What to do with isolated calf DVT

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:01

Clinical question: Does therapeutic anticoagulation of isolated calf deep vein thrombosis (DVT) decrease risk for proximal DVT or PE?

Background: Optimal management of isolated calf DVT lacks consensus.

Study design: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Large academic hospital.

Synopsis: Researchers evaluated 14,056 lower-extremity venous duplex studies and identified 243 patients with an intent to treat with therapeutic anticoagulation as well as 141 patients without anticoagulation. The primary outcome was radiographic confirmation of proximal DVT or PE within 180 days of initial study. Duration of anticoagulation, timing of radiographic follow-up, and frequency of follow-up within the first 180 days were varied.

Nevertheless, 9.2% of control patients and 3.3% of exposure patients developed a proximal DVT or PE. The anticoagulation group was associated with lower likelihood of proximal DVT or PE (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84) but an increased risk of bleeding (8.6%), compared with the nonexposure group (2.2%). Sensitivity analysis did not alter the observed association.

Bottom line: Therapeutic anticoagulation for isolated calf DVT may be warranted to decrease the risk for proximal DVT or PE but with an increased risk of bleeding. Randomized trials are needed to clarify the risk versus benefit.

Citation: Utter GH, Dhillon TS, Salcedo ES, et al. Therapeutic anticoagulation for isolated calf deep vein thrombosis. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):e161770. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1770.


Dr. Zuleta is an assistant professor and associate program director of the Jackson Memorial/University of Miami Internal Medicine residency training program and the site director of the program at University of Miami Hospital.

Publications
Sections

Clinical question: Does therapeutic anticoagulation of isolated calf deep vein thrombosis (DVT) decrease risk for proximal DVT or PE?

Background: Optimal management of isolated calf DVT lacks consensus.

Study design: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Large academic hospital.

Synopsis: Researchers evaluated 14,056 lower-extremity venous duplex studies and identified 243 patients with an intent to treat with therapeutic anticoagulation as well as 141 patients without anticoagulation. The primary outcome was radiographic confirmation of proximal DVT or PE within 180 days of initial study. Duration of anticoagulation, timing of radiographic follow-up, and frequency of follow-up within the first 180 days were varied.

Nevertheless, 9.2% of control patients and 3.3% of exposure patients developed a proximal DVT or PE. The anticoagulation group was associated with lower likelihood of proximal DVT or PE (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84) but an increased risk of bleeding (8.6%), compared with the nonexposure group (2.2%). Sensitivity analysis did not alter the observed association.

Bottom line: Therapeutic anticoagulation for isolated calf DVT may be warranted to decrease the risk for proximal DVT or PE but with an increased risk of bleeding. Randomized trials are needed to clarify the risk versus benefit.

Citation: Utter GH, Dhillon TS, Salcedo ES, et al. Therapeutic anticoagulation for isolated calf deep vein thrombosis. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):e161770. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1770.


Dr. Zuleta is an assistant professor and associate program director of the Jackson Memorial/University of Miami Internal Medicine residency training program and the site director of the program at University of Miami Hospital.

Clinical question: Does therapeutic anticoagulation of isolated calf deep vein thrombosis (DVT) decrease risk for proximal DVT or PE?

Background: Optimal management of isolated calf DVT lacks consensus.

Study design: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Large academic hospital.

Synopsis: Researchers evaluated 14,056 lower-extremity venous duplex studies and identified 243 patients with an intent to treat with therapeutic anticoagulation as well as 141 patients without anticoagulation. The primary outcome was radiographic confirmation of proximal DVT or PE within 180 days of initial study. Duration of anticoagulation, timing of radiographic follow-up, and frequency of follow-up within the first 180 days were varied.

Nevertheless, 9.2% of control patients and 3.3% of exposure patients developed a proximal DVT or PE. The anticoagulation group was associated with lower likelihood of proximal DVT or PE (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84) but an increased risk of bleeding (8.6%), compared with the nonexposure group (2.2%). Sensitivity analysis did not alter the observed association.

Bottom line: Therapeutic anticoagulation for isolated calf DVT may be warranted to decrease the risk for proximal DVT or PE but with an increased risk of bleeding. Randomized trials are needed to clarify the risk versus benefit.

Citation: Utter GH, Dhillon TS, Salcedo ES, et al. Therapeutic anticoagulation for isolated calf deep vein thrombosis. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):e161770. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1770.


Dr. Zuleta is an assistant professor and associate program director of the Jackson Memorial/University of Miami Internal Medicine residency training program and the site director of the program at University of Miami Hospital.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Burnout: Time to stop blaming the victims

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/03/2019 - 10:29

 

Most surgeons today are familiar with professional burnout – in their colleagues, in surgical trainees, and perhaps, in themselves. But the understanding of burnout is evolving.  The discussion is moving away from blaming physicians for their poor coping skills toward identifying the structural and organizational roots of burnout.

Burnout is a syndrome cause by work-related stress that features emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment. A recent study of nearly 7,000 physicians using the Maslach Burnout Inventory found that 54.4% of those surveyed reported at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-19). Other studies have found similar rates of burnout in the surgical specialties such as orthopedic, oncologic, cardiothoracic, and plastic surgery (JAMA Surg. 2014 Sep;149:948-53; Ann Surg Oncol 2011 May;18:1229-35; Internat J Cardiol. 2015 Jan 20;179:7-72; Aesthet Surg J. 2016 Sep 27. E-pub ahead of print).

Courtesy Mayo Clinic
Dr. Tait D. Shanafelt
Burnout among residents is of particular concern. Research on residents is extensive and suggests that in most fields and institutions, this problem remains widespread despite existing programs to address it (J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Sep;223[3]440-5; J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Feb;31[2]:203-8).

A new paradigm of burnout

The paradigm of burnout as a personal issue that can be managed by individual coping strategies is giving way to an understanding that the structural roots of burnout require the shared responsibility of individuals and their work organizations to solve the problem. A revised approach has emerged: Physician burnout as a symptom not of personal failure to cope, but of institutional failure to adapt to new circumstances in the health care milieu. The growing number of physicians employed in large group practices and medical centers has come with a whole array of management problems that are only beginning to be recognized, and burnout may be one of the most challenging.

Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, and John H. Noseworthy, MD, president and CEO of the Mayo Clinic, both in Rochester, Minn., have partnered to distill years of study and practice on the issue of burnout to a set of organizational strategies to tackle the problem and describe the Mayo Clinic experience. The study, “Executive Leadership and Physician Well-Being: Nine Organizational Strategies to Promote Engagement and Reduce Burnout” (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Nov 18. doi. org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.004) reverses the conventional “blame the victim” approach and identifies instead institutional responsibility to address burnout.

“Increasing evidence over the last 10 years demonstrating links to quality of care, productivity, and turnover have raised appreciation … by organizations that they have a substantial stake in this issue and that they control many of the factors that contribute to this problem,” said Dr. Shanafelt in an interview.

Unintended consequences of the individual solution

The focus on individual responsibility can have unintended consequences. A physician suffering from burnout can take action by leaving his or her job or cutting back. Staff turnover, a phenomenon closely tied to burnout, is costly and damaging to productivity and patient care (Physician Leadersh J. 2015 May-Jun;2[3]:22-5); Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29[1]2-7). These personal strategies may help individuals cope but can end up harming the institution and the work life of other staff members. Physicians experiencing burnout in their own lives can trigger the same condition in their colleagues.

The Mayo paper by Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy states, “Mistakenly, most hospitals, medical centers, and practice groups operate under the framework that burnout and professional satisfaction are solely the responsibility of the individual physician. This frequently results in organizations pursuing a narrow list of ‘solutions’ that are unlikely to result in meaningful progress (e.g., stress management workshops and individual training in mindfulness/resilience). Such strategies neglect the organizational factors that are the primary drivers of physician burnout and are correctly viewed with skepticism by physicians as an insincere effort by the organization to address the problem.”

Organizational strategies to reduce burnout

Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy developed a list of nine organizational strategies that have been shown to reduce burnout among doctors. A critical piece of this approach is the accumulated evidence of the financial burden of burnout among physicians in health care institutions. The approach is based on an informed leadership that recognizes the costs of inaction, without which a systemic solution is unlikely to be achieved.

1. Naming the issue and assessing the problem

Acknowledgment of burnout as an institutional problem and meaningful measurement of physician well-being are the initial steps in tackling the problem. This requires a sincere commitment at the highest level of management to listen and to recognize what staff physicians are saying. “At Mayo Clinic, we have incorporated town halls, radio broadcasts, letters, and video interviews along with face-to-face meetings involving clinical divisions, work units, and small groups as formats or [by using] the CEO to reach the staff.” Assessing physician well-being and quality of work life using one or more of the many available tools has to be an ongoing “a barometer of organization health,” and not just a one-off, crisis management activity.

 

 

2. Harnessing the power of leadership

Studies have found that management behaviors and strategies of supervisors are key components of physician well-being. The bottom line is that physician supervisors must accept a share of responsibility for burnout in those they manage. Leaders can be chosen on the basis of their ability to listen, engage, develop, and lead, and but they can also be trained to improve. In addition, leaders should be regularly assessed by those whom they lead. Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy argue that a crucial element of successful leadership involves recognizing unique interests and talents of individual physicians whom they manage and facilitating professional development so that each staff member spends about 20% of work time engaged in activities that he or she finds most meaningful.

3. Developing targeted interventions

Just as all politics is local, the study suggests that many sources of burnout are local as well. For example, although a high clerical burden on physicians may be a universal driver of burnout, it manifests differently in each institutional setting. The key here is to dig into the specific structural driver at the unit or ward level, engage physicians in analysis and problem-solving, and implement a plan to address the problem.

Dr. Shanafelt noted, “We organize the drivers of engagement and burnout around seven dimensions: workload, efficiency, flexibility/control, community at work, organizational culture and values, work-life integration, and meaning in work. Each of these dimensions has organizational and individual components. Work units should begin by identifying which one or two dimensions are the biggest challenges for the group and then begin a stepwise process to address them.”
 

4. Cultivating community at work

Peer support, a long-standing source of strength among surgeons and other physicians, unintentionally has been eroded in many modern medical institutions. There is ample evidence that this loss of collegiality is tied to burnout. “These interactions have been an unintended casualty of increasing productivity expectations, documentation requirements, and clerical burden. [Many organizations have eliminated] formal spaces for physicians to interact (e.g., physicians’ lounge or dining room) without recognizing the important role that this dedicated space played in fostering interpersonal connections among physicians.” The Mayo Clinic and other institutions are reversing this trend by creating dedicated physician rooms for breaks, snacks, and a venue for peer interaction and camaraderie.

5. Rethinking rewards and incentives

Compensation is now commonly linked to productivity in many health care organizations, but this approach has some profound drawbacks: It can lead to physician burnout. Incentive structures based on patient satisfaction and quality metrics can have similar unintended consequences. All these incentive structures can combine to drive physicians to overwork. “Physicians may be particularly vulnerable to overwork due to high levels of education debt, their desire to ‘do everything for their patients,’ unhealthy role modeling by colleagues, and normalization of extreme work hours during the training process.” The investigators do not claim to have the ultimate answer to the problem of incentives that create unhealthy work patterns, but they argue that it is critical for leaders to recognize the potential unintended consequences of the productivity reward/incentive model and consider strategies to prevent overwork leading to burnout.

6. Aligning values and strengthening culture

The investigators also describe Mayo’s efforts to pursue self-appraisal of alignment of mission, values, and culture. They also describe the regular use of an all-staff survey, which has on occasion yielded candid feedback that, while not always flattering, has been the basis of a profound institutional rethink. The willingness of leadership to be receptive to hard truths from physicians is the foundation of institutional learning about burnout prevention and encourages engagement of the staff.

7. Promoting flexibility and work-life integration

Allowing employees greater flexibility in how and when they work is a management strategy that is gaining ground in many industries. Increasing part-time positions and expanding options for the work day have both been found to help prevent burnout and also help physicians recover from burnout. In addition, “institutions should also comprehensively examine the structure of their vacation benefits, coverage for life events (e.g., birth of a child, illness/death in family), approach to scheduling, and strategy for coverage of nights and weekends. Compensation practices that disincentivize using vacation time are shortsighted and should be eliminated.”

8. Providing resources to promote resilience and self-care

The solutions to burnout have been aimed at the individual and involve stress-reduction training and other personal management strategies. A metastudy of the interventions mentions psychoeducation, counseling, wellness management, interpersonal communication, and mindfulness meditation (J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014 May;202:353-9). But without concomitant structural reform, these individual solutions can backfire. “When individually focused offerings are not coupled with sincere efforts to address the system-based issues contributing to burnout, this approach is typically met with skepticism and resistance by physicians (‘They are implying I am the problem’). In this context, the response to well-intentioned ‘resilience training’ is frequently a cynical one (‘You only want to make me more resilient so you can further increase my workload’).”

 

 

9. Funding organizational research

Organizational science is a well-developed field of study. But cutting-edge management models such as the learning organization, participatory management, and collaborative action planning have been slow in coming to health care institutions. Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy argue that “vanguard institutions” such as the Mayo Clinic (which began its Program on Physician Well-Being in 2008), Stanford (Calif.) University, and other innovative institutions have the responsibility of developing evidence-based strategies to combat burnout that smaller institutions can implement.

Burnout among physicians is now on the radar of leadership in many health care institutions. Evidence on the cost and consequences is accumulating, and it becoming increasingly difficult to ignore what is happening to many physicians. Dr. Shanafelt projected an increasing need for operational solutions at the organizational level to address the problem. He said, “We need evidence to guide organizations to implement changes that truly make a difference, not well-intentioned but ineffective programs. Now that organizations recognize the strong business case, they are ready to invest resources to address this issue but they need to know it is money well spent and that there is an evidence-base to justify the investment.”
 

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Most surgeons today are familiar with professional burnout – in their colleagues, in surgical trainees, and perhaps, in themselves. But the understanding of burnout is evolving.  The discussion is moving away from blaming physicians for their poor coping skills toward identifying the structural and organizational roots of burnout.

Burnout is a syndrome cause by work-related stress that features emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment. A recent study of nearly 7,000 physicians using the Maslach Burnout Inventory found that 54.4% of those surveyed reported at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-19). Other studies have found similar rates of burnout in the surgical specialties such as orthopedic, oncologic, cardiothoracic, and plastic surgery (JAMA Surg. 2014 Sep;149:948-53; Ann Surg Oncol 2011 May;18:1229-35; Internat J Cardiol. 2015 Jan 20;179:7-72; Aesthet Surg J. 2016 Sep 27. E-pub ahead of print).

Courtesy Mayo Clinic
Dr. Tait D. Shanafelt
Burnout among residents is of particular concern. Research on residents is extensive and suggests that in most fields and institutions, this problem remains widespread despite existing programs to address it (J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Sep;223[3]440-5; J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Feb;31[2]:203-8).

A new paradigm of burnout

The paradigm of burnout as a personal issue that can be managed by individual coping strategies is giving way to an understanding that the structural roots of burnout require the shared responsibility of individuals and their work organizations to solve the problem. A revised approach has emerged: Physician burnout as a symptom not of personal failure to cope, but of institutional failure to adapt to new circumstances in the health care milieu. The growing number of physicians employed in large group practices and medical centers has come with a whole array of management problems that are only beginning to be recognized, and burnout may be one of the most challenging.

Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, and John H. Noseworthy, MD, president and CEO of the Mayo Clinic, both in Rochester, Minn., have partnered to distill years of study and practice on the issue of burnout to a set of organizational strategies to tackle the problem and describe the Mayo Clinic experience. The study, “Executive Leadership and Physician Well-Being: Nine Organizational Strategies to Promote Engagement and Reduce Burnout” (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Nov 18. doi. org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.004) reverses the conventional “blame the victim” approach and identifies instead institutional responsibility to address burnout.

“Increasing evidence over the last 10 years demonstrating links to quality of care, productivity, and turnover have raised appreciation … by organizations that they have a substantial stake in this issue and that they control many of the factors that contribute to this problem,” said Dr. Shanafelt in an interview.

Unintended consequences of the individual solution

The focus on individual responsibility can have unintended consequences. A physician suffering from burnout can take action by leaving his or her job or cutting back. Staff turnover, a phenomenon closely tied to burnout, is costly and damaging to productivity and patient care (Physician Leadersh J. 2015 May-Jun;2[3]:22-5); Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29[1]2-7). These personal strategies may help individuals cope but can end up harming the institution and the work life of other staff members. Physicians experiencing burnout in their own lives can trigger the same condition in their colleagues.

The Mayo paper by Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy states, “Mistakenly, most hospitals, medical centers, and practice groups operate under the framework that burnout and professional satisfaction are solely the responsibility of the individual physician. This frequently results in organizations pursuing a narrow list of ‘solutions’ that are unlikely to result in meaningful progress (e.g., stress management workshops and individual training in mindfulness/resilience). Such strategies neglect the organizational factors that are the primary drivers of physician burnout and are correctly viewed with skepticism by physicians as an insincere effort by the organization to address the problem.”

Organizational strategies to reduce burnout

Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy developed a list of nine organizational strategies that have been shown to reduce burnout among doctors. A critical piece of this approach is the accumulated evidence of the financial burden of burnout among physicians in health care institutions. The approach is based on an informed leadership that recognizes the costs of inaction, without which a systemic solution is unlikely to be achieved.

1. Naming the issue and assessing the problem

Acknowledgment of burnout as an institutional problem and meaningful measurement of physician well-being are the initial steps in tackling the problem. This requires a sincere commitment at the highest level of management to listen and to recognize what staff physicians are saying. “At Mayo Clinic, we have incorporated town halls, radio broadcasts, letters, and video interviews along with face-to-face meetings involving clinical divisions, work units, and small groups as formats or [by using] the CEO to reach the staff.” Assessing physician well-being and quality of work life using one or more of the many available tools has to be an ongoing “a barometer of organization health,” and not just a one-off, crisis management activity.

 

 

2. Harnessing the power of leadership

Studies have found that management behaviors and strategies of supervisors are key components of physician well-being. The bottom line is that physician supervisors must accept a share of responsibility for burnout in those they manage. Leaders can be chosen on the basis of their ability to listen, engage, develop, and lead, and but they can also be trained to improve. In addition, leaders should be regularly assessed by those whom they lead. Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy argue that a crucial element of successful leadership involves recognizing unique interests and talents of individual physicians whom they manage and facilitating professional development so that each staff member spends about 20% of work time engaged in activities that he or she finds most meaningful.

3. Developing targeted interventions

Just as all politics is local, the study suggests that many sources of burnout are local as well. For example, although a high clerical burden on physicians may be a universal driver of burnout, it manifests differently in each institutional setting. The key here is to dig into the specific structural driver at the unit or ward level, engage physicians in analysis and problem-solving, and implement a plan to address the problem.

Dr. Shanafelt noted, “We organize the drivers of engagement and burnout around seven dimensions: workload, efficiency, flexibility/control, community at work, organizational culture and values, work-life integration, and meaning in work. Each of these dimensions has organizational and individual components. Work units should begin by identifying which one or two dimensions are the biggest challenges for the group and then begin a stepwise process to address them.”
 

4. Cultivating community at work

Peer support, a long-standing source of strength among surgeons and other physicians, unintentionally has been eroded in many modern medical institutions. There is ample evidence that this loss of collegiality is tied to burnout. “These interactions have been an unintended casualty of increasing productivity expectations, documentation requirements, and clerical burden. [Many organizations have eliminated] formal spaces for physicians to interact (e.g., physicians’ lounge or dining room) without recognizing the important role that this dedicated space played in fostering interpersonal connections among physicians.” The Mayo Clinic and other institutions are reversing this trend by creating dedicated physician rooms for breaks, snacks, and a venue for peer interaction and camaraderie.

5. Rethinking rewards and incentives

Compensation is now commonly linked to productivity in many health care organizations, but this approach has some profound drawbacks: It can lead to physician burnout. Incentive structures based on patient satisfaction and quality metrics can have similar unintended consequences. All these incentive structures can combine to drive physicians to overwork. “Physicians may be particularly vulnerable to overwork due to high levels of education debt, their desire to ‘do everything for their patients,’ unhealthy role modeling by colleagues, and normalization of extreme work hours during the training process.” The investigators do not claim to have the ultimate answer to the problem of incentives that create unhealthy work patterns, but they argue that it is critical for leaders to recognize the potential unintended consequences of the productivity reward/incentive model and consider strategies to prevent overwork leading to burnout.

6. Aligning values and strengthening culture

The investigators also describe Mayo’s efforts to pursue self-appraisal of alignment of mission, values, and culture. They also describe the regular use of an all-staff survey, which has on occasion yielded candid feedback that, while not always flattering, has been the basis of a profound institutional rethink. The willingness of leadership to be receptive to hard truths from physicians is the foundation of institutional learning about burnout prevention and encourages engagement of the staff.

7. Promoting flexibility and work-life integration

Allowing employees greater flexibility in how and when they work is a management strategy that is gaining ground in many industries. Increasing part-time positions and expanding options for the work day have both been found to help prevent burnout and also help physicians recover from burnout. In addition, “institutions should also comprehensively examine the structure of their vacation benefits, coverage for life events (e.g., birth of a child, illness/death in family), approach to scheduling, and strategy for coverage of nights and weekends. Compensation practices that disincentivize using vacation time are shortsighted and should be eliminated.”

8. Providing resources to promote resilience and self-care

The solutions to burnout have been aimed at the individual and involve stress-reduction training and other personal management strategies. A metastudy of the interventions mentions psychoeducation, counseling, wellness management, interpersonal communication, and mindfulness meditation (J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014 May;202:353-9). But without concomitant structural reform, these individual solutions can backfire. “When individually focused offerings are not coupled with sincere efforts to address the system-based issues contributing to burnout, this approach is typically met with skepticism and resistance by physicians (‘They are implying I am the problem’). In this context, the response to well-intentioned ‘resilience training’ is frequently a cynical one (‘You only want to make me more resilient so you can further increase my workload’).”

 

 

9. Funding organizational research

Organizational science is a well-developed field of study. But cutting-edge management models such as the learning organization, participatory management, and collaborative action planning have been slow in coming to health care institutions. Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy argue that “vanguard institutions” such as the Mayo Clinic (which began its Program on Physician Well-Being in 2008), Stanford (Calif.) University, and other innovative institutions have the responsibility of developing evidence-based strategies to combat burnout that smaller institutions can implement.

Burnout among physicians is now on the radar of leadership in many health care institutions. Evidence on the cost and consequences is accumulating, and it becoming increasingly difficult to ignore what is happening to many physicians. Dr. Shanafelt projected an increasing need for operational solutions at the organizational level to address the problem. He said, “We need evidence to guide organizations to implement changes that truly make a difference, not well-intentioned but ineffective programs. Now that organizations recognize the strong business case, they are ready to invest resources to address this issue but they need to know it is money well spent and that there is an evidence-base to justify the investment.”
 

 

Most surgeons today are familiar with professional burnout – in their colleagues, in surgical trainees, and perhaps, in themselves. But the understanding of burnout is evolving.  The discussion is moving away from blaming physicians for their poor coping skills toward identifying the structural and organizational roots of burnout.

Burnout is a syndrome cause by work-related stress that features emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment. A recent study of nearly 7,000 physicians using the Maslach Burnout Inventory found that 54.4% of those surveyed reported at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-19). Other studies have found similar rates of burnout in the surgical specialties such as orthopedic, oncologic, cardiothoracic, and plastic surgery (JAMA Surg. 2014 Sep;149:948-53; Ann Surg Oncol 2011 May;18:1229-35; Internat J Cardiol. 2015 Jan 20;179:7-72; Aesthet Surg J. 2016 Sep 27. E-pub ahead of print).

Courtesy Mayo Clinic
Dr. Tait D. Shanafelt
Burnout among residents is of particular concern. Research on residents is extensive and suggests that in most fields and institutions, this problem remains widespread despite existing programs to address it (J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Sep;223[3]440-5; J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Feb;31[2]:203-8).

A new paradigm of burnout

The paradigm of burnout as a personal issue that can be managed by individual coping strategies is giving way to an understanding that the structural roots of burnout require the shared responsibility of individuals and their work organizations to solve the problem. A revised approach has emerged: Physician burnout as a symptom not of personal failure to cope, but of institutional failure to adapt to new circumstances in the health care milieu. The growing number of physicians employed in large group practices and medical centers has come with a whole array of management problems that are only beginning to be recognized, and burnout may be one of the most challenging.

Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, and John H. Noseworthy, MD, president and CEO of the Mayo Clinic, both in Rochester, Minn., have partnered to distill years of study and practice on the issue of burnout to a set of organizational strategies to tackle the problem and describe the Mayo Clinic experience. The study, “Executive Leadership and Physician Well-Being: Nine Organizational Strategies to Promote Engagement and Reduce Burnout” (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Nov 18. doi. org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.004) reverses the conventional “blame the victim” approach and identifies instead institutional responsibility to address burnout.

“Increasing evidence over the last 10 years demonstrating links to quality of care, productivity, and turnover have raised appreciation … by organizations that they have a substantial stake in this issue and that they control many of the factors that contribute to this problem,” said Dr. Shanafelt in an interview.

Unintended consequences of the individual solution

The focus on individual responsibility can have unintended consequences. A physician suffering from burnout can take action by leaving his or her job or cutting back. Staff turnover, a phenomenon closely tied to burnout, is costly and damaging to productivity and patient care (Physician Leadersh J. 2015 May-Jun;2[3]:22-5); Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29[1]2-7). These personal strategies may help individuals cope but can end up harming the institution and the work life of other staff members. Physicians experiencing burnout in their own lives can trigger the same condition in their colleagues.

The Mayo paper by Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy states, “Mistakenly, most hospitals, medical centers, and practice groups operate under the framework that burnout and professional satisfaction are solely the responsibility of the individual physician. This frequently results in organizations pursuing a narrow list of ‘solutions’ that are unlikely to result in meaningful progress (e.g., stress management workshops and individual training in mindfulness/resilience). Such strategies neglect the organizational factors that are the primary drivers of physician burnout and are correctly viewed with skepticism by physicians as an insincere effort by the organization to address the problem.”

Organizational strategies to reduce burnout

Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy developed a list of nine organizational strategies that have been shown to reduce burnout among doctors. A critical piece of this approach is the accumulated evidence of the financial burden of burnout among physicians in health care institutions. The approach is based on an informed leadership that recognizes the costs of inaction, without which a systemic solution is unlikely to be achieved.

1. Naming the issue and assessing the problem

Acknowledgment of burnout as an institutional problem and meaningful measurement of physician well-being are the initial steps in tackling the problem. This requires a sincere commitment at the highest level of management to listen and to recognize what staff physicians are saying. “At Mayo Clinic, we have incorporated town halls, radio broadcasts, letters, and video interviews along with face-to-face meetings involving clinical divisions, work units, and small groups as formats or [by using] the CEO to reach the staff.” Assessing physician well-being and quality of work life using one or more of the many available tools has to be an ongoing “a barometer of organization health,” and not just a one-off, crisis management activity.

 

 

2. Harnessing the power of leadership

Studies have found that management behaviors and strategies of supervisors are key components of physician well-being. The bottom line is that physician supervisors must accept a share of responsibility for burnout in those they manage. Leaders can be chosen on the basis of their ability to listen, engage, develop, and lead, and but they can also be trained to improve. In addition, leaders should be regularly assessed by those whom they lead. Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy argue that a crucial element of successful leadership involves recognizing unique interests and talents of individual physicians whom they manage and facilitating professional development so that each staff member spends about 20% of work time engaged in activities that he or she finds most meaningful.

3. Developing targeted interventions

Just as all politics is local, the study suggests that many sources of burnout are local as well. For example, although a high clerical burden on physicians may be a universal driver of burnout, it manifests differently in each institutional setting. The key here is to dig into the specific structural driver at the unit or ward level, engage physicians in analysis and problem-solving, and implement a plan to address the problem.

Dr. Shanafelt noted, “We organize the drivers of engagement and burnout around seven dimensions: workload, efficiency, flexibility/control, community at work, organizational culture and values, work-life integration, and meaning in work. Each of these dimensions has organizational and individual components. Work units should begin by identifying which one or two dimensions are the biggest challenges for the group and then begin a stepwise process to address them.”
 

4. Cultivating community at work

Peer support, a long-standing source of strength among surgeons and other physicians, unintentionally has been eroded in many modern medical institutions. There is ample evidence that this loss of collegiality is tied to burnout. “These interactions have been an unintended casualty of increasing productivity expectations, documentation requirements, and clerical burden. [Many organizations have eliminated] formal spaces for physicians to interact (e.g., physicians’ lounge or dining room) without recognizing the important role that this dedicated space played in fostering interpersonal connections among physicians.” The Mayo Clinic and other institutions are reversing this trend by creating dedicated physician rooms for breaks, snacks, and a venue for peer interaction and camaraderie.

5. Rethinking rewards and incentives

Compensation is now commonly linked to productivity in many health care organizations, but this approach has some profound drawbacks: It can lead to physician burnout. Incentive structures based on patient satisfaction and quality metrics can have similar unintended consequences. All these incentive structures can combine to drive physicians to overwork. “Physicians may be particularly vulnerable to overwork due to high levels of education debt, their desire to ‘do everything for their patients,’ unhealthy role modeling by colleagues, and normalization of extreme work hours during the training process.” The investigators do not claim to have the ultimate answer to the problem of incentives that create unhealthy work patterns, but they argue that it is critical for leaders to recognize the potential unintended consequences of the productivity reward/incentive model and consider strategies to prevent overwork leading to burnout.

6. Aligning values and strengthening culture

The investigators also describe Mayo’s efforts to pursue self-appraisal of alignment of mission, values, and culture. They also describe the regular use of an all-staff survey, which has on occasion yielded candid feedback that, while not always flattering, has been the basis of a profound institutional rethink. The willingness of leadership to be receptive to hard truths from physicians is the foundation of institutional learning about burnout prevention and encourages engagement of the staff.

7. Promoting flexibility and work-life integration

Allowing employees greater flexibility in how and when they work is a management strategy that is gaining ground in many industries. Increasing part-time positions and expanding options for the work day have both been found to help prevent burnout and also help physicians recover from burnout. In addition, “institutions should also comprehensively examine the structure of their vacation benefits, coverage for life events (e.g., birth of a child, illness/death in family), approach to scheduling, and strategy for coverage of nights and weekends. Compensation practices that disincentivize using vacation time are shortsighted and should be eliminated.”

8. Providing resources to promote resilience and self-care

The solutions to burnout have been aimed at the individual and involve stress-reduction training and other personal management strategies. A metastudy of the interventions mentions psychoeducation, counseling, wellness management, interpersonal communication, and mindfulness meditation (J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014 May;202:353-9). But without concomitant structural reform, these individual solutions can backfire. “When individually focused offerings are not coupled with sincere efforts to address the system-based issues contributing to burnout, this approach is typically met with skepticism and resistance by physicians (‘They are implying I am the problem’). In this context, the response to well-intentioned ‘resilience training’ is frequently a cynical one (‘You only want to make me more resilient so you can further increase my workload’).”

 

 

9. Funding organizational research

Organizational science is a well-developed field of study. But cutting-edge management models such as the learning organization, participatory management, and collaborative action planning have been slow in coming to health care institutions. Dr. Shanafelt and Dr. Noseworthy argue that “vanguard institutions” such as the Mayo Clinic (which began its Program on Physician Well-Being in 2008), Stanford (Calif.) University, and other innovative institutions have the responsibility of developing evidence-based strategies to combat burnout that smaller institutions can implement.

Burnout among physicians is now on the radar of leadership in many health care institutions. Evidence on the cost and consequences is accumulating, and it becoming increasingly difficult to ignore what is happening to many physicians. Dr. Shanafelt projected an increasing need for operational solutions at the organizational level to address the problem. He said, “We need evidence to guide organizations to implement changes that truly make a difference, not well-intentioned but ineffective programs. Now that organizations recognize the strong business case, they are ready to invest resources to address this issue but they need to know it is money well spent and that there is an evidence-base to justify the investment.”
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Appealing rejected claims

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:57

 

As third-party payers become stingier and stingier with their payments, it becomes more and more important to hold them accountable for decisions that impact patient care – and your revenue. Physicians have the right to a full and fair appeal review of all rejected and underpaid claims; yet surprisingly, less than 5% of denied dermatology claims are appealed, according to one study.

Many practitioners seem to feel that appeals are simply not worth the time and effort, particularly in a high-volume field such as dermatology; but since the chance that appealing will increase your reimbursement is more than 50%, it is usually well worth the effort – particularly in the current climate of steadily decreasing reimbursements. Furthermore, once insurers become aware that you are scrutinizing your payment statements and challenging all unwarranted rejections, they will be less cavalier in denying legitimate claims.

Dr. Joseph S. Eastern
Granted, navigating the appeals minefield can consume a lot of time and effort; but most appeals are relatively simple, easy to execute, and can be delegated to front-office personnel. For the rest, there are a number of ways to streamline the process.

The first thing your office manager should do is determine the reason the claim was rejected. In some cases, the benefits verification computer has ruled the patient ineligible, or decided that the provided service is not covered by the patient’s policy. If that is false, the appeal letter will be relatively simple; you can design a boilerplate form to cover those instances. If it is true, your pretreatment evaluation process needs to be examined; you should not be treating ineligible patients or performing ineligible treatments in the first place, unless such patients are made aware that their care will not be covered and that they will have to pay for it themselves. In some cases, the amount in dispute really is so small that the appeal process may indeed not be worth the bother; but such cases, in my experience, are quite rare.

Once you determine that it is worth the effort to go through the appeals process, you will need to familiarize yourself with the appeal procedure – which varies from payer to payer – and then incorporate all of the elements that comprise a successful appeal.

The basis of every appeal, obviously, is an argument against the reason given for rejecting the claim. Unfortunately, payers do not always spell out their reasoning clearly. Rejected claims often include only a cryptic statement on why the claim was denied, without explaining the motivation behind the actual denial. Explanations are often in the form of an important-sounding “code,” such as a “claim adjustment reason code” or “remittance advice remark code,” referencing a generalized, nonspecific rejection excuse. (This is a purposeful attempt, of course, to discourage you from fighting the denial.) Your manager may have to place a call to the payer, demanding more specific information.

If a valid reason is not forthcoming, the appeal process once again becomes simple. You should have another boilerplate for such circumstances; just fill in the blanks. If a specific reason behind the rejection can be identified, that will determine the basis of your appeal: coding, medical necessity, or administrative.

Coding appeals usually involve either miscoding by the practitioner, or misinterpretation of the correct code by the payer. If the fault is yours, admit it, and supply the correct code – with documentation, when necessary. If the payer has erred, clearly explain the error – again with documentation when needed – and spell out the reasons that payment is warranted (and expected) immediately.

Medical necessity appeals require you to go into detail about the patient’s medical history, condition, symptoms, and treatment. If treatment with an expensive medication has been rejected, explain the advantages of that medication over cheaper alternatives. A reference to accepted standards of care is often persuasive.

An administrative appeal may be necessary if you have a weak clinical argument. You’ll need to argue that the services you provided were consistent with how the payer defines appropriate treatment. If Medicare is the primary payer, a reference to appropriate passages in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual is usually helpful.

If you get nowhere with written appeals, a peer-to-peer call to the payer’s medical director may solve the problem, since you can explain the patient’s specific situation in more detail, and appeal to your colleague’s empathy – and common sense.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

As third-party payers become stingier and stingier with their payments, it becomes more and more important to hold them accountable for decisions that impact patient care – and your revenue. Physicians have the right to a full and fair appeal review of all rejected and underpaid claims; yet surprisingly, less than 5% of denied dermatology claims are appealed, according to one study.

Many practitioners seem to feel that appeals are simply not worth the time and effort, particularly in a high-volume field such as dermatology; but since the chance that appealing will increase your reimbursement is more than 50%, it is usually well worth the effort – particularly in the current climate of steadily decreasing reimbursements. Furthermore, once insurers become aware that you are scrutinizing your payment statements and challenging all unwarranted rejections, they will be less cavalier in denying legitimate claims.

Dr. Joseph S. Eastern
Granted, navigating the appeals minefield can consume a lot of time and effort; but most appeals are relatively simple, easy to execute, and can be delegated to front-office personnel. For the rest, there are a number of ways to streamline the process.

The first thing your office manager should do is determine the reason the claim was rejected. In some cases, the benefits verification computer has ruled the patient ineligible, or decided that the provided service is not covered by the patient’s policy. If that is false, the appeal letter will be relatively simple; you can design a boilerplate form to cover those instances. If it is true, your pretreatment evaluation process needs to be examined; you should not be treating ineligible patients or performing ineligible treatments in the first place, unless such patients are made aware that their care will not be covered and that they will have to pay for it themselves. In some cases, the amount in dispute really is so small that the appeal process may indeed not be worth the bother; but such cases, in my experience, are quite rare.

Once you determine that it is worth the effort to go through the appeals process, you will need to familiarize yourself with the appeal procedure – which varies from payer to payer – and then incorporate all of the elements that comprise a successful appeal.

The basis of every appeal, obviously, is an argument against the reason given for rejecting the claim. Unfortunately, payers do not always spell out their reasoning clearly. Rejected claims often include only a cryptic statement on why the claim was denied, without explaining the motivation behind the actual denial. Explanations are often in the form of an important-sounding “code,” such as a “claim adjustment reason code” or “remittance advice remark code,” referencing a generalized, nonspecific rejection excuse. (This is a purposeful attempt, of course, to discourage you from fighting the denial.) Your manager may have to place a call to the payer, demanding more specific information.

If a valid reason is not forthcoming, the appeal process once again becomes simple. You should have another boilerplate for such circumstances; just fill in the blanks. If a specific reason behind the rejection can be identified, that will determine the basis of your appeal: coding, medical necessity, or administrative.

Coding appeals usually involve either miscoding by the practitioner, or misinterpretation of the correct code by the payer. If the fault is yours, admit it, and supply the correct code – with documentation, when necessary. If the payer has erred, clearly explain the error – again with documentation when needed – and spell out the reasons that payment is warranted (and expected) immediately.

Medical necessity appeals require you to go into detail about the patient’s medical history, condition, symptoms, and treatment. If treatment with an expensive medication has been rejected, explain the advantages of that medication over cheaper alternatives. A reference to accepted standards of care is often persuasive.

An administrative appeal may be necessary if you have a weak clinical argument. You’ll need to argue that the services you provided were consistent with how the payer defines appropriate treatment. If Medicare is the primary payer, a reference to appropriate passages in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual is usually helpful.

If you get nowhere with written appeals, a peer-to-peer call to the payer’s medical director may solve the problem, since you can explain the patient’s specific situation in more detail, and appeal to your colleague’s empathy – and common sense.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

 

As third-party payers become stingier and stingier with their payments, it becomes more and more important to hold them accountable for decisions that impact patient care – and your revenue. Physicians have the right to a full and fair appeal review of all rejected and underpaid claims; yet surprisingly, less than 5% of denied dermatology claims are appealed, according to one study.

Many practitioners seem to feel that appeals are simply not worth the time and effort, particularly in a high-volume field such as dermatology; but since the chance that appealing will increase your reimbursement is more than 50%, it is usually well worth the effort – particularly in the current climate of steadily decreasing reimbursements. Furthermore, once insurers become aware that you are scrutinizing your payment statements and challenging all unwarranted rejections, they will be less cavalier in denying legitimate claims.

Dr. Joseph S. Eastern
Granted, navigating the appeals minefield can consume a lot of time and effort; but most appeals are relatively simple, easy to execute, and can be delegated to front-office personnel. For the rest, there are a number of ways to streamline the process.

The first thing your office manager should do is determine the reason the claim was rejected. In some cases, the benefits verification computer has ruled the patient ineligible, or decided that the provided service is not covered by the patient’s policy. If that is false, the appeal letter will be relatively simple; you can design a boilerplate form to cover those instances. If it is true, your pretreatment evaluation process needs to be examined; you should not be treating ineligible patients or performing ineligible treatments in the first place, unless such patients are made aware that their care will not be covered and that they will have to pay for it themselves. In some cases, the amount in dispute really is so small that the appeal process may indeed not be worth the bother; but such cases, in my experience, are quite rare.

Once you determine that it is worth the effort to go through the appeals process, you will need to familiarize yourself with the appeal procedure – which varies from payer to payer – and then incorporate all of the elements that comprise a successful appeal.

The basis of every appeal, obviously, is an argument against the reason given for rejecting the claim. Unfortunately, payers do not always spell out their reasoning clearly. Rejected claims often include only a cryptic statement on why the claim was denied, without explaining the motivation behind the actual denial. Explanations are often in the form of an important-sounding “code,” such as a “claim adjustment reason code” or “remittance advice remark code,” referencing a generalized, nonspecific rejection excuse. (This is a purposeful attempt, of course, to discourage you from fighting the denial.) Your manager may have to place a call to the payer, demanding more specific information.

If a valid reason is not forthcoming, the appeal process once again becomes simple. You should have another boilerplate for such circumstances; just fill in the blanks. If a specific reason behind the rejection can be identified, that will determine the basis of your appeal: coding, medical necessity, or administrative.

Coding appeals usually involve either miscoding by the practitioner, or misinterpretation of the correct code by the payer. If the fault is yours, admit it, and supply the correct code – with documentation, when necessary. If the payer has erred, clearly explain the error – again with documentation when needed – and spell out the reasons that payment is warranted (and expected) immediately.

Medical necessity appeals require you to go into detail about the patient’s medical history, condition, symptoms, and treatment. If treatment with an expensive medication has been rejected, explain the advantages of that medication over cheaper alternatives. A reference to accepted standards of care is often persuasive.

An administrative appeal may be necessary if you have a weak clinical argument. You’ll need to argue that the services you provided were consistent with how the payer defines appropriate treatment. If Medicare is the primary payer, a reference to appropriate passages in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual is usually helpful.

If you get nowhere with written appeals, a peer-to-peer call to the payer’s medical director may solve the problem, since you can explain the patient’s specific situation in more detail, and appeal to your colleague’s empathy – and common sense.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

International survey uncovered gaps in sun-protective behaviors

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:28

 

In a global survey, 88% of respondents knew that unprotected sun exposure leads to skin cancer, but less than 60% “always” or “often” applied sunscreen to their faces, arms, and legs, researchers said.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock
The study included 19,569 respondents aged 15-65 years from 23 countries who answered questions online, face to face, or by telephone. Globally, respondents most often reported wearing sunscreen and sunglasses for sun protection. Only 19% regularly wore sun-protective clothing, and only 38% regularly wore a hat or cap, the investigators said (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Jan 3. doi: 10.1111/jdv.14104).

In the United States, 57% of respondents regularly used sunscreen on parts of the body exposed to the sun, 55% regularly applied sunscreen to the face, 64% wore sunglasses with UV filters, and 52% tried to stay in the shade when outdoors. But only 26% reported year-round sun protection, and 20% reported not using sun protection at all, according to the U.S. data provided by one of the authors. Moreover, 21% of respondents in the United States believed it was safe to go out in the sun without protection if one was already tanned; 54% had never had a mole checked by a dermatologist; and only 38% checked their own moles at least once a year.

“Young people, men, [and] individuals belonging to a lower socioeconomic class or having a lower education level were all least likely to know or follow primary and secondary preventive measures,” the researchers said. They recommended health education messages about the role of sunscreen as an adjunct to a primary preventive method, such as wearing sun-protective clothing.

La Roche-Posay Dermatological Laboratories funded the study. Dr. Seite and one coinvestigator reported being employees of the company.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

In a global survey, 88% of respondents knew that unprotected sun exposure leads to skin cancer, but less than 60% “always” or “often” applied sunscreen to their faces, arms, and legs, researchers said.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock
The study included 19,569 respondents aged 15-65 years from 23 countries who answered questions online, face to face, or by telephone. Globally, respondents most often reported wearing sunscreen and sunglasses for sun protection. Only 19% regularly wore sun-protective clothing, and only 38% regularly wore a hat or cap, the investigators said (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Jan 3. doi: 10.1111/jdv.14104).

In the United States, 57% of respondents regularly used sunscreen on parts of the body exposed to the sun, 55% regularly applied sunscreen to the face, 64% wore sunglasses with UV filters, and 52% tried to stay in the shade when outdoors. But only 26% reported year-round sun protection, and 20% reported not using sun protection at all, according to the U.S. data provided by one of the authors. Moreover, 21% of respondents in the United States believed it was safe to go out in the sun without protection if one was already tanned; 54% had never had a mole checked by a dermatologist; and only 38% checked their own moles at least once a year.

“Young people, men, [and] individuals belonging to a lower socioeconomic class or having a lower education level were all least likely to know or follow primary and secondary preventive measures,” the researchers said. They recommended health education messages about the role of sunscreen as an adjunct to a primary preventive method, such as wearing sun-protective clothing.

La Roche-Posay Dermatological Laboratories funded the study. Dr. Seite and one coinvestigator reported being employees of the company.

 

In a global survey, 88% of respondents knew that unprotected sun exposure leads to skin cancer, but less than 60% “always” or “often” applied sunscreen to their faces, arms, and legs, researchers said.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock
The study included 19,569 respondents aged 15-65 years from 23 countries who answered questions online, face to face, or by telephone. Globally, respondents most often reported wearing sunscreen and sunglasses for sun protection. Only 19% regularly wore sun-protective clothing, and only 38% regularly wore a hat or cap, the investigators said (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Jan 3. doi: 10.1111/jdv.14104).

In the United States, 57% of respondents regularly used sunscreen on parts of the body exposed to the sun, 55% regularly applied sunscreen to the face, 64% wore sunglasses with UV filters, and 52% tried to stay in the shade when outdoors. But only 26% reported year-round sun protection, and 20% reported not using sun protection at all, according to the U.S. data provided by one of the authors. Moreover, 21% of respondents in the United States believed it was safe to go out in the sun without protection if one was already tanned; 54% had never had a mole checked by a dermatologist; and only 38% checked their own moles at least once a year.

“Young people, men, [and] individuals belonging to a lower socioeconomic class or having a lower education level were all least likely to know or follow primary and secondary preventive measures,” the researchers said. They recommended health education messages about the role of sunscreen as an adjunct to a primary preventive method, such as wearing sun-protective clothing.

La Roche-Posay Dermatological Laboratories funded the study. Dr. Seite and one coinvestigator reported being employees of the company.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY AND VENEREOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: A global survey uncovered demographic and geographic gaps in knowledge and practice of sun-protective behaviors.

Major finding: Although 88% of respondents understood the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, less than 60% regularly used sunscreen to protect the face or sun-exposed areas of the body.

Data source: Online, telephone, and face-to-face surveys of 19,569 respondents aged 15-65 years from 23 countries, including the United States.

Disclosures: La Roche-Posay Dermatological Laboratories funded the study. Dr. Seite and one coinvestigator reported being employees of the company.

Children in United States vaccinated for polio elsewhere may require revaccination

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:28

 

Poliovirus vaccinations for children in the United States who may have been vaccinated elsewhere must meet Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations to ensure protection against all three poliovirus types, according to guidance published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

designer491/Thinkstock
“Children living in the United States who might have received poliovirus vaccination outside the United States should meet ACIP recommendations for poliovirus vaccination, which require protection against all three poliovirus types by age-appropriate vaccination with IPV or tOPV,” according to Mona Marin, MD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues.

The researchers note that only written, dated records are acceptable evidence of complete vaccination, and documentation of polio vaccination outside of the United States should specify that the child has been vaccinated against all three types. “If both tOPV and IPV were administered as part of a series, the total number of doses needed to complete the series is the same as that recommended for the U.S. IPV schedule,” they wrote. That is, all infants and children should receive four doses of IPV at ages 2 months, 4 months, 6-18 months, and at 4-6 years. The minimum interval between the third and fourth doses should be 6 months.

Children younger than 18 years lacking written, dated documentation of poliovirus vaccination should be vaccinated or revaccinated according to the U.S. IPV schedule for their age, according to the guidelines.

Serologic testing, once used to confirm immunity to polio, is not recommended as a measure of immunity in the United States because antibody testing against type 2 poliovirus often is not available, the researchers added.

The full guidelines are available at MMWR. 2017 Jan 13. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6601a6.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Poliovirus vaccinations for children in the United States who may have been vaccinated elsewhere must meet Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations to ensure protection against all three poliovirus types, according to guidance published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

designer491/Thinkstock
“Children living in the United States who might have received poliovirus vaccination outside the United States should meet ACIP recommendations for poliovirus vaccination, which require protection against all three poliovirus types by age-appropriate vaccination with IPV or tOPV,” according to Mona Marin, MD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues.

The researchers note that only written, dated records are acceptable evidence of complete vaccination, and documentation of polio vaccination outside of the United States should specify that the child has been vaccinated against all three types. “If both tOPV and IPV were administered as part of a series, the total number of doses needed to complete the series is the same as that recommended for the U.S. IPV schedule,” they wrote. That is, all infants and children should receive four doses of IPV at ages 2 months, 4 months, 6-18 months, and at 4-6 years. The minimum interval between the third and fourth doses should be 6 months.

Children younger than 18 years lacking written, dated documentation of poliovirus vaccination should be vaccinated or revaccinated according to the U.S. IPV schedule for their age, according to the guidelines.

Serologic testing, once used to confirm immunity to polio, is not recommended as a measure of immunity in the United States because antibody testing against type 2 poliovirus often is not available, the researchers added.

The full guidelines are available at MMWR. 2017 Jan 13. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6601a6.

 

Poliovirus vaccinations for children in the United States who may have been vaccinated elsewhere must meet Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations to ensure protection against all three poliovirus types, according to guidance published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

designer491/Thinkstock
“Children living in the United States who might have received poliovirus vaccination outside the United States should meet ACIP recommendations for poliovirus vaccination, which require protection against all three poliovirus types by age-appropriate vaccination with IPV or tOPV,” according to Mona Marin, MD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues.

The researchers note that only written, dated records are acceptable evidence of complete vaccination, and documentation of polio vaccination outside of the United States should specify that the child has been vaccinated against all three types. “If both tOPV and IPV were administered as part of a series, the total number of doses needed to complete the series is the same as that recommended for the U.S. IPV schedule,” they wrote. That is, all infants and children should receive four doses of IPV at ages 2 months, 4 months, 6-18 months, and at 4-6 years. The minimum interval between the third and fourth doses should be 6 months.

Children younger than 18 years lacking written, dated documentation of poliovirus vaccination should be vaccinated or revaccinated according to the U.S. IPV schedule for their age, according to the guidelines.

Serologic testing, once used to confirm immunity to polio, is not recommended as a measure of immunity in the United States because antibody testing against type 2 poliovirus often is not available, the researchers added.

The full guidelines are available at MMWR. 2017 Jan 13. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6601a6.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM MMWR

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

PD-L1 testing in NSCLC patients shows high concordance

NSCLC treatment needs PD-L1 test harmonization
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

 

– Several different tests for PD-L1 levels in tumor cells of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer showed high concordance when run at seven French centers, boosting confidence in the clinical utility of this testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment of patients with this cancer.

Among 27 laboratory-developed tests for PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1) levels in tumor cells that used any one of three prespecified testing platforms (made by Dako, Ventana, or Leica), 14 (52%) had “similar” concordance when compared with reference assays, Julien Adam, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. “These results will provide the basis for making national recommendations for PD-L1 testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]” in France, added Dr. Adam, a pathologist at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris. “We expect to produce recommendations by the second half of 2017.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Julien Adam
Several single-center studies had examined harmonization of several different PD-L1 tests, but the new, multicenter study examined several different antibodies and platforms systematically, he noted.

Although the results came entirely from French centers, the results will also likely influence U.S. practice, predicted Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. The approval pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received from the Food and Drug Administration in October specified that patients with metastatic NSCLC had to show PD-L1 expression in the tumor using a FDA-approved test to receive pembrolizumab as first-line treatment.

“Before pembrolizumab’s approval there was no incentive to do PD-L1 testing,” but now it is becoming routine, he said. “It has been challenging to U.S. laboratories to decide which platform and antibody to use. Harmonization gives us confidence that if you have a platform and appropriate antibody you should be able to use the results clinically. I think the French results can be extrapolated” to U.S. practice because the results “came from multiple labs using multiple antibodies and platforms,” Dr. Gadgeel said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Julie R. Brahmer
The new French study “is unique by being very real-world, in one country across multiple institutions,” commented Julie R. Brahmer, MD, director of thoracic oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore. “It behooves every physician [caring for advanced NSCLC patients] to know what a PD-L1 test means when they get a result.” An ongoing effort to assess performance of PD-L1 testing at U.S. centers began in late 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The French study arranged for PD-L1 testing of NSCLC specimens from 41 patients selected as broadly representative of PD-L1 expression levels. The seven participating centers used a Dako (three centers), Ventana (two centers), or Leica (two centers) testing platform and one of five available antibodies that bind PD-L1. Every center ran tests that depended on different antibodies, and tests occurred on both tumor cells and immune cells. In total the seven testing sites collectively performed 35 stainings on each specimen for a total of 1,435 slides. In tumor cells, the overall, weighted kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.81 for tests that used the SP263 antibody and 0.78 for those using the E1L3N antibody, both high enough to make them potential candidates for routine use, said Dr. Adam. The 28-8 and 22C3 antibodies also showed high concordance levels. In contrast, some antibodies used at certain centers produced unacceptable results with concordance coefficients of less than 0.5. The best performing antibody overall was SP263.

No test measuring PD-L1 level in immune cells had an acceptable concordance rate, Dr. Adam also reported.

Body

 

Researchers have developed several different antibodies for measuring levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the antibodies can be used in several different testing platforms. Although most laboratories focus on using one specific immunohistochemical platform, the overall status of real-world PD-L1 testing is messy.

In the results reported by Dr. Adam, concordance weighted kappa coefficients of 0.8 or higher show extremely good concordance, and coefficients of 0.6-0.79 show good concordance. Several of the tests and testing sites reported by Dr. Adam showed concordance coefficients within these ranges. In certain other cases the concordance coefficients were very low, which prompts concern about the reliability of these low-scoring tests. The results show that the results you see in one laboratory with a specific antibody and platform test may not always remain consistent with the same antibody and platform used elsewhere.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Michael Boyer
Testing for PD-L1 is important because right now it is how we identify patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who are candidates for first-line pembrolizumab treatment. Knowing how individual laboratories perform PD-L1 testing and having confidence in the results is very important for managing these patients. We need to understand what individual laboratories do and what their results mean. A close collaboration between clinicians and pathologists is needed to optimize patient care.

Michael Boyer, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Body

 

Researchers have developed several different antibodies for measuring levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the antibodies can be used in several different testing platforms. Although most laboratories focus on using one specific immunohistochemical platform, the overall status of real-world PD-L1 testing is messy.

In the results reported by Dr. Adam, concordance weighted kappa coefficients of 0.8 or higher show extremely good concordance, and coefficients of 0.6-0.79 show good concordance. Several of the tests and testing sites reported by Dr. Adam showed concordance coefficients within these ranges. In certain other cases the concordance coefficients were very low, which prompts concern about the reliability of these low-scoring tests. The results show that the results you see in one laboratory with a specific antibody and platform test may not always remain consistent with the same antibody and platform used elsewhere.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Michael Boyer
Testing for PD-L1 is important because right now it is how we identify patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who are candidates for first-line pembrolizumab treatment. Knowing how individual laboratories perform PD-L1 testing and having confidence in the results is very important for managing these patients. We need to understand what individual laboratories do and what their results mean. A close collaboration between clinicians and pathologists is needed to optimize patient care.

Michael Boyer, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.

Body

 

Researchers have developed several different antibodies for measuring levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the antibodies can be used in several different testing platforms. Although most laboratories focus on using one specific immunohistochemical platform, the overall status of real-world PD-L1 testing is messy.

In the results reported by Dr. Adam, concordance weighted kappa coefficients of 0.8 or higher show extremely good concordance, and coefficients of 0.6-0.79 show good concordance. Several of the tests and testing sites reported by Dr. Adam showed concordance coefficients within these ranges. In certain other cases the concordance coefficients were very low, which prompts concern about the reliability of these low-scoring tests. The results show that the results you see in one laboratory with a specific antibody and platform test may not always remain consistent with the same antibody and platform used elsewhere.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Michael Boyer
Testing for PD-L1 is important because right now it is how we identify patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who are candidates for first-line pembrolizumab treatment. Knowing how individual laboratories perform PD-L1 testing and having confidence in the results is very important for managing these patients. We need to understand what individual laboratories do and what their results mean. A close collaboration between clinicians and pathologists is needed to optimize patient care.

Michael Boyer, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.

Title
NSCLC treatment needs PD-L1 test harmonization
NSCLC treatment needs PD-L1 test harmonization

 

– Several different tests for PD-L1 levels in tumor cells of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer showed high concordance when run at seven French centers, boosting confidence in the clinical utility of this testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment of patients with this cancer.

Among 27 laboratory-developed tests for PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1) levels in tumor cells that used any one of three prespecified testing platforms (made by Dako, Ventana, or Leica), 14 (52%) had “similar” concordance when compared with reference assays, Julien Adam, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. “These results will provide the basis for making national recommendations for PD-L1 testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]” in France, added Dr. Adam, a pathologist at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris. “We expect to produce recommendations by the second half of 2017.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Julien Adam
Several single-center studies had examined harmonization of several different PD-L1 tests, but the new, multicenter study examined several different antibodies and platforms systematically, he noted.

Although the results came entirely from French centers, the results will also likely influence U.S. practice, predicted Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. The approval pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received from the Food and Drug Administration in October specified that patients with metastatic NSCLC had to show PD-L1 expression in the tumor using a FDA-approved test to receive pembrolizumab as first-line treatment.

“Before pembrolizumab’s approval there was no incentive to do PD-L1 testing,” but now it is becoming routine, he said. “It has been challenging to U.S. laboratories to decide which platform and antibody to use. Harmonization gives us confidence that if you have a platform and appropriate antibody you should be able to use the results clinically. I think the French results can be extrapolated” to U.S. practice because the results “came from multiple labs using multiple antibodies and platforms,” Dr. Gadgeel said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Julie R. Brahmer
The new French study “is unique by being very real-world, in one country across multiple institutions,” commented Julie R. Brahmer, MD, director of thoracic oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore. “It behooves every physician [caring for advanced NSCLC patients] to know what a PD-L1 test means when they get a result.” An ongoing effort to assess performance of PD-L1 testing at U.S. centers began in late 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The French study arranged for PD-L1 testing of NSCLC specimens from 41 patients selected as broadly representative of PD-L1 expression levels. The seven participating centers used a Dako (three centers), Ventana (two centers), or Leica (two centers) testing platform and one of five available antibodies that bind PD-L1. Every center ran tests that depended on different antibodies, and tests occurred on both tumor cells and immune cells. In total the seven testing sites collectively performed 35 stainings on each specimen for a total of 1,435 slides. In tumor cells, the overall, weighted kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.81 for tests that used the SP263 antibody and 0.78 for those using the E1L3N antibody, both high enough to make them potential candidates for routine use, said Dr. Adam. The 28-8 and 22C3 antibodies also showed high concordance levels. In contrast, some antibodies used at certain centers produced unacceptable results with concordance coefficients of less than 0.5. The best performing antibody overall was SP263.

No test measuring PD-L1 level in immune cells had an acceptable concordance rate, Dr. Adam also reported.

 

– Several different tests for PD-L1 levels in tumor cells of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer showed high concordance when run at seven French centers, boosting confidence in the clinical utility of this testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment of patients with this cancer.

Among 27 laboratory-developed tests for PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1) levels in tumor cells that used any one of three prespecified testing platforms (made by Dako, Ventana, or Leica), 14 (52%) had “similar” concordance when compared with reference assays, Julien Adam, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. “These results will provide the basis for making national recommendations for PD-L1 testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]” in France, added Dr. Adam, a pathologist at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris. “We expect to produce recommendations by the second half of 2017.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Julien Adam
Several single-center studies had examined harmonization of several different PD-L1 tests, but the new, multicenter study examined several different antibodies and platforms systematically, he noted.

Although the results came entirely from French centers, the results will also likely influence U.S. practice, predicted Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. The approval pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received from the Food and Drug Administration in October specified that patients with metastatic NSCLC had to show PD-L1 expression in the tumor using a FDA-approved test to receive pembrolizumab as first-line treatment.

“Before pembrolizumab’s approval there was no incentive to do PD-L1 testing,” but now it is becoming routine, he said. “It has been challenging to U.S. laboratories to decide which platform and antibody to use. Harmonization gives us confidence that if you have a platform and appropriate antibody you should be able to use the results clinically. I think the French results can be extrapolated” to U.S. practice because the results “came from multiple labs using multiple antibodies and platforms,” Dr. Gadgeel said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Julie R. Brahmer
The new French study “is unique by being very real-world, in one country across multiple institutions,” commented Julie R. Brahmer, MD, director of thoracic oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore. “It behooves every physician [caring for advanced NSCLC patients] to know what a PD-L1 test means when they get a result.” An ongoing effort to assess performance of PD-L1 testing at U.S. centers began in late 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The French study arranged for PD-L1 testing of NSCLC specimens from 41 patients selected as broadly representative of PD-L1 expression levels. The seven participating centers used a Dako (three centers), Ventana (two centers), or Leica (two centers) testing platform and one of five available antibodies that bind PD-L1. Every center ran tests that depended on different antibodies, and tests occurred on both tumor cells and immune cells. In total the seven testing sites collectively performed 35 stainings on each specimen for a total of 1,435 slides. In tumor cells, the overall, weighted kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.81 for tests that used the SP263 antibody and 0.78 for those using the E1L3N antibody, both high enough to make them potential candidates for routine use, said Dr. Adam. The 28-8 and 22C3 antibodies also showed high concordance levels. In contrast, some antibodies used at certain centers produced unacceptable results with concordance coefficients of less than 0.5. The best performing antibody overall was SP263.

No test measuring PD-L1 level in immune cells had an acceptable concordance rate, Dr. Adam also reported.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT WCLC 2016

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Several French laboratory–developed tests for assessing PD-L1 levels in non–small cell lung cancer cells showed high levels of concordance, a key step in harmonizing PD-L1 detection using multiple testing options.

Major finding: The concordance weighted kappa coefficient was highest for tests using the SP263 antibody, with an average coefficient of 0.81.

Data source: Forty-one non–small cell lung cancer specimens subjected to a total of 35 different tests.

Disclosures: Funding for the study came from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche. Dr. Adam has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, HalioDx, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche. Dr. Gadgeel has been a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Genentech, and GlaxoSmithKline and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech. Dr. Brahmer has served on an advisory board for Merck.

Lenalidomide maintenance extended progression-free survival in high-risk CLL

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/12/2023 - 10:46

 

– Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia at risk for early relapse were about 85% less likely to progress on lenalidomide maintenance therapy compared with placebo, based on an interim analysis of the randomized phase III CLLM1 study.

After a typical follow-up time of 17.5 months, median durations of progression-free survival were not reached with lenalidomide and were 13 months with placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.15 (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.35). These results were “statistically significant, robust, and reliable in favor of lenalidomide,” Anna Fink, MD, said at the 2016 meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Several patients in the lenalidomide arm also converted to minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, added Dr. Fink of University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

The study included patients whose CLL responded at least partially to front-line chemoimmunotherapy, but who were at high risk of progression – minimal residual disease levels were at least 10–2, or were between 10–4 and 10–2 in patients who also had an unmutated IGHV gene status or del(17p) or TP53 mutations at baseline. Among 89 patients who met these criteria, 60 received lenalidomide maintenance and 20 received placebo.

The initial lenalidomide cycle consisted of 5 mg daily for 28 days. To achieve MRD negativity, clinicians increased this dose during subsequent cycles to a maximum of 15 mg daily for patients who were MRD negative after cycle 12, 20 mg for patients who were MRD negative after cycle 18, and 25 mg for patients who remained MRD positive. Median age was 64 years, more than 80% of patients were male, and the median cumulative illness rating was relatively low at 2, ranging between 0 and 8.

A total of 37% of patients had a high MRD level and 63% had an intermediate level. For both cohorts, lenalidomide maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.17 and 0.13, respectively. Patients received a median of 11 and up to 40 cycles of lenalidomide, but a median of only 8 cycles of placebo.

In all, 43% of lenalidomide patients and 72% of placebo patients stopped maintenance. Nearly a third of those who discontinued lenalidomide did so because of adverse events, but 45% of patients who stopped placebo did so because of progressive disease, Dr. Fink said. Lenalidomide was associated with more neutropenia, gastrointestinal disorders, nervous system disorders, and respiratory and skin disorders than was placebo, but the events were usually mild to moderate in severity, she added.

The three deaths in this study yielded no treatment-based difference in rates of overall survival. Causes of death included acute lymphoblastic leukemia (lenalidomide arm), progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (placebo), and Richter’s syndrome (placebo). Venous thromboembolic events were uncommon because patients were given low-dose aspirin or anticoagulant therapy, Dr. Fink noted.

“Lenalidomide is a feasible and efficacious maintenance option for high-risk CLL after chemoimmunotherapy,” she concluded. The low duration of progression-free survival in the placebo group confirms the prognostic utility of assessing risk based on MRD, which might be useful in future studies, she added.

The German CLL Study Group sponsored the trial. Dr. Fink disclosed ties to Mundipharma, Roche, Celgene, and AbbVie.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia at risk for early relapse were about 85% less likely to progress on lenalidomide maintenance therapy compared with placebo, based on an interim analysis of the randomized phase III CLLM1 study.

After a typical follow-up time of 17.5 months, median durations of progression-free survival were not reached with lenalidomide and were 13 months with placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.15 (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.35). These results were “statistically significant, robust, and reliable in favor of lenalidomide,” Anna Fink, MD, said at the 2016 meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Several patients in the lenalidomide arm also converted to minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, added Dr. Fink of University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

The study included patients whose CLL responded at least partially to front-line chemoimmunotherapy, but who were at high risk of progression – minimal residual disease levels were at least 10–2, or were between 10–4 and 10–2 in patients who also had an unmutated IGHV gene status or del(17p) or TP53 mutations at baseline. Among 89 patients who met these criteria, 60 received lenalidomide maintenance and 20 received placebo.

The initial lenalidomide cycle consisted of 5 mg daily for 28 days. To achieve MRD negativity, clinicians increased this dose during subsequent cycles to a maximum of 15 mg daily for patients who were MRD negative after cycle 12, 20 mg for patients who were MRD negative after cycle 18, and 25 mg for patients who remained MRD positive. Median age was 64 years, more than 80% of patients were male, and the median cumulative illness rating was relatively low at 2, ranging between 0 and 8.

A total of 37% of patients had a high MRD level and 63% had an intermediate level. For both cohorts, lenalidomide maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.17 and 0.13, respectively. Patients received a median of 11 and up to 40 cycles of lenalidomide, but a median of only 8 cycles of placebo.

In all, 43% of lenalidomide patients and 72% of placebo patients stopped maintenance. Nearly a third of those who discontinued lenalidomide did so because of adverse events, but 45% of patients who stopped placebo did so because of progressive disease, Dr. Fink said. Lenalidomide was associated with more neutropenia, gastrointestinal disorders, nervous system disorders, and respiratory and skin disorders than was placebo, but the events were usually mild to moderate in severity, she added.

The three deaths in this study yielded no treatment-based difference in rates of overall survival. Causes of death included acute lymphoblastic leukemia (lenalidomide arm), progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (placebo), and Richter’s syndrome (placebo). Venous thromboembolic events were uncommon because patients were given low-dose aspirin or anticoagulant therapy, Dr. Fink noted.

“Lenalidomide is a feasible and efficacious maintenance option for high-risk CLL after chemoimmunotherapy,” she concluded. The low duration of progression-free survival in the placebo group confirms the prognostic utility of assessing risk based on MRD, which might be useful in future studies, she added.

The German CLL Study Group sponsored the trial. Dr. Fink disclosed ties to Mundipharma, Roche, Celgene, and AbbVie.

 

– Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia at risk for early relapse were about 85% less likely to progress on lenalidomide maintenance therapy compared with placebo, based on an interim analysis of the randomized phase III CLLM1 study.

After a typical follow-up time of 17.5 months, median durations of progression-free survival were not reached with lenalidomide and were 13 months with placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.15 (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.35). These results were “statistically significant, robust, and reliable in favor of lenalidomide,” Anna Fink, MD, said at the 2016 meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Several patients in the lenalidomide arm also converted to minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, added Dr. Fink of University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

The study included patients whose CLL responded at least partially to front-line chemoimmunotherapy, but who were at high risk of progression – minimal residual disease levels were at least 10–2, or were between 10–4 and 10–2 in patients who also had an unmutated IGHV gene status or del(17p) or TP53 mutations at baseline. Among 89 patients who met these criteria, 60 received lenalidomide maintenance and 20 received placebo.

The initial lenalidomide cycle consisted of 5 mg daily for 28 days. To achieve MRD negativity, clinicians increased this dose during subsequent cycles to a maximum of 15 mg daily for patients who were MRD negative after cycle 12, 20 mg for patients who were MRD negative after cycle 18, and 25 mg for patients who remained MRD positive. Median age was 64 years, more than 80% of patients were male, and the median cumulative illness rating was relatively low at 2, ranging between 0 and 8.

A total of 37% of patients had a high MRD level and 63% had an intermediate level. For both cohorts, lenalidomide maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.17 and 0.13, respectively. Patients received a median of 11 and up to 40 cycles of lenalidomide, but a median of only 8 cycles of placebo.

In all, 43% of lenalidomide patients and 72% of placebo patients stopped maintenance. Nearly a third of those who discontinued lenalidomide did so because of adverse events, but 45% of patients who stopped placebo did so because of progressive disease, Dr. Fink said. Lenalidomide was associated with more neutropenia, gastrointestinal disorders, nervous system disorders, and respiratory and skin disorders than was placebo, but the events were usually mild to moderate in severity, she added.

The three deaths in this study yielded no treatment-based difference in rates of overall survival. Causes of death included acute lymphoblastic leukemia (lenalidomide arm), progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (placebo), and Richter’s syndrome (placebo). Venous thromboembolic events were uncommon because patients were given low-dose aspirin or anticoagulant therapy, Dr. Fink noted.

“Lenalidomide is a feasible and efficacious maintenance option for high-risk CLL after chemoimmunotherapy,” she concluded. The low duration of progression-free survival in the placebo group confirms the prognostic utility of assessing risk based on MRD, which might be useful in future studies, she added.

The German CLL Study Group sponsored the trial. Dr. Fink disclosed ties to Mundipharma, Roche, Celgene, and AbbVie.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ASH 2016

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Lenalidomide maintenance may be an option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia at risk of early progression.

Major finding: Median progression-free survival times were 13 months with placebo but were not reached with lenalidomide, for a hazard ratio of 0.15 (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.35).

Data source: An interim analysis of 89 partial responders to frontline chemotherapy in the randomized, phase III CLLM1 study.

Disclosures: The German CLL Study Group sponsored the trial. Dr. Fink disclosed ties to Mundipharma, Roche, Celgene, and AbbVie.

Prominent clinical guidelines fall short of conflict of interest standards

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:57

 

Two recent clinical practice guidelines – one for cholesterol management and another for treatment of chronic hepatitis C – did not meet the Institute of Medicine’s standards for limiting commercial conflicts of interest, according to results of a new analysis.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Two recent clinical practice guidelines – one for cholesterol management and another for treatment of chronic hepatitis C – did not meet the Institute of Medicine’s standards for limiting commercial conflicts of interest, according to results of a new analysis.

 

Two recent clinical practice guidelines – one for cholesterol management and another for treatment of chronic hepatitis C – did not meet the Institute of Medicine’s standards for limiting commercial conflicts of interest, according to results of a new analysis.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Two major clinical practice guidelines did not meet IOM standards for limiting conflicts of interest.

Major finding: In total, 72% of members of the hepatitis C virus guideline committee disclosed conflicts of interest, while 44% of members of the cholesterol guideline committee reported commercial conflicts.

Data source: A retrospective review of the ACA/AHA’s cholesterol guideline and the AASLD/IDSA’s hepatitis C virus guideline.

Disclosures: The research was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pearson reported research grants from foundations and membership dues paid by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. No other disclosures were reported.

Music Therapy Increases Comfort and Reduces Pain in Patients Recovering From Spine Surgery

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:22
Display Headline
Music Therapy Increases Comfort and Reduces Pain in Patients Recovering From Spine Surgery

Take-Home Points

  • Music therapists use patient-preferred live music, increasing neurologic cues that enhance movement—a seminal recovery function in postoperative spine patients.
  • Music therapy is an evidence-based, integrative treatment addressing body, mind, and spirit.
  • Tension release through music therapy can serve as a critical mechanism for building resilience related to pain management.
  • Music therapy and music medicine are distinct forms of clinical practice that focus on mind-body integration in the healing process.
  • Music therapists, board-certified and licensed by the state as recognized healthcare professionals, address pain management, which is an increasing subspecialty in postoperative care.

About 70% of people in the United States experience at least 1 episode of back pain in their lifetime,1 and more than 5 million are temporarily or permanently disabled by spinal disorders.2-4 Some require surgery, which may rectify injury, but pain during recovery is often inevitable, and the road to recovery is not guaranteed to be smooth.5-20

Postoperative spine patients are at major risk for pain management challenges.14,15,18,20 Treatment is primarily pharmacologic and based on the surgical team’s pain management orders. Nursing care consists of monitoring the airway, vital signs, and neurovascular status and having patients rate their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Nurses have the challenge of monitoring and continually assessing to make sure patients are achieving the optimal outcomes, particularly during the immediate postoperative period, when pain and anxiety are prominently increased.

Variability in spine surgery outcomes can be explained at least partly on the basis of prognostic psychological factors, including hypochondriasis, hysteria, depression, and poor pain coping strategies (eg, catastrophizing).21 In spine surgery patients, kinesiophobia (fear of moving) is a common component of distress that can impede recuperation.21-23Psychological interventions that assist with the secondary stressors associated with pain and loss during physical recuperation are recommended, with increased attention given to the importance of treating the whole person: body, mind, and spirit.24-29 Conventional pain-alleviating medical interventions can be enhanced with integrative therapies that empower patients to marshal their inner resources during recovery.25-28Music therapy may be particularly suited to this effort, as it is adaptable to the patient’s individual and culturally specific needs.29-33

Rationale for Live Music

Pain is subjective and personal, and warrants an individualized approach to care. There is a body of music medicine research on the use of recorded music in modulating psychological and physiological factors in pain perception.30,32,34-54 This research supports the unique relationship of music to well-being, and the understanding that controlling any of these factors affects the duration, intensity, and quality of that experience.41,43,52

These findings provide incentive for breathing-entrained music therapy interventions, which enhance the relaxation response and release of pain-related tension;32,55-58 empower patients to unlock physical and emotional tension;32,57,58 provide a channel for expression and body movement; and enhance blood flow and/or alleviate pain by activating neurologic areas involved in the experience of pain.59-62Studies have found that physical endurance may be enhanced when movement is rhythmically coordinated with a musical stimulus.63-66 Music may prolong physical endurance by inhibiting psychological feedback associated with physical exertion related to fatigue, which may translate into accelerated recovery periods. When we listen to a rhythmic sound, our brains tend to automatically synchronize, or entrain, to external rhythmic cues that can stimulate increased motor control and coordination.63 Sound can arouse and raise the excitability of spinal motor neurons mediated by auditory-motor neuronal connections on the brain stem and spinal cord level.64-66 Rhythmically organized sounds serve as a neurological function in our capacity to organize predictable timing cues that are apparent in music, and may result in an effective treatment intervention in recovery.63,64

Music Therapy in Recovery From Spine Surgery

In music therapy, music is used within a therapeutic relationship to support or affect change in the patient and the treatment regimen.32,33,56-58 Research on music therapy with patients who are recovering from spine surgery is scant.67-69 Kleiber and Adamek67 studied perceptions of music therapy in 8 adolescents after spinal fusion surgery. In their study, a music therapist provided patients with a postoperative music therapy session focusing on the use of patient-preferred live music for relaxation and expression. Although their qualitative query was based on a therapeutic approach similar to that used in the present study, only 1 session was offered during the recovery period, and follow-up was conducted by survey invitation and telephone. In addition, the number of participants was small, and there was no quantitative measure of pain or other symptoms.

 

 

Another study focused on the effects of listening to music on pain intensity and distress after spine surgery.68 Patients in the study’s music group made their selections from prerecorded classical music and domestic and international popular songs from various genres and listened to their chosen recordings 30 minutes a day. Although the study was not a music therapy study per se, it showed a positive impact of listening to music on anxiety and pain perception in 60 adults who were randomly assigned to the music group or to a non-music control group (n = 30 in each). Differences between the music and control groups’ VAS ratings of anxiety (Ps = .018-.001) and pain (P = .001) were statistically significant.

Different from our study, the aforementioned studies did not include tension release–focused live music offered within a therapeutic relationship. Our 1.5-year pilot study, conducted prior to the present study indicated that music therapy led to increased resilience and recovery mechanisms.58

Methods

Our mixed-methods study design combined standard medical treatment with integrative music therapy interventions based on pain assessments to better understand the effects of music therapy on the recovery of patients after spine surgery.

The Spine Institute of New York within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Mount Sinai Beth Israel provides surgical treatment of common spinal cord conditions. Prioritizing patient satisfaction and positive outcomes,27,28 the institute integrates music therapy through the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to enhance treatment of pain symptoms.

Patients were recruited by the research team as per the daily surgical schedule, or through referral by the medical team or patient care navigator. Sixty patients (35 female, 25 male) ranging in age from 40 to 55 years underwent anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior spinal fusion and were enrolled in the study after signing a participation consent form. Minorities, women, and patients with Medicaid and Medicare were included. Patients who received a diagnosis of clinical psychosis or depression prior to spine injury were excluded.

The experimental group received music therapy plus standard care (medical and nursing care with scheduled pharmacologic pain intervention), and a wait-listed control group received standard care only. A randomization chart created by a blinded statistician who did not have access to the patient census determined the intervention–nonintervention schedule. Patients in the music therapy group received one 30-minute music therapy session during an 8-hour period within 72 hours after surgery.

For both groups, measurements were completed before and after the study window. Control patients were offered music therapy after completion of the post-intervention surveys in order to minimize the ethical dilemma of denying potentially helpful pain intervention. For this same reason, both groups were given the option of receiving follow-up music therapy sessions for the duration of their hospitalization.

The research team consisted of 2 licensed, board-certified music therapists. In addition, Master’s-level music therapy interns completing clinical hours as part of the trajectory for board certification served on the research team over the 5-year period 2009 to 2014, and 13 blinded research assistants helped with enrolling and collecting data on patients.

Intervention

Each music therapy session included a warm-up phase of verbal or musical discourse. Next was the treatment phase, which was based on patient need as assessed during warm-up. Treatment options included use of patient-preferred live music that supported tension release/relaxation through incentive-based clinical improvisation, singing, and/or rhythmic drumming or through breathwork and visualization. Psychoeducation about mind–body awareness through the use of breath and imagery was introduced and explained by the therapist at this time.

The improvised music intervention was focused on making salient the natural harmonic tension-resolution cycles that occur in music and that were entrained to the patient’s presentation (respiratory rate, verbal report, clinical presentation). When patient-preferred precomposed songs were used, tension resolution was achieved by sustaining cadence and resolution, also entrained to the patient’s respiratory cycles.32,57,58

After the music therapy intervention, a period of closure or integration was facilitated by the therapist contingent on the patient’s degree of alertness. If awake, the patient was supported in a reflexive process of thoughts, impressions, or issues that may have contributed to the overall experience. If the patient was asleep, the researcher returned within 30 minutes for post-intervention interviewing. Interview information was recorded in a qualitative post-participation survey. To prevent bias, researchers who were not the treating clinicians conducted the surveys.

Outcome Measures

Both primary and secondary outcome measures were collected before and after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was VAS pain ratings, and the secondary outcome measures were scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Color Analysis Scale (CAS).

 

 

VAS. With the VAS, images are used to rate pain. The scale has points labeled 0 to 10 and corresponding faces representing progression in pain intensity. The scale is quickly rendered and can be interpreted according to the patient’s recovery phase at time of rendering.

HADS. The HADS70 provides a specific baseline for anxiety and depression as an indicator of how the patient might fare during hospitalization (admission through recovery and discharge).

TSK. The TSK71 provides insight into the patient’s perception of fear-related movement, which is an important factor in this study because of the movement required for rehabilitation. We used a shortened version of the TSK to accommodate the sensitive threshold for pain tolerance and pharmacologic side effects commonly experienced by spine patients.

CAS. The CAS was developed at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to assess comorbidities and dynamic aspects of pain. Through a coloring exercise, patients illustrate their pain experience, which gives tangible form to the abstract experience of pain.

Coding

We collected patients’ demographic data, including age, sex, and diagnoses. Clinical indicators of the preoperative baseline included lifestyle, surgical history, and prior experience with music or other mind–body strategies for self-regulation.

As fundamental to qualitative methodology,72,73 the reported responses to questions were grouped into themes that were peer-tested with members of the research team before and during the coding process.

Appendix.
The Appendix shows the Spine Study: Data Collection Form that was used.

VAS, HADS, and TSK data were tabulated by blinded research assistants and analyzed by a statistician. Patients were identified by number assignment, and their data and personal information were kept confidentially stored.

Statistical Methods

Means and standard deviations were used for continuous variables, and frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. All outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in outcomes from before to after intervention for the music and control groups. In particular, a statistically significant Group (music vs control) × Time (before vs after intervention) interaction would support the hypothesis that there would be more benefit (less pain) in the music group as a result of the music therapy. For all tests, significance was set at P < .05. SPSS Version 20 (IBM) was used for all statistical analyses. Based on previously found differences in heart rate and mobility,31 we assumed an effect size of 0.71 for the difference between music and control (no music), which would require 32 patients per group to achieve a power of 0.8 with an α of 0.05.

Results

Of the 136 patients who were asked to participate in the study, 76 were not enrolled; the other 60 were equally assigned to either the control group or the music therapy group (n = 30 in each) according to randomization indicated by a blinded statistician (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
All outcomes were measured before and after intervention. Table 1 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the control and music therapy patients.
Table 1.
There were no statistically significant clinical differences between the groups in terms of any demographic or clinical characteristic. Mean age was 48 years for the control group and 49 years for the music group (P = .58). Sixty-seven percent of control patients and 50% of music patients were female (P = .24). Baseline perspectives with regard to the outcome of their surgery are also included (Ps > .05).

Table 2 lists the pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons of the main outcomes between groups.

Table 2.
The groups showed significant differences in degree and direction of change in VAS pain ratings (P = .01). VAS pain levels increased slightly in the control group (to 5.87 from 5.20) but decreased by more than 1 point in the music group (to 5.09 from 6.20) (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
The control and music groups did not differ in the rate of change in scores on HADS Anxiety (P = .62), HADS Depression (P = .85), or TSK (P = .93). Both groups had slight increases in HADS Anxiety, comparable decreases in HADS Depression, and minimal changes in TSK.

The emerging themes of the responses are listed in Tables 3 and 4 and are explained here:

Relationship with music was coded for significance and included reports of music as a resource accessed for stimulation and/or relaxation through listening; direct involvement with instrument playing; and history of music training. 

Table 3.
This area was left broad because we think any of the listed criteria would define music as an inner resource for enhanced coping.

Perceptions of surgical outcome in patients’ responses were coded across 3 themes: (1) optimistic (belief and hope in returning to original baseline of functionality), (2) indifferent (neither hopeful nor cynical about results of surgery), and (3) pessimistic (belief that nothing will restore the quality of life that existed before the spinal condition).

The CAS helped us better understand the diversity and complexity of the pain experience.

Table 4.
With use of this nonverbal form of expression, patients’ reports of postoperative pain often included pain that otherwise had been perceived by patients as unrelated and therefore underreported.

 

 

Discussion

Our hospital has the unique capability of providing music therapy to postoperative and other hospitalized patients. In this study, we compared the impact of a structured postoperative music therapy program on spine patients relative to control patients who did not receive music therapy after spine surgery.

We found a significant benefit in VAS pain levels (>1 point) but no statistically significant differences in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, or TSK scores. Although a 2-point difference is usually considered clinically significant, the degree of change in the music group is notable for having been achieved by nonpharmacologic means with scant chance of adverse effects. We suspect the lack of significant change in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, and TSK scores is attributable to the narrow study window. Given the observational data from our pilot study58 and ongoing results with spine patients,32 it seems clear that both mood state and resilience in coping are enhanced through an ongoing relationship with music therapy.

The study of a population as vulnerable as patients recovering from spine surgery raises many issues for providers and researchers. Although it is worthwhile to determine the efficacy of integrative modalities in serving these patients, the request for participation in a protocol at such a vulnerable time was often resisted. During our pilot work, it became clear that the ability of potential subjects to comprehend and complete protocol surveys was impacted by adverse effects, including sedation drowsiness; respiratory depression; nausea and vomiting; pruritus; and urinary retention caused by the medications used for postoperative pain management. Consequently, after piloting 5 cases before the main study, we extended the enrollment window to 72 hours.

Other unforeseen intrinsic or external obstacles were identified: Patient-related issues—including availability, level of interest in participation, and inability to participate because of the medication adverse effects mentioned.

Staff investment/education—addressed over the first 3 study years with several in-services, starting with the surgical team and continuing with nursing and support staff in various combinations. These meetings led to the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved educational sheet for inclusion in the information packet given to surgical patients on registration.

Programming interruptions—caused by the convergence of several unanticipated factors, including a delay in expedited review of the IRB renewal during the year of Hurricane Sandy and an interruption in the spine team’s service for administrative and program modification.

Conclusion

Music therapy interventions (eg, use of patient-preferred live music) offered within a therapeutic relationship favorably affected pain perceptions in patients recovering from spine surgery. This effect was achieved through several therapeutic entry points, including support of expression and opportunities for emotional catharsis.

At the core of music therapy’s efficacy is individualized treatment, through which patients are supported in their recovery of “self.” Measurable benefits—including increased comfort; reduced pain; improved gait; increased range of motion, endurance, and ability to relax; and empowerment to actively participate in one’s own care through daily activities imbued with an enhanced sense of agency—are of cardinal importance, as they may lead to quicker recovery perceptions and enhanced quality of life.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E13-E22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

References

1. Miller B, Gatchel RJ, Lou L, Stowell A, Robinson R, Polatin PB. Interdisciplinary treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS): a comparison of FBSS and non-FBSS patients. Pain Pract. 2005;5(3):190-202.

2. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):925-948.

3. Engstrom JW, Deyo, RA. Back and neck pain. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, et al, eds. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2007:207-214.

4. Cavanaugh JM, Lu Y, Chen C, Kallakuri S. Pain generation in lumbar and cervical facet joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 2):63-67.

5. Hart RA, Prendergast MA. Spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in elderly and osteoporotic patients. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:257-272.

6. Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, et al; American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007;10(1):7-111.

7. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-2270.

8. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): A randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441-2450.

9. Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, et al; Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32(1):1-8.

10. Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA, Keller RB, Atlas SJ. The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(5):785-792.

11. Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Wainess R, Upchurch GR Jr, Chandler WF, La Marca F. Changes in the utilization of spinal fusion in the United States. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1):15-20.

12. Lonner BS, Scharf CS, Antonacci D, Goldstein Y, Panagopoulos G. The learning curve associated with thoracoscopic spinal instrumentation. Spine. 2005;30(24):2835-2840.

13. Lonner BS, Kondrachov D, Siddiqi F, Hayes V, Scharf C. Thoracoscopic spinal fusion compared with posterior spinal fusion for the treatment of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(5):1022-1034.

14. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(2):455-461.

15. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Laminectomy and fusion after spinal cord injury: national inpatient complications and outcomes. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25(3):173-183.

16. Dekutoski MB, Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG, Chapman JR. Surgeon perceptions and reported complications in spine surgery. Spine. 2010;35(9 suppl):S9-S21.

17. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(2):144-157.

18. Patil CG, Santarelli J, Lad SP, Ho C, Tian W, Boakye M. Inpatient complications, mortality, and discharge disposition after surgical correction of idiopathic scoliosis: a national perspective. Spine J. 2008;8(6):904-910.

19. Rampersaud YR, Moro ER, Neary MA, et al. Intraoperative adverse events and related postoperative complications in spine surgery: implications for enhancing patient safety founded on evidence-based protocols. Spine. 2006;31(13):1503-1510.

20. Shen Y, Silverstein JC, Roth S. In-hospital complications and mortality after elective spinal fusion surgery in the United States: a study of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2001 to 2005. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2009;21(1):21-30.

21. Picavet HSJ, Vlaeyen JWS, Schouten JSAG. Pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia: predictors of chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(11):1028-1034.

22. French DJ, France CR, Vigneau F, French JA, Evans RT. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: a psychometric assessment of the original English version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). Pain. 2007;127(1-2):42-51.

23. Goubert L, Crombez G, Van Damme S, Vlaeyen JW, Bijttebier P, Roelofs J. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: invariant two-factor model across low back pain patients and fibromyalgia patients. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(2):103-110.

24. Selimen D, Andsoy II. The importance of a holistic approach during the perioperative period. AORN J. 2011;93(4):482-487.

25. Zheng Z. Xue CC. Pain research in complementary and alternative medicine in Australia: a critical review. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(2):81-91.

26. Wright J, Adams D, Vohra S. Complementary, holistic, and integrative medicine: music for procedural pain. Pediatr Rev. 2013;34(11):e42-e46.

27. McCann PD. Orthopedic surgery and integrative medicine—strange bedfellows. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(2):66, 71.

28. McCann PD. Customer satisfaction: are hospitals “hospitable”? Am J Orthop. 2006;35(2):59.

29. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute best practice information sheet: music as an intervention in hospitals. Nurs Health Sci. 2011;13(1):99-102.

30. Spintge R. Thirty-five years of anxiolytic music (AAM) in pain and aversive clinical settings. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:29-42.

31. Cepeda MS, Carr DB, Lau J, Alvarez H. Music for pain relief. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004843.

32. Mondanaro J. Music therapy based release strategies in the treatment of acute and chronic pain: an individualized approach. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:133-148.

 

 

33. Quentzel S. Music has charms to soothe a savage breast. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:11-28.

34. Ko YL. Lin PC. The effect of using a relaxation tape on pulse, respiration, blood pressure and anxiety levels of surgical patients. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):689-697.

35. Roy M, Lebuis A, Hugueville L, Peretz I, Rainville P. Spinal modulation of nociception by music. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(6):870-877.

36. Roy M, Peretz I, Rainville P. Emotional valence contributes to music-induced analgesia. Pain. 2008;134(1-2):140-147.

37. Schröter T. Medicine needs music! Music therapy for chronic pain [in German]. Rev Med Suisse. 2014;10(415):286.

38. Bellieni CV, Cioncoloni D, Mazzanti S, et al. Music provided through a portable media player (iPod) blunts pain during physical therapy. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14(4):e151-e155.

39. Bernatzky G, Presch M, Anderson M, Panksepp J. Emotional foundations of music as a non-pharmacological pain management tool in modern medicine. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(9):1989-1999.

40. Bradshaw DH, Chapman CR, Jacobson RC, Donaldson GW. Effects of music engagement on response to painful stimulation. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(5):418-427.

41. Bradshaw DH, Donaldson GW, Jacobson RC, Nakamura Y, Chapman CR. Individual differences in the effects of music engagement on responses to painful stimulation. J Pain. 2011;12(12):1262-1273.

42. Chlan L, Halm MA. Does music ease pain and anxiety in the critically ill? Am J Crit Care. 2013;22(6):528-532.

43. Guétin S, Giniès P, Siou DK, et al. The effects of music intervention in the management of chronic pain: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(4):329-337.

44. Matsota P, Christodoulopoulou T, Smyrnioti ME, et al. Music’s use for anesthesia and analgesia. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(4):298-307.

45. Gooding L, Swezey S, Zwischenberger JB. Using music interventions in perioperative care. South Med J. 2012;105(9):486-490.

46. Graversen M, Sommer T. Perioperative music may reduce pain and fatigue in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(8):1010-1016.

47. Ni CH, Tsai WH, Lee LM, Kao CC, Chen YC. Minimising preoperative anxiety with music for day surgery patients—a randomised clinical trial. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):620-625.

48. Good M, Albert JM, Anderson GC, et al. Supplementing relaxation and music for pain after surgery. Nurs Res. 2010;59(4):259-269.

49. Moris DN, Linos D. Music meets surgery: two sides to the art of “healing.” Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):719-723.

50. Nilsson U, Rawal N, Unosson M. A comparison of intra-operative or postoperative exposure to music—a controlled trial of the effects on postoperative pain. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(7):699-703.

51. Özer N, Karaman Özlü Z, Arslan S, Günes N. Effect of music on postoperative pain and physiologic parameters of patients after open heart surgery. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14(1):20-28.

52. Sen H, Yanarateş O, Sızlan A, Kılıç E, Ozkan S, Dağlı G. The efficiency and duration of the analgesic effects of musical therapy on postoperative pain. Agri. 2010;22(4):145-150.

53. Vaajoki A, Pietilä AM, Kankkunen P, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Music intervention study in abdominal surgery patients: challenges of an intervention study in clinical practice. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(2):206-213.

54. Vaajoki A, Pietilä AM, Kankkunen P, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Effects of listening to music on pain intensity and pain distress after surgery: an intervention. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):708-717.

55. Whitaker MH. Sounds soothing: music therapy for postoperative pain. Nursing. 2010;40(12):53-54.

56. Edwards J. Developing pain management approaches in music therapy with hospitalized children. In: Loewy J, Dileo C, eds. Music Therapy at the End of Life. Cherry Hill, NJ: Jeffrey Books; 2005:57-76.

57. Loewy J. The quiet soldier: pain and sickle cell anemia. In: Hibben J, ed. Inside Music Therapy: Client Experiences. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona; 1999:69-76.

58. Lichtensztejn M. The clinical use of piano with patients suffering from breathing distress related to pain. In: Azoulay R, Loewy JV, eds. Music, the Breath and Health: Advances in Integrative Music Therapy. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2009:213-222.

59. Kwon IS, Kim J, Park KM. Effects of music therapy on pain, discomfort, and depression for patients with leg fractures. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2006;36(4):630-636.

60. Zengin S, Kabul S, Al B, Sarcan E, Doğan M, Yildirim C. Effects of music therapy on pain and anxiety in patients undergoing port catheter placement procedure. Complement Ther Med. 2013;21(6):689-696.

61. Boso M, Politi P, Barale F, Emanuele E. Neurophysiology and neurobiology of the musical experience. Funct Neurol. 2006;21(4):187-191.

62. Salimpoor VN, Benovoy M, Larcher K, Dagher A, Zatorre RJ. Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(2):257-262.

63. Tomaino CM. Using rhythm for rehabilitation. Institute for Music and Neurologic Function website. http://musictherapy.imnf.org/images/uploads/rhythm.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed August 21, 2007.

64. Molinari M, Leggio MG, De Martin M, Cerasa A, Thaut M. Neurobiology of rhythmic motor entrainment. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;999:313-321.

65. Thaut M. Neuropsychological processes in music perception. In: Unkefer R, ed. Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults With Mental Disorders: Theoretical Bases and Clinical Interventions. Toronto, Canada: Schirmer Books; 2002:2-32.

66. Thaut M. Physiological and motor responses to music stimuli. In: Unkefer R, ed. Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults With Mental Disorders: Theoretical Bases and Clinical Interventions. Toronto, Canada: Schimer Books; 2002:33-41.

67. Kleiber C, Adamek MS. Adolescents’ perceptions of music therapy following spinal fusion surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(3-4):414-422.

68. Lin PC, Lin ML, Huang LC, Hsu HC, Lin CC. Music therapy for patients receiving spine surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(7-8):960-968.

69. Maeyama A, Kodaka M, Miyao H. Effect of the music-therapy under spinal anesthesia [in Japanese]. Masui. 2009;58(6):684-691.

70. Golden J, Conroy RM, O’Dwyer AM. Reliability and validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory (Full and FastScreen scales) in detecting depression in persons with hepatitis C. J Affect Disord. 2006;100(1-3):265-269.

71. Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117(1-2):137-144.

72. Humrichouse J, Chmielewski M, McDade-Montez EA, Watson D. Affect assessment through self-report methods. In: Rottenberg J, Johnson SL, eds. Emotion and Psychopathology: Bridging Affective and Clinical Science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007:13-34.

73. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: This research was supported independently and internally by the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine. The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ and may not represent the official views of Mount Sinai Beth Israel.

Acknowledgments: For invaluable involvement and support during the study the authors would like to thank Peter D. McCann, MD, Daphne Ridley, RN, Marissa Petsakos, Brandee Raimer, Jessica Hyde, MA, MT-BC, Clarissa Lacson, MA, MT-BC, Erin Bolding, MT-BC, Crista Orefice, MA, MT-BC, Brenda Buchanen, MA, MT-BC, Soniya Brar, MA, MT-BC, Thomas Biglin, MA, MT-BC, and Emily Autrey, BM.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E13-E22
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: This research was supported independently and internally by the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine. The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ and may not represent the official views of Mount Sinai Beth Israel.

Acknowledgments: For invaluable involvement and support during the study the authors would like to thank Peter D. McCann, MD, Daphne Ridley, RN, Marissa Petsakos, Brandee Raimer, Jessica Hyde, MA, MT-BC, Clarissa Lacson, MA, MT-BC, Erin Bolding, MT-BC, Crista Orefice, MA, MT-BC, Brenda Buchanen, MA, MT-BC, Soniya Brar, MA, MT-BC, Thomas Biglin, MA, MT-BC, and Emily Autrey, BM.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: This research was supported independently and internally by the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine. The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ and may not represent the official views of Mount Sinai Beth Israel.

Acknowledgments: For invaluable involvement and support during the study the authors would like to thank Peter D. McCann, MD, Daphne Ridley, RN, Marissa Petsakos, Brandee Raimer, Jessica Hyde, MA, MT-BC, Clarissa Lacson, MA, MT-BC, Erin Bolding, MT-BC, Crista Orefice, MA, MT-BC, Brenda Buchanen, MA, MT-BC, Soniya Brar, MA, MT-BC, Thomas Biglin, MA, MT-BC, and Emily Autrey, BM.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Take-Home Points

  • Music therapists use patient-preferred live music, increasing neurologic cues that enhance movement—a seminal recovery function in postoperative spine patients.
  • Music therapy is an evidence-based, integrative treatment addressing body, mind, and spirit.
  • Tension release through music therapy can serve as a critical mechanism for building resilience related to pain management.
  • Music therapy and music medicine are distinct forms of clinical practice that focus on mind-body integration in the healing process.
  • Music therapists, board-certified and licensed by the state as recognized healthcare professionals, address pain management, which is an increasing subspecialty in postoperative care.

About 70% of people in the United States experience at least 1 episode of back pain in their lifetime,1 and more than 5 million are temporarily or permanently disabled by spinal disorders.2-4 Some require surgery, which may rectify injury, but pain during recovery is often inevitable, and the road to recovery is not guaranteed to be smooth.5-20

Postoperative spine patients are at major risk for pain management challenges.14,15,18,20 Treatment is primarily pharmacologic and based on the surgical team’s pain management orders. Nursing care consists of monitoring the airway, vital signs, and neurovascular status and having patients rate their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Nurses have the challenge of monitoring and continually assessing to make sure patients are achieving the optimal outcomes, particularly during the immediate postoperative period, when pain and anxiety are prominently increased.

Variability in spine surgery outcomes can be explained at least partly on the basis of prognostic psychological factors, including hypochondriasis, hysteria, depression, and poor pain coping strategies (eg, catastrophizing).21 In spine surgery patients, kinesiophobia (fear of moving) is a common component of distress that can impede recuperation.21-23Psychological interventions that assist with the secondary stressors associated with pain and loss during physical recuperation are recommended, with increased attention given to the importance of treating the whole person: body, mind, and spirit.24-29 Conventional pain-alleviating medical interventions can be enhanced with integrative therapies that empower patients to marshal their inner resources during recovery.25-28Music therapy may be particularly suited to this effort, as it is adaptable to the patient’s individual and culturally specific needs.29-33

Rationale for Live Music

Pain is subjective and personal, and warrants an individualized approach to care. There is a body of music medicine research on the use of recorded music in modulating psychological and physiological factors in pain perception.30,32,34-54 This research supports the unique relationship of music to well-being, and the understanding that controlling any of these factors affects the duration, intensity, and quality of that experience.41,43,52

These findings provide incentive for breathing-entrained music therapy interventions, which enhance the relaxation response and release of pain-related tension;32,55-58 empower patients to unlock physical and emotional tension;32,57,58 provide a channel for expression and body movement; and enhance blood flow and/or alleviate pain by activating neurologic areas involved in the experience of pain.59-62Studies have found that physical endurance may be enhanced when movement is rhythmically coordinated with a musical stimulus.63-66 Music may prolong physical endurance by inhibiting psychological feedback associated with physical exertion related to fatigue, which may translate into accelerated recovery periods. When we listen to a rhythmic sound, our brains tend to automatically synchronize, or entrain, to external rhythmic cues that can stimulate increased motor control and coordination.63 Sound can arouse and raise the excitability of spinal motor neurons mediated by auditory-motor neuronal connections on the brain stem and spinal cord level.64-66 Rhythmically organized sounds serve as a neurological function in our capacity to organize predictable timing cues that are apparent in music, and may result in an effective treatment intervention in recovery.63,64

Music Therapy in Recovery From Spine Surgery

In music therapy, music is used within a therapeutic relationship to support or affect change in the patient and the treatment regimen.32,33,56-58 Research on music therapy with patients who are recovering from spine surgery is scant.67-69 Kleiber and Adamek67 studied perceptions of music therapy in 8 adolescents after spinal fusion surgery. In their study, a music therapist provided patients with a postoperative music therapy session focusing on the use of patient-preferred live music for relaxation and expression. Although their qualitative query was based on a therapeutic approach similar to that used in the present study, only 1 session was offered during the recovery period, and follow-up was conducted by survey invitation and telephone. In addition, the number of participants was small, and there was no quantitative measure of pain or other symptoms.

 

 

Another study focused on the effects of listening to music on pain intensity and distress after spine surgery.68 Patients in the study’s music group made their selections from prerecorded classical music and domestic and international popular songs from various genres and listened to their chosen recordings 30 minutes a day. Although the study was not a music therapy study per se, it showed a positive impact of listening to music on anxiety and pain perception in 60 adults who were randomly assigned to the music group or to a non-music control group (n = 30 in each). Differences between the music and control groups’ VAS ratings of anxiety (Ps = .018-.001) and pain (P = .001) were statistically significant.

Different from our study, the aforementioned studies did not include tension release–focused live music offered within a therapeutic relationship. Our 1.5-year pilot study, conducted prior to the present study indicated that music therapy led to increased resilience and recovery mechanisms.58

Methods

Our mixed-methods study design combined standard medical treatment with integrative music therapy interventions based on pain assessments to better understand the effects of music therapy on the recovery of patients after spine surgery.

The Spine Institute of New York within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Mount Sinai Beth Israel provides surgical treatment of common spinal cord conditions. Prioritizing patient satisfaction and positive outcomes,27,28 the institute integrates music therapy through the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to enhance treatment of pain symptoms.

Patients were recruited by the research team as per the daily surgical schedule, or through referral by the medical team or patient care navigator. Sixty patients (35 female, 25 male) ranging in age from 40 to 55 years underwent anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior spinal fusion and were enrolled in the study after signing a participation consent form. Minorities, women, and patients with Medicaid and Medicare were included. Patients who received a diagnosis of clinical psychosis or depression prior to spine injury were excluded.

The experimental group received music therapy plus standard care (medical and nursing care with scheduled pharmacologic pain intervention), and a wait-listed control group received standard care only. A randomization chart created by a blinded statistician who did not have access to the patient census determined the intervention–nonintervention schedule. Patients in the music therapy group received one 30-minute music therapy session during an 8-hour period within 72 hours after surgery.

For both groups, measurements were completed before and after the study window. Control patients were offered music therapy after completion of the post-intervention surveys in order to minimize the ethical dilemma of denying potentially helpful pain intervention. For this same reason, both groups were given the option of receiving follow-up music therapy sessions for the duration of their hospitalization.

The research team consisted of 2 licensed, board-certified music therapists. In addition, Master’s-level music therapy interns completing clinical hours as part of the trajectory for board certification served on the research team over the 5-year period 2009 to 2014, and 13 blinded research assistants helped with enrolling and collecting data on patients.

Intervention

Each music therapy session included a warm-up phase of verbal or musical discourse. Next was the treatment phase, which was based on patient need as assessed during warm-up. Treatment options included use of patient-preferred live music that supported tension release/relaxation through incentive-based clinical improvisation, singing, and/or rhythmic drumming or through breathwork and visualization. Psychoeducation about mind–body awareness through the use of breath and imagery was introduced and explained by the therapist at this time.

The improvised music intervention was focused on making salient the natural harmonic tension-resolution cycles that occur in music and that were entrained to the patient’s presentation (respiratory rate, verbal report, clinical presentation). When patient-preferred precomposed songs were used, tension resolution was achieved by sustaining cadence and resolution, also entrained to the patient’s respiratory cycles.32,57,58

After the music therapy intervention, a period of closure or integration was facilitated by the therapist contingent on the patient’s degree of alertness. If awake, the patient was supported in a reflexive process of thoughts, impressions, or issues that may have contributed to the overall experience. If the patient was asleep, the researcher returned within 30 minutes for post-intervention interviewing. Interview information was recorded in a qualitative post-participation survey. To prevent bias, researchers who were not the treating clinicians conducted the surveys.

Outcome Measures

Both primary and secondary outcome measures were collected before and after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was VAS pain ratings, and the secondary outcome measures were scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Color Analysis Scale (CAS).

 

 

VAS. With the VAS, images are used to rate pain. The scale has points labeled 0 to 10 and corresponding faces representing progression in pain intensity. The scale is quickly rendered and can be interpreted according to the patient’s recovery phase at time of rendering.

HADS. The HADS70 provides a specific baseline for anxiety and depression as an indicator of how the patient might fare during hospitalization (admission through recovery and discharge).

TSK. The TSK71 provides insight into the patient’s perception of fear-related movement, which is an important factor in this study because of the movement required for rehabilitation. We used a shortened version of the TSK to accommodate the sensitive threshold for pain tolerance and pharmacologic side effects commonly experienced by spine patients.

CAS. The CAS was developed at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to assess comorbidities and dynamic aspects of pain. Through a coloring exercise, patients illustrate their pain experience, which gives tangible form to the abstract experience of pain.

Coding

We collected patients’ demographic data, including age, sex, and diagnoses. Clinical indicators of the preoperative baseline included lifestyle, surgical history, and prior experience with music or other mind–body strategies for self-regulation.

As fundamental to qualitative methodology,72,73 the reported responses to questions were grouped into themes that were peer-tested with members of the research team before and during the coding process.

Appendix.
The Appendix shows the Spine Study: Data Collection Form that was used.

VAS, HADS, and TSK data were tabulated by blinded research assistants and analyzed by a statistician. Patients were identified by number assignment, and their data and personal information were kept confidentially stored.

Statistical Methods

Means and standard deviations were used for continuous variables, and frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. All outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in outcomes from before to after intervention for the music and control groups. In particular, a statistically significant Group (music vs control) × Time (before vs after intervention) interaction would support the hypothesis that there would be more benefit (less pain) in the music group as a result of the music therapy. For all tests, significance was set at P < .05. SPSS Version 20 (IBM) was used for all statistical analyses. Based on previously found differences in heart rate and mobility,31 we assumed an effect size of 0.71 for the difference between music and control (no music), which would require 32 patients per group to achieve a power of 0.8 with an α of 0.05.

Results

Of the 136 patients who were asked to participate in the study, 76 were not enrolled; the other 60 were equally assigned to either the control group or the music therapy group (n = 30 in each) according to randomization indicated by a blinded statistician (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
All outcomes were measured before and after intervention. Table 1 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the control and music therapy patients.
Table 1.
There were no statistically significant clinical differences between the groups in terms of any demographic or clinical characteristic. Mean age was 48 years for the control group and 49 years for the music group (P = .58). Sixty-seven percent of control patients and 50% of music patients were female (P = .24). Baseline perspectives with regard to the outcome of their surgery are also included (Ps > .05).

Table 2 lists the pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons of the main outcomes between groups.

Table 2.
The groups showed significant differences in degree and direction of change in VAS pain ratings (P = .01). VAS pain levels increased slightly in the control group (to 5.87 from 5.20) but decreased by more than 1 point in the music group (to 5.09 from 6.20) (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
The control and music groups did not differ in the rate of change in scores on HADS Anxiety (P = .62), HADS Depression (P = .85), or TSK (P = .93). Both groups had slight increases in HADS Anxiety, comparable decreases in HADS Depression, and minimal changes in TSK.

The emerging themes of the responses are listed in Tables 3 and 4 and are explained here:

Relationship with music was coded for significance and included reports of music as a resource accessed for stimulation and/or relaxation through listening; direct involvement with instrument playing; and history of music training. 

Table 3.
This area was left broad because we think any of the listed criteria would define music as an inner resource for enhanced coping.

Perceptions of surgical outcome in patients’ responses were coded across 3 themes: (1) optimistic (belief and hope in returning to original baseline of functionality), (2) indifferent (neither hopeful nor cynical about results of surgery), and (3) pessimistic (belief that nothing will restore the quality of life that existed before the spinal condition).

The CAS helped us better understand the diversity and complexity of the pain experience.

Table 4.
With use of this nonverbal form of expression, patients’ reports of postoperative pain often included pain that otherwise had been perceived by patients as unrelated and therefore underreported.

 

 

Discussion

Our hospital has the unique capability of providing music therapy to postoperative and other hospitalized patients. In this study, we compared the impact of a structured postoperative music therapy program on spine patients relative to control patients who did not receive music therapy after spine surgery.

We found a significant benefit in VAS pain levels (>1 point) but no statistically significant differences in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, or TSK scores. Although a 2-point difference is usually considered clinically significant, the degree of change in the music group is notable for having been achieved by nonpharmacologic means with scant chance of adverse effects. We suspect the lack of significant change in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, and TSK scores is attributable to the narrow study window. Given the observational data from our pilot study58 and ongoing results with spine patients,32 it seems clear that both mood state and resilience in coping are enhanced through an ongoing relationship with music therapy.

The study of a population as vulnerable as patients recovering from spine surgery raises many issues for providers and researchers. Although it is worthwhile to determine the efficacy of integrative modalities in serving these patients, the request for participation in a protocol at such a vulnerable time was often resisted. During our pilot work, it became clear that the ability of potential subjects to comprehend and complete protocol surveys was impacted by adverse effects, including sedation drowsiness; respiratory depression; nausea and vomiting; pruritus; and urinary retention caused by the medications used for postoperative pain management. Consequently, after piloting 5 cases before the main study, we extended the enrollment window to 72 hours.

Other unforeseen intrinsic or external obstacles were identified: Patient-related issues—including availability, level of interest in participation, and inability to participate because of the medication adverse effects mentioned.

Staff investment/education—addressed over the first 3 study years with several in-services, starting with the surgical team and continuing with nursing and support staff in various combinations. These meetings led to the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved educational sheet for inclusion in the information packet given to surgical patients on registration.

Programming interruptions—caused by the convergence of several unanticipated factors, including a delay in expedited review of the IRB renewal during the year of Hurricane Sandy and an interruption in the spine team’s service for administrative and program modification.

Conclusion

Music therapy interventions (eg, use of patient-preferred live music) offered within a therapeutic relationship favorably affected pain perceptions in patients recovering from spine surgery. This effect was achieved through several therapeutic entry points, including support of expression and opportunities for emotional catharsis.

At the core of music therapy’s efficacy is individualized treatment, through which patients are supported in their recovery of “self.” Measurable benefits—including increased comfort; reduced pain; improved gait; increased range of motion, endurance, and ability to relax; and empowerment to actively participate in one’s own care through daily activities imbued with an enhanced sense of agency—are of cardinal importance, as they may lead to quicker recovery perceptions and enhanced quality of life.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E13-E22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

  • Music therapists use patient-preferred live music, increasing neurologic cues that enhance movement—a seminal recovery function in postoperative spine patients.
  • Music therapy is an evidence-based, integrative treatment addressing body, mind, and spirit.
  • Tension release through music therapy can serve as a critical mechanism for building resilience related to pain management.
  • Music therapy and music medicine are distinct forms of clinical practice that focus on mind-body integration in the healing process.
  • Music therapists, board-certified and licensed by the state as recognized healthcare professionals, address pain management, which is an increasing subspecialty in postoperative care.

About 70% of people in the United States experience at least 1 episode of back pain in their lifetime,1 and more than 5 million are temporarily or permanently disabled by spinal disorders.2-4 Some require surgery, which may rectify injury, but pain during recovery is often inevitable, and the road to recovery is not guaranteed to be smooth.5-20

Postoperative spine patients are at major risk for pain management challenges.14,15,18,20 Treatment is primarily pharmacologic and based on the surgical team’s pain management orders. Nursing care consists of monitoring the airway, vital signs, and neurovascular status and having patients rate their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Nurses have the challenge of monitoring and continually assessing to make sure patients are achieving the optimal outcomes, particularly during the immediate postoperative period, when pain and anxiety are prominently increased.

Variability in spine surgery outcomes can be explained at least partly on the basis of prognostic psychological factors, including hypochondriasis, hysteria, depression, and poor pain coping strategies (eg, catastrophizing).21 In spine surgery patients, kinesiophobia (fear of moving) is a common component of distress that can impede recuperation.21-23Psychological interventions that assist with the secondary stressors associated with pain and loss during physical recuperation are recommended, with increased attention given to the importance of treating the whole person: body, mind, and spirit.24-29 Conventional pain-alleviating medical interventions can be enhanced with integrative therapies that empower patients to marshal their inner resources during recovery.25-28Music therapy may be particularly suited to this effort, as it is adaptable to the patient’s individual and culturally specific needs.29-33

Rationale for Live Music

Pain is subjective and personal, and warrants an individualized approach to care. There is a body of music medicine research on the use of recorded music in modulating psychological and physiological factors in pain perception.30,32,34-54 This research supports the unique relationship of music to well-being, and the understanding that controlling any of these factors affects the duration, intensity, and quality of that experience.41,43,52

These findings provide incentive for breathing-entrained music therapy interventions, which enhance the relaxation response and release of pain-related tension;32,55-58 empower patients to unlock physical and emotional tension;32,57,58 provide a channel for expression and body movement; and enhance blood flow and/or alleviate pain by activating neurologic areas involved in the experience of pain.59-62Studies have found that physical endurance may be enhanced when movement is rhythmically coordinated with a musical stimulus.63-66 Music may prolong physical endurance by inhibiting psychological feedback associated with physical exertion related to fatigue, which may translate into accelerated recovery periods. When we listen to a rhythmic sound, our brains tend to automatically synchronize, or entrain, to external rhythmic cues that can stimulate increased motor control and coordination.63 Sound can arouse and raise the excitability of spinal motor neurons mediated by auditory-motor neuronal connections on the brain stem and spinal cord level.64-66 Rhythmically organized sounds serve as a neurological function in our capacity to organize predictable timing cues that are apparent in music, and may result in an effective treatment intervention in recovery.63,64

Music Therapy in Recovery From Spine Surgery

In music therapy, music is used within a therapeutic relationship to support or affect change in the patient and the treatment regimen.32,33,56-58 Research on music therapy with patients who are recovering from spine surgery is scant.67-69 Kleiber and Adamek67 studied perceptions of music therapy in 8 adolescents after spinal fusion surgery. In their study, a music therapist provided patients with a postoperative music therapy session focusing on the use of patient-preferred live music for relaxation and expression. Although their qualitative query was based on a therapeutic approach similar to that used in the present study, only 1 session was offered during the recovery period, and follow-up was conducted by survey invitation and telephone. In addition, the number of participants was small, and there was no quantitative measure of pain or other symptoms.

 

 

Another study focused on the effects of listening to music on pain intensity and distress after spine surgery.68 Patients in the study’s music group made their selections from prerecorded classical music and domestic and international popular songs from various genres and listened to their chosen recordings 30 minutes a day. Although the study was not a music therapy study per se, it showed a positive impact of listening to music on anxiety and pain perception in 60 adults who were randomly assigned to the music group or to a non-music control group (n = 30 in each). Differences between the music and control groups’ VAS ratings of anxiety (Ps = .018-.001) and pain (P = .001) were statistically significant.

Different from our study, the aforementioned studies did not include tension release–focused live music offered within a therapeutic relationship. Our 1.5-year pilot study, conducted prior to the present study indicated that music therapy led to increased resilience and recovery mechanisms.58

Methods

Our mixed-methods study design combined standard medical treatment with integrative music therapy interventions based on pain assessments to better understand the effects of music therapy on the recovery of patients after spine surgery.

The Spine Institute of New York within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Mount Sinai Beth Israel provides surgical treatment of common spinal cord conditions. Prioritizing patient satisfaction and positive outcomes,27,28 the institute integrates music therapy through the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to enhance treatment of pain symptoms.

Patients were recruited by the research team as per the daily surgical schedule, or through referral by the medical team or patient care navigator. Sixty patients (35 female, 25 male) ranging in age from 40 to 55 years underwent anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior spinal fusion and were enrolled in the study after signing a participation consent form. Minorities, women, and patients with Medicaid and Medicare were included. Patients who received a diagnosis of clinical psychosis or depression prior to spine injury were excluded.

The experimental group received music therapy plus standard care (medical and nursing care with scheduled pharmacologic pain intervention), and a wait-listed control group received standard care only. A randomization chart created by a blinded statistician who did not have access to the patient census determined the intervention–nonintervention schedule. Patients in the music therapy group received one 30-minute music therapy session during an 8-hour period within 72 hours after surgery.

For both groups, measurements were completed before and after the study window. Control patients were offered music therapy after completion of the post-intervention surveys in order to minimize the ethical dilemma of denying potentially helpful pain intervention. For this same reason, both groups were given the option of receiving follow-up music therapy sessions for the duration of their hospitalization.

The research team consisted of 2 licensed, board-certified music therapists. In addition, Master’s-level music therapy interns completing clinical hours as part of the trajectory for board certification served on the research team over the 5-year period 2009 to 2014, and 13 blinded research assistants helped with enrolling and collecting data on patients.

Intervention

Each music therapy session included a warm-up phase of verbal or musical discourse. Next was the treatment phase, which was based on patient need as assessed during warm-up. Treatment options included use of patient-preferred live music that supported tension release/relaxation through incentive-based clinical improvisation, singing, and/or rhythmic drumming or through breathwork and visualization. Psychoeducation about mind–body awareness through the use of breath and imagery was introduced and explained by the therapist at this time.

The improvised music intervention was focused on making salient the natural harmonic tension-resolution cycles that occur in music and that were entrained to the patient’s presentation (respiratory rate, verbal report, clinical presentation). When patient-preferred precomposed songs were used, tension resolution was achieved by sustaining cadence and resolution, also entrained to the patient’s respiratory cycles.32,57,58

After the music therapy intervention, a period of closure or integration was facilitated by the therapist contingent on the patient’s degree of alertness. If awake, the patient was supported in a reflexive process of thoughts, impressions, or issues that may have contributed to the overall experience. If the patient was asleep, the researcher returned within 30 minutes for post-intervention interviewing. Interview information was recorded in a qualitative post-participation survey. To prevent bias, researchers who were not the treating clinicians conducted the surveys.

Outcome Measures

Both primary and secondary outcome measures were collected before and after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was VAS pain ratings, and the secondary outcome measures were scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Color Analysis Scale (CAS).

 

 

VAS. With the VAS, images are used to rate pain. The scale has points labeled 0 to 10 and corresponding faces representing progression in pain intensity. The scale is quickly rendered and can be interpreted according to the patient’s recovery phase at time of rendering.

HADS. The HADS70 provides a specific baseline for anxiety and depression as an indicator of how the patient might fare during hospitalization (admission through recovery and discharge).

TSK. The TSK71 provides insight into the patient’s perception of fear-related movement, which is an important factor in this study because of the movement required for rehabilitation. We used a shortened version of the TSK to accommodate the sensitive threshold for pain tolerance and pharmacologic side effects commonly experienced by spine patients.

CAS. The CAS was developed at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to assess comorbidities and dynamic aspects of pain. Through a coloring exercise, patients illustrate their pain experience, which gives tangible form to the abstract experience of pain.

Coding

We collected patients’ demographic data, including age, sex, and diagnoses. Clinical indicators of the preoperative baseline included lifestyle, surgical history, and prior experience with music or other mind–body strategies for self-regulation.

As fundamental to qualitative methodology,72,73 the reported responses to questions were grouped into themes that were peer-tested with members of the research team before and during the coding process.

Appendix.
The Appendix shows the Spine Study: Data Collection Form that was used.

VAS, HADS, and TSK data were tabulated by blinded research assistants and analyzed by a statistician. Patients were identified by number assignment, and their data and personal information were kept confidentially stored.

Statistical Methods

Means and standard deviations were used for continuous variables, and frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. All outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in outcomes from before to after intervention for the music and control groups. In particular, a statistically significant Group (music vs control) × Time (before vs after intervention) interaction would support the hypothesis that there would be more benefit (less pain) in the music group as a result of the music therapy. For all tests, significance was set at P < .05. SPSS Version 20 (IBM) was used for all statistical analyses. Based on previously found differences in heart rate and mobility,31 we assumed an effect size of 0.71 for the difference between music and control (no music), which would require 32 patients per group to achieve a power of 0.8 with an α of 0.05.

Results

Of the 136 patients who were asked to participate in the study, 76 were not enrolled; the other 60 were equally assigned to either the control group or the music therapy group (n = 30 in each) according to randomization indicated by a blinded statistician (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
All outcomes were measured before and after intervention. Table 1 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the control and music therapy patients.
Table 1.
There were no statistically significant clinical differences between the groups in terms of any demographic or clinical characteristic. Mean age was 48 years for the control group and 49 years for the music group (P = .58). Sixty-seven percent of control patients and 50% of music patients were female (P = .24). Baseline perspectives with regard to the outcome of their surgery are also included (Ps > .05).

Table 2 lists the pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons of the main outcomes between groups.

Table 2.
The groups showed significant differences in degree and direction of change in VAS pain ratings (P = .01). VAS pain levels increased slightly in the control group (to 5.87 from 5.20) but decreased by more than 1 point in the music group (to 5.09 from 6.20) (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
The control and music groups did not differ in the rate of change in scores on HADS Anxiety (P = .62), HADS Depression (P = .85), or TSK (P = .93). Both groups had slight increases in HADS Anxiety, comparable decreases in HADS Depression, and minimal changes in TSK.

The emerging themes of the responses are listed in Tables 3 and 4 and are explained here:

Relationship with music was coded for significance and included reports of music as a resource accessed for stimulation and/or relaxation through listening; direct involvement with instrument playing; and history of music training. 

Table 3.
This area was left broad because we think any of the listed criteria would define music as an inner resource for enhanced coping.

Perceptions of surgical outcome in patients’ responses were coded across 3 themes: (1) optimistic (belief and hope in returning to original baseline of functionality), (2) indifferent (neither hopeful nor cynical about results of surgery), and (3) pessimistic (belief that nothing will restore the quality of life that existed before the spinal condition).

The CAS helped us better understand the diversity and complexity of the pain experience.

Table 4.
With use of this nonverbal form of expression, patients’ reports of postoperative pain often included pain that otherwise had been perceived by patients as unrelated and therefore underreported.

 

 

Discussion

Our hospital has the unique capability of providing music therapy to postoperative and other hospitalized patients. In this study, we compared the impact of a structured postoperative music therapy program on spine patients relative to control patients who did not receive music therapy after spine surgery.

We found a significant benefit in VAS pain levels (>1 point) but no statistically significant differences in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, or TSK scores. Although a 2-point difference is usually considered clinically significant, the degree of change in the music group is notable for having been achieved by nonpharmacologic means with scant chance of adverse effects. We suspect the lack of significant change in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, and TSK scores is attributable to the narrow study window. Given the observational data from our pilot study58 and ongoing results with spine patients,32 it seems clear that both mood state and resilience in coping are enhanced through an ongoing relationship with music therapy.

The study of a population as vulnerable as patients recovering from spine surgery raises many issues for providers and researchers. Although it is worthwhile to determine the efficacy of integrative modalities in serving these patients, the request for participation in a protocol at such a vulnerable time was often resisted. During our pilot work, it became clear that the ability of potential subjects to comprehend and complete protocol surveys was impacted by adverse effects, including sedation drowsiness; respiratory depression; nausea and vomiting; pruritus; and urinary retention caused by the medications used for postoperative pain management. Consequently, after piloting 5 cases before the main study, we extended the enrollment window to 72 hours.

Other unforeseen intrinsic or external obstacles were identified: Patient-related issues—including availability, level of interest in participation, and inability to participate because of the medication adverse effects mentioned.

Staff investment/education—addressed over the first 3 study years with several in-services, starting with the surgical team and continuing with nursing and support staff in various combinations. These meetings led to the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved educational sheet for inclusion in the information packet given to surgical patients on registration.

Programming interruptions—caused by the convergence of several unanticipated factors, including a delay in expedited review of the IRB renewal during the year of Hurricane Sandy and an interruption in the spine team’s service for administrative and program modification.

Conclusion

Music therapy interventions (eg, use of patient-preferred live music) offered within a therapeutic relationship favorably affected pain perceptions in patients recovering from spine surgery. This effect was achieved through several therapeutic entry points, including support of expression and opportunities for emotional catharsis.

At the core of music therapy’s efficacy is individualized treatment, through which patients are supported in their recovery of “self.” Measurable benefits—including increased comfort; reduced pain; improved gait; increased range of motion, endurance, and ability to relax; and empowerment to actively participate in one’s own care through daily activities imbued with an enhanced sense of agency—are of cardinal importance, as they may lead to quicker recovery perceptions and enhanced quality of life.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E13-E22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

References

1. Miller B, Gatchel RJ, Lou L, Stowell A, Robinson R, Polatin PB. Interdisciplinary treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS): a comparison of FBSS and non-FBSS patients. Pain Pract. 2005;5(3):190-202.

2. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):925-948.

3. Engstrom JW, Deyo, RA. Back and neck pain. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, et al, eds. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2007:207-214.

4. Cavanaugh JM, Lu Y, Chen C, Kallakuri S. Pain generation in lumbar and cervical facet joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 2):63-67.

5. Hart RA, Prendergast MA. Spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in elderly and osteoporotic patients. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:257-272.

6. Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, et al; American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007;10(1):7-111.

7. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-2270.

8. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): A randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441-2450.

9. Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, et al; Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32(1):1-8.

10. Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA, Keller RB, Atlas SJ. The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(5):785-792.

11. Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Wainess R, Upchurch GR Jr, Chandler WF, La Marca F. Changes in the utilization of spinal fusion in the United States. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1):15-20.

12. Lonner BS, Scharf CS, Antonacci D, Goldstein Y, Panagopoulos G. The learning curve associated with thoracoscopic spinal instrumentation. Spine. 2005;30(24):2835-2840.

13. Lonner BS, Kondrachov D, Siddiqi F, Hayes V, Scharf C. Thoracoscopic spinal fusion compared with posterior spinal fusion for the treatment of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(5):1022-1034.

14. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(2):455-461.

15. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Laminectomy and fusion after spinal cord injury: national inpatient complications and outcomes. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25(3):173-183.

16. Dekutoski MB, Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG, Chapman JR. Surgeon perceptions and reported complications in spine surgery. Spine. 2010;35(9 suppl):S9-S21.

17. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(2):144-157.

18. Patil CG, Santarelli J, Lad SP, Ho C, Tian W, Boakye M. Inpatient complications, mortality, and discharge disposition after surgical correction of idiopathic scoliosis: a national perspective. Spine J. 2008;8(6):904-910.

19. Rampersaud YR, Moro ER, Neary MA, et al. Intraoperative adverse events and related postoperative complications in spine surgery: implications for enhancing patient safety founded on evidence-based protocols. Spine. 2006;31(13):1503-1510.

20. Shen Y, Silverstein JC, Roth S. In-hospital complications and mortality after elective spinal fusion surgery in the United States: a study of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2001 to 2005. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2009;21(1):21-30.

21. Picavet HSJ, Vlaeyen JWS, Schouten JSAG. Pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia: predictors of chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(11):1028-1034.

22. French DJ, France CR, Vigneau F, French JA, Evans RT. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: a psychometric assessment of the original English version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). Pain. 2007;127(1-2):42-51.

23. Goubert L, Crombez G, Van Damme S, Vlaeyen JW, Bijttebier P, Roelofs J. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: invariant two-factor model across low back pain patients and fibromyalgia patients. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(2):103-110.

24. Selimen D, Andsoy II. The importance of a holistic approach during the perioperative period. AORN J. 2011;93(4):482-487.

25. Zheng Z. Xue CC. Pain research in complementary and alternative medicine in Australia: a critical review. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(2):81-91.

26. Wright J, Adams D, Vohra S. Complementary, holistic, and integrative medicine: music for procedural pain. Pediatr Rev. 2013;34(11):e42-e46.

27. McCann PD. Orthopedic surgery and integrative medicine—strange bedfellows. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(2):66, 71.

28. McCann PD. Customer satisfaction: are hospitals “hospitable”? Am J Orthop. 2006;35(2):59.

29. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute best practice information sheet: music as an intervention in hospitals. Nurs Health Sci. 2011;13(1):99-102.

30. Spintge R. Thirty-five years of anxiolytic music (AAM) in pain and aversive clinical settings. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:29-42.

31. Cepeda MS, Carr DB, Lau J, Alvarez H. Music for pain relief. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004843.

32. Mondanaro J. Music therapy based release strategies in the treatment of acute and chronic pain: an individualized approach. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:133-148.

 

 

33. Quentzel S. Music has charms to soothe a savage breast. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:11-28.

34. Ko YL. Lin PC. The effect of using a relaxation tape on pulse, respiration, blood pressure and anxiety levels of surgical patients. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):689-697.

35. Roy M, Lebuis A, Hugueville L, Peretz I, Rainville P. Spinal modulation of nociception by music. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(6):870-877.

36. Roy M, Peretz I, Rainville P. Emotional valence contributes to music-induced analgesia. Pain. 2008;134(1-2):140-147.

37. Schröter T. Medicine needs music! Music therapy for chronic pain [in German]. Rev Med Suisse. 2014;10(415):286.

38. Bellieni CV, Cioncoloni D, Mazzanti S, et al. Music provided through a portable media player (iPod) blunts pain during physical therapy. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14(4):e151-e155.

39. Bernatzky G, Presch M, Anderson M, Panksepp J. Emotional foundations of music as a non-pharmacological pain management tool in modern medicine. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(9):1989-1999.

40. Bradshaw DH, Chapman CR, Jacobson RC, Donaldson GW. Effects of music engagement on response to painful stimulation. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(5):418-427.

41. Bradshaw DH, Donaldson GW, Jacobson RC, Nakamura Y, Chapman CR. Individual differences in the effects of music engagement on responses to painful stimulation. J Pain. 2011;12(12):1262-1273.

42. Chlan L, Halm MA. Does music ease pain and anxiety in the critically ill? Am J Crit Care. 2013;22(6):528-532.

43. Guétin S, Giniès P, Siou DK, et al. The effects of music intervention in the management of chronic pain: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(4):329-337.

44. Matsota P, Christodoulopoulou T, Smyrnioti ME, et al. Music’s use for anesthesia and analgesia. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(4):298-307.

45. Gooding L, Swezey S, Zwischenberger JB. Using music interventions in perioperative care. South Med J. 2012;105(9):486-490.

46. Graversen M, Sommer T. Perioperative music may reduce pain and fatigue in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(8):1010-1016.

47. Ni CH, Tsai WH, Lee LM, Kao CC, Chen YC. Minimising preoperative anxiety with music for day surgery patients—a randomised clinical trial. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):620-625.

48. Good M, Albert JM, Anderson GC, et al. Supplementing relaxation and music for pain after surgery. Nurs Res. 2010;59(4):259-269.

49. Moris DN, Linos D. Music meets surgery: two sides to the art of “healing.” Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):719-723.

50. Nilsson U, Rawal N, Unosson M. A comparison of intra-operative or postoperative exposure to music—a controlled trial of the effects on postoperative pain. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(7):699-703.

51. Özer N, Karaman Özlü Z, Arslan S, Günes N. Effect of music on postoperative pain and physiologic parameters of patients after open heart surgery. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14(1):20-28.

52. Sen H, Yanarateş O, Sızlan A, Kılıç E, Ozkan S, Dağlı G. The efficiency and duration of the analgesic effects of musical therapy on postoperative pain. Agri. 2010;22(4):145-150.

53. Vaajoki A, Pietilä AM, Kankkunen P, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Music intervention study in abdominal surgery patients: challenges of an intervention study in clinical practice. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(2):206-213.

54. Vaajoki A, Pietilä AM, Kankkunen P, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Effects of listening to music on pain intensity and pain distress after surgery: an intervention. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):708-717.

55. Whitaker MH. Sounds soothing: music therapy for postoperative pain. Nursing. 2010;40(12):53-54.

56. Edwards J. Developing pain management approaches in music therapy with hospitalized children. In: Loewy J, Dileo C, eds. Music Therapy at the End of Life. Cherry Hill, NJ: Jeffrey Books; 2005:57-76.

57. Loewy J. The quiet soldier: pain and sickle cell anemia. In: Hibben J, ed. Inside Music Therapy: Client Experiences. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona; 1999:69-76.

58. Lichtensztejn M. The clinical use of piano with patients suffering from breathing distress related to pain. In: Azoulay R, Loewy JV, eds. Music, the Breath and Health: Advances in Integrative Music Therapy. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2009:213-222.

59. Kwon IS, Kim J, Park KM. Effects of music therapy on pain, discomfort, and depression for patients with leg fractures. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2006;36(4):630-636.

60. Zengin S, Kabul S, Al B, Sarcan E, Doğan M, Yildirim C. Effects of music therapy on pain and anxiety in patients undergoing port catheter placement procedure. Complement Ther Med. 2013;21(6):689-696.

61. Boso M, Politi P, Barale F, Emanuele E. Neurophysiology and neurobiology of the musical experience. Funct Neurol. 2006;21(4):187-191.

62. Salimpoor VN, Benovoy M, Larcher K, Dagher A, Zatorre RJ. Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(2):257-262.

63. Tomaino CM. Using rhythm for rehabilitation. Institute for Music and Neurologic Function website. http://musictherapy.imnf.org/images/uploads/rhythm.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed August 21, 2007.

64. Molinari M, Leggio MG, De Martin M, Cerasa A, Thaut M. Neurobiology of rhythmic motor entrainment. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;999:313-321.

65. Thaut M. Neuropsychological processes in music perception. In: Unkefer R, ed. Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults With Mental Disorders: Theoretical Bases and Clinical Interventions. Toronto, Canada: Schirmer Books; 2002:2-32.

66. Thaut M. Physiological and motor responses to music stimuli. In: Unkefer R, ed. Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults With Mental Disorders: Theoretical Bases and Clinical Interventions. Toronto, Canada: Schimer Books; 2002:33-41.

67. Kleiber C, Adamek MS. Adolescents’ perceptions of music therapy following spinal fusion surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(3-4):414-422.

68. Lin PC, Lin ML, Huang LC, Hsu HC, Lin CC. Music therapy for patients receiving spine surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(7-8):960-968.

69. Maeyama A, Kodaka M, Miyao H. Effect of the music-therapy under spinal anesthesia [in Japanese]. Masui. 2009;58(6):684-691.

70. Golden J, Conroy RM, O’Dwyer AM. Reliability and validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory (Full and FastScreen scales) in detecting depression in persons with hepatitis C. J Affect Disord. 2006;100(1-3):265-269.

71. Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117(1-2):137-144.

72. Humrichouse J, Chmielewski M, McDade-Montez EA, Watson D. Affect assessment through self-report methods. In: Rottenberg J, Johnson SL, eds. Emotion and Psychopathology: Bridging Affective and Clinical Science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007:13-34.

73. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.

References

1. Miller B, Gatchel RJ, Lou L, Stowell A, Robinson R, Polatin PB. Interdisciplinary treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS): a comparison of FBSS and non-FBSS patients. Pain Pract. 2005;5(3):190-202.

2. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):925-948.

3. Engstrom JW, Deyo, RA. Back and neck pain. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, et al, eds. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2007:207-214.

4. Cavanaugh JM, Lu Y, Chen C, Kallakuri S. Pain generation in lumbar and cervical facet joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 2):63-67.

5. Hart RA, Prendergast MA. Spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in elderly and osteoporotic patients. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:257-272.

6. Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, et al; American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007;10(1):7-111.

7. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-2270.

8. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): A randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441-2450.

9. Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, et al; Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32(1):1-8.

10. Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA, Keller RB, Atlas SJ. The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(5):785-792.

11. Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Wainess R, Upchurch GR Jr, Chandler WF, La Marca F. Changes in the utilization of spinal fusion in the United States. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1):15-20.

12. Lonner BS, Scharf CS, Antonacci D, Goldstein Y, Panagopoulos G. The learning curve associated with thoracoscopic spinal instrumentation. Spine. 2005;30(24):2835-2840.

13. Lonner BS, Kondrachov D, Siddiqi F, Hayes V, Scharf C. Thoracoscopic spinal fusion compared with posterior spinal fusion for the treatment of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(5):1022-1034.

14. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(2):455-461.

15. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Laminectomy and fusion after spinal cord injury: national inpatient complications and outcomes. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25(3):173-183.

16. Dekutoski MB, Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG, Chapman JR. Surgeon perceptions and reported complications in spine surgery. Spine. 2010;35(9 suppl):S9-S21.

17. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(2):144-157.

18. Patil CG, Santarelli J, Lad SP, Ho C, Tian W, Boakye M. Inpatient complications, mortality, and discharge disposition after surgical correction of idiopathic scoliosis: a national perspective. Spine J. 2008;8(6):904-910.

19. Rampersaud YR, Moro ER, Neary MA, et al. Intraoperative adverse events and related postoperative complications in spine surgery: implications for enhancing patient safety founded on evidence-based protocols. Spine. 2006;31(13):1503-1510.

20. Shen Y, Silverstein JC, Roth S. In-hospital complications and mortality after elective spinal fusion surgery in the United States: a study of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2001 to 2005. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2009;21(1):21-30.

21. Picavet HSJ, Vlaeyen JWS, Schouten JSAG. Pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia: predictors of chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(11):1028-1034.

22. French DJ, France CR, Vigneau F, French JA, Evans RT. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: a psychometric assessment of the original English version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). Pain. 2007;127(1-2):42-51.

23. Goubert L, Crombez G, Van Damme S, Vlaeyen JW, Bijttebier P, Roelofs J. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: invariant two-factor model across low back pain patients and fibromyalgia patients. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(2):103-110.

24. Selimen D, Andsoy II. The importance of a holistic approach during the perioperative period. AORN J. 2011;93(4):482-487.

25. Zheng Z. Xue CC. Pain research in complementary and alternative medicine in Australia: a critical review. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(2):81-91.

26. Wright J, Adams D, Vohra S. Complementary, holistic, and integrative medicine: music for procedural pain. Pediatr Rev. 2013;34(11):e42-e46.

27. McCann PD. Orthopedic surgery and integrative medicine—strange bedfellows. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(2):66, 71.

28. McCann PD. Customer satisfaction: are hospitals “hospitable”? Am J Orthop. 2006;35(2):59.

29. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute best practice information sheet: music as an intervention in hospitals. Nurs Health Sci. 2011;13(1):99-102.

30. Spintge R. Thirty-five years of anxiolytic music (AAM) in pain and aversive clinical settings. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:29-42.

31. Cepeda MS, Carr DB, Lau J, Alvarez H. Music for pain relief. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004843.

32. Mondanaro J. Music therapy based release strategies in the treatment of acute and chronic pain: an individualized approach. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:133-148.

 

 

33. Quentzel S. Music has charms to soothe a savage breast. In: Mondanaro J, Sara G, eds. Music and Medicine: Integrative Models in the Treatment of Pain. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2013:11-28.

34. Ko YL. Lin PC. The effect of using a relaxation tape on pulse, respiration, blood pressure and anxiety levels of surgical patients. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):689-697.

35. Roy M, Lebuis A, Hugueville L, Peretz I, Rainville P. Spinal modulation of nociception by music. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(6):870-877.

36. Roy M, Peretz I, Rainville P. Emotional valence contributes to music-induced analgesia. Pain. 2008;134(1-2):140-147.

37. Schröter T. Medicine needs music! Music therapy for chronic pain [in German]. Rev Med Suisse. 2014;10(415):286.

38. Bellieni CV, Cioncoloni D, Mazzanti S, et al. Music provided through a portable media player (iPod) blunts pain during physical therapy. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14(4):e151-e155.

39. Bernatzky G, Presch M, Anderson M, Panksepp J. Emotional foundations of music as a non-pharmacological pain management tool in modern medicine. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(9):1989-1999.

40. Bradshaw DH, Chapman CR, Jacobson RC, Donaldson GW. Effects of music engagement on response to painful stimulation. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(5):418-427.

41. Bradshaw DH, Donaldson GW, Jacobson RC, Nakamura Y, Chapman CR. Individual differences in the effects of music engagement on responses to painful stimulation. J Pain. 2011;12(12):1262-1273.

42. Chlan L, Halm MA. Does music ease pain and anxiety in the critically ill? Am J Crit Care. 2013;22(6):528-532.

43. Guétin S, Giniès P, Siou DK, et al. The effects of music intervention in the management of chronic pain: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(4):329-337.

44. Matsota P, Christodoulopoulou T, Smyrnioti ME, et al. Music’s use for anesthesia and analgesia. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(4):298-307.

45. Gooding L, Swezey S, Zwischenberger JB. Using music interventions in perioperative care. South Med J. 2012;105(9):486-490.

46. Graversen M, Sommer T. Perioperative music may reduce pain and fatigue in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(8):1010-1016.

47. Ni CH, Tsai WH, Lee LM, Kao CC, Chen YC. Minimising preoperative anxiety with music for day surgery patients—a randomised clinical trial. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):620-625.

48. Good M, Albert JM, Anderson GC, et al. Supplementing relaxation and music for pain after surgery. Nurs Res. 2010;59(4):259-269.

49. Moris DN, Linos D. Music meets surgery: two sides to the art of “healing.” Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):719-723.

50. Nilsson U, Rawal N, Unosson M. A comparison of intra-operative or postoperative exposure to music—a controlled trial of the effects on postoperative pain. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(7):699-703.

51. Özer N, Karaman Özlü Z, Arslan S, Günes N. Effect of music on postoperative pain and physiologic parameters of patients after open heart surgery. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14(1):20-28.

52. Sen H, Yanarateş O, Sızlan A, Kılıç E, Ozkan S, Dağlı G. The efficiency and duration of the analgesic effects of musical therapy on postoperative pain. Agri. 2010;22(4):145-150.

53. Vaajoki A, Pietilä AM, Kankkunen P, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Music intervention study in abdominal surgery patients: challenges of an intervention study in clinical practice. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(2):206-213.

54. Vaajoki A, Pietilä AM, Kankkunen P, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Effects of listening to music on pain intensity and pain distress after surgery: an intervention. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(5-6):708-717.

55. Whitaker MH. Sounds soothing: music therapy for postoperative pain. Nursing. 2010;40(12):53-54.

56. Edwards J. Developing pain management approaches in music therapy with hospitalized children. In: Loewy J, Dileo C, eds. Music Therapy at the End of Life. Cherry Hill, NJ: Jeffrey Books; 2005:57-76.

57. Loewy J. The quiet soldier: pain and sickle cell anemia. In: Hibben J, ed. Inside Music Therapy: Client Experiences. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona; 1999:69-76.

58. Lichtensztejn M. The clinical use of piano with patients suffering from breathing distress related to pain. In: Azoulay R, Loewy JV, eds. Music, the Breath and Health: Advances in Integrative Music Therapy. New York, NY: Satchnote Press; 2009:213-222.

59. Kwon IS, Kim J, Park KM. Effects of music therapy on pain, discomfort, and depression for patients with leg fractures. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2006;36(4):630-636.

60. Zengin S, Kabul S, Al B, Sarcan E, Doğan M, Yildirim C. Effects of music therapy on pain and anxiety in patients undergoing port catheter placement procedure. Complement Ther Med. 2013;21(6):689-696.

61. Boso M, Politi P, Barale F, Emanuele E. Neurophysiology and neurobiology of the musical experience. Funct Neurol. 2006;21(4):187-191.

62. Salimpoor VN, Benovoy M, Larcher K, Dagher A, Zatorre RJ. Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(2):257-262.

63. Tomaino CM. Using rhythm for rehabilitation. Institute for Music and Neurologic Function website. http://musictherapy.imnf.org/images/uploads/rhythm.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed August 21, 2007.

64. Molinari M, Leggio MG, De Martin M, Cerasa A, Thaut M. Neurobiology of rhythmic motor entrainment. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;999:313-321.

65. Thaut M. Neuropsychological processes in music perception. In: Unkefer R, ed. Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults With Mental Disorders: Theoretical Bases and Clinical Interventions. Toronto, Canada: Schirmer Books; 2002:2-32.

66. Thaut M. Physiological and motor responses to music stimuli. In: Unkefer R, ed. Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults With Mental Disorders: Theoretical Bases and Clinical Interventions. Toronto, Canada: Schimer Books; 2002:33-41.

67. Kleiber C, Adamek MS. Adolescents’ perceptions of music therapy following spinal fusion surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(3-4):414-422.

68. Lin PC, Lin ML, Huang LC, Hsu HC, Lin CC. Music therapy for patients receiving spine surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(7-8):960-968.

69. Maeyama A, Kodaka M, Miyao H. Effect of the music-therapy under spinal anesthesia [in Japanese]. Masui. 2009;58(6):684-691.

70. Golden J, Conroy RM, O’Dwyer AM. Reliability and validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory (Full and FastScreen scales) in detecting depression in persons with hepatitis C. J Affect Disord. 2006;100(1-3):265-269.

71. Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117(1-2):137-144.

72. Humrichouse J, Chmielewski M, McDade-Montez EA, Watson D. Affect assessment through self-report methods. In: Rottenberg J, Johnson SL, eds. Emotion and Psychopathology: Bridging Affective and Clinical Science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007:13-34.

73. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(1)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(1)
Page Number
E13-E22
Page Number
E13-E22
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Music Therapy Increases Comfort and Reduces Pain in Patients Recovering From Spine Surgery
Display Headline
Music Therapy Increases Comfort and Reduces Pain in Patients Recovering From Spine Surgery
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

PCV effective against HNIs, pHNIs that require hospitalization in immunized children

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:28

 

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) in immunized children show effectiveness against head and neck infections (HNIs), especially against pneumococcal HNIs (pHNIs) that require hospitalization, according to Tal Marom, MD, of Tel Aviv University, Zerifin, Israel, and associates.

In a retrospective study, researchers identified children aged 0-16 years who were hospitalized with HNIs between Jan. 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2014. HNIs accounted for 2.5%-4.7% of admissions to the pediatric department, and there was a downward trend in the incidence in the post-PCV years, compared with previous years. Of the 820 children admitted with HNIs, 11% children were identified with pHNIs, 5% with acute otitis media, 4% with acute mastoiditis, and 2% with meningitis; there were no cases of pneumococcal acute bacterial sinusitis or pneumococcal head and neck abscesses. In 2009-2010 (considered as the “transition years,” in which both PCV7 and PCV13 were implemented in Israel), pHNIs incidence sharply decreased, from 7/1,000 to 1.74/1,000 hospitalized children per year, because of a 55% reduction of pneumococcal acute otitis media episodes. There also was an additional decrease observed in the post-PCV years of 2012-2014 (1.62/1,000 hospitalized children per year).

It was noted that unimmunized children were more likely to suffer from pneumococcal infections than immunized children (P = .001). There were no significant differences in the clinical presentation of these two groups, except for the need for surgery, which was significantly greater in immunized children (P = .042).

“The findings of the current study provide further evidence of PCV effectiveness against HNIs in PCV immunized children, and particularly against pHNI which required hospitalization,” Dr. Marom and associates concluded. “A substantial reduction in the all-cause HNIs incidence, and more specifically in pHNIs, in PCV immunized children who required hospitalization, was evident in the present study. This was also followed by a significant reduction in [acute otitis media] rates and to a much lesser extent, in [acute mastoiditis] and meningitis rates.”

Find the full study in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (2016. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001425).

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) in immunized children show effectiveness against head and neck infections (HNIs), especially against pneumococcal HNIs (pHNIs) that require hospitalization, according to Tal Marom, MD, of Tel Aviv University, Zerifin, Israel, and associates.

In a retrospective study, researchers identified children aged 0-16 years who were hospitalized with HNIs between Jan. 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2014. HNIs accounted for 2.5%-4.7% of admissions to the pediatric department, and there was a downward trend in the incidence in the post-PCV years, compared with previous years. Of the 820 children admitted with HNIs, 11% children were identified with pHNIs, 5% with acute otitis media, 4% with acute mastoiditis, and 2% with meningitis; there were no cases of pneumococcal acute bacterial sinusitis or pneumococcal head and neck abscesses. In 2009-2010 (considered as the “transition years,” in which both PCV7 and PCV13 were implemented in Israel), pHNIs incidence sharply decreased, from 7/1,000 to 1.74/1,000 hospitalized children per year, because of a 55% reduction of pneumococcal acute otitis media episodes. There also was an additional decrease observed in the post-PCV years of 2012-2014 (1.62/1,000 hospitalized children per year).

It was noted that unimmunized children were more likely to suffer from pneumococcal infections than immunized children (P = .001). There were no significant differences in the clinical presentation of these two groups, except for the need for surgery, which was significantly greater in immunized children (P = .042).

“The findings of the current study provide further evidence of PCV effectiveness against HNIs in PCV immunized children, and particularly against pHNI which required hospitalization,” Dr. Marom and associates concluded. “A substantial reduction in the all-cause HNIs incidence, and more specifically in pHNIs, in PCV immunized children who required hospitalization, was evident in the present study. This was also followed by a significant reduction in [acute otitis media] rates and to a much lesser extent, in [acute mastoiditis] and meningitis rates.”

Find the full study in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (2016. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001425).

 

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) in immunized children show effectiveness against head and neck infections (HNIs), especially against pneumococcal HNIs (pHNIs) that require hospitalization, according to Tal Marom, MD, of Tel Aviv University, Zerifin, Israel, and associates.

In a retrospective study, researchers identified children aged 0-16 years who were hospitalized with HNIs between Jan. 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2014. HNIs accounted for 2.5%-4.7% of admissions to the pediatric department, and there was a downward trend in the incidence in the post-PCV years, compared with previous years. Of the 820 children admitted with HNIs, 11% children were identified with pHNIs, 5% with acute otitis media, 4% with acute mastoiditis, and 2% with meningitis; there were no cases of pneumococcal acute bacterial sinusitis or pneumococcal head and neck abscesses. In 2009-2010 (considered as the “transition years,” in which both PCV7 and PCV13 were implemented in Israel), pHNIs incidence sharply decreased, from 7/1,000 to 1.74/1,000 hospitalized children per year, because of a 55% reduction of pneumococcal acute otitis media episodes. There also was an additional decrease observed in the post-PCV years of 2012-2014 (1.62/1,000 hospitalized children per year).

It was noted that unimmunized children were more likely to suffer from pneumococcal infections than immunized children (P = .001). There were no significant differences in the clinical presentation of these two groups, except for the need for surgery, which was significantly greater in immunized children (P = .042).

“The findings of the current study provide further evidence of PCV effectiveness against HNIs in PCV immunized children, and particularly against pHNI which required hospitalization,” Dr. Marom and associates concluded. “A substantial reduction in the all-cause HNIs incidence, and more specifically in pHNIs, in PCV immunized children who required hospitalization, was evident in the present study. This was also followed by a significant reduction in [acute otitis media] rates and to a much lesser extent, in [acute mastoiditis] and meningitis rates.”

Find the full study in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (2016. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001425).

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME