Development of the Anxiety, Depression and Coping (ADAF) screening tool for emotional and coping problems in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines recommend psychological screening in cancer patients. However, most scales cover many items and hamper detection. In addition, patients are generally referred from routine consultations. The specific objective of the present study was to develop and validate a tool, Anxiety, Depression, Coping (ADAF), to screen for anxiety and depression and assess coping in cancer patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional, multicenter study performed in the medical and radiotherapy-oncology services of five hospitals in Madrid and coordinated by the Medical Oncology Service of Hospital Clínico San Carlos (CEIC nº19/265-E). To determine psychometric properties, the ADAF screening questionnaire ADAF was administered. ADAF includes five items (1 related to anxiety symptoms, 2 related to depressive symptoms, 1 for helplessness coping, and 1 for avoidance coping). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer scale were used as the gold standards. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves constructed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients completed the evaluation. The correlation coefficients were significant for all dimensions (anxiety, depression, helplessness coping, and avoidance coping) (p < 0.001). The statistical analysis of the ROC curves suggested that the cut-off point for screening was >2 points (3 in the case of depression), with a sensitivity and specificity between 62% and 90%, and an area under the curve above 0.8 for the first 4 items. CONCLUSIONS: ADAF screening has adequate reliability and good sensitivity and specificity. This instrument is useful and can be easily applied to identify emotional and coping problems in cancer patients.

Influence of prognosis factors on the prescription of targeted treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: A Delphi survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore current evidence on the management of poor prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to investigate whether this evidence is taken into account by clinicians when deciding on treatment in daily clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to analyse the effects of currently available biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) on the classically accepted poor prognostic factors of RA. All randomized controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses about effects on prognostic factors were identified and synthesized. In a second phase, a two-round Delphi survey was carried out to contrast the SLR results with the grade of agreement of a large group of rheumatologists about the effectiveness of each drug class on each prognostic factor. RESULTS: According to the Delphi results, the only prognostic factor that significantly influenced the selection of treatment was the presence of interstitial lung disease (ILD), being the preferred treatment in this scenario abatacept or rituximab. The rest of the poor prognostic factors (including high disease activity at baseline, disability as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire index, seropositivity, elevated acute-phase reactants, and evidence of erosions based on plain radiography or ultrasonography) did not seem to significantly influence rheumatologists when choosing a treatment. The results of the SLR results did not show solid evidence regarding the use of any specific therapy in the management of patients with specific poor factors, except in the case of RA-ILD, although the data in the literature in this regard are not free of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The only prognostic factor that seems to significantly influence the selection of treatment is the presence of RA-ILD.

Use of prognostic factors of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice and perception of their predictive capacity before and after exposure to evidence.

The aim of the study is to benchmark the use and attributed importance of well-established prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice, and to contrast the use of factors with their ability to predict outcome. Medline was searched (inception-Sep. 2016) for systematic reviews on factors predicting death, disability, structural damage or remission in RA. All factors identified were compiled in a matrix of factors × outcomes, and scoping reviews for each cell were then performed. A survey to 42 rheumatologists randomly selected explored the use of the list of prognostic factors and inquired about the perceived strength of association with poor prognosis. In a second round, participants were exposed to evidence from the matrix and to responses from other participants. Change on perceived strength of association was evaluated. Rheumatologists report using prognostic factors in clinical practice on a daily basis. Very young onset, joint counts at diagnosis, rheumatoid factor, ACPA, and radiographic erosions are used frequently and correctly recognized as strong predictors. Comorbidities and other associated problems, such as obesity, low bone mineral density, cardiovascular disease, or extra-articular manifestations, are perceived as moderately associated to prognosis but, nevertheless, rheumatologists also use them profusely. Genetic and other biomarkers and osteitis by magnetic resonance are less accessible in daily practice and they obtained better results on second round (probably after knowing the strength of association with prognosis). Rheumatologists use widely most prognostic factors with a strong predictive value. However, factors with low evidence of prognostic value are also used and some factors are not used despite good evidence.