Search

Purpose: Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences. Patients and Methods: In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0– 100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences. Results: 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥ 70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively. Conclusion: These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Acute postoperative pain is experienced by the majority of hospitalized patients undergoing surgical procedures, with many reporting inadequate pain relief and/or high levels of dissatisfaction with their pain management. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ensures patient involvement in acute pain control, a key component for implementing a quality management system. This narrative article overviews the clinical evidence for conventional PCA and briefly discusses new, non-invasive PCA systems, namely the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (FITS).Methods: A Medline literature search ("patient-controlled analgesia" and "acute postoperative pain") was conducted to 1 April 2017; results from the main clinical trials are discussed. Additional literature was identified from the reference lists of cited publications.Results: Moderate to low quality evidence supports opioid-based intravenous PCA as an efficacious alternative to non-patient-controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. However, despite the benefits of PCA, conventional intravenous PCA is limited by system-, drug- and human-related issues. The non-invasive SSTS and FITS have demonstrated good efficacy and safety in placebo- and intravenous morphine PCA-controlled trials, and are associated with high patient/healthcare practitioner satisfaction/ease of care ratings and offer early patient mobilization.Conclusions: Evidence-based guidelines for acute postoperative pain management support the use of multimodal regimens in many situations. As effective and safe alternatives to conventional PCA, and with the added benefits of being non-invasive, easy to use and allowing early patient mobilization, the newer PCA systems may complement multimodal approaches, or potentially replace certain regimens, in hospitalized patients with acute postoperative pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A European League Against Rheumatism–American College of Rheumatology working group consisting of practicing and academic rheumatologists, a rheumatology researcher, and a patient representative created a succinct general statement describing rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in adults and children in language that can be used in conversations with the lay public, media, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders. Based on the literature review, several elements were deemed important for inclusion in the description of RMDs. First, RMDs encompass many different diseases that can affect individuals at any age, including children. Second, there are various pathophysiological pathways underlying different RMDs. Third, the impact of RMDs on individuals and society should be emphasized. The working group agreed that the language should be comprehensible to the lay public. Thus, the following description of RMDs has been developed: “Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are a diverse group of diseases that commonly affect the joints, but can affect any organ of the body. There are more than 200 different RMDs, affecting both children and adults. They are usually caused by problems of the immune system, inflammation, infections, or gradual deterioration of joints, muscles, and bones. Many of these diseases are long term and worsen over time. They are typically painful and limit function. In severe cases, RMDs can result in significant disability, having a major impact on both quality of life and life expectancy.” This description can be used by rheumatology groups, researchers, and those who work in advocacy and education related to RMDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter to the editor acknowledges Hirst's concern about the relation between medical charities and pharmaceutical companies, and addresses some inaccuracies in her letter regarding the 2002 Arthritis Care information campaign to promote the government's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on cyclooxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors.