Search

Black patients in the USA are disproportionately affected by chronic pain, yet there are few interventions that address these disparities.To determine whether a walking-focused, proactive coaching intervention aimed at addressing contributors to racial disparities in pain would improve chronic pain outcomes among Black patients compared to usual care.Randomized controlled trial with masked outcome assessment ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01983228).Three hundred eighty Black patients at the Atlanta VA Health Care System with moderate to severe chronic back, hip, or knee pain.Six telephone coaching sessions over 8-14 weeks, proactively delivered, using action planning and motivational interviewing to increase walking, or usual care.Primary outcome was a 30% improvement in pain-related physical functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) over 6 months among Black patients, using intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were improvements in pain intensity and interference, depression, anxiety, global impression of change in pain, and average daily steps.The intervention did not produce statistically significant effects on the primary outcome (at 6 months, 32.4% of intervention participants had 30% improvement on the RMDQ vs. 24.7% of patients in usual care; aOR=1.61, 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.77), nor on other secondary outcomes assessed at 6 months, with the exception that intervention participants reported more favorable changes in pain relative to usual care (mean difference=-0.54, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.23). Intervention participants also experienced a significant reduction in pain intensity and pain interference over 3 months (mean difference=-0.55, 95% CI, -0.88 to -0.22).A novel intervention to improve chronic pain among Black patients did not produce statistically significant improvements on the primary outcome relative to usual care. More intensive efforts are likely required among this population, many of whom were economically disadvantaged and had mental health comorbidities and physical limitations.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01983228.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to providing high-quality care and addressing health disparities for vulnerable Veterans. To meet these goals, VA policymakers need guidance on how to address social determinants in operations planning and day-to-day clinical care for Veterans. METHOD: MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from inception to January 2017. Additional articles were suggested by peer reviewers and/or found through search of work associated with US and VA cohorts. Eligible articles compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and/or Veterans engaged with those not engaged in VA healthcare. Our evidence maps summarized study characteristics, social determinant(s) addressed, and whether health behaviors, health services utilization, and/or health outcomes were examined. Qualitative syntheses and quality assessment were performed for articles on rurality, trauma exposure, and sexual orientation. RESULTS: We screened 7242 citations and found 131 eligible articles—99 compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and 40 included engaged vs non-engaged Veterans. Most articles were cross-sectional and addressed socioeconomic factors (e.g., education and income). Fewer articles addressed rurality (N = 20), trauma exposure (N = 17), or sexual orientation (N = 2); none examined gender identity. We found no differences in rural residence between Veterans and non-Veterans, nor between engaged and non-engaged Veterans (moderate strength evidence). There was insufficient evidence for role of rurality in health behaviors, health services utilization, or health outcomes. Trauma exposures, including from events preceding military service, were more prevalent for Veterans vs non-Veterans and for engaged vs non-engaged Veterans (low-strength evidence); exposures were associated with smoking (low-strength evidence). DISCUSSION: Little published literature exists on some emerging social determinants. We found no differences in rural residence between our groups of interest, but trauma exposure was higher in Veterans (vs non-Veterans) and engaged (vs non-engaged). We recommend consistent measures for social determinants, clear conceptual frameworks, and analytic strategies that account for the complex relationships between social determinants and health. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4566-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000–1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and—when available—Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure’s minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison. Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored. In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics. Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610

BackgroundAlthough older adults are disproportionately affected by painful musculoskeletal conditions and receive more opioid analgesics than persons in other age groups, insufficient evidence is available regarding opioid harms in this age group.ObjectiveTo examine longitudinal relationships between opioid use and falls, clinical fractures, and changes in physical performance. We hypothesized that opioid use would be associated with greater risks of falling and incident clinical fractures and greater declines in physical performance.DesignWe analyzed data from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS), a large prospective longitudinal cohort study. Participants completed baseline visits from 2000 to 2002 and were followed for 9.1 (SD 4.0) years.ParticipantsMrOS enrolled 5994 community-dwelling men ≥ 65 years of age. The present study included 2902 participants with back, hip, or knee pain most or all of the time at baseline.Main measuresThe exposure of interest was opioid use, defined at each visit as participant-reported daily or near-daily use of any opioid-containing analgesic. Among patients, 309 (13.4 %) reported opioid use at one or more visits. Participants were queried every 4 months about falls and fractures. Physical performance scores were derived from tests of grip strength, chair stands, gait speed, and dynamic balance.Key resultsIn the main analysis, the adjusted risk of falling did not differ significantly between opioid use and non-use groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99, 1.24). Similarly, adjusted rates of incident clinical fracture did not differ between groups (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94, 1.36). Physical performance was worse at baseline for the opioid use group, but annualized change in physical performance scores did not differ between groups (-0.022, 95% CI -0.138, 0.093).ConclusionsAdditional research is needed to determine whether opioid use is a marker of risk or a cause of falls, fractures, and progressive impairment among older adults with persistent pain.

The optimal approach for selecting men for bone mineral density (BMD) testing to screen for osteoporosis is uncertain. To compare strategies for selecting older men for screening BMD testing. Prospective cohort study. A total of 4043 community-dwelling men aged ≥70 years at four US sites. BMD at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without BMD to discriminate between those with and without osteoporosis as defined by World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria, and between those recommended and not recommended for pharmacologic therapy based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines. Among the cohort, 216 (5.3%) had a BMD T-score ≤ −2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine, and 1184 (29.2%) met criteria for consideration of pharmacologic therapy according to NOF guidelines. The OST had better discrimination (AUC 0.68) than the FRAX (AUC 0.62; p = 0.004) for identifying T-score-defined osteoporosis. Use of an OST threshold of

Background Current guidelines advise providers to assess smokers’ readiness to quit, then offer cessation therapies to smokers planning to quit and motivational interventions to smokers not planning to quit.

In this paper, we discuss common challenges in and principles for conducting systematic reviews of genetic tests. The types of genetic tests discussed are those used to 1). determine risk or susceptibility in asymptomatic individuals; 2). reveal prognostic information to guide clinical management in those with a condition; or 3). predict response to treatments or environmental factors. This paper is not intended to provide comprehensive guidance on evaluating all genetic tests. Rather, it focuses on issues that have been of particular concern to analysts and stakeholders and on areas that are of particular relevance for the evaluation of studies of genetic tests. The key points include: The general principles that apply in evaluating genetic tests are similar to those for other prognostic or predictive tests, but there are differences in how the principles need to be applied or the degree to which certain issues are relevant. A clear definition of the clinical scenario and an analytic framework is important when evaluating any test, including genetic tests. Organizing frameworks and analytic frameworks are useful constructs for approaching the evaluation of genetic tests. In constructing an analytic framework for evaluating a genetic test, analysts should consider preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic factors; such factors are useful when assessing analytic validity. Predictive genetic tests are generally characterized by a delayed time between testing and clinically important events. Finding published information on the analytic validity of some genetic tests may be difficult. Web sites (FDA or diagnostic companies) and gray literature may be important sources. In situations where clinical factors associated with risk are well characterized, comparative effectiveness reviews should assess the added value of using genetic testing along with known factors compared with using the known factors alone. For genome-wide association studies, reviewers should determine whether the association has been validated in multiple studies to minimize both potential confounding and publication bias. In addition, reviewers should note whether appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.

A number of new biological markers are being studied as predictors of disease or adverse medical events among those who already have a disease. Systematic reviews of this growing literature can help determine whether the available evidence supports use of a new biomarker as a prognostic test that can more accurately place patients into different prognostic groups to improve treatment decisions and the accuracy of outcome predictions. Exemplary reviews of prognostic tests are not widely available, and the methods used to review diagnostic tests do not necessarily address the most important questions about prognostic tests that are used to predict the time-dependent likelihood of future patient outcomes. We provide suggestions for those interested in conducting systematic reviews of a prognostic test. The proposed use of the prognostic test should serve as the framework for a systematic review and to help define the key questions. The outcome probabilities or level of risk and other characteristics of prognostic groups are the most salient statistics for review and perhaps meta-analysis. Reclassification tables can help determine how a prognostic test affects the classification of patients into different prognostic groups, hence their treatment. Review of studies of the association between a potential prognostic test and patient outcomes would have little impact other than to determine whether further development as a prognostic test might be warranted.