Social & psychological factors associated with oral analgesic use in knee osteoarthritis management.

OBJECTIVE: Determine modifiable social and psychological health factors that are associated with use of oral opioid and non-opioid medications for OA. METHODS: Patients were categorized based on use of the following oral medications: opioids (with/without other oral analgesic treatments), non-opioid analgesics, and no oral analgesic treatment. We used multinomial logistic regression models to estimate adjusted relative risk ratios (RRRs) of using an opioid or a non-opioid analgesic (vs. no oral analgesic treatment), comparing patients by levels of social support (Medical Outcomes Study scale), health literacy ("How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?"), and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). Models were adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In this sample (mean age 64.2 years, 23.6% women), 30.6% (n = 110) reported taking opioid analgesics for OA, 54.2% (n = 195) reported non-opioid use, and 15.3% (n = 55) reported no oral analgesic use. Opioid users had lower mean social support scores (10.0 vs 10.5 vs 11.9, P = 0.007) and were more likely to have moderate-severe depressive symptoms (42.7% vs 24.1% vs 14.5%, P < 0.001). Health literacy did not differ by treatment group type. Having moderate-severe depression was associated with higher risk of opioid analgesic use compared to no oral analgesic use (RRR 2.96, 95%CI 1.08-8.07) when adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Neither social support nor health literacy was associated with opioid or non-opioid oral analgesic use in fully adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Knee OA patients with more severe depression symptoms, compared to those without, were more likely to report using opioid analgesics for OA.

Adverse drug reactions causing admission to a paediatric hospital: a pilot study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: It is known that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause admission to hospital in adults and children. A recent adult study showed that ADRs are an important and frequent cause of hospital admission. The objective of this study is to develop methodology to ascertain the current burden of ADRs through a prospective analysis of all unplanned admissions to a paediatric hospital. METHODS: Prospective observational study over a 2-week period. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: There were 19 admissions to the main hospital wards related to an ADR, giving an estimated incidence of 4%, with the ADR directly leading to the admission in 71% of cases. There were no deaths attributable to ADR. 33% of the reactions were possibly avoidable. The drugs most commonly implicated in causing admissions were anti-neoplastic agents. The most common reactions were neutropenia, vomiting and diarrhoea. The health burden of ADRs in the paediatric population is likely to be significant. This pilot study will be used to inform a much larger prospective study providing more detailed evidence of the burden of ill-health from ADRs in children. This larger study will add to a body of research aiming to identify drug-related problems within children to aid paediatric pharmacovigilance. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study provides knowledge regarding the methodology to be used for a larger study investigating ADRs in children. The study will allow authors who wish to replicate the study in their own populations (internationally) to avoid some of the pitfalls in planning a large epidemiological study of paediatric ADRs. The study also provides an estimate of the incidence and problem of admissions caused by ADRs in a UK paediatric population.

Glycopeptide insensitive Staphylococcus aureus subdural empyema treated with linezolid and rifampicin.

A 4-year-old boy had surgical debulking of a cerebral astrocytoma followed by chemotherapy. He developed a subdural empyema with a teicoplanin and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. He was successfully treated with surgical drainage and 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy which included linezolid, rifampicin and metronidazole. Linezolid may be successful in treating other CNS infections caused by antibiotic resistant gram-positive organisms.

Secondary syphilis presenting as tonsillitis in three patients.

We describe three homosexual men presenting to the ear, nose and throat clinic with severe tonsillitis. All were subsequently diagnosed with secondary syphilis of the tonsil. Syphilis should be considered as a diagnosis in high risk patients presenting with tonsillar lesions, even in the absence of other classical features of the disease.

Reconstruction of the trachea with a tubed radial forearm free flap.

BACKGROUND: We present the case of a patient with adenoid cystic carcinoma of the trachea who had 60 mm of the trachea excised and reconstructed with a stented radial forearm free flap. The patient was well in the immediate postoperative period with good function of the neotrachea. Problems developing after the reconstruction included proximal stricture, sputum retention, and recurrent pneumonia. RESULT: The patient died of malignant hypercalcemia 16 months after the reconstruction. To our knowledge this is the first reported case of a total tracheal resection and reconstruction with a combination of free tissue transfer and internal stenting. CONCLUSION: We conclude that tracheal reconstruction has the potential to provide a reliable airway in patients not able to be reconstructed with a primary anastomosis.

Comparative study of a combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen to sumatriptan succinate for the treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine, with or without aura, when taken at the first sign of an attack. BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved sumatriptan succinate and the combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen for the treatment of migraine. As part of the stratified treatment of migraine, those patients whose headaches are mild or moderate may benefit from nontriptan medications. Additionally, early treatment of acute migraine before the headache has become moderate or severe may improve response to treatment. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate in the early stages of a single migraine attack. Patients diagnosed with migraine, with or without aura, as defined by the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria were enrolled. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the study. Data for efficacy were available for 126 patients; safety data were available for 128 patients. No statistically significant difference between the two active agents in the patient's response to treatment was demonstrated. Headache recurrence was not significantly different over the 24-hour evaluation period for those patients responding in the first 4 hours. In those with headache recurrence, it was statistically significantly more severe in those patients treated with sumatriptan succinate. Improvement in functional disability was, in general, better among those treated with isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen. Global analysis of efficacy was similar in the two active groups. Patients treated with sumatriptan succinate were somewhat more likely to have adverse effects than the isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen group. CONCLUSIONS: Both isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate are safe and effective when used early in the treatment of an acute migraine. Several parameters suggest that isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen may have a slight advantage compared with sumatriptan succinate in the early treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine.

Chronic pain. Sources of late-life pain and risk factors for disability.

The prevalence of pain peaks in middle age and decreases thereafter, according to most epidemiologic studies of complaints of pain. However, this apparent decrease in pain in older adults may be a statistical artifact. Eighty to 85% of persons experience a significant health problem that predisposes them to pain at some time after age 65. With aging, patients experience less frequent head, abdominal, and chest pain and more frequent joint pain. Women are more likely to report musculoskeletal pain and multiple pain sites than men, but there are no gender differences for reports of chest and abdominal pain. Many patients with chronic pain have clinically significant depressive symptoms and low self-reported quality-of-life scores.

A comparative trial of zolmitriptan and sumatriptan for the acute oral treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, parallel group multicenter study compared response rates and tolerability of zolmitriptan with sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: A sample consisting of 1445 outpatients with an established diagnosis of migraine was randomized to zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg or 5 mg, or sumatriptan, 25 mg or 50 mg. Patients took 1 tablet for moderate/severe migraine and a second identical tablet, if necessary, for recurrent headache of moderate/severe intensity 4 to 24 hours after the initial dose. Up to six attacks were treated during a 6-month period. The primary outcome measure was headache response 2 hours after the initial dose. Secondary end points included 1-hour and 4-hour headache response and pain relief over 24 hours. RESULTS: A headache response at 2 hours was noted in 67.1% of patients taking zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, and 64.8% of those taking zolmitriptan, 5 mg, versus 59.6% of patients taking sumatriptan, 25 mg, and 63.8% of those taking sumatriptan, 50 mg. At 2 and 4 hours, the differences between zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, and sumatriptan, 25 mg, were statistically significant (odds ratio=1.49 and 1.67, respectively; both P<.001). Statistically significant differences between zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, and sumatriptan, 50 mg, were seen at 2 and 4 hours post dose (odds ratio=1.21 and 1.23, respectively; both P<.05). At 1 hour post dose, the headache response rate for zolmitriptan, 2. 5 mg, was numerically higher than response rates for sumatriptan, 25 mg and 50mg (odds ratio=1.16, odds ratio=1.06, though they failed to reach statistical significance; P=.061, P=.461 respectively). Differences between zolmitriptan, 5 mg, and sumatriptan, 25 mg, were statistically significant at 1, 2, and 4 hours (odds ratio=1.43, 1. 46, and 1.78, respectively; all P<.001) and at 1 and 4 hours versus sumatriptan, 50 mg (odds ratio=1.28, P=.002; odds ratio=1.29, P=.012, respectively). Although not statistically significant at 2 hours, more patients responded to zolmitriptan, 5 mg, than to sumatriptan, 50 mg (odds ratio=1.16, P=.064). Patients receiving zolmitriptan, 2. 5 mg or 5 mg, achieved more pain relief over 24 hours than patients receiving sumatriptan, 25 mg (odds ratio=1.47, and 1.54 respectively, both P<.001) or sumatriptan, 50 mg (odds ratio=1.17, P=.021; odds ratio=1.22, P=.005, respectively). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg and 5 mg, was at least as effective as sumatriptan, 25 mg or 50 mg, for all parameters studied. Zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, was significantly more effective than sumatriptan, 50 mg, in terms of headache response at 2 and 4 hours. Patients taking zolmitriptan were significantly more likely to have pain relief over 24 hours than those taking sumatriptan.

Palliative pharmaceutical care: a randomized, prospective study of telephone-based prescription and medication counseling services for treating chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of providing a unique telephone-based pharmaceutical care program to a sample of patients enrolled at a university pain clinic in Philadelphia, Pa. We hypothesized that in comparison to routine pharmaceutical care, the telephone-based pharmaceutical care program would have a positive impact on delivery of medication, quality of life, and overall satisfaction with the pain clinic program. PATIENTS: One hundred seven pain clinic patients were randomly assigned to the control and intervention groups. Seventy-four patients (control group, n = 36; intervention group, n = 38) met inclusion criteria. METHOD: The control group continued to receive care and prescription services through the same means as prior to the study. There were 2 components to the pharmaceutical care program offered to the intervention group. The first component consisted of a palliative care pharmacy company, PainRxperts, providing specialized prescription services tailored to the needs of a pain medicine clinical practice. The second component involved the palliative-trained pharmacist's proactive monitoring of patient pharmacotherapy for potential or actual drug related problems (DRPs). RESULTS: Intervention patients perceived that they had better access to medication, more efficient processing of prescriptions, and fewer stigmatizing experiences. They also endorsed pharmacists' behavioral interventions such as medication counseling, availability to answer medication-related questions, and non-judgmental attitudes when managing opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the palliative-trained pharmacist can play an important collaborative role in managing chronic pain. Application of the pharmaceutical care model in pain medicine centers can improve satisfaction and remove some of the barriers to good pharmaceutical care facing patients with chronic pain disorders

The effects of pain and depression on physical functioning in elderly residents of a continuing care retirement community.

UNLABELLED: OBJECTIVE. Explore the relationships between pain, depression, and functional disability in elderly persons. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, observational study of 228 independently living retirement community residents. METHODS: Self-report measures of pain (adaptation of McGill Pain Questionnaire), depression (Geriatric Depression Scale [GDS]) and physical functioning (Physical performance difficulties, activities of daily living [ADL], independent activities of daily living [IADL], and 3-meter walking speed) were employed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Physical functioning variables were dichotomized. Individuals in the lowest quartiles of functional performance and of walking speed were contrasted to all others; for ADL and IADL, those needing some help were compared with those independent in activities. RESULTS: Pain and depression levels were strongly related to physical performance; depression levels were related to ADL and walking speed. In multivariate analyses, an interaction effect was observed where the effects of pain were a function of level of depression. Individuals reporting activity-limiting pain and slightly elevated depressive symptom levels, sub-threshold depression, or major depression were significantly more likely (AOR 7.8; 95% CI, 3.07-20.03) than non-depressed persons to be in the lowest quartile of self-reported physical performance. CONCLUSIONS: While both pain and depression level affect physical performance, depressive symptoms rather than pain appear the more influential factor. When seeing elderly patients, identifying, evaluating, and treating both pain complaints and depressive symptoms and disorders may reduce functional impairment.

Somatosensory amplification and affective inhibition are elevated in myofascial face pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine whether affective inhibition and somatosensory amplification are elevated in patients with a history of myofascial face pain (MFP). These processes may underlie a tendency to express distress in somatic rather than affective terms, leading to somatized or masked depression. DESIGN: Women (n = 162) with a history of MFP were compared with demographically equivalent women (n = 173) without MFP histories on self-report scales of affective inhibition and somatosensory amplification. Structured psychiatric interviews and health histories were conducted. In addition, a first-degree relative of 106 myofascial face pain subjects and 118 control subjects completed these same self-report scales. RESULTS: MFP cases and controls differed significantly on measures of affective inhibition and somatosensory amplification. History of depression or current psychological distress did not account for group differences. Elevated levels of somatosensory amplification were confined to MFP women with active symptoms. Finally, although both somatosensory amplification and affective inhibition showed a tendency to run in families, familial transmission did not account for case/control differences. CONCLUSIONS: Affective inhibition and somatosensory amplification are likely to be elevated in patients with MFP. Although not accounted for by psychiatric symptomatology, the possibility that these response styles are reactive to coping with chronic face pain cannot be ruled out.