Validating an algorithm for multiple myeloma based on administrative data using a SEER tumor registry and medical record review.

PURPOSE: Large numbers of multiple myeloma patients can be studied in real-world clinical settings using administrative databases. The validity of these studies is contingent upon accurate case identification. Our objective was to develop and evaluate algorithms to use with administrative data to identify multiple myeloma cases. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code for multiple myeloma (203.0x) were identified at two study sites. At site 1, several algorithms were developed and validated by comparing results to tumor registry cases. An algorithm with a reasonable positive predictive value (PPV) (0.81) and sensitivity (0.73) was selected and then validated at site 2 where results were compared with medical chart data. The algorithm required that ICD-9-CM codes 203.0x occur before and after the diagnostic procedure codes for multiple myeloma. RESULTS: At site 1, we identified 1432 patients. The PPVs of algorithms tested ranged from 0.54 to 0.88. Sensitivities ranged from 0.30 to 0.88. At site 2, a random sample (n = 400) was selected from 3866 patients, and medical charts were reviewed by a clinician for 105 patients. Algorithm PPV was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: We identified cases of multiple myeloma with adequate validity for claims database analyses. At least two ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes 203.0x preceding diagnostic procedure codes for multiple myeloma followed by ICD-9-CM codes within a specific time window after diagnostic procedure codes were required to achieve reasonable algorithm performance.

New cancers after autotransplantations for multiple myeloma.

We describe baseline incidence and risk factors for new cancers in 4161 persons receiving autotransplants for multiple myeloma in the United States from 1990 to 2010. Observed incidence of invasive new cancers was compared with expected incidence relative to the US population. The cohort represented 13,387 person-years at-risk. In total, 163 new cancers were observed, for a crude incidence rate of 1.2 new cancers per 100 person-years and cumulative incidences of 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.09 to 3.17), 4.2% (95% CI, 3.49 to 5.00), and 6.1% (95% CI, 5.08 to 7.24) at 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The incidence of new cancers in the autotransplantation cohort was similar to age-, race-, and gender-adjusted comparison subjects with an observed/expected (O/E) ratio of 1.00 (99% CI, .81 to 1.22). However, acute myeloid leukemia and melanoma were observed at higher than expected rates with O/E ratios of 5.19 (99% CI, 1.67 to 12.04; P = .0004), and 3.58 (99% CI, 1.82 to 6.29; P < .0001), respectively. Obesity, older age, and male gender were associated with increased risks of new cancers in multivariate analyses. This large data set provides a baseline for comparison and defines the histologic type specific risk for new cancers in patients with MM receiving postautotransplantation therapies, such as maintenance.

A review of second primary malignancy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide.

In a retrospective pooled analysis of 11 clinical trials of lenalidomide-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM; N = 3846), the overall incidence rate (IR, events per 100 patient-years) of second primary malignancies (SPMs) was 3.62. IR of invasive (hematologic and solid tumor) SPMs was 2.08, consistent with the background incidence of developing cancer. In a separate analysis of pooled data from pivotal phase 3 trials of relapsed or refractory MM (N = 703), the overall IR of SPMs was 3.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.51-6.31) with lenalidomide/dexamethasone and 1.38 (95% CI, 0.44-4.27) with placebo/dexamethasone; IRs of nonmelanoma skin cancers were 2.40 (95% CI, 1.33-4.33) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.23-3.66), respectively; IRs of invasive SPMs were 1.71 (95% CI, 0.86-3.43) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.23-3.66), respectively. The risk of SPMs must be taken into account before initiating lenalidomide treatment. In the context of the observed survival benefit in relapsed or refractory MM patients, the benefit/risk profile of lenalidomide/dexamethasone remains positive.

Venous thromboembolism in myelodysplastic syndrome patients receiving lenalidomide: results from postmarketing surveillance and data mining techniques.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multiple myeloma treatment with lenalidomide-based regimens is associated with risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly during concomitant use with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). The risk of VTE in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients treated with lenalidomide is not well characterized and the background risk in untreated patients is not known. This study set out to determine the reporting rate of VTE in MDS patients on lenalidomide in the two years of postmarketing experience in the US, and to investigate whether there is a disproportional signal of VTE in MDS patients on lenalidomide by screening the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) safety database. METHODS: The MDS population exposed to lenalidomide was obtained from RevAssist, the company's proprietary restrictive distribution programme. VTE reports were identified from the company's postmarketing surveillance safety database. The FDA AERS database was used for disproportionality analysis, and signal scores computed using three algorithms: multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and reporting odds ratios (ROR). RESULTS: A total of 7764 MDS patients were prescribed lenalidomide during the first two years of commercial use in the US. VTE representing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism was reported in 41 patients, a reporting rate of 0.53%. The computed signal scores did not exceed the statistical threshold for identification of a significant disproportional signal for VTE in MDS reports involving use of lenalidomide without concomitant use of ESAs. However, a disproportional signal of VTE was detected in MDS reports where lenalidomide was concurrently used with ESAs. CONCLUSION: The VTE reporting rate for MDS patients receiving lenalidomide during the first two years of postmarketing exposure was low (0.53%). Disproportionality analysis demonstrated a statistically meaningful association of VTE with lenalidomide concomitantly used with ESAs in MDS patients, but the association was not statistically significant when lenalidomide was used in the absence of ESAs.

RevAssist: a comprehensive risk minimization programme for preventing fetal exposure to lenalidomide.

Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is an immunomodulatory drug and an analogue of thalidomide, a known teratogen. To prevent fetal exposure, in the US lenalidomide is available only under a special restricted distribution programme called RevAssist. Under this risk minimization programme, only prescribers and contract pharmacies registered with the programme are able to prescribe and dispense the product. Patients must be advised of, agree to and comply with the requirements of the RevAssist programme in order to receive lenalidomide through a registered prescriber. A total of 15 584 patients were registered in the RevAssist programme during the first year lenalidomide was on the market. There were four reports of false-positive beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin measurements in patients aged 43-57 years. Mandatory patient and prescriber surveys have shown discrepant responses that were resolved by risk management intervention specialists 99% of the time. The voluntary patient surveys have shown understanding of the risks of lenalidomide use and of behaviours necessary to minimize risks in >95% of females of childbearing potential and adult males. To date, there have been no reports of pregnancy in female patients or female partners of male patients. The pharmacy audit findings showed compliance with RevAssist was high. Although RevAssist is labour-intensive, time-consuming and costly, it continues to be effective in preventing fetal exposure to lenalidomide.

Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

UNLABELLED: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed. PERSPECTIVE: Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.

A review of the epidemiology of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and less commonly studied neuropathic pain conditions.

Although the burden of neuropathic pain is well-recognized, the descriptive epidemiology of specific neuropathic pain conditions has not been well-described. While painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia have been widely evaluated, many other peripheral and central neuropathic pain syndromes have been less frequently studied. This review summarizes incidence and/or prevalence information about two relatively frequent neuropathic pain conditions-painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia-and similarly summarizes the more limited epidemiologic information available for other peripheral and central neuropathic pain conditions. The data suggest that while our knowledge is still incomplete, the high frequency of several of these conditions in specific populations should be considered an important impetus for further studies designed to evaluate their contribution to the overall burden of neuropathic pain.

Lost productive time and costs due to diabetes and diabetic neuropathic pain in the US workforce.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the impact of diabetes and neuropathic pain on the US workforce. METHODS: Data on lost productive time (LPT) was collected by telephone interview in a random sample of the US population (N=36,634). Of 19,075 occupation-eligible working adults included in the analysis, 1003 reported a physician diagnosis of diabetes; 38% of these reported numbness or tingling in feet or hands due to diabetes (symptom group). We compared diabetes respondents with and without symptoms to other respondents for LPT and related cost. RESULTS: Health-related LPT was 18% higher in the symptom (P<0.05) and 5% higher in the non-symptom (P<0.05) groups versus for those without diabetes. The symptom group lost 1.4 hours of work per week more than the non-symptom group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Workers who have diabetes with neuropathic symptoms lose the equivalent of $3.65 billion/yr in health-related LPT.

Effectiveness of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for Lenalidomide and Thalidomide: Patient Comprehension and Knowledge Retention.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of patient education activities conducted within the lenalidomide and thalidomide risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) programs was evaluated by measuring understanding of serious risk and safe-use messages. METHODS: Results from mandatory knowledge, attitude, and behavior surveys and voluntary patient surveys completed between June 2012 and June 2013 were analyzed, and responses to questions relating to compliance with birth control measures and understanding of safe-use messages are presented by patient risk category. RESULTS: In total, 73,645 patients were enrolled into the REMS programs for lenalidomide and thalidomide and completed mandatory surveys prior to medication dispense. Of these, 2790 (3.8%) completed an additional voluntary survey. Among voluntary survey participants, for all patient pregnancy risk categories, reported compliance with birth control requirements was above 90% when starting therapy and at follow-up. At the beginning of therapy, complete compliance was 96.3%; 3 months later it was 96.4%. Patient understanding of safe-use messages was very high in all pregnancy risk groups, notably for messages repeated at each physician visit. Overall, 98.2% of patients knew that lenalidomide and thalidomide could cause birth defects, which is part of the repeated educational messaging. In contrast, 87.1% recalled that unused product should be returned to their healthcare professional, which is not included in repeated messaging. CONCLUSION: The lenalidomide and thalidomide REMS programs enhance patient understanding of safe-use messages, resulting in high levels of compliance with the birth control precautions essential to prevent fetal exposure to these known and potential human teratogens. Overall compliance was maintained after 3 months of follow-up and throughout therapy.

Mental and physical comorbid conditions and days in role among persons with arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of comorbidity among people with arthritis in the US adult population and to determine the role of comorbidity in accounting for the association of arthritis with days out of role (a measure of inability to work or carry out normal activities). METHODS: Data come from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), a nationally representative household survey of 9,282 respondents ages 18 and older carried out in 2001 to 2003. Arthritis was assessed by self-report in a chronic-conditions checklist, along with a wide range of other physical conditions. Mental and substance use disorders were ascertained with the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Number of days out of role was assessed for the 30 days before the interview. RESULTS: Arthritis was reported by 27.3% of respondents, 80.9% of whom also reported at least one other physical or mental disorder, including 45.6% with another chronic pain condition, 62.3% with another chronic physical condition, and 24.3% with a 12-month mental disorder. Arthritis was significantly associated with days out of role, but comorbidity explained more than half of this association. No significant interactions were found between arthritis and the other conditions in predicting days out of role. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception among people with arthritis. Comorbidity accounts for most of the days out of role associated with arthritis. The societal burden of arthritis needs to be understood and managed within the context of these comorbid conditions.

Burden of illness in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: the patients' perspectives.

UNLABELLED: Our goal was to assess the patient-level burden among subjects with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Community-based physicians recruited patients with painful DPN (N = 255) between April and October 2003. Patients completed a survey on pain experience (Brief Pain Inventory-DPN [BPI-DPN]), health status (EuroQoL [EQ-5D]), healthcare utilization (consults, prescription [Rx], and over-the-counter [OTC] medications), and work productivity/functioning. Patients were 61 +/- 12.8 years old and had diabetes for 12 +/- 10.3 years and painful DPN for 6.4 +/- 6.4 years; 25.5 and 62.7% had other neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. Average and worst pain scores (BPI-DPN, 0-10 scales) were 5.0 +/- 2.5 and 5.6 +/- 2.8. The mean EQ-5D utility was .5 +/- .3 (range = -.594-1). A majority (87.4%) took pain medications (Rx/OTC) in the preceding week: an average of 3.8 +/- 3.9 Rx and 2.1 +/- 1.3 OTC medications. Nearly half (46.7%) received NSAIDs. Other frequently reported medications were short/long-acting opioids (43.1%), anticonvulsants (27.1%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (18%), and tricyclic antidepressants (11.4%). During the preceding 3 months, 59.6% had >or=2 health professional consults; 59% reported decreased home productivity; 85.5% reported activity limitations; and 64.4% of patients who worked (N = 73) reported missing work/decreased work productivity due to painful DPN. Our results underscore a substantial patient-level burden among subjects with painful DPN. PERSPECTIVE: Information on the patient-level burden among painful DPN sufferers in the U.S. was previously lacking. Our results suggest that this burden is significant, evidenced by moderate-to-high pain levels, polypharmacy, health resource use, and work/activity limitations. Results also suggest suboptimal pain management and low levels of satisfaction with treatments.

Sleep impairment in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated sleep impairment associated with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), a neuropathic pain condition. Sleep is of critical concern for DPN because sleep impairment and its comorbidities may influence type 2 diabetes progression. METHODS: This is a supplemental analysis of sleep data from a burden of illness study of patients with painful DPN (N=255, 61+/-12.8 y old, 51.4% women). Sleep was evaluated using the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep measure (MOS-Sleep). MOS-Sleep scores were compared with general population norms (N=1011), the MOS chronic disease sample (N=3445), and patients with postherpetic neuralgia (N=89). The MOS-Sleep Sleep Adequacy score was compared with data from the MOS diabetes subsample (N=590). RESULTS: Patients with painful DPN reported impaired sleep relative to the general population (P<0.001), the chronic disease sample (P<0.001), and postherpetic neuralgia patients (P<0.05). Self-rated MOS-Sleep Sleep Adequacy was significantly less for the painful DPN than for the diabetes sample (P<0.001), although self-reported hours of sleep were not significantly different. Multiple regression indicated that age, average daily pain, and anxiety and depression symptom levels were each significantly (P<0.01) associated with, and collectively accounted for, 47% of variance in the MOS-Sleep Sleep Problems Index. DISCUSSION: Painful DPN is associated with considerable sleep impairment. Given the recognized association between sleep impairment, type 2 diabetes and metabolic and affective disturbance, and the known adverse impact of affective disturbance on diabetes self-care, addressing these features-pain, sleep, and affective disturbance-is an important aspect of care for patients with painful DPN.

Identification of cut-points for mild, moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

This study identified discrete categories of pain severity in a sample of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), through derivation of cut-points on a 0-10 scale of pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory-DPN, BPI-DPN). Subjects were participants in a burden of illness survey (N=255). Serlin and colleagues' method establishing cut-points for cancer pain was adapted, considering all possible cut-points between 4 and 8. Optimal cut-points were those that created three pain severity categories producing maximum between-category differences on the seven BPI-DPN Interference items, using MANOVA. Cut-points of 4 and 7 optimally classified the sample for both Worst Pain and Average Pain, creating categories of mild, 0-3; moderate, 4-6; severe, 7 and higher (Hotelling's T(2)=22.95 and 16.20 for Worst and Average Pain, P<0.0001). Mean BPI-DPN Interference was 2.1 (SD=2.1), 4.9 (SD=1.9) and 7.4 (SD=1.6) for the mild, moderate and severe pain categories. Patients in the three categories differed significantly on patient-rated outcomes (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12v2 Mental and Physical Component Summaries and EuroQOL utility score), and on DPN-related healthcare visits (P<0.001). The labels 'mild, moderate and severe' Worst and Average Pain corresponded with patients' ratings of their pain using a verbal rating scale. This research shows that three categories of DPN pain severity can be identified based on interference with daily function, and that these categories are associated with patient outcomes and medical utilization.

Chronic spinal pain and physical-mental comorbidity in the United States: results from the national comorbidity survey replication.

This paper investigates comorbidity between chronic back and neck pain and other physical and mental disorders in the US population, and assesses the contributions of chronic spinal pain and comorbid conditions to role disability. A probability sample of US adults (n=5692) was interviewed. Chronic spinal pain, other chronic pain conditions and selected chronic physical conditions were ascertained by self-report. Mood, anxiety and substance use disorders were ascertained with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Role disability was assessed with questions about days out of role and with impaired role functioning. The 1 year prevalence of chronic spinal pain was 19.0%. The vast majority (87.1%) of people with chronic spinal pain reported at least one other comorbid condition, including other chronic pain conditions (68.6%), chronic physical conditions (55.3%), and mental disorders (35.0%). Anxiety disorders showed as strong an association with chronic spinal pain as did mood disorders. Common conditions not significantly comorbid with chronic spinal pain were diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and drug abuse. Chronic spinal pain was significantly associated with role disability after controlling for demographic variables and for comorbidities. However, comorbid conditions explained about one-third of the gross association of chronic spinal pain with role disability. We conclude that chronic spinal pain is highly comorbid with other pain conditions, chronic diseases, and mental disorders, and that comorbidity plays a significant role in role disability associated with chronic spinal pain. The societal burdens of chronic spinal pain need to be understood and managed within the context of comorbid conditions.

Validation of a modified version of the brief pain inventory for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Neuropathic pain is the focus of current clinical research, clinical identification, and treatment. It is unique from nociceptive pain and requires evaluation of the relevance and utility of common pain measures created for other painful conditions. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (BPI-DPN). Participants were patients with painful DPN (n=255) enrolled in a DPN Burden of Illness survey referred through 17 outpatient settings (primary care physicians, endocrinologists, neurologists, and anesthesiologists). Patients completed the BPI-DPN, and self-report measures of health-related quality of life, mood sleep, and healthcare utilization. Construct, criterion and discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability were evaluated. Principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation revealed two interpretable factors (eigenvalues>1.0), consistent with most published BPI validation studies; a severity scale comprising the four BPI Severity items and an interference scale comprising the seven Interference items, which satisfied criteria for interpretability and model fit. Cronbach's alpha was high (0.94) for both scales. Mean pain Severity was highly correlated with Bodily Pain from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12, version 2 (rs=0.63, P < 0.001), the Pain/Discomfort item in the Euro-QoL (rs=0.58, P < 0.001), and a verbal rating scale measure of pain severity (rs=0.74, P < 0.001). Individual BPI-DPN Interference domains were moderately correlated (rs's >0.5, P < 0.001) with analogous measures, and the Sleep Interference item had a high, significant association with the three primary Medical Outcome Study-Sleep scale subscales (rs's=0.66-71, P < 0.001). Worst Pain and Interference ratings were significantly associated with hospital utilization and outpatient visits due to DPN. These results replicate, in a pure peripheral neuropathic pain condition, the BPI psychometric characteristics documented in populations with nociceptive or mixed pain conditions. The BPI-DPN is a promising instrument in the evaluation of painful DPN.

Pain severity in diabetic peripheral neuropathy is associated with patient functioning, symptom levels of anxiety and depression, and sleep.

Our goal was to evaluate pain severity, pain-related interference with function, sleep impairment, symptom levels of anxiety and depression, and quality of life among patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Participants in a burden of illness survey (n = 255) completed the modified Brief Pain Inventory-DPN (BPI-DPN), MOS Sleep Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Short Form Health Survey-12v2 (SF-12v2), and the EuroQoL (EQ-5D). Patients were 61 +/- 12.8 years old (51.4% female), had diabetes for 12 +/- 10.3 years and painful DPN for 6.4 +/- 6.4 years. Average and Worst Pain scores (BPI-DPN, 0-10 scales) were 5.0 +/- 2.5 and 5.6 +/- 2.8. Pain substantially interfered (>or=4 on 0-10 scales) with walking ability, normal work, sleep, enjoyment of life, mood, and general activity. Moderate to severe symptom levels of anxiety and depression (HADS-A and HADS-D scores >or=11 on 0-21 scales) occurred in 35% and 28% of patients, respectively. Patients reported greater sleep problems compared with the general U.S. population and significant impairment in both physical and mental functioning (SF-12v2) compared with subjects with diabetes. The mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.5 +/- 0.3. Greater pain levels in DPN (mild to moderate to severe) corresponded with higher symptom levels of anxiety and depression, more sleep problems, and lower utility ratings and physical and mental functioning, (all Ps < 0.01). Painful DPN is associated with decrements in many aspects of patients' lives: physical and emotional functioning, affective symptoms, and sleep problems. The negative impact is higher in patients with greater pain severity.

Validation of a modified version of the Brief Pain Inventory for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Neuropathic pain is the focus of current clinical research, clinical identification, and treatment. It is unique from nociceptive pain and requires evaluation of the relevance and utility of common pain measures created for other painful conditions. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (BPI-DPN). Participants were patients with painful DPN (n = 255) enrolled in a DPN Burden of Illness survey referred through 17 outpatient settings (primary care physicians, endocrinologists, neurologists, and anesthesiologists). Patients completed the BPI-DPN and self-report measures of health-related quality of life, mood sleep, and health care use. Construct, criterion and discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability were evaluated. Principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation revealed two interpretable factors (eigenvalues > 1.0), consistent with most published BPI validation studies: a severity scale comprising the four BPI Severity items and an interference scale comprising the seven Interference items, which satisfied criteria for interpretability and model fit. Cronbach's alpha was high (0.94) for both scales. Mean pain Severity was highly correlated with Bodily Pain from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12, version 2 (r(s) = 0.63, P < .001), the Pain/Discomfort item in the Euro-QoL (r(s) = 0.58, P < .001), and a verbal rating scale measure of pain severity (r(s) = 0.74, P < .001). Individual BPI-DPN Interference domains were moderately correlated (r(s)'s > 0.5, P < .001) with analogous measures, and the Sleep Interference item had a high, significant association with the three primary Medical Outcome Study-Sleep scale subscales (r(s)'s = 0.66-71, P < .001). Worst Pain and Interference ratings were significantly associated with hospital use and outpatient visits because of DPN. These results replicate, in a pure peripheral neuropathic pain condition, the BPI psychometric characteristics documented in populations with nociceptive or mixed pain conditions. The BPI-DPN is a promising instrument in the evaluation of painful DPN.

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. METHODS: Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.

Health-related quality of life outcomes of lenalidomide in transfusion-dependent patients with Low- or Intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with a chromosome 5q deletion: results from a randomized clinical trial.

We report health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) among 167 RBC transfusion-dependent patients with IPSS Low-/Intermediate-1-risk del5q31 MDS treated with lenalidomide versus placebo in a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, MDS-004. Mean baseline to 12 week changes in FACT-An Total scores improved following treatment with lenalidomide 5 and 10mg (+5.7 and +5.7, respectively) versus placebo (-2.8) (both p<0.05). Clinically important changes in HRQL from baseline were observed at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48 among RBC-TI≥26 week responders in both treatment groups. Lenalidomide treatment may be effective in improving HRQL outcomes.

The economic burden of fibromyalgia: comparative analysis with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare direct costs, utilization, and the rate of comorbidities in a sample of patients with fibromyalgia (FM), a poorly understood illness associated with chronic widespread pain that is commonly treated by rheumatologists, to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a well studied rheumatologic illness associated with inflammatory joint pain. Patients with both illnesses were isolated and reported as a third group. A secondary analysis of work loss was performed for an employed subset of these patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of Thomson Reuters MarketScan administrative healthcare claims and employer-collected absence and disability data for adult patients with a diagnosis of FM (ICD-9-CM 729.1) and/or RA (ICD-9-CM 714.0x,-714.3x) on at least one inpatient or two outpatient claims during 2001-2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 12-month healthcare utilization, expenditures, and rates of comorbidities were quantified for all study-eligible patients; absence and short-term disability days and costs were quantified for an employed subset. RESULTS: The sample included 14034 FM, 7965 RA, and 331 FM+RA patients. Patients with FM had a higher prevalence of several comorbidities and greater emergency department (ED) utilization than those with RA. Mean annual expenditures for FM patients were $10911 (SD=$16075). RA patient annual expenditures were similar to FM: $10716 (SD= $16860). Annual expenditures were almost double in patients with FM+RA ($19395, SD= $25440). A greater proportion of patients with FM had any short-term disability days than those with RA (20 vs. 15%); and a greater proportion of patients with RA had any absence days (65 vs. 80%). Mean costs for absence from work and short-term disability in the FM and RA groups were substantial and similar. The FM+RA group was of insufficient sample size to report on work loss. LIMITATIONS: The availability of newer and more expensive FDA-approved medications since 2004 is not reflected in our findings. This analysis was restricted to commercially insured patients and therefore may not be generalizable to the entire U.S. population. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of illness in FM is substantial and comparable to RA. Patients with FM incurred direct costs approximately equal to RA patients. Patients with FM had more ED, physician, and physical therapy visits than RA patients. Patients in both groups had several comorbidities. Patients with FM+RA incurred direct costs almost double those of the patients with either diagnosis alone. FM and RA patients incurred similar overall absence and short-term disability costs.