When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes.

BACKGROUND: A shared decision-making (SDM) process for lung cancer screening (LCS) includes a discussion between clinicians and patients about benefits and potential harms. Expert-driven taxonomies consider mortality reduction a benefit and consider false-positives, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and direct and indirect costs of LCS as potential harms. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether patients conceptualize the attributes of LCS differently from expert-driven taxonomies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with semistructured interviews and a card-sort activity. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three Veterans receiving primary care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 55 to 73 y of age with 30 or more pack-years of smoking. Sixty-one percent were non-Hispanic African American or Black, 35% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were Hispanic, and 9% were female. APPROACH: Semistructured interviews with thematic coding. MAIN MEASURES: The proportion of participants categorizing each attribute as a benefit or harm and emergent themes that informed this categorization. KEY RESULTS: In addition to categorizing reduced lung cancer deaths as a benefit (22/23), most also categorized the following as benefits: routine annual screening (8/9), significant incidental findings (20/23), follow-up in a nodule clinic (20/23), and invasive procedures (16/23). Four attributes were classified by most participants as a harm: false-positive (13/22), overdiagnosis (13/23), overtreatment (6/9), and radiation exposure (20/22). Themes regarding the evaluation of LCS outcomes were 1) the value of knowledge about body and health, 2) anticipated positive and negative emotions, 3) lack of clarity in terminology, 4) underlying beliefs about cancer, and 5) risk assessment and tolerance for uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipating discordance between patient- and expert-driven taxonomies of the benefits and harms of LCS can inform the development and interpretation of value elicitation and SDM discussions.

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Arthritis Pain: A Randomized Withdrawal Trial.

Importance: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed for knee osteoarthritis. However, they are associated with uncertain long-term clinical benefit and significant toxic effects. Objective: To evaluate whether discontinuing NSAIDs and engaging in a telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program is noninferior to continuing NSAIDs for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain multicenter randomized withdrawal trial was conducted for 364 patients taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis pain on most days of the week for at least 3 months between September 1, 2013, and September 30, 2018. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Interventions: Participants discontinued their current NSAID and took 15 mg per day of meloxicam daily during a 2-week run-in period. Those who remained eligible were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive meloxicam or placebo for 4 weeks (blinded phase 1). Participants receiving meloxicam then continued this medication for 10 weeks, while those receiving placebo participated in a 10-week CBT program (unblinded phase 2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score at 4 weeks with the noninferiority margin set at 1. Secondary outcomes included the area under the curve of the pain score after 4 weeks as well as the WOMAC pain score, area under the curve of the pain score, WOMAC disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. Results: A total of 180 participants (161 men; mean [SD] age, 58. 2 [11.8] years) were randomized to receive placebo followed by CBT, and a total of 184 participants (154 men; mean [SD] age, 58.5 [10.0] years) were randomized to receive meloxicam. After adjustment for baseline pain and study site, the estimated mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo and meloxicam groups after 4 weeks was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.8-2.0; noninferiority test P = .92). At week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.2-1.4; noninferiority P = .28). There was no statistically significant difference in the global impression of change (mean difference in scores, -0.2; 95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1; P = .15) or lower extremity disability (mean difference in scores, 0.9; 95% CI, -1.4 to 3.2; P = .45) between the 2 groups after 14 weeks. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam. However, the WOMAC pain score differences between the 2 groups were small, and there were no statistically significant differences in participants' global impression of change or function after 14 weeks. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01799213.

Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Multicenter randomized trial of robot-assisted rehabilitation for chronic stroke: methods and entry characteristics for VA ROBOTICS.

BACKGROUND: Chronic upper extremity impairment due to stroke has significant medical, psychosocial, and financial consequences, but few studies have examined the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy during the chronic stroke period. OBJECTIVE: . To test the safety and efficacy of the MIT-Manus robotic device for chronic upper extremity impairment following stroke. METHODS: . The VA Cooperative Studies Program initiated a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in November 2006 (VA ROBOTICS). Participants with upper extremity impairment >/=6 months poststroke were randomized to robot-assisted therapy (RT), intensive comparison therapy (ICT), or usual care (UC). RT and ICT consisted of three 1-hour treatment sessions per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity motor function score at 12 weeks relative to baseline. Secondary outcomes included the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. RESULTS: . A total of 127 participants were randomized: 49 to RT, 50 to ICT, and 28 to UC. The majority of participants were male (96%), with a mean age of 65 years. The primary stroke type was ischemic (85%), and 58% of strokes occurred in the anterior circulation. Twenty percent of the participants reported a stroke in addition to their index stroke. The average time from the index stroke to enrollment was 56 months (range, 6 months to 24 years). The mean Fugl-Meyer score at entry was 18.9. CONCLUSIONS: . VA ROBOTICS demonstrates the feasibility of conducting multicenter clinical trials to rigorously test new rehabilitative devices before their introduction to clinical practice. The results are expected in early 2010.

Long-term course of treatment-seeking Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: mortality, clinical condition, and life satisfaction.

This study is a 6-year longitudinal study of 51 treatment-seeking male veterans with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Measures of PTSD and psychiatric symptomatology, social functioning, and program impact were assessed at admission to an inpatient treatment program, at 18 months, and 6 years later. Previous studies had shown that the treatment program's impact on course of illness had been negligible. The sample showed an extremely high mortality rate of 17% over 6 years. The remaining veterans showed improvement in violence and alcohol and drug use, but an increase in hyperarousal symptoms and social isolation. Nearly three-fourths had had an inpatient hospitalization. Veterans' self-ratings, in contrast, indicated significant improvement in all areas of functioning except employment, as well as an overall positive view of the impact of the program on their lives. Results indicate that the majority of the veteran sample had experienced some improvement in their ability to cope with their chronic illness, decreasing their use of violence and substance abuse but still were experiencing high levels of symptomatology. The extremely high mortality rate, however, provides a somber reminder of the seriousness of this disorder.