MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Patterns of multisite pain and associations with risk factors

Coggon D, Ntani G, Palmer KT, Felli VE, Harari R, Barrero LH, et al.

Pain, 2013 Sep;154(9):1769-1777.
PMID: 23727463 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.039

To explore definitions for multisite pain, and compare associations with risk factors for different patterns of musculoskeletal pain, we analysed cross-sectional data from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study. The study sample comprised 12,410 adults aged 20-59 years from 47 occupational groups in 18 countries. A standardised questionnaire was used to collect information about pain in the past month at each of 10 anatomical sites, and about potential risk factors. Associations with pain outcomes were assessed by Poisson regression, and characterised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). Extensive pain, affecting 6-10 anatomical sites, was reported much more frequently than would be expected if the occurrence of pain at each site were independent (674 participants vs 41.9 expected). In comparison with pain involving only 1-3 sites, it showed much stronger associations (relative to no pain) with risk factors such as female sex (PRR 1.6 vs 1.1), older age (PRR 2.6 vs 1.1), somatising tendency (PRR 4.6 vs 1.3), and exposure to multiple physically stressing occupational activities (PRR 5.0 vs 1.4). After adjustment for number of sites with pain, these risk factors showed no additional association with a distribution of pain that was widespread according to the frequently used American College of Rheumatology criteria. Our analysis supports the classification of pain at multiple anatomical sites simply by the number of sites affected, and suggests that extensive pain differs importantly in its associations with risk factors from pain that is limited to only a small number of anatomical sites.
Fulltext Descriptive Epidemiology of Somatising Tendency: Findings from the CUPID Study

Vargas-Prada S, Coggon D, Ntani G, Walker-Bone K, Palmer KT, Felli VE, et al.

PLoS One, 2016;11(4):e0153748.
PMID: 27128094 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153748

Somatising tendency, defined as a predisposition to worry about common somatic symptoms, is importantly associated with various aspects of health and health-related behaviour, including musculoskeletal pain and associated disability. To explore its epidemiological characteristics, and how it can be specified most efficiently, we analysed data from an international longitudinal study. A baseline questionnaire, which included questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory about seven common symptoms, was completed by 12,072 participants aged 20-59 from 46 occupational groups in 18 countries (response rate 70%). The seven symptoms were all mutually associated (odds ratios for pairwise associations 3.4 to 9.3), and each contributed to a measure of somatising tendency that exhibited an exposure-response relationship both with multi-site pain (prevalence rate ratios up to six), and also with sickness absence for non-musculoskeletal reasons. In most participants, the level of somatising tendency was little changed when reassessed after a mean interval of 14 months (75% having a change of 0 or 1 in their symptom count), although the specific symptoms reported at follow-up often differed from those at baseline. Somatising tendency was more common in women than men, especially at older ages, and varied markedly across the 46 occupational groups studied, with higher rates in South and Central America. It was weakly associated with smoking, but not with level of education. Our study supports the use of questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory as a method for measuring somatising tendency, and suggests that in adults of working age, it is a fairly stable trait.
Fulltext Classification of neck/shoulder pain in epidemiological research: a comparison of personal and occupational characteristics, disability, and prognosis among 12,195 workers from 18 countries

Sarquis LMM, Coggon D, Ntani G, Walker-Bone K, Palmer KT, Felli VE, et al.

Pain, 2016 May;157(5):1028-1036.
PMID: 26761390 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000477

To inform case definition for neck/shoulder pain in epidemiological research, we compared levels of disability, patterns of association, and prognosis for pain that was limited to the neck or shoulders (LNSP) and more generalised musculoskeletal pain that involved the neck or shoulder(s) (GPNS). Baseline data on musculoskeletal pain, disability, and potential correlates were collected by questionnaire from 12,195 workers in 47 occupational groups (mostly office workers, nurses, and manual workers) in 18 countries (response rate = 70%). Continuing pain after a mean interval of 14 months was ascertained through a follow-up questionnaire in 9150 workers from 45 occupational groups. Associations with personal and occupational factors were assessed by Poisson regression and summarised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). The 1-month prevalence of GPNS at baseline was much greater than that of LNSP (35.1% vs 5.6%), and it tended to be more troublesome and disabling. Unlike LNSP, the prevalence of GPNS increased with age. Moreover, it showed significantly stronger associations with somatising tendency (PRR 1.6 vs 1.3) and poor mental health (PRR 1.3 vs 1.1); greater variation between the occupational groups studied (prevalence ranging from 0% to 67.6%) that correlated poorly with the variation in LNSP; and was more persistent at follow-up (72.1% vs 61.7%). Our findings highlight important epidemiological distinctions between subcategories of neck/shoulder pain. In future epidemiological research that bases case definitions on symptoms, it would be useful to distinguish pain that is localised to the neck or shoulder from more generalised pain that happens to involve the neck/shoulder region.
Fulltext Epidemiological Differences Between Localized and Nonlocalized Low Back Pain

Coggon D, Ntani G, Walker-Bone K, Palmer KT, Felli VE, Harari R, et al.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2017 May 15;42(10):740-747.
PMID: 27820794 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001956

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey with a longitudinal follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain.
METHODS: We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries.
RESULTS: Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group.
CONCLUSION: Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Fulltext Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study

Bancroft EK, Page EC, Castro E, Lilja H, Vickers A, Sjoberg D, et al.

Eur Urol, 2014 Sep;66(3):489-99.
PMID: 24484606 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.003

BACKGROUND: Men with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations.
OBJECTIVE: To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.