Cheville, Andrea

AbstractObjectiveChronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. It would be advantageous to have common outcome measures when comparing results across different CMSP research studies.MethodsThe Veterans Health Administration appointed a work group to recommend core outcome measures for assessing pain intensity and interference as well as important secondary domains in clinical research. The work group used three streams of data to inform their recommendations: 1) literature synthesis augmented by three recently completed trials; 2) review and comparison of measures recommended by other expert groups; 3) two Delphi surveys of work group members.ResultsThe single-item numerical rating scale and seven-item Brief Pain Inventory interference scale emerged as the recommended measures for assessing pain intensity and interference, respectively. The secondary domains ranked most important included physical functioning and depression, followed by sleep, anxiety, and patient-reported global impression of change (PGIC). For these domains, the work group recommended the Patient-Reported Outcome Information System four-item physical function and sleep scales, the Patient Health Questionnaire two-item depression scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder two-item anxiety scale, and the single-item PGIC. Finally, a single-item National Health Interview Survey item was favored for defining chronic pain.ConclusionsTwo scales comprising eight items are recommended as core outcome measures for pain intensity and interference in all studies of chronic musculoskeletal pain, and brief scales comprising 13 additional items can be added when possible to assess important secondary domains.

PurposeMetastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) can be a catastrophic manifestation of advanced cancer that causes immobilizing pain and significant neurologic impairment. Oncologists can protect their patients by having a high index of suspicion for MSCC when patients present with new or worsening back pain before motor, sensory, bowel, or bladder deficits develop. We provide an updated, evidence-based narrative review of the presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of MSCC.MethodsThis narrative review was conducted by searching MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant literature on the presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with MSCC. The article addresses the key elements of MSCC management germane to the medical oncologist, with special attention given to pain and symptom management, decision making with regard to surgery and radiation therapy, the importance of rehabilitative care, and the value of a multidisciplinary approach.ResultsMagnetic resonance imaging of the entire spine is recommended for the diagnosis of MSCC. Treatment includes glucocorticoid therapy, pain management, radiation therapy with or without surgery, and specialized rehabilitation. When formulating a treatment plan, clinicians should consider the patient’s care goals and psychosocial needs.ConclusionPrompt diagnosis and treatment of MSCC can reduce pain and prevent irreversible functional loss. Regular collaboration among multidisciplinary providers may streamline care and enhance achievement of treatment goals.

The number of survivors of cancer in the United States, already 14.5 million, is growing with improved cancer treatment and aging of the population. Two-thirds of cancer survivors will be older than age 65 and are likely to enter cancer treatment already deconditioned and with multiple comorbidities. Survivors of cancer face numerous adverse consequences of cancer treatment that add to or exacerbate the effects of existing comorbidities and increase risk of functional decline. Many of these problems are amenable to rehabilitation interventions, but referral to cancer rehabilitation professionals is not a standard part of care. We present an expanded prospective model of surveillance, cancer rehabilitation assessment, and referral efforts using a multidisciplinary team approach. In this model, cancer rehabilitation begins at the time of cancer diagnosis and continues through and beyond cancer treatment. Physical impairments and psychosocial symptoms are assessed and treated, and lifestyle and exercise interventions are provided to optimize functioning, health, and quality of life. We present a stepped-care framework to guide decisions on when, how, and where to refer survivors to cancer rehabilitation specialists depending on safety requirements and needs. This model has the potential to result in early identification of symptoms and impairments, appropriate referral and timely treatment, and, in turn, will better address and minimize both acute and long-term cancer morbidity.

Background As the population with cardiovascular disease ages, geriatric conditions are of increasing relevance. A possible geriatric prognostic indicator may be a fall risk score, which is mandated by The Joint Commission to be measured on all hospitalized patients. The prognostic value of a fall risk score on outcomes after dismissal is not well known. Thus, we aimed to determine whether a fall risk score is associated with death and hospital readmissions in patients with a recent incident cardiovascular disease event. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, Olmsted County, MN patients with incident heart failure, myocardial infarction, or atrial fibrillation between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, who were hospitalized within 180 days after the event were studied. Fall risk was measured by the Hendrich II fall risk model. Patients were followed for death or readmission within 30 days or 1 year. Among 2456 hospitalized patients with recent incident cardiovascular disease (549 heart failure, 784 myocardial infarction, 1123 atrial fibrillation; mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 55% men), the fall risk score was high in 22% of patients and moderate in 38%. The risk of death was increased if the fall risk score was increased, independent of age and comorbidities (moderate hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09–2.08; high hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.52–4.85). Similarly, the risk of 30-day readmissions was substantially increased with a greater fall risk score (moderate hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03–1.62; high hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23–2.15). Results were similar for readmissions within 1 year. Conclusions More than half of hospitalized patients with recent incident cardiovascular disease have an elevated fall risk score, which is associated with an increased risk in readmissions and death. These results delineate an approach for risk stratification and management that may prevent readmissions and improve survival.

Abstract Background Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer often differ from the traditional patient typically seen in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. Purpose To identify differences in care while highlighting the considerable similarities between the complementary specialties of palliative care and rehabilitation, and to provide rehabilitation clinicians with knowledge and skills to enhance care for palliative care patients and their families. Methodology Narrative literature review describing common functional losses in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, followed by articulation of the intersection of palliative care with traditional rehabilitation approaches and goals. Conclusion The evidence supports implementation of a distinct body of skills and knowledge, referred to as “palliative rehabilitation,” among inpatient rehabilitation providers. Clinical Implications Implementing palliative rehabilitation skills can improve the quality of care within the inpatient rehabilitation setting for patients with advanced cancer.

In a prospective cohort study of the health effects associated with prenatal Diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure, DES was associated with an increased breast cancer risk after 40 years of age. It is unknown whether it is associated with greater mammographic density, which strongly predicts breast cancer risk. A cohort of DES‐exposed and unexposed women was assembled at the Mayo Clinic in 1975, and followed through 2012 as part of the National Cancer Institute's DES follow‐up study. Mammographic density from 3,637 mammograms for 332 (222 DES‐exposed, 110 unexposed) women in this cohort screened at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 1996 and 2015 was determined clinically using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI‐RADS). Any effect of prenatal DES exposure on mammographic density was estimated using repeated measures logistic regression. There was no association between prenatal DES exposure and high mammographic density for either premenopausal [Odds ratios (OR) = 0.92 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.50, 1.7] or postmenopausal women (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.5). Among premenopausal women, associations differed by body mass index (BMI), with ORs of 1.47 (0.70, 3.1) for women with BMI above the median and 0.53 (0.23, 1.3) for those with BMI below the median (pinteraction = 0.05). Overall, however, prenatal DES exposure was not associated with high mammographic density in this sample of DES Study participants. Consequently, this study does not provide evidence that high mammographic density is involved with the influence of DES on breast cancer risk.