How to use the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference system for comparative evaluation and standardized reporting of rehabilitation interventions

Rehabilitation aims to optimize functioning of persons experiencing functioning limitations. As such the comparative evaluation of rehabilitation interventions relies on the analysis of the differences between the change in patient functioning after a specific rehabilitation intervention versus the change following another intervention. A robust health information reference system that can facilitate the comparative evaluation of changes in functioning in rehabilitation studies and the standardized reporting of rehabilitation interventions is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The objective of this paper is to present recommendations that Cochrane Rehabilitation could adopt for using the ICF in rehabilitation studies by: 1) defining the functioning categories to be included in a rehabilitation study; 2) specifying selected functioning categories and selecting suitable data collection instruments; 3) examining aspects of functioning that have been documented in a study; 4) reporting functioning data collected with various data collection instruments; and 5) communicating results in an accessible, meaningful and easily understandable way. The authors provide examples of concrete studies that underscore these recommendations, whereby also em-phasizing the need for future research on the implementation of specific recommendations, e.g. in meta-analysis in systematic literature reviews. Furthermore, the paper outlines how the ICF can complement or be integrated in established Cochrane and rehabilitation research structures and methods, e.g. use of standard mean difference to compare cross-study data collected using different measures, in developing core outcome sets for rehabilitation, and the use of the PICO model. © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases

PURPOSE: Bone metastases secondary to solid tumors increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs), including the occurrence of pathological fracture (PF), radiation to bone (RB), surgery to bone (SB), and spinal cord compression (SCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SREs on patients' pain, analgesic use, and pain interference with daily functioning. METHODS: Data were combined from patients with solid tumors and bone metastases who received denosumab or zoledronic acid across three identically designed phase 3 trials (N = 5543). Pain severity (worst pain) and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and each monthly visit. Analgesic use was quantified using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use generally increased in the 6 months preceding an SRE and remained elevated, while they remained relatively consistent over time in patients without an SRE. Regression analysis indicated that all SRE types were significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use. PF, RB, and SCC were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference overall. Results were similar for pain interference with emotional well-being. All SRE types were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: SREs are associated with increased pain and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases. Treatments that prevent SREs may decrease pain and the need for opioid analgesics and reduce the impact of pain on daily functioning

Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases

PURPOSE: Bone metastases secondary to solid tumors increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs), including the occurrence of pathological fracture (PF), radiation to bone (RB), surgery to bone (SB), and spinal cord compression (SCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SREs on patients' pain, analgesic use, and pain interference with daily functioning. METHODS: Data were combined from patients with solid tumors and bone metastases who received denosumab or zoledronic acid across three identically designed phase 3 trials (N = 5543). Pain severity (worst pain) and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and each monthly visit. Analgesic use was quantified using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use generally increased in the 6 months preceding an SRE and remained elevated, while they remained relatively consistent over time in patients without an SRE. Regression analysis indicated that all SRE types were significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use. PF, RB, and SCC were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference overall. Results were similar for pain interference with emotional well-being. All SRE types were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: SREs are associated with increased pain and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases. Treatments that prevent SREs may decrease pain and the need for opioid analgesics and reduce the impact of pain on daily functioning

Pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer: assessment and management with bone-targeting agents

Bone metastases in advanced cancer frequently cause painful complications that impair patient physical activity and negatively affect quality of life. Pain is often underreported and poorly managed in these patients. The most commonly used pain assessment instruments are visual analogue scales, a single-item measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory Questionnaire-Short Form. The World Health Organization analgesic ladder and the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm are used to evaluate analgesic use. Bone-targeting agents, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, prevent skeletal complications (i.e., radiation to bone, pathologic fractures, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression) and can also improve pain outcomes in patients with metastatic bone disease. We have reviewed pain outcomes and analgesic use and reported pain data from an integrated analysis of randomized controlled studies of denosumab versus the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZA) in patients with bone metastases from advanced solid tumors. Intravenous bisphosphonates improved pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Compared with ZA, denosumab further prevented pain worsening and delayed the need for treatment with strong opioids. In patients with no or mild pain at baseline, denosumab reduced the risk of increasing pain severity and delayed pain worsening along with the time to increased pain interference compared with ZA, suggesting that use of denosumab (with appropriate calcium and vitamin D supplementation) before patients develop bone pain may improve outcomes. These data also support the use of validated pain assessments to optimize treatment and reduce the burden of pain associated with metastatic bone disease

A primary care, multi-disciplinary disease management program for opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain and a high burden of psychiatric comorbidity

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common problem that is often accompanied by psychiatric comorbidity and disability. The effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary pain management program was tested in a 3 month before and after trial. METHODS: Providers in an academic general medicine clinic referred patients with chronic non-cancer pain for participation in a program that combined the skills of internists, clinical pharmacists, and a psychiatrist. Patients were either receiving opioids or being considered for opioid therapy. The intervention consisted of structured clinical assessments, monthly follow-up, pain contracts, medication titration, and psychiatric consultation. Pain, mood, and function were assessed at baseline and 3 months using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale scale (CESD) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). Patients were monitored for substance misuse. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Mean age was 51 years, 60% were male, 78% were Caucasian, and 93% were receiving opioids. Baseline average pain was 6.5 on an 11 point scale. The average CESD score was 24.0, and the mean PDI score was 47.0. Sixty-three patients (73%) completed 3 month follow-up. Fifteen withdrew from the program after identification of substance misuse. Among those completing 3 month follow-up, the average pain score improved to 5.5 (p = 0.003). The mean PDI score improved to 39.3 (p < 0.001). Mean CESD score was reduced to 18.0 (p < 0.001), and the proportion of depressed patients fell from 79% to 54% (p = 0.003). Substance misuse was identified in 27 patients (32%). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care disease management program improved pain, depression, and disability scores over three months in a cohort of opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Substance misuse and depression were common, and many patients who had substance misuse identified left the program when they were no longer prescribed opioids. Effective care of patients with chronic pain should include rigorous assessment and treatment of these comorbid disorders and intensive efforts to insure follow up

Impact of chronic pain on patients’ quality of life: A comparative mixed-methods study

Background: Chronic pain has become a common problem within primary care and can negatively impact patients’ lives. Objective: To assess and explore the impact of chronic pain on patients’ quality of life (QoL) using quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used. Chronic pain patients were recruited from a community-based pain clinic located in the North of England. Quality of life was assessed using Short-Form 36 version 2. Quality of life data were also extracted from the Third Oxford and Lifestyles Survey and Welsh Health Survey to allow comparison of QoL of chronic pain patients with that of the general population and patients with long-term conditions. Qualitative interviews were conducted face-to-face using a semistructured topic guide. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 24 and qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results: Seventy-nine patients participated in the quantitative phase. The mean (standard deviation) age was 46.5 (14.5). Lower back (54; 68.3%) followed by lower limb were the most common pain sites. Compared with the general population and patients with long-term conditions, chronic pain patients had significantly lower mean QoL scores across all domains of SF-36 (All P < .05). Six themes emerged from qualitative data: interference with physical functioning, interference with professional life, interference with relationships and family life, interference with social life, interference with sleep, and interference with mood. Conclusion: The multidimensional negative impact of chronic pain leads to poorer QoL among patients with chronic pain compared to the general population and patients with other long-term conditions

Self-management support intervention to control cancer pain in the outpatient setting: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background: Pain is a prevalent and distressing symptom in patients with cancer, having an enormous impact on functioning and quality of life. Fragmentation of care, inadequate pain communication, and reluctance towards pain medication contribute to difficulties in optimizing outcomes. Integration of patient self-management and professional care by means of healthcare technology provides new opportunities in the outpatient setting. Methods/Design: This study protocol outlines a two-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial that compares a technology based multicomponent self-management support intervention with care as usual and includes an effect, economic and process evaluation. Patients will be recruited consecutively via the outpatient oncology clinics and inpatient oncology wards of one academic hospital and one regional hospital in the south of the Netherlands. Irrespective of the stage of disease, patients are eligible when they are diagnosed with cancer and have uncontrolled moderate to severe cancer (treatment) related pain defined as NRS ≥ 4 for more than two weeks. Randomization (1:1) will assign patients to either the intervention or control group; patients in the intervention group receive self-management support and patients in the control group receive care as usual. The intervention will be delivered by registered nurses specialized in pain and palliative care. Important components include monitoring of pain, adverse effects and medication as well as graphical feedback, education, and nurse support. Effect measurements for both groups will be carried out with questionnaires at baseline (T0), after 4 weeks (T1) and after 12 weeks (T2). Pain intensity and quality of life are the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include self-efficacy, knowledge, anxiety, depression and pain medication use. The final questionnaire contains also questions for the economic evaluation that includes both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Data for the process evaluation will be gathered continuously over the study period and focus on recruitment, reach, dose delivered and dose received. Discussion: The proposed study will provide insight into the effectiveness of the self-management support intervention delivered by nurses to outpatients with uncontrolled cancer pain. Study findings will be used to empower patients and health professionals to improve cancer pain control. Trial registration: NCT02333968 December 29, 201

Supporting carers to manage pain medication in cancer patients at the end of life: A feasibility trial

Background: Carers of people with advanced cancer play a significant role in managing pain medication, yet they report insufficient information and support to do so confidently and competently. There is limited research evidence on the best ways for clinicians to help carers with medication management. Aims: To develop a pain medicines management intervention (Cancer Carers Medicines Management) for cancer patients’ carers near the end of life and evaluate feasibility and acceptability to nurses and carers. To test the feasibility of trial research procedures and to inform decisions concerning a full-scale randomised controlled trial. Design: Phase I-II clinical trial. A systematic, evidence-informed participatory method was used to develop CCMM: a nurse-delivered structured conversational process. A two-arm, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of Cancer Carers Medicines Management was conducted, with an embedded qualitative study to evaluate participants’ experiences of Cancer Carers Medicines Management and trial procedures. Setting: Community settings in two study sites. Participants: Phase I comprises 57 carers, patients and healthcare professionals and Phase II comprises 12 nurses and 15 carers. Results: A novel intervention was developed. Nurses were recruited and randomised. Carer recruitment to the trial was problematic with fewer than predicted eligible participants, and nurses judged a high proportion unsuitable to recruit into the study. Attrition rates following recruitment were typical for the study population. Cancer Carers Medicines Management was acceptable to carers and nurses who took part, and some benefits were identified. Conclusion: Cancer Carers Medicines Management is a robustly developed medicines management intervention which merits further research to test its effectiveness to improve carers’ management of pain medicines with patients at the end of life. The study highlighted aspects of trial design that need to be considered in future research