Efficacy of Methylprednisolone on Pain, Fatigue, and Appetite Loss in Patients With Advanced Cancer Using Opioids: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial

Purpose

Corticosteroids are frequently used in cancer pain management despite limited evidence. This study compares the analgesic efficacy of corticosteroid therapy with placebo.

Patients and Methods

Adult patients with cancer receiving opioids with average pain intensity ≥ 4 (numeric rating scale [NRS], 0 to 10) in the last 24 hours were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to methylprednisolone (MP) 16 mg twice daily or placebo (PL) for 7 days. Primary outcome was average pain intensity measured at day 7 (NRS, 0 to 10); secondary outcomes were analgesic consumption (oral morphine equivalents), fatigue and appetite loss (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, 0 to 100), and patient satisfaction (NRS, 0 to 10).

Results

A total of 592 patients were screened; 50 were randomly assigned, and 47 were analyzed. Baseline opioid level was 269.9 mg in the MP arm and 160.4 mg in the PL arm. At day-7 evaluation, there was no difference between the groups in pain intensity (MP, 3.60 v PL, 3.68; P = .88) or relative analgesic consumption (MP, 1.19 v PL, 1.20; P = .95). Clinically and statistically significant improvements were found in fatigue (−17 v 3 points; P .003), appetite loss (−24 v 2 points; P = .003), and patient satisfaction (5.4 v 2.0 points; P = .001) in favor of the MP compared with the PL group, respectively. There were no differences in adverse effects between the groups.

Conclusion

MP 32 mg daily did not provide additional analgesia in patients with cancer receiving opioids, but it improved fatigue, appetite loss, and patient satisfaction. Clinical benefit beyond a short-term effect must be examined in a future study.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT)

BACKGROUND

Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialized palliative care (SPC) could offer improvements. The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. DanPaCT is a multicenter, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomization. The planned sample size was 300 patients. The primary data collection for DanPaCT is finished. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for DanPaCT here.

RESULTS

This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the statistical analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT. The primary outcome is the change in the patient's 'primary need'. The 'primary need' is a patient-individualised outcome representing the score of the symptom or problem that had the highest intensity out of seven at baseline assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes are the seven scales that are represented in the primary outcome, but each scale evaluated individually for all patients, and survival. The detailed description includes chosen significance levels, models for multiple imputations, sensitivity analyses and blinding. In addition, we discuss the patient-individualized primary outcome, blinding, missing data, multiplicity and the risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with metastatic cancer from a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01348048 (May 2011).

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making

CONTEXT

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly used to inform patient-centred care as well as clinical and health policy decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of PRO assessment in RCTs of prostate cancer (PCa) and to estimate the likely impact of these studies on clinical decision making.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search of studies was undertaken on main electronic databases to retrieve articles published between January 2004 and March 2012. RCTs were evaluated on a predetermined extraction form, including (1) basic trial demographics and clinical and PRO characteristics; (2) level of PRO reporting based on the recently published recommendations by the International Society for Quality of Life Research; and (3) bias, assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Studies were systematically analysed to evaluate their relevance for supporting clinical decision making.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Sixty-five RCTs enrolling a total of 22 071 patients were evaluated, with 31 (48%) in patients with nonmetastatic disease. When a PRO difference between treatments was found, it related in most cases to symptoms only (n=29, 58%). Although the extent of missing data was generally documented (72% of RCTs), few reported details on statistical handling of this data (18%) and reasons for dropout (35%). Improvements in key methodological aspects over time were found. Thirteen (20%) RCTs were judged as likely to be robust in informing clinical decision making. Higher-quality PRO studies were generally associated with those RCTs that had higher internal validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Including PRO in RCTs of PCa patients is critical for better evaluating the treatment effectiveness of new therapeutic approaches. Marked improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, and it is estimated that at least one-fifth of PRO RCTs have provided sufficient details to allow health policy makers and physicians to make critical appraisals of results.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we have investigated the methodological quality of PCa trials that have included a PRO assessment. We conclude that including PRO is critical to better evaluating the treatment effectiveness of new therapeutic approaches from the patient's perspective. Also, at least one-fifth of PRO RCTs in PCa have provided sufficient details to allow health policy makers and physicians to make a critical appraisal of results.

Overcoming barriers to the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: the PROMOTION Registry

Every cancer treatment, irrespective of its clinical effectiveness, has an impact on patients’ quality of life (QoL). Even recently developed targeted therapies might have side effects and significantly impact patients’ QoL. Thus, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different treatments from the patient’s standpoint has become a must in clinical research and is highly valued by major stakeholders. Thousands of cancer patients are enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) each year and many complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to obtain patient-centered information as part of the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the new therapy. Some of these RCTs have generated high quality PRO evidence forming the basis for approval (or support to approval) of drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, a consistent strategy to determine the quality of patient centered evidence presented in RCTs has until recently been lacking. One of the fundamental questions when including PROs in clinical research revolves around methodological robustness and consistency of outcome reporting. Cancer patients, physicians and healthcare system stakeholders need to rely on solid information to make the best possible choice regarding treatment. Therefore generating high-quality findings from PRO assessment in cancer trials is of paramount importance. In an effort to improve quality of PRO assessment and reporting in the near future, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In ONcology (PROMOTION) Registry was developed. The scope of this Registry is to identify, track, analyse, and store information on all cancer RCTs that have included PROs, and assess the quality of their PRO assessments.

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the preferred study design for evaluating healthcare interventions. When the sample size is determined, a (target) difference is typically specified that the RCT is designed to detect. This provides reassurance that the study will be informative, i.e., should such a difference exist, it is likely to be detected with the required statistical precision. The aim of this review was to identify potential methods for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A comprehensive systematic review of medical and non-medical literature was carried out for methods that could be used to specify the target difference for an RCT sample size calculation. The databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Scopus (for in-press publications); the search period was from 1966 or the earliest date covered, to between November 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, textbooks addressing the methodology of clinical trials and International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) tripartite guidelines for clinical trials were also consulted. A narrative synthesis of methods was produced. Studies that described a method that could be used for specifying an important and/or realistic difference were included. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant articles from the databases searched. Of these, 1,434 were selected for full-text assessment, and a further nine were identified from other sources. Fifteen clinical trial textbooks and the ICH tripartite guidelines were also reviewed. In total, 777 studies were included, and within them, seven methods were identified-anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of the evidence base, and standardised effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of methods are available that researchers can use for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Appropriate methods may vary depending on the aim (e.g., specifying an important difference versus a realistic difference), context (e.g., research question and availability of data), and underlying framework adopted (e.g., Bayesian versus conventional statistical approach). Guidance on the use of each method is given. No single method provides a perfect solution for all contexts.

Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review

BACKGROUND

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to the design and validity of a RCT is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size). The value used to determine the sample size can be considered the 'target difference'. From both a scientific and an ethical standpoint, selecting an appropriate target difference is of crucial importance. Determination of the target difference, as opposed to statistical approaches to calculating the sample size, has been greatly neglected though a variety of approaches have been proposed the current state of the evidence is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to provide an overview of the current evidence regarding specifying the target difference in a RCT sample size calculation. The specific objectives were to conduct a systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference; to evaluate current practice by surveying triallists; to develop guidance on specifying the target difference in a RCT; and to identify future research needs.

DESIGN

The biomedical and social science databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus for in-press publications. All were searched from 1966 or the earliest date of the database coverage and searches were undertaken between November 2010 and January 2011. There were three interlinked components: (1) systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference for RCTs - a comprehensive search strategy involving an electronic literature search of biomedical and some non-biomedical databases and clinical trials textbooks was carried out; (2) identification of current trial practice using two surveys of triallists - members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) were invited to complete an online survey and respondents were asked about their awareness and use of, and willingness to recommend, methods; one individual per triallist group [UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), Medical Research Council (MRC) UK Hubs for Trials Methodology Research and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK Research Design Services (RDS)] was invited to complete a survey; (3) production of a structured guidance document to aid the design of future trials - the draft guidance was developed utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys by the project steering and advisory groups.

SETTING

Methodological review incorporating electronic searches, review of books and guidelines, two surveys of experts (membership of an international society and UK- and Ireland-based triallists) and development of guidance.

PARTICIPANTS

The two surveys were sent out to membership of the SCT and UK- and Ireland-based triallists.

INTERVENTIONS

The review focused on methods for specifying the target difference in a RCT. It was not restricted to any type of intervention or condition.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Methods for specifying the target difference for a RCT were considered.

RESULTS

The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant studies. In total, 1434 were selected for full-text assessment and 777 were included in the review. Seven methods to specify the target difference for a RCT were identified - anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of evidence base (RoEB) and standardised effect size (SES) - each having important variations in implementation. A total of 216 of the included studies used more than one method. A total of 180 (15%) responses to the SCT survey were received, representing 13 countries. Awareness of methods ranged from 38% (n =69) for the health economic method to 90% (n =162) for the pilot study. Of the 61 surveys sent out to UK triallist groups, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness ranged from 97% (n =33) for the RoEB and pilot study methods to only 41% (n =14) for the distribution method. Based on the most recent trial, all bar three groups (91%, n =30) used a formal method. Guidance was developed on the use of each method and the reporting of the sample size calculation in a trial protocol and results paper.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for greater use of formal methods to determine the target difference and better reporting of its specification. Raising the standard of RCT sample size calculations and the corresponding reporting of them would aid health professionals, patients, researchers and funders in judging the strength of the evidence and ensuring better use of scarce resources.

FUNDING

The Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research Joint Methodology Research programme.

Validation and reliability testing of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 questionnaire module to assess patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Background

Well-developed and well-tested patient-reported outcome measures for non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are required.

Objective

To test and adapt the scale structure and explore the psychometric properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire for NMIBC.

Design, setting, and participants

A total of 433 patients in the Bladder COX-2 Inhibition Trial (BOXIT) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and NMIBC questionnaires. BOXIT is evaluating the addition of celecoxib to standard treatment in high- and intermediate-risk NMIBC.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Multitrait scaling investigated and adapted the questionnaire scale structure and evaluated the reliability and validity of the revised scales, as well as responsiveness to change.

Results and limitations

A total of 410 patients (94.7%) (79.3% men, 74.6% high risk) returned baseline forms, and the questionnaire response rate was 88.2%. Multitrait scaling confirmed six scales and five single items. Scales and items demonstrated significant differences between patients with good and poor performance status scores (p < 0.001). Men reported better sexual function than women (p < 0.001). Scale and single-item module scores were not highly correlated with QLQ-C30 scores (evidence of discriminant validity), and the module was responsive to changes in health over time. International and test–retest data are required.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the evidence-driven adapted scale structure and psychometric data of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 module to use in clinical trials of patients with high- or intermediate-risk bladder cancer.

Validation of the Consensus-Definition for Cancer Cachexia and evaluation of a classification model--a study based on data from an international multicentre project (EPCRC-CSA)

BACKGROUND

Weight loss limits cancer therapy, quality of life and survival. Common diagnostic criteria and a framework for a classification system for cancer cachexia were recently agreed upon by international consensus. Specific assessment domains (stores, intake, catabolism and function) were proposed. The aim of this study is to validate this diagnostic criteria (two groups: model 1) and examine a four-group (model 2) classification system regarding these domains as well as survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from an international patient sample with advanced cancer (N = 1070) were analysed. In model 1, the diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia [weight loss/body mass index (BMI)] were used. Model 2 classified patients into four groups 0-III, according to weight loss/BMI as a framework for cachexia stages. The cachexia domains, survival and sociodemographic/medical variables were compared across models.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and sixty-one patients were included. Model 1 consisted of 399 cachectic and 462 non-cachectic patients. Cachectic patients had significantly higher levels of inflammation, lower nutritional intake and performance status and shorter survival. In model 2, differences were not consistent; appetite loss did not differ between group III and IV, and performance status not between group 0 and I. Survival was shorter in group II and III compared with other groups. By adding other cachexia domains to the model, survival differences were demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic criteria based on weight loss and BMI distinguish between cachectic and non-cachectic patients concerning all domains (intake, catabolism and function) and is associated with survival. In order to guide cachexia treatment a four-group classification model needs additional domains to discriminate between cachexia stages.

Recommendations for managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research: part of the MORECare research method guidance on statistical issues

BACKGROUND

Statistical analysis in palliative and end-of-life care research can be problematic due to high levels of missing data, attrition and response shift as disease progresses.

AIM

To develop recommendations about managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research data.

DESIGN

We used the MORECare Transparent Expert Consultation approach to conduct a consultation workshop with experts in statistical methods in palliative and end-of-life care research. Following presentations and discussion, nominal group techniques were used to produce recommendations about attrition, missing data and response shift. These were rated online by experts and analysed using descriptive statistics for consensus and importance.

RESULTS

In total, 20 participants attended the workshop and 19 recommendations were subsequently ranked. There was broad agreement across recommendations. The top five recommendations were as follows: A taxonomy should be devised to define types of attrition. Types and amount of missing data should be reported with details of imputation methods. The pattern of missing data should be investigated to inform the imputation approach. A statistical analysis plan should be pre-specified in the protocol. High rates of attrition should be assumed when planning studies and specifying analyses. The leading recommendation for response shift was for more research.

CONCLUSIONS

When designing studies in palliative and end-of-life care, it is recommended that high rates of attrition should not be seen as indicative of poor design and that a clear statistical analysis plan is in place to account for missing data and attrition.

A randomised, multicentre clinical trial of specialised palliative care plus standard treatment versus standard treatment alone for cancer patients with palliative care needs: the Danish palliative care trial (DanPaCT) protocol

BACKGROUND

Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialised palliative care (SPC) could improve their symptoms and problems.The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer, who report palliative needs in a screening, will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'.

METHODS/DESIGN

DanPaCT is a clinical, multicentre, parallel-group superiority trial with balanced randomisation (1:1). The planned sample size is 300 patients. Patients are randomised to specialised palliative care (SPC) plus standard treatment versus standard treatment. Consecutive patients from oncology departments are screened for palliative needs with a questionnaire if they: a) have metastatic cancer; b) are 18 years or above; and c) have no prior contact with SPC. Patients with palliative needs (i.e. symptoms/problems exceeding a certain threshold) according to the questionnaire are eligible. The primary outcome is the change in the patients' primary need (the most severe symptom/problem measured with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30)). Secondary outcomes are other symptoms/problems (EORTC QLQ-C30), satisfaction with health care (FAMCARE P-16), anxiety and depression (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), survival, and health care costs.

DISCUSSION

Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled Trials NCT01348048.

The systemic inflammatory response and its relationship to pain and other symptoms in advanced cancer

INTRODUCTION

Inflammation has been identified as a hallmark of cancer and may be necessary for tumorgenesis and maintenance of the cancer state. Inflammation-related symptoms are common in those with cancer; however, little is known about the relationship between symptoms and systemic inflammation in cancer. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between symptoms and systemic inflammation in a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

Data from an international cohort of patients with advanced cancer were analyzed. Symptoms and patient-related outcomes were recorded using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire--Core Questionnaire. Systemic inflammation was assessed using C-reactive protein levels. The relationship between these symptoms and systemic inflammation was examined using Spearman rank correlation (ρ) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Data were available for 1,466 patients across eight European countries; 1,215 patients (83%) had metastatic disease at study entry. The median survival was 3.8 months (interquartile range [IQR] 1.3-12.2 months). The following were associated with increased levels of inflammation: performance status (ρ = .179), survival (ρ = .347), pain (ρ = .154), anorexia (ρ = .206), cognitive dysfunction (ρ = .137), dyspnea (p= .150), fatigue (ρ = .197), physical dysfunction (ρ = .207), role dysfunction (ρ = .176), social dysfunction (ρ = .132), and poor quality of life (ρ = .178). All were statistically significant at p < .001.

CONCLUSION

The results show that the majority of cancer symptoms are associated with inflammation. The strength of the potential relationship between systemic inflammation and common cancer symptoms should be examined further within the context of an anti-inflammatory intervention trial.

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer: a comparison of clinicopathological factors and the development of an inflammation-based prognostic system

PURPOSE

In advanced cancer, oncological treatment is influenced by performance status (PS); however, this has limitations. Biomarkers of systemic inflammation may have prognostic value in advanced cancer. The study compares key factors in prognosis (performance status, patient-reported outcomes; PRO) with an inflammation-based score (Glasgow Prognostic Score, mGPS). A new method of prognosis in advanced cancer (combining performance status and mGPS) is tested and then validated.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Two international biobanks of patients with advanced cancer were analyzed. Key prognostic factors [performance status, PROs (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30), and mGPS (using C-reactive protein and albumin concentrations)] were examined. The relationship between these and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods, in a test sample before independent validation.

RESULTS

Data were available on 1,825 patients (test) and 631 patients (validation). Median survival ranged from 3.2 months (test) to 7.03 months (validation). On multivariate analysis, performance status (HR 1.62-2.77) and mGPS (HR 1.51-2.27) were independently associated with, and were the strongest predictors of survival (P < 0.01). Survival at 3 months varied from 82% (mGPS 0) to 39% (mGPS 2) and from 75% (performance status 0-1) to 14% (performance status 4). When used together, survival ranged from 88% (mGPS 0, PS 0-1) to 10% (mGPS 2, performance status 4), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

A systemic inflammation-based score, mGPS, and performance status predict survival in advanced cancer. The mGPS is similar to performance status in terms of prognostic power. Used together, performance status and mGPS act synergistically improving prognostic accuracy. This new method may be of considerable value in the management of patients with advanced cancer.

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field.

METHODS

The Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC.

RESULTS

We integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project.

CONCLUSIONS

The MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.

Multidimensional patient-reported problems within two weeks of HIV diagnosis in East Africa: a multicentre observational study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine for the first time the prevalence and severity of multidimensional problems in a population newly diagnosed with HIV at outpatient clinics in Africa.

METHODS

Recently diagnosed patients (within previous 14 days) were consecutively recruited at 11 HIV clinics in Kenya and Uganda. Participants completed a validated questionnaire, the African Palliative Outcome Scale (POS), with three underpinning factors. Ordinal logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors for prevalence and severity of physical, psychological, interpersonal and existential problems.

RESULTS

There were 438 participants (62% female, 30% with restricted physical function). The most prevalent problems were lack of help and advice (47% reported none in the previous 3 days) and difficulty sharing feelings. Patients with limited physical function reported more physical/psychological (OR = 3.22) and existential problems (OR = 1.54) but fewer interpersonal problems (OR = 0.50). All outcomes were independent of CD4 count or ART eligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at all disease stages report widespread and burdensome multidimensional problems at HIV diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients should receive assessment and care for these problems. Effective management of problems at diagnosis may help to remove barriers to retention in care.

Lack of association between genetic variability and multiple pain-related outcomes in a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer: the European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study (EPOS)

OBJECTIVE

This study examined whether the choice of pain-related outcome to represent opioid efficacy influenced findings in a genetic association study. Data from the European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study, which used opioid dose as the outcome, were analysed in respect of six alternative outcomes: average pain intensity, pain right now, worst pain intensity, pain at its least, pain relief and pain interference.

DESIGN

Cancer pain patients using an opioid for moderate or severe pain were included. The pain outcomes were obtained using the Brief Pain Inventory. Genetic variation was analysed for 112 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 25 candidate genes relevant for opioid efficacy. The patients were randomly divided into a development and a validation sample and linear regression was used to compare the equality of means in the six outcomes. The influence of non-genetic factors was controlled for, the regression analyses were stratified by country, and the results were corrected for multiple testing.

RESULTS

2201 cancer pain patients were included. Their mean age was 62.4 years and mean average pain was 3.5. None of the examined SNPs exceeded p values corrected for multiple testing for any of the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the outcomes were associated with variation in the selected SNPs, as previously shown for opioid dose. Thus, we observed that findings related to associations between genetic variability and opioid efficacy were consistent for several alternative outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes after hepatic resection of colorectal cancer metastases

PURPOSE

Hepatic resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) liver metastases is increasing, but evidence for the impact of surgery on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited. This study aimed to describe comprehensively the impact of liver surgery for CRC hepatic metastases on PROs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients selected for hepatic resection completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Liver Metastases C21 before and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. For functional scales, mean scores with 95% CIs were calculated at each time point, with differences in scores of at least 10 points considered clinically significant. Responses to symptom scales and items were categorized as minimal or severe. Proportions and 95% CIs for each symptom category were calculated.

RESULTS

Hepatic surgery was planned in 241 patients but abandoned in nine because of unresectable disease. There were two postoperative deaths, 58 complications (25.2%), and 32 patients (14.9%) with disease recurrence. Questionnaire compliance was excellent (> 95% at all time points). After surgery, most functional aspects of health decreased, and the proportions of patients with severe symptoms increased; role function deteriorated significantly, and 30% of patients reported severe activity/vigor problems. Functional scales recovered by 6 months and were maintained at 1 year. Postoperative symptoms returned to baseline levels at 12 months, but 32.1% of patients reported severe problems with sexual dysfunction and 11.9% with abdominal pain.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide new evidence regarding outcomes of liver resection for CRC metastases. It is recommended that patients be reassured that surgery has a minimal and short-lived detrimental impact on health.

Analysing randomised controlled trials with missing data: choice of approach affects conclusions

BACKGROUND

The publication of a wrong conclusion from a randomised trial could have disastrous consequences. Missing data are unavoidable in most studies, but ignoring the problem may introduce bias to the results. Finding an appropriate way to deal with missing data is of paramount importance. We show how the choice of analysis method can impact on the conclusion of the trial with regard to the quality of life outcomes.

METHODS

Various analysis strategies (analysis of covariance, linear mixed effects model) with and without imputation were carried out to assess treatment difference in four quality of life outcomes in an example clinical trial.

RESULTS

Across all four quality of life outcomes, the various analysis approaches provided different estimates of treatment difference, with varying precision, using different numbers of patients. In some cases the decision about statistical significance differed. The results suggested that where possible extra effort should be made to retrieve missing responses. In the presence of data missing at random, simple imputation was inappropriate with multiple imputation or a linear mixed effects model more useful.

CONCLUSION

Different trial conclusions were obtained for a variety of analysis approaches for the same outcome. Collecting as much data as possible is of paramount importance. Careful consideration should be taken when deciding on the most appropriate strategy for analysis when missing data are involved and this strategy should be pre-specified in the trial protocol. Making inappropriate decisions could result in inappropriate conclusions potentially leading to the adoption of a clinical intervention in error.

Alphas, betas and skewy distributions: two ways of getting the wrong answer

Although many parametric statistical tests are considered to be robust, as recently shown in Methodologist's Corner, it still pays to be circumspect about the assumptions underlying statistical tests. In this paper I show that robustness mainly refers to α, the type-I error. If the underlying distribution of data is ignored there can be a major penalty in terms of the β, the type-II error, representing a large increase in false negative rate or, equivalently, a severe loss of power of the test.

Driving functions in a video simulator in chronic non-malignant pain patients using and not using codeine

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A considerable number of Europeans suffer from chronic pain and are using opioids, particularly of the weak type. It is a clinical impression that many of these are driving or wish to drive a car. The aims of this study were to investigate if codeine influences driving ability in a simulator, and to examine if chronic pain per se might impair such functions.

METHODS

Twenty patients with chronic pain on long-term codeine therapy were compared to 20 chronic pain patients not using codeine in a video driving simulator test. The chronic pain patients were then compared to 20 healthy controls. The primary outcome measures were reaction time and number of missed reactions.

RESULTS

The patients using codeine 120-270 mg (mean 180 mg) daily showed the same driving skills as patients not using codeine, and the codeine level did not affect the results. This was the case both 1h after intake of a single dose of 60 mg codeine and five or more hours after the last codeine intake. The reaction times were significantly slower for the chronic pain patients, in both rural and urban driving conditions, compared to the healthy controls (difference 0.11s. and 0.12s., respectively). The chronic pain patients missed almost twice as many reactions to traffic signs. There were no difference between the groups in steering precision.

CONCLUSION

The main finding in this simulator study was that codeine does not impair driving-related abilities over and above what is associated with chronic pain per se.

Multi-centred mixed-methods PEPFAR HIV care & support public health evaluation: study protocol

BACKGROUND

A public health response is essential to meet the multidimensional needs of patients and families affected by HIV disease in sub-Saharan Africa. In order to appraise current provision of HIV care and support in East Africa, and to provide evidence-based direction to future care programming, and Public Health Evaluation was commissioned by the PEPFAR programme of the US Government.

METHODS/DESIGN

This paper described the 2-Phase international mixed methods study protocol utilising longitudinal outcome measurement, surveys, patient and family qualitative interviews and focus groups, staff qualitative interviews, health economics and document analysis. Aim 1) To describe the nature and scope of HIV care and support in two African countries, including the types of facilities available, clients seen, and availability of specific components of care [Study Phase 1]. Aim 2) To determine patient health outcomes over time and principle cost drivers [Study Phase 2]. The study objectives are as follows. 1) To undertake a cross-sectional survey of service configuration and activity by sampling 10% of the facilities being funded by PEPFAR to provide HIV care and support in Kenya and Uganda (Phase 1) in order to describe care currently provided, including pharmacy drug reviews to determine availability and supply of essential drugs in HIV management. 2) To conduct patient focus group discussions at each of these (Phase 1) to determine care received. 3) To undertake a longitudinal prospective study of 1200 patients who are newly diagnosed with HIV or patients with HIV who present with a new problem attending PEPFAR care and support services. Data collection includes self-reported quality of life, core palliative outcomes and components of care received (Phase 2). 4) To conduct qualitative interviews with staff, patients and carers in order to explore and understand service issues and care provision in more depth (Phase 2). 5) To undertake document analysis to appraise the clinical care procedures at each facility (Phase 2). 6) To determine principle cost drivers including staff, overhead and laboratory costs (Phase 2).

DISCUSSION

This novel mixed methods protocol will permit transparent presentation of subsequent dataset results publication, and offers a substantive model of protocol design to measure and integrate key activities and outcomes that underpin a public health approach to disease management in a low-income setting.

Which variables are associated with pain intensity and treatment response in advanced cancer patients?--Implications for a future classification system for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This study is part of a research program to reach consensus on an international cancer pain classification system. A confirmative and explorative approach was applied to investigate which of the variables identified in the literature, by experts and patients that are associated with pain.

METHODS

Data from an international, multicentre, cross-sectional study of cancer patients treated with opioids were investigated. Dependent variables were: average pain, worst pain, and pain relief (11-point Numerical Rating Scales). Forty-six independent variables were chosen based upon previous studies. Bivariate analyses identified independent variables associated with at least one of the dependent ones; 21 were included in multivariate linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred and seventy-eight patients were investigated; 52% males, mean age 62 years, mean Karnofsky Performance Status 59%, mean daily opioid oral equivalent dose 341 mg. Fifty-eight percent had breakthrough pain. Mean pain scores were: average pain 3.5, worst pain 5.3 and pain relief 74%. Variables most strongly associated with these three dependent variables were: breakthrough pain, psychological distress, sleep, and opioid dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Breakthrough pain and psychological distress were confirmed as key variables of a future classification system. Candidate variables were: sleep, opioid dose, pain mechanism, use of non-opioids, pain localisation, cancer diagnosis, location of metastases, and addiction.