Symptom Burden

BackgroundWhile there is a growing need for interventions addressing symptom burden in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (DC), the lack of validated symptom assessment tools is a critical barrier. We investigated the psychometric properties of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) in a longitudinal cohort of patients with DC.MethodsAdult outpatients with DC were prospectively recruited from a liver transplant center and completed ESAS-r at baseline and week 12. We examined reliability, floor/ceiling effects, structural validity, and known-groups validity. We examined the convergent and predictive validity of ESAS-r with health-related quality of life using the Short Form Liver Disease Quality of Life (SF-LDQOL) and responsiveness to changes in anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 from baseline to week 12.ResultsFrom August 2018 to September 2022, 218 patients (9% Child-Pugh A, 59% Child-Pugh B, and 32% Child-Pugh C) were prospectively recruited and completed the ESAS-r, SF-LDQOL, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and week 12 (n = 135). ESAS-r had strong reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.86), structural validity (comparative fit index 0.95), known-groups validity (Child-Pugh A: 25.1 vs. B: 37.5 vs. C: 41.4, p = 0.006), and convergent validity (r = -0.67 with SF-LDQOL). Floor effects were 9% and ceiling effects were 0.5%. Changes in ESAS-r scores from baseline to week 12 significantly predicted changes in SF-LDQOL (β = -0.36, p ConclusionsESAS-r is a reliable, valid, and responsive tool for assessing symptom burden in patients with DC and can predict changes in health-related quality of life. Future directions include its implementation as a key outcome measure in cirrhosis care and clinical trials.

Back and neck pain are common in the population, especially among immigrants. In Norway's specialist care system, treating these patients typically involves a multidisciplinary approach based on the biopsychosocial model. However, language and cultural differences may create barriers to participation. Immigrants are often underrepresented in clinical studies, but a register-based approach can enhance their participation in research. This study aimed to compare both the symptom burden, and treatment, among Norwegians, non-Norwegians, and patients requiring translator service for back and neck pain within the Norwegian specialist care system. The Norwegian neck and back registry is a National Quality Register, established in 2012 and fully digitized in late 2020. The baseline data includes demographics and patient recorded outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs, pain rating on a numeric rating scale, Hopkins Symptom Checklist and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire on health related quality of life. During the two-year study period, a total of 14,124 patients were invited, and 10,060 (71%) participated. Norwegian patients reported less pain, better function assessed by Oswestry Disability Index, lower fear avoidance beliefs, less emotional distress, and higher health related quality of life compared to non-Norwegians. We found that patients with female gender, who were younger, more educated and exhibited fear-avoidance behavior were significantly more likely to receive multidisciplinary treatment. We found no difference in the proportion of Norwegian and non-Norwegian patients receiving multidisciplinary treatment [odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.16)]. However, patients needing a translator were less likely to receive multidisciplinary treatment compared to those who didn't require translation [OR 0.41 (95% CI (0.25-0.66)]. We found that non-Norwegian patients experience a higher symptom burden compared to Norwegian. We found that both non-Norwegians and patient in need of translator were to a greater extent recommended treatment in primary health care. The proportion of non-Norwegians patients receiving multidisciplinary treatment was similar to Norwegians, but those needing a translator were less likely to receive such treatment.

PurposeAdolescents and young adults (AYAs) experience vast symptom burden resulting from cancer treatment-related toxicities (TRTs). Evidence supports integrated exercise to mitigate several TRTs in other cohorts; however, evidence in AYAs is lacking. Conventional reporting of TRTs adopts a maximum grade approach failing to recognise the trajectory over time, of persistent, or lower grade toxicities. Alternatively, longitudinal analysis of toxicities over time (ToxT) may provide clinically meaningful summaries of this data. We evaluated the longitudinal impact of an exercise intervention on TRTs in AYAs undergoing cancer treatment.MethodsA prospective, randomised trial allocated participants to a 10-week exercise intervention (EG) or control group (CG) undergoing usual care. Detailed information on TRTs was collected throughout the intervention. All TRTs were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0).ResultsForty-three (43) participants (63% male, mean age 21.1 years) were enrolled. When categorised to reflect the maximal worst grade experienced (Grade 0, Grade 1-2 and ≥ Grade 3), the CG reported an increased incidence of severe fatigue (≥ Grade 3) compared with the EG (p = 0.05). No other differences between groups were evident (p > 0.05). ToxT analysis of the four most common toxicities (fatigue, pain, nausea and mood disturbances) demonstrated no difference in the mean grade of each over time (p > 0.05).ConclusionA 10-week exercise intervention reduces the severity of fatigue in AYAs undergoing treatment. While the ToxT approach provided insight into the toxicity profile, adequately powered studies are needed to better understand these differences within a homogenous sample.Trial registration(ACTRN12620000663954) 10th June 2020.

Background and aimsGastroparesis and functional dyspepsia often share overlapping upper gastrointestinal symptoms but may differ in symptom patterns, treatment, and health care utilization. We assessed their clinical similarities and distinctions in the largest national cohort study to date.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX database, identifying patients through administrative codes. Individuals with structural gastric or small bowel abnormalities or prior gastric surgery were excluded. Gastroparesis required a diagnosis within three months of a gastric emptying study, at least one typical symptom, and an upper endoscopy within 12 months prior. Functional dyspepsia required a diagnosis with prior endoscopy (1-12 months) and symptoms 6-12 months before diagnosis. Primary outcomes were medication use and healthcare utilization; secondary outcomes included symptom burden and coexisting disorders of gut-brain interaction. Propensity score matching (1:1) adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsWe identified 2488 patients with gastroparesis and 3676 with functional dyspepsia; after matching, 1914 per group remained. Gastroparesis showed greater use of prokinetics (52.7% vs. 19.6%; p ConclusionGastroparesis and functional dyspepsia show distinct symptom distributions and treatment patterns, with higher health care utilization in gastroparesis, supporting mechanism-based individualized management.