Dimensions of osteoarthritis self-management

Our aims were to determine whether a taxonomy of self-management strategies for osteoarthritis could be identified, and whether the resultant dimensions of such a taxonomy demonstrate predictable relationships with health status indices. Participants (n = 117) from community-based self-help groups and a general rheumatology outpatient clinic completed a self-management inventory consisting of 11 items, answered for both the past 7 days and a day on which symptoms were worse than usual. Duration of symptoms, level of pain, perceived functional ability and self-rated health were recorded as indicators of health status. Three essentially identical factors were obtained for both past 7 days and worse day items. Resultant scales were labeled passive, complementary and active, respectively. Correlations with health status measures provided modest evidence for the construct validity of these self-management scales. Compared with a simple aggregate score based on the total number of strategies used, the scales provided a clearer understanding of the relationship between self-management and health. The study provided a useful extension to existing research, addressing a number of shortcomings identified by previous researchers. The identified self-management dimensions offered a greater insight into the self-management choices of patients. Suggestions for further improvements to the measurement of self-management are outlined.Abbreviations OA Osteoarthritis     

A 10 year retrospective audit of long-term apomorphine use in Parkinson’s disease

Abstract Objectives Apomorphine is a potent dopamine agonist useful in the treatment of Parkinsons disease patients with disabling motor fluctuations and off periods, not responding to oral medication. It can also be of benefit in reducing dyskinesia by providing more constant dopaminergic stimulation and permitting lower levodopa dosage. However, there is a paucity of information on long-term benefits of apomorphine, including no large-scale phase III trial. We have examined our experience of apomorphine over the last 10 years, to assess indications, pattern of use, efficacy, and side effect profile. Methods All patients requiring apomorphine were identified through the Parkinsons disease Nurse Specialists records. An audit form was produced so that the same information was gathered from all case-notes. Results There were 107 patients (61 males and 46 females). Mean age of disease onset was 50.9 years, SD±9.3 (range 29–78). The mean duration of disease at start of apomorphine treatment was 10 years (SD±4.8, range2–29). The most common indications for apomorphine were severe unpredictable off periods (75.7 %), motor fluctuations (18.7 %) and dyskinesia (5.6 %). Most patients (63.6 %) used both intermittent subcutaneous injections and infusion via pump; 25.2% were on intermittent injection, and 11.2 % infusion alone. Mean dose per injection was 3.7mg. Mean infusion dose 69.8mg, running over a mean of 13.5 hours. The mean duration of intermittent apomorphine use was 48.2 months. The mean duration of infusion was 25.1 months. Complications included skin problems in 16 patients, 2 had symptomatic hypotension, 2 worsening confusion, 1 new confusion and 5 new hallucinations (after sometime on apomorphine). Sixteen patients have stopped using apomorphine completely. Thirteen have stopped the pump, but continue on intermittent injections. Conclusion Subcutaneous apomorphine is easy for patients to use, is well tolerated and has a low incidence of side effects, especially confusion.     

What is the optimum methodology for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure?

There are conflicting recommendations from consensus groups with regard to the assessment of resting anal sphincter pressure. Our aims were to evaluate and compare the performance of three recognized techniques for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure. METHODS: In each of 54 patients presenting for anorectal manometry, and suffering from constipation or fecal incontinence, three different techniques for assessment of resting anal pressure were undertaken, namely stationary, stationary pull-through and slow pull-through techniques. Resting anal sphincter pressures were compared between groups and between techniques. RESULTS: Mean resting anal sphincter pressure was lower with stationary, compared with stationary pull-through and slow pull-through, techniques (P < or = 0.002). Resting pressure was higher for constipation than incontinence regardless of technique used (P < 0.00001). The techniques were highly correlated with each other (P < 0.0001). The stationary pull-through technique conferred a minor advantage in the discrimination between constipation and incontinence. The stationary technique required significantly less time for completion (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Resting anal sphincter pressure varies according to the specific technique employed, yet each technique is valid. The stationary pull-through technique confers a minor advantage in clinical discrimination of patients, but the stationary technique is more time-efficient. Standardized anal sphincter testing should be established to enable inter-laboratory comparisons.     

Distension technique influences the relationship between colonic and rectal hypersensitivity in irritable bowel syndrome

In irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), it remains unclear whether rectal hypersensitivity is a 'marker' of colonic hypersensitivity. Our aim was to examine the relation between colonic and rectal sensitivity in IBS patients, comprising phasic and ramp distension techniques. Twenty IBS patients and 12 healthy subjects (N) underwent stepwise ramp and random phasic barostat distensions in the colon and rectum in random order. The sensory threshold pressure (ramp distension) and the visual analogue scale score (VAS, phasic distension), for pain and non-pain, were recorded. Colonic thresholds were lower, and VAS scores were generally higher, for pain and non-pain sensitivities in IBS compared to N. Rectal thresholds were lower, and VAS scores were higher, for pain but not for non-pain, in IBS compared to N. In IBS, for phasic distension, there was good correlation between the colon and rectum for non-pain (e.g. at 16 mmHg, r=0.59, P=0.006) and pain (r=0.60, P=0.006) sensitivities. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between the colon and rectum for ramp distension. In conclusion, colonic and rectal sensitivity in IBS are correlated in response to phasic but not ramp barostat distensions. The rectum serves as a legitimate 'window' for evaluating colonic hypersensitivity in IBS, provided that phasic distensions are employed.