Subjective cognitive complaints one year after ceasing adjuvant endocrine treatment for early-stage breast cancer

Background:In the BIG 1-98 trial objective cognitive function improved in postmenopausal women 1 year after cessation of adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. This report evaluates changes in subjective cognitive function (SCF).Methods:One hundred postmenopausal women, randomised to receive 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, letrozole, or a sequence of the two, completed self-reported measures on SCF, psychological distress, fatigue, and quality of life during the fifth year of trial treatment (year 5) and 1 year after treatment completion (year 6). Changes between years 5 and 6 were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Subjective cognitive function and its correlates were explored.Results:Subjective cognitive function and the other patient-reported outcomes did not change significantly after cessation of endocrine therapy with the exception of improvement for hot flushes (P=0.0005). No difference in changes was found between women taking tamoxifen or letrozole. Subjective cognitive function was the only psychosocial outcome with a substantial correlation between year 5 and 6 (Spearman's R=0.80). Correlations between SCF and the other patient-reported outcomes were generally low.Conclusion:Improved objective cognitive function but not SCF occur following cessation of adjuvant endocrine therapy in the BIG 1-98 trial. The substantial correlation of SCF scores over time may represent a stable attribute.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 24 April 2012; doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.156 www.bjcancer.com.

Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck

Patient-orientated outcome questionnaires are essential to evaluate treatment success. To compare different treatments, hospitals, and surgeons, standardised questionnaires are required. The present study examined the validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck), a short, multidimensional outcome instrument.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Structural equation modeling of the medical outcome study: Short Form 36 (SF-36)

The factorial validity of the SF-36 was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methods, structural equation modeling (SEM), and multigroup structural equation modeling (MSEM). First, the measurement and structural model of the hypothesized SF-36 was explicated. Second, the model was tested for the validity of a second-order factorial structure, upon evidence of model misfit, determined the best-fitting model, and tested the validity of the best-fitting model on a second random sample from the same population. Third, the best-fitting model was tested for invariance of the factorial structure across race, age, and educational subgroups using MSEM.^ The findings support the second-order factorial structure of the SF-36 as proposed by Ware and Sherbourne (1992). However, the results suggest that: (a) Mental Health and Physical Health covary; (b) general mental health cross-loads onto Physical Health; (c) general health perception loads onto Mental Health instead of Physical Health; (d) many of the error terms are correlated; and (e) the physical function scale is not reliable across these two samples. This hierarchical factor pattern was replicated across both samples of health care workers, suggesting that the post hoc model fitting was not data specific. Subgroup analysis suggests that the physical function scale is not reliable across the "age" or "education" subgroups and that the general mental health scale path from Mental Health is not reliable across the "white/nonwhite" or "education" subgroups.^ The importance of this study is in the use of SEM and MSEM in evaluating sample data from the use of the SF-36. These methods are uniquely suited to the analysis of latent variable structures and are widely used in other fields. The use of latent variable models for self reported outcome measures has become widespread, and should now be applied to medical outcomes research. Invariance testing is superior to mean scores or summary scores when evaluating differences between groups. From a practical, as well as, psychometric perspective, it seems imperative that construct validity research related to the SF-36 establish whether this same hierarchical structure and invariance holds for other populations.^ This project is presented as three articles to be submitted for publication. ^

Patient-rated Outcomes of Lumbar Fusion in Patients with Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine: Does Age Matter?

Introduction: Current demographic changes are characterized by population aging, such that the surgical treatment of degenerative spine conditions in the elderly is gaining increasing relevance. However, there is a general reluctance to consider spinal fusion procedures in this patient age group due to the increased likelihood of complications. The aim of this study was to assess the patient-rated outcome and complication rates associated with lumbar fusion procedures in three different age groups. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients who underwent first-time, one to three level posterior instrumented fusion between 2004 and 2011, due to degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Data were obtained from our Spine Surgery Outcomes Database (linked to the International Spine Tango Register). Before surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and at 3 and 12 months after surgery they completed the COMI and rated the Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) and their satisfaction with care. Patients were divided into three groups according to their age: younger (≥50y <65y; n = 317), older (≥65y <80y; n = 350), and geriatric (≥ 80y; n = 40). Results: 707 consecutive patients were included. The preoperative comorbidity status differed significantly (p < 0.0001) between the age groups, with the highest scores in the geriatric group. General medical complications during surgery were lower in the younger age group (7%) than in the older (13.4%; p = 0.006) and geriatric groups (17.5%; p = 0.007). Duration of hospital stay was longer (p = 0.006) in the older group (10.8 ± 3.7 days) than the younger (10.0 ± 3.6 days) group. There were no significant group differences (p>0.05) for any of the COMI domains covering pain, function, symptom specific well-being, general quality of life, and social and work disability at either 3 months’ or 12 months’ follow-up. Similarly, there were no differences (p>0.05) between the age groups for GTO and patient-rated satisfaction at either follow-up. Conclusions: Preoperative comorbidity and general medical complications during lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine are both greater in geriatric patients than in younger patients. However, patient-rated outcome is as good in the elderly as it is in younger age groups. These data suggest that geriatric age per se is not a contraindication to instrumented fusion for lumbar degenerative disease.

Patient-Rated Outcomes of Lumbar Fusion in Patients with Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine: Does Age Matter?

STUDY DESIGN Single centre retrospective study of prospectively collected data, nested within the Eurospine Spine Tango data acquisition system. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the patient-rated outcome and complication rates associated with lumbar fusion procedures in three different age groups. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA There is a general reluctance to consider spinal fusion procedures in elderly patients due to the increased likelihood of complications. METHODS Before and at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). At the 3-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups they also rated the Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) and their satisfaction with care. Patients were divided into three age groups: younger (≥50y < 65y; n = 317), older (≥65y < 80y; n = 350), and geriatric (≥ 80y; n = 40). RESULTS 707 consecutive patients were included. The preoperative comorbidity status differed significantly (p < 0.0001) between the age groups, with the highest scores in the geriatric group. Medical complications during surgery were lower in the younger age group (7%) than in the older (13.4%; p = 0.006) and geriatric groups (17.5%; p = 0.007); surgical complications tended to be higher in the elderly group (younger, 6.3%; older, 6.0%; geriatric, 15.0%; p = 0.09). There were no significant group differences (p > 0.05) for the scores on any of the COMI domains, GTO, or patient-rated satisfaction at either 3-, 12-, and 24-months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Despite greater comorbidity and complication rates in geriatric patients, the patient-rated outcome was as good in the elderly as it was in younger age groups up to two years after surgery. These data indicate that geriatric age needs careful consideration of associated risks but is not per se a contraindication for fusion for lumbar degenerative disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.

Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared patient outcomes of anterior (cervical) interbody fusion (AIF) with those of total disc arthroplasty (TDA). Because RCTs have known limitations with regard to their external validity, the comparative effectiveness of the two therapies in daily practice remains unknown. PURPOSE This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes after TDA versus AIF based on data from an international spine registry. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective analysis of registry data was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE Inclusion criteria were degenerative disc or disc herniation of the cervical spine treated by single-level TDA or AIF, no previous surgery, and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) completed at baseline and at least 3 months' follow-up. Overall, 987 patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES Neck and arm pain relief and COMI score improvement were the outcome measures. METHODS Three separate analyses were performed to compare TDA and AIF surgical outcomes: (1) mimicking an RCT setting, with admission criteria typical of those in published RCTs, a 1:1 matched analysis was carried out in 739 patients; (2) an analysis was performed on 248 patients outside the classic RCT spectrum, that is, with one or more typical RCT exclusion criteria; (3) a subgroup analysis of all patients with additional follow-up longer than 2 years (n=149). RESULTS Matching resulted in 190 pairs with an average follow-up of 17 months that had no residual significant differences for any patient characteristics. Small but statistically significant differences in outcome were observed in favor of TDA, which are potentially clinically relevant. Subgroup analyses of atypical patients and of patients with longer-term follow-up showed no significant differences in outcome between the treatments. CONCLUSIONS The results of this observational study were in accordance with those of the published RCTs, suggesting substantial pain reduction both after AIF and TDA, with slightly greater benefit after arthroplasty. The analysis of atypical patients suggested that, in patients outside the spectrum of clinical trials, both surgical interventions appeared to work to a similar extent to that shown for the cohort in the matched study. Also, in the longer-term perspective, both therapies resulted in similar benefits to the patients.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

Background - Menorrhagia is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about therapy is limited. In a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial, we compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS) with usual medical treatment in women with menorrhagia who presented to their primary care providers. Methods - We randomly assigned 571 women with menorrhagia to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity), assessed over a 2-year period. Secondary outcomes included general quality-of-life and sexual-activity scores and surgical intervention. Results - MMAS scores improved from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group (mean increase, 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The improvements were maintained over a 2-year period but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9 to 16.9; P<0.001). Improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, family life, work and daily routine, psychological well-being, and physical health) were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group, and this was also true for seven of the eight quality-of-life domains. At 2 years, more of the women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were undergoing the usual medical treatment (64% vs. 38%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Conclusions - In women with menorrhagia who presented to primary care providers, the levonorgestrel-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment in reducing the effect of heavy menstrual bleeding on quality of life. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ECLIPSE Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN86566246.)

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

ABSTRACT: Menorrhagia is a common problem that interferes with a woman’s physical, emotional, and social life. Evidence to guide physicians for decision about therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding is lacking. One treatment option, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS), has been available in the United States since 2009. Updated meta-analyses comparing the levonorgestrel-IUS with nonhormonal and hormonal treatments showed that the levonorgestrel-IUS produced a greater reduction in menstrual blood loss at 3 to 12 months of follow-up. It is not clear whether these short-term benefits persist. Moreover, the rates of discontinuation of the levonorgestrel-IUS at 2 years are as high as 28%, and effects on bleeding-related quality of life are not known. This pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-IUS with that of usual medical treatment among women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting. A total of 571 women with menorrhagia were randomized to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS (n = 285) or usual medical treatment (n = 286). Usual treatment was tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone. The primary study outcome measure was the patient-reported score on the condition-specific Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period. The MMAS scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity. Summary MMAS scores were assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Secondary outcome measures included general health-related quality of life, sexual-activity scores, and surgical intervention. There was a significant improvement in total MMAS scores from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group; the mean increase was 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001 for both comparisons. Over the 2-year follow-up, improvements were maintained in both groups but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001). Significantly greater improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, psychological health, physical health, work and daily routine, and family life and relationships) occurred with the levonorgestrel-IUS than with the usual treatment (P < 0.001 with the use of a test for trend). This was also found for 7 of the 8 quality-of-life domains. At the 2-year end point, almost twice as many women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were those receiving the usual medical treatment (64% vs 38%, P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were noted in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores as well as in the frequency of serious adverse events. These data show that levonorgestrel-IUS is more effective than usual medical treatment in improving the quality of life of women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared to usual medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding:the ECLIPSE Trial

Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)

Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding:long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. Design and setting: A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands. Method: In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety. Results: At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events. Conclusion: Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.

Non-Pharmacological Approaches for Pain Management in Sickle Cell Disease: Development of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention

Background: Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) is a genetic hematological disorder that affects more than 7 million people globally (NHLBI, 2009). It is estimated that 50% of adults with SCD experience pain on most days, with 1/3 experiencing chronic pain daily (Smith et al., 2008). Persons with SCD also experience higher levels of pain catastrophizing (feelings of helplessness, pain rumination and magnification) than other chronic pain conditions, which is associated with increases in pain intensity, pain behavior, analgesic consumption, frequency and duration of hospital visits, and with reduced daily activities (Sullivan, Bishop, & Pivik, 1995; Keefe et al., 2000; Gil et al., 1992 & 1993). Therefore effective interventions are needed that can successfully be used manage pain and pain-related outcomes (e.g., pain catastrophizing) in persons with SCD. A review of the literature demonstrated limited information regarding the feasibility and efficacy of non-pharmacological approaches for pain in persons with SCD, finding an average effect size of .33 on pain reduction across measurable non-pharmacological studies. Second, a prospective study on persons with SCD that received care for a vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC; N = 95) found: (1) high levels of patient reported depression (29%) and anxiety (34%), and (2) that unemployment was significantly associated with increased frequency of acute care encounters and hospital admissions per person. Research suggests that one promising category of non-pharmacological interventions for managing both physical and affective components of pain are Mindfulness-based Interventions (MBIs; Thompson et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2013). The primary goal of this dissertation was thus to develop and test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a telephonic MBI for pain catastrophizing in persons with SCD and chronic pain.

Methods: First, a telephonic MBI was developed through an informal process that involved iterative feedback from patients, clinical experts in SCD and pain management, social workers, psychologists, and mindfulness clinicians. Through this process, relevant topics and skills were selected to adapt in each MBI session. Second, a pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the telephonic MBI for pain catastrophizing in persons with SCD and chronic pain. Acceptability and feasibility were determined by assessment of recruitment, attrition, dropout, and refusal rates (including refusal reasons), along with semi-structured interviews with nine randomly selected patients at the end of study. Participants completed assessments at baseline, Week 1, 3, and 6 to assess efficacy of the intervention on decreasing pain catastrophizing and other pain-related outcomes.

Results: A telephonic MBI is feasible and acceptable for persons with SCD and chronic pain. Seventy-eight patients with SCD and chronic pain were approached, and 76% (N = 60) were enrolled and randomized. The MBI attendance rate, approximately 57% of participants completing at least four mindfulness sessions, was deemed acceptable, and participants that received the telephonic MBI described it as acceptable, easy to access, and consume in post-intervention interviews. The amount of missing data was undesirable (MBI condition, 40%; control condition, 25%), but fell within the range of expected missing outcome data for a RCT with multiple follow-up assessments. Efficacy of the MBI on pain catastrophizing could not be determined due to small sample size and degree of missing data, but trajectory analyses conducted for the MBI condition only trended in the right direction and pain catastrophizing approached statistically significance.

Conclusion: Overall results showed that at telephonic group-based MBI is acceptable and feasible for persons with SCD and chronic pain. Though the study was not able to determine treatment efficacy nor powered to detect a statistically significant difference between conditions, participants (1) described the intervention as acceptable, and (2) the observed effect sizes for the MBI condition demonstrated large effects of the MBI on pain catastrophizing, mental health, and physical health. Replication of this MBI study with a larger sample size, active control group, and additional assessments at the end of each week (e.g., Week 1 through Week 6) is needed to determine treatment efficacy. Many lessons were learned that will guide the development of future studies including which MBI strategies were most helpful, methods to encourage continued participation, and how to improve data capture.

Comparison between local anaesthetic agents, lidocaine and bupivacaine, in patients undergoing third molar extraction in terms of patient satisfaction.

AIMS: (1) To determine if anaesthetic agent bupivacaine, has a prolonged effect on the period of acute postoperative pain when compared to lidocaine, a shorter acting agent. (2) To determine patient’s post-operative satisfaction and preference with regard to anaesthetic choice. METHODS: This double blind, randomised, interventional clinical trial included 85 patients. All patients had bilateral impacted lower third molars of removed under general anaesthetic. All patients received 0.5% plain bupivacaine on one randomly allocated side, with 2% lidocaine (with adrenaline) administered on the opposite side. Pain was measured using visual analogue scales at 0, 30, 60 minutes and 3, 4, 6 and 8 hours post-surgery. Pain was analysed for 1 week following surgery. Psychological evaluations and patient reported outcomes, including patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: A significant difference in pain (P=0.001) was seen during the 3-8 hour post-operative period. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 10.0 or above at 3hours and 4 hours post-surgery. Two-thirds of patients preferred bupivacaine. CONCLUSION: Longer lasting anaesthetics such as bupivacaine offer a longer period of analgesia, and improve overall patient satisfaction.

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.