Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

Sex and Gender Differences in Migraine-Evaluating Knowledge Gaps.

Migraine is a common chronic neurological disease that disproportionately affects women. Migraine has significant negative effects on physical, emotional, and social aspects of health, and can be costly for patients, employers, and society as a whole. Growing evidence supports the roles of sex and gender in migraine risk, pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and management. However, sex and gender differences in migraine have received limited attention, which can impede advancements in migraine detection, treatment, care, and education. The Society for Women's Health Research convened an interdisciplinary expert panel of researchers, clinicians, and advocates for a roundtable meeting to review the current research on sex and gender differences in migraine. This review summarizes discussions from the roundtable and prioritizes areas of need that warrant further attention in migraine research, care, and education. Examining sex and gender differences in migraine and addressing knowledge gaps will decrease the health and economic burden of migraine for both women and men.

Sex preferences in cardiovascular testing: the contribution of the patient-physician discussion.

OBJECTIVES: Prior studies suggest that a decreased cardiac catheterization rate for women with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is partially attributed to gender differences in patient preferences for testing. The hypothesis was that these preferences are influenced by physician recommendations for cardiovascular testing. METHODS: This was a cohort study of patients who presented to an emergency department (ED) with chest pain. At the time of ED disposition, patients were surveyed to assess whether or not the doctor discussed the possibility of coronary artery disease (CAD), the physician's recommendations for diagnostic testing, and the patient's preferences for further testing. The survey was repeated at the time of discharge from the hospital if the patient was admitted and again at 30 days for all patients. The main outcome was patient-reported physician recommendation for testing, and the secondary outcome was patient preference for cardiovascular testing. RESULTS: There were 206 patients enrolled (118 women, 88 men). Women were less likely than men to receive cardiac catheterization as inpatients (9.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.04). In the ED, women were less likely to be recommended for stress testing (8.5% vs. 19.3%, p = 0.02) or cardiac catheterization (4.2% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.02) or to see a cardiologist (8.5% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.01). As inpatients, women were more likely to be told that no further testing was needed (70.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.03). While there was higher incidence of prior CAD and myocardial infarction among the men in the study, analysis after removal of these patients did not alter results. Physicians were less likely to counsel women about diagnostic testing options in the ED (10.1% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.03), as inpatients (11.5% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.01), and as outpatients (26.1% vs. 48.6%, p = 0.04). No patients in the study refused their doctors' recommendations. Women were less likely to prefer catheterization in the ED (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.01) and were more likely to prefer no further testing as inpatients (60.7% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Women who presented to the ED with symptoms concerning for ACS reported lower rates of physician recommendation for cardiovascular testing, as well as lower rates of counseling regarding cardiac etiologies of their chest pain. These findings suggest sex differences in preference for cardiovascular testing may be partially explained by the discussions between women and their doctors.