and reported separately for each group.
Results: 748/808 (93%) subjects with severe asthma had one or more condition linked to systemic corticosteroid exposure (mild/moderate asthma 3109/3975 (78%), non-asthma controls 1548/2412 (64%); p<0.001 for severe asthma versus non-asthma controls). Compared with mild/moderate asthma, morbidity rates for severe asthma were significantly higher for conditions associated with systemic steroid exposure (type II diabetes 10% vs 7%, OR=1.46 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.91), p<0.01; osteoporosis 16% vs 4%, OR=5.23, (95% CI 3.97 to 6.89), p<0.001; dyspeptic disorders (including gastric/duodenal ulceration) 65% vs 34%, OR=3.99, (95% CI 3.37 to 4.72), p<0.001; cataracts 9% vs 5%, OR=1.89, (95% CI 1.39 to 2.56), p<0.001). In the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry similar prevalence rates were found, although, additionally, high rates of osteopenia (35%) and obstructive sleep apnoea (11%) were identified.

Conclusions: Oral corticosteroid-related adverse events are common in severe asthma. New treatments which reduce exposure to oral corticosteroids may reduce the prevalence of these conditions and this should be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses of these new treatments.

Waiting time for cataract surgery and its influence on patient attitudes.

PURPOSE:

To characterize willingness to pay for private operations and preferred waiting time among patients awaiting cataract surgery in Hong Kong.

METHODS:

This was a cross-sectional survey. Subjects randomly selected from cataract surgical waiting lists in Hong Kong (n = 467) underwent a telephone interview based on a structured, validated questionnaire. Data were collected on private insurance coverage, preferred waiting time, amount willing to pay for surgery, and self-reported visual function and health status.

RESULTS:

Among 300 subjects completing the interview, 144 (48.2%) were 76 years of age or older, 177 (59%) were women, and mean time waiting for surgery was 17 +/- 15 months. Among 220 subjects (73.3%) willing to pay anything for surgery, the mean amount was US$552 +/- 443. With adjustment for age, education, and monthly household income, subjects willing to pay anything were less willing to wait 12 months for surgery (OR = 4.34; P = 0.002), more likely to know someone having had cataract surgery (OR = 2.20; P = 0.03), and more likely to use their own savings to pay for the surgery (OR = 2.21; P = 0.04). Subjects considering private cataract surgery, knowing people who have had cataract surgery, using nongovernment sources to pay for surgery, and having lower visual function were willing to pay more.

CONCLUSIONS:

Many patients wait significant periods for cataract surgery in Hong Kong, and are willing to pay substantial amounts for private operations. These results may have implications for other countries with cataract waiting lists.

Nurses' experiences of pain management for people with advanced dementia approaching the end of life: a qualitative study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore hospice, acute care and nursing home nurses' experiences of pain management for people with advanced dementia in the final month of life. To identify the challenges, facilitators and practice areas requiring further support.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in end-stage dementia is a fundamental aspect of end of life care; however, it is unclear what challenges and facilitators nurses experience in practice, whether these differ across care settings, and whether training needs to be tailored to the context of care.

DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to examine data.

METHODS: 24 registered nurses caring for people dying with advanced dementia were recruited from ten nursing homes, three hospices, and two acute hospitals across a region of the United Kingdom. Interviews were conducted between June 2014 and September 2015.

RESULTS: Three core themes were identified: challenges administering analgesia, the nurse-physician relationship, and interactive learning and practice development. Patient-related challenges to pain management were universal across care settings; nurse- and organisation-related barriers differed between settings. A need for interactive learning and practice development, particularly in pharmacology, was identified.

CONCLUSIONS: Achieving pain management in practice was highly challenging. A number of barriers were identified; however, the manner and extent to which these impacted on nurses differed across hospice, nursing home and acute care settings. Needs-based training to support and promote practice development in pain management in end-stage dementia is required.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses considered pain management fundamental to end of life care provision; however, nurses working in acute care and nursing home settings may be under-supported and under-resourced to adequately manage pain in people dying with advanced dementia. Nurse-to-nurse mentoring and ongoing needs-assessed interactive case-based learning could help promote practice development in this area. Nurses require continuing professional development in pharmacology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN O'Connor S.R.1, Tully M.A.2, Ryan B.3, Baxter D.G.3, Bradley J.M.1, McDonough S.M.11University of Ulster, Health & Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom, 2Queen's University, UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Belfast, United Kingdom, 3University of Otago, Centre for Physiotherapy Research, Dunedin, New ZealandPurpose: To examine the effects of walking exercise on pain and self-reported function in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Relevance: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major cause of morbidity, exerting a substantial influence on long-term health status and overall quality of life. Current treatment recommendations advocate various aerobic exercise interventions for such conditions. Walking may represent an ideal form of exercise due to its relatively low impact. However, there is currently limited evidence for its effectiveness.Participants: Not applicable.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was undertaken by two independent reviewers according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group. Six electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PEDro, Sport DISCUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for relevant papers published up to January 2010 using MeSH terms. All randomised or non-randomised studies published in full were considered for inclusion. Studies were required to include adults aged 18 years or over with a diagnosis of chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia. Studies were excluded if they involved peri-operative or post-operative interventions or did not include a comparative, non exercise or non-walking exercise control group. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force system was used to assess methodological quality. Data for pain and self-reported function were extracted and converted to a score out of 100.Analysis: Data were pooled and analyzed using RevMan (v.5.0.24). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the X2 and I2 test statistics. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean differences and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed by length of final follow-up which was categorized as short (≤8 weeks post randomisation), mid (2-12 months) or long-term (>12 months).Results: A total of 4324 articles were identified and twenty studies (1852 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Overall, studies were judged to be of at least fair methodological quality. The most common sources of likely bias were identified as lack of concealed allocation and failure to adequately address incomplete data. Data from 12 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Walking led to reductions in pain at short (<8 weeks post randomisation) (-8.44 [-14.54, -2.33]) and mid-term (>8 weeks - 12 month) follow-up (-9.28 [-16.34, -2.22]). No effect was observed for long-term (>12 month) data (-2.49 [-7.62, 2.65]). For function, between group differences were observed for short (-11.57 [-16.06, -7.08]) and mid-term data (-13.26 [-16.91, -9.62]). A smaller effect was also observed at long-term follow-up (-5.60 [-7.70, -3.50]).Conclusions: Walking interventions were associated with statistically significant improvements in pain and function at short and mid-term follow-up. Long-term data were limited but indicated that these effects do not appear to be maintained beyond twelve months.Implications: Walking may be an effective form of exercise for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, further research is required which examines longer term follow-up and dose-response issues in this population.Key-words: 1. Walking exercise 2. Musculoskeletal pain 3. Systematic reviewFunding acknowledgements: Department of Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland.Ethics approval: Not applicable.

IMPLEMENTING BACK PAIN TREATMENT PATHWAYS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: QUALITATATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS

Background
Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed.

Aims
The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice.

Methods
A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results
Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions.

Conclusion
A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice.

“There’s a Catch-22”. The complexities of pain management for people with advanced dementia nearing the end of life: a qualitative exploration of physicians’ perspectives

Background: Pain management is a cornerstone of palliative care. The clinical issues encountered by physicians when managing pain in patients dying with advanced dementia, and how these may impact on prescribing and treatment, are unknown. Aim: To explore physicians’ experiences of pain management for patients nearing the end of life, the impact of these on prescribing and treatment approaches, and the methods employed to overcome these challenges. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured interview study exploring: barriers to and facilitators of pain management, prescribing and treatment decisions, and training needs. Thematic analysis was used to elicit key themes. Settings/Participants: Twenty-three physicians, responsible for treating patients with advanced dementia approaching the end of life, were recruited from primary care (n=9), psychiatry (n=7) and hospice care (n=7). Results: Six themes emerged: diagnosing pain, complex prescribing and treatment approaches, side-effects and adverse events, route of administration, importance of sharing knowledge and training needs. Knowledge exchange was often practised through liaison with physicians from other specialties. Cross-specialty mentoring, and the creation of knowledge networks were believed to improve pain management in this patient population. Conclusions: Pain management in end-stage dementia is complex, requiring cross-population of knowledge between palliative care specialists and non-specialists, in addition to collateral information provided by other health professionals and patients’ families. Regular, cost- and time-effective mentoring and ongoing professional development are perceived to be essential in empowering physicians to meet clinical challenges in this area.