OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to examine differences in psychological factors, disability and subjective fatigue between subgroups of LBP based on their chronification grade.
METHODS: Twenty-one healthy controls (HC) and 54 LBP patients (categorized based on the grades of chronicity into recurrent LBP (RLBP), non-continuous chronic LBP (CLBP), or continuous (CLBP)) filled out a set of self-reporting questionnaires.
RESULTS: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) scores indicated that anxiety, pain severity, pain interference and affective distress were lower in HC and RLBP compared to non-continuous CLBP. Anxiety scores were higher in non-continuous CLBP compared to RLBP, continuous CLBP and HC. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale for Helplessness (PSCH) was higher in non-continuous CLBP compared to HC. The Survey of Pain Attitudes (SOPA) showed no differences in adaptive and maladaptive behaviors across the groups. The Pain Disability Index (PDI) measured a higher disability in both CLBP groups compared to HC. Moreover, the Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) showed higher levels of disability in continuous CLBP compared to non-continuous CLBP, RLBP and HC. The Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) revealed that patients with non-continuous CLBP were affected to a higher extent by severe fatigue compared to continuous CLBP, RLBP and HC (subjective fatigue, concentration and physical activity). For all tests, a significance level of 0.05 was used.
CONCLUSIONS: RLBP patients are more disabled than HC, but have a tendency towards a general positive psychological state of mind. Non-continuous CLBP patients would most likely present a negative psychological mindset, become more disabled and have prolonged fatigue complaints. Finally, the continuous CLBP patients are characterized by more negative attitudes and believes on pain, enhanced disability and interference of pain in their daily lives.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2021 until April 2022, and SLE patients were recruited to complete the SLEQoL, LupusQoL and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in Malay language. Disease activity were recorded using the modified SLE Disease Activity Index (M- SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 (BILAG-2004) index. Presence of organ damage was determined using the SLICC Damage index. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency while exploratory factor analysis was done to determine the construct validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlation with SF-36. Multiple linear regression analysis was deployed to determine the factors affecting each domain of SLEQoL and LupusQoL.
RESULTS: A total of 125 subjects were recruited. The Cronbach's α value for the Malay-SLEQoL (M-SLEQoL) and Malay-LupusQOL (M-LupusQoL) was 0.890 and 0.944 respectively. Exploratory factor analysis found formation of similar number of components with the original version of questionnaires and all items have good factor loading of >0.4. Both instruments also had good concurrent validity with SF-36. M-SLEQoL had good correlations with BILAG-2004 and M-SLEDAI scores. Musculoskeletal (MSK) involvement was independently associated with lower M-SLEQoL in physical function, activity and symptom domains. Meanwhile, MSK and NPSLE were associated with fatigue in M-LupusQoL.
CONCLUSION: Both M-SLEQoL and M-LupusQoL are reliable and valid as disease -specific QoL instruments for Malaysian patients. The M-Lupus QoL has better discriminative validity compared to the M-SLEQoL. SLE patients with MSK involvement are at risk of poor QoL in multiple domains including physical function, activity, symptoms and fatigue.
METHOD: Electronic literature search on PubMed was conducted using the following keywords: methylphenidate, cancer, carcinoma, oncology, oncological and tumour. We identified forty two relevant studies and publications on the use of methylphenidate in cancer patients to be included in this review.
RESULTS: Methylphenidate was found to have some evidence in reducing opioid-induced sedation, improving cognitive symptoms and reduction of fatigue in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the results were inconsistent due to variations in the study populations, study design and outcome measures, among others. There was minimal evidence on its use in treating depression. Otherwise, methylphenidate was generally well-tolerated by patients.
CONCLUSION: This review potentially supports the use of methylphenidate for opioid-induced sedation, cognitive decline and fatigue in cancer patients. Further placebo-controlled trials would help in strengthening the evidence for this treatment.