Exploring Gender Differences in Veterans in a Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness for Chronic Pain.

Background: Although studies have documented higher rates of chronic pain among women Veterans compared to men Veterans, there remains a lack of comprehensive information about potential contributors to these disparities. Materials and Methods: This study examined gender differences in chronic pain and its contributors among 419 men and 392 women Veterans, enrolled in a mindfulness trial for chronic pain. We conducted descriptive analyses summarizing distributions of baseline measures, obtained by survey and through the electronic health record. Comparisons between genders were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous measures. Results: Compared to men, women Veterans were more likely to have chronic overlapping pain conditions and had higher levels of pain interference and intensity. Women had higher prevalence of psychiatric and sleep disorder diagnoses, greater levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stress and pain catastrophizing, and lower levels of pain self-efficacy and participation in social roles and activities. However, women were less likely to smoke or have a substance abuse disorder and used more nonpharmacological pain treatment modalities. Conclusion: Among Veterans seeking treatment for chronic pain, women differed from men in their type of pain, had greater pain intensity and interference, and had greater prevalence and higher levels of many known biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Results point to the need for pain treatment that addresses the comprehensive needs of women Veterans.Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04526158. Patient enrollment began on December 4, 2020.

Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP): Design for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Two Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based nonpharmacological treatments for treating chronic pain. However, the predominant MBI, mindfulness-based stress reduction, has features that pose significant implementation barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study will test two approaches to delivering MBIs for improving Veterans' chronic pain and mental health comorbidities. These two approaches address key implementation barriers. METHODS: We will conduct a four-site, three-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP), to test the effectiveness of two MBIs at improving pain and mental health comorbidities. Mobile+Group LAMP consists of prerecorded modules presented by a mindfulness instructor that are viewed in an online group setting and interspersed with discussions led by a facilitator. Mobile LAMP consists of the same prerecorded modules but does not include a group component. We will test whether either of these MBIs will be more effective than usual care at improving chronic pain and whether the Mobile+Group LAMP will be more effective than Mobile LAMP at improving chronic pain. Comparisons for the primary hypotheses will be conducted with continuous outcomes (Brief Pain Inventory interference score) repeated at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary hypotheses are that Mobile+Group LAMP and Mobile LAMP will be more effective than usual care at improving secondary outcomes (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression). We will also confirm the comparisons for the primary and secondary hypotheses in gender-specific strata. IMPLICATIONS: This trial is expected to result in two approaches for delivering MBIs that will optimize engagement, adherence, and sustainability and be able to reach large numbers of Veterans.

Benefits and Harms of Prescription Drugs and Supplements for Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Effects of drug treatment of clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on the effects of prescription drugs and supplements for CATD treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases (inception to November 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (to November 2019), and systematic review bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials of prescription drug and supplement treatment in older adults with CATD that report cognition, function, global measures, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), or harms. Minimum treatment was 24 weeks (≥2 weeks for selected BPSD). DATA EXTRACTION: Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; another verified extraction accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-five studies reporting non-BPSD outcomes (most ≤26 weeks) and 12 reporting BPSD (most ≤12 weeks) were analyzed. Across CATD severity, mostly low-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, cholinesterase inhibitors produced small average improvements in cognition (median standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.30 [range, 0.24 to 0.52]), no difference to small improvement in function (median SMD, 0.19 [range, -0.10 to 0.22]), no difference in the likelihood of at least moderate improvement in global clinical impression (median absolute risk difference, 4% [range, 2% to 4%]), and increased withdrawals due to adverse events. In adults with moderate to severe CATD receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, low- to insufficient-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, add-on memantine inconsistently improved cognition and improved global clinical impression but not function. Evidence was mostly insufficient about prescription drugs for BPSD and about supplements for all outcomes. LIMITATION: Most drugs had few trials without high ROB, especially for supplements, active drug comparisons, BPSD, and longer trials. CONCLUSION: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine slightly reduced short-term cognitive decline, and cholinesterase inhibitors slightly reduced reported functional decline, but differences versus placebo were of uncertain clinical importance. Evidence was mostly insufficient on drug treatment of BPSD and on supplements for all outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).

The Association Between Protein Intake by Source and Osteoporotic Fracture in Older Men: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Dietary protein is a potentially modifiable risk factor for fracture. Our objectives were to assess the association of protein intake with incident fracture among older men and whether these associations varied by protein source or by skeletal site. We studied a longitudinal cohort of 5875 men (mean age 73.6 ± 5.9 years) in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. At baseline, protein intake was assessed as percent of total energy intake (TEI) with mean intake from all sources = 16.1%TEI. Incident clinical fractures were confirmed by physician review of medical records. There were 612 major osteoporotic fractures, 806 low-trauma fractures, 270 hip fractures, 193 spine fractures, and 919 non-hip non-spine fractures during 15 years of follow-up. We used Cox proportional hazards models with age, race, height, clinical site, TEI, physical activity, marital status, osteoporosis, gastrointestinal surgery, smoking, oral corticosteroids use, alcohol consumption, and calcium and vitamin D supplements as covariates to compute hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), all expressed per unit (SD = 2.9%TEI) increase. Higher protein intake was associated with a decreased risk of major osteoporotic fracture (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.00) with a similar association found for low-trauma fracture. The association between protein and fracture varied by protein source; eg, increased dairy protein and non-dairy animal protein were associated with a decreased risk of hip fracture (HR = 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98] and HR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97], respectively), whereas plant-source protein was not (HR = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.24]). The association between protein and fracture varied by fracture site; total protein was associated with a decreased risk of hip fracture (HR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95]), but not clinical spine fracture (HR = 1.06 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.22]). In conclusion, those with high protein intake (particularly high animal protein intake) as a percentage of TEI have a lower risk of major osteoporotic fracture. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Systematic review: effective management strategies for lactose intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Lactose intolerance resulting in gastrointestinal symptoms is a common health concern. Diagnosis and management of this condition remain unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the maximum tolerable dose of lactose and interventions for reducing symptoms of lactose intolerance among persons with lactose intolerance and malabsorption. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, for trials published in English from 1967 through November 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of individuals with lactose intolerance or malabsorption. DATA EXTRACTION: Three investigators independently reviewed articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 36 unique randomized studies (26 on lactase- or lactose-hydrolyzed milk supplements, lactose-reduced milk, or tolerable doses of lactose; 7 on probiotics; 2 on incremental lactose administration for colonic adaptation; and 1 on another agent) met inclusion criteria. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that 12 to 15 g of lactose (approximately 1 cup of milk) is well tolerated by most adults. Evidence was insufficient that lactose-reduced solution or milk with a lactose content of 0 to 2 g, compared with greater than 12 g, is effective in reducing symptoms of lactose intolerance. Evidence for probiotics, colonic adaptation, and other agents was also insufficient. LIMITATIONS: Most studies evaluated persons with lactose malabsorption rather than lactose intolerance. Variation in enrollment criteria, outcome reporting, and the composition and dosing of studied agents precluded pooling of results and limited interpretation. CONCLUSION: Most individuals with presumed lactose intolerance or malabsorption can tolerate 12 to 15 g of lactose. Additional studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of lactose intolerance treatment.