The prognosis of joint pain in the older patient: general practitioners' views on discussing and estimating prognosis

Do prognostic variables predict a set of outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain: a long-term follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized control trial

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c.

Does a modified STarT Back Tool predict outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients than back pain? A secondary analysis of cohort data

OBJECTIVES

The STarT Back Tool has good predictive performance for non-specific low back pain in primary care. We therefore aimed to investigate whether a modified STarT Back Tool predicted outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients, and assessed the consequences of using existing risk-group cut-points across different pain regions.

SETTING

Secondary analysis of prospective data from 2 cohorts: (1) outpatient musculoskeletal physiotherapy services (PhysioDirect trial n=1887) and (2) musculoskeletal primary-secondary care interface services (SAMBA study n=1082).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with back, neck, upper limb, lower limb or multisite pain with a completed modified STarT Back Tool (baseline) and 6-month physical health outcome (Short Form 36 (SF-36)).

OUTCOMES

Area under the receiving operator curve (AUCs) tested discriminative abilities of the tool's baseline score for identifying poor 6-month outcome (SF-36 lower tertile Physical Component Score). Risk-group cut-points were tested using sensitivity and specificity for identifying poor outcome using (1) Youden's J statistic and (2) a clinically determined rule that specificity should not fall below 0.7 (false-positive rate <30%).

RESULTS

In PhysioDirect and SAMBA, poor 6-month physical health was 18.5% and 28.2%, respectively. Modified STarT Back Tool score AUCs for predicting outcome in back pain were 0.72 and 0.79, neck 0.82 and 0.88, upper limb 0.79 and 0.86, lower limb 0.77 and 0.83, and multisite pain 0.83 and 0.82 in PhysioDirect and SAMBA, respectively. Differences between pain region AUCs were non-significant. Optimal cut-points to discriminate low-risk and medium-risk/high-risk groups depended on pain region and clinical services.

CONCLUSIONS

A modified STarT Back Tool similarly predicts 6-month physical health outcome across 5 musculoskeletal pain regions. However, the use of consistent risk-group cut-points was not possible and resulted in poor sensitivity (too many with long-term disability being missed) or specificity (too many with good outcome inaccurately classified as 'at risk') for some pain regions. The draft tool is now being refined and validated within a new programme of research for a broader musculoskeletal population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN55666618; Post results.

Discussing prognosis with patients with osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional survey in general practice

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability and one of the most common conditions diagnosed and managed in primary care. Despite the evidence that patients would value discussions about the course of osteoarthritis to help them make informed treatment decisions and plan for the future, little is known of GPs’ practice of, or views regarding, discussing prognosis with these patients. A cross-sectional postal survey asked 2500 randomly selected UK GPs their views on discussing prognosis with patients with osteoarthritis and potential barriers or facilitators to such discussions. They were also asked if prognostic discussions were part of their current practice and what indicators they considered important in assessing the prognosis associated with osteoarthritis. Of 768 respondents (response rate 30.7 %), the majority felt it necessary to discuss prognosis with osteoarthritis patients (n = 738, 96.1 %), but only two thirds reported that it was part of their routine practice (n = 498, 64.8 %). Most respondents found predicting the course of osteoarthritis (n = 703, 91.8 %) and determining the prognosis of patients difficult (n = 589, 76.7 %). Obesity, level of physical disability and pain severity were considered the most important prognostic indicators in osteoarthritis. Although GPs consider prognostic discussions necessary for patients with osteoarthritis, few prioritise these discussions. Lack of time and perceived difficulties in predicting the disease course and determining prognosis for patients with osteoarthritis may be barriers to engaging in prognostic discussions. Further research is required to identify ways to assist GPs making prognostic predictions for patients with osteoarthritis and facilitate engagement in these discussions.

Persistence and remission of musculoskeletal pain in community-dwelling older adults: results from the cardiovascular health study

OBJECTIVES

To characterize longitudinal patterns of musculoskeletal pain in a community sample of older adults over a 6-year period and to identify factors associated with persistence of pain.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of the Cardiovascular Health Study.

SETTING

Community-based cohort drawn from four U.S. counties.

PARTICIPANTS

Five thousand ninety-three men and women aged 65 and older.

MEASUREMENTS

Over a 6-year period, pain was assessed each year using a single question about the presence of pain in any bones or joints during the last year. If affirmative, participants were queried about pain in seven locations (hands, shoulders, neck, back, hips, knees, feet). Participants were categorized according to the percentage of time that pain was present and according to the intermittent or chronic pattern of pain. Factors associated with persistent pain during five remaining years of the study were identified.

RESULTS

Over 6 years, 32% of participants reported pain for three or more consecutive years, and 32% reported pain intermittently. Of those who reported pain the first year, 54% were pain free at least once during the follow-up period. Most of the pain at specific body locations was intermittent. Factors associated with remission of pain over 5 years included older age, male sex, better self-rated health, not being obese, taking fewer medications, and having fewer depressive symptoms. Approximately half of those with pain reported fewer pain locations the following year.

CONCLUSION

Musculoskeletal pain in older adults, despite high prevalence, is often intermittent. The findings refute the notion that pain is an inevitable, unremitting, or progressive consequence of aging.

Discussing prognosis with older people with musculoskeletal pain: a cross-sectional study in general practice

Background

Prognosis has been described as an important but neglected branch of clinical science. While patients' views have been sought in the context of life-threatening illness, similar research is lacking for patients presenting with common, non-life-threatening musculoskeletal complaints. The aim of this study was to gauge whether and why older patients with musculoskeletal pain think prognostic information is important, and how often they felt prognosis was discussed in the general practice consultation.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients aged 50 years of over presenting with non-inflammatory musculoskeletal pain to 5 Central Cheshire general practices. The frequency of responses to the prognostic questions were described and the association with sociodemographic, presenting pain complaint, and psychosocial variables explored using logistic regression.

Results

502 participants (77%) responded to the postal questionnaire. 165 (33%) participants reported discussing prognosis in the consultation with their GP. Discussions about prognosis were more often reported by male patients (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.09, 2.71) and those for whom this was their first consultation (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.16, 2.80). 402 (82%) participants thought that prognostic information was important. This was highest among those currently in paid employment (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.33, 6.57). The reasons patients gave for believing prognostic information was important included 'knowing for the sake of knowing' and planning future activity. Reasons for not believing prognostic information to be important included the belief that progression of pain was inevitable and that nothing could be done to help.

Conclusion

Prognostic information is thought to be important amongst older people with musculoskeletal pain yet discussions occur infrequently in primary care. Barriers to effective prognostic communication and the exact information needs of patients are still unknown and warrant further research.