Browsing by Subject "Arthralgia"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Pain Coping Skills Training for Patients Who Catastrophize About Pain Prior to Knee Arthroplasty: A Multisite Randomized Clinical Trial
    (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc., 2019-02-06) Riddle, Daniel L.; Keefe, Francis J.; Ang, Dennis C.; Slover, James; Jensen, Mark P.; Bair, Matthew J.; Kroenke, Kurt; Perera, Robert A.; Reed, Shelby D.; McKee, Daphne; Dumenci, Levent; Medicine, School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing has been identified as a prognostic indicator of poor outcome following knee arthroplasty. Interventions to address pain catastrophizing, to our knowledge, have not been tested in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pain coping skills training in persons with moderate to high pain catastrophizing undergoing knee arthroplasty improves outcomes 12 months postoperatively compared with usual care or arthritis education. METHODS: A multicenter, 3-arm, single-blinded, randomized comparative effectiveness trial was performed involving 5 university-based medical centers in the United States. There were 402 randomized participants. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Scale, measured at baseline, 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months following the surgical procedure. RESULTS: Participants were recruited from January 2013 to June 2016. In 402 participants, 66% were women and the mean age of the participants (and standard deviation) was 63.2 ± 8.0 years. Three hundred and forty-six participants (90% of those who underwent a surgical procedure) completed a 12-month follow-up. All 3 treatment groups had large improvements in 12-month WOMAC pain scores with no significant differences (p > 0.05) among the 3 treatment arms. No differences were found between WOMAC pain scores at 12 months for the pain coping skills and arthritis education groups (adjusted mean difference, 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.9 to 1.5]) or between the pain coping and usual-care groups (adjusted mean difference, 0.4 [95% CI, -0.7 to 1.5]). Secondary outcomes also showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with pain catastrophizing undergoing knee arthroplasty, cognitive behaviorally based pain coping skills training did not confer pain or functional benefit beyond the large improvements achieved with usual surgical and postoperative care. Future research should develop interventions for the approximately 20% of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty who experience persistent function-limiting pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors
    (SpringerLink, 2017-07) Kadakia, Kunal C.; Kidwell, Kelley M.; Seewald, Nicholas J.; Snyder, Claire F.; Storniolo, Anna Maria; Otte, Julie L.; Flockhart, David A.; Hayes, Daniel F.; Stearns, Vered; Henry, N. Lynn; Medicine, School of Medicine
    PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression. METHODS: Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: -0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: -0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.