Between 2004 and 2010, 189 adult patients were enrolled on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) cross-sectional chronic Graft-versus-Host disease (cGVHD) natural history study. Patients were evaluated by multiple disease scales and outcome measures including the 2005 NIH Consensus Project cGVHD severity score. The purpose of this study is to assess the validity of the NIH scoring variables as determinants of disease severity in severely affected patients in order to standardize clinician evaluation and staging of cGVHD. 125 of 189 patients met criteria for severe cGVHD on the NIH global score and 62 had moderate disease, with a median of 4 (range 1–8) involved organs. Clinician average NIH organ score and the corresponding organ scores performed by subspecialists were highly correlated (r=0.64). NIH global severity scores showed significant associations with nearly all functional and quality of life outcome measures including Lee Scale, SF-36 Physical Component Scale (PCS), 2 minutes walk, grip strength, range of motion and Human Activity Profile (HAP). Joints/fascia, skin, and lung involvement impacted function and quality of life most significantly and showed highest number of correlations with outcome measures. The final Cox model showing factors jointly predictive for survival contained the time from cGVHD diagnosis (>49 vs. ≤49 months, HR=0.23; p=0.0011), absolute eosinophil count of (0–0.5 vs. >0.5 cells/µL, HR=3.95; p=0.0006) at the time of NIH evaluation, and NIH lung score (3 vs. 0–2, HR=11.02; p <0.0001). These results demonstrate that NIH organs and global severity scores are reliable measures of cGVHD disease burden. Strong association with subspecialist evaluation suggests that NIH organs and global severity scores are appropriate for clinical and research assessments, and may serve as a surrogate for more complex sub-specialist exams. In this population of severely affected patients, NIH lung score is the strongest predictor of poor overall survival, both alone and after adjustment for other important factors.

Once used only as third-line therapy for chronic pain management, methadone is now being used as first- and second-line therapy in palliative care. The risks and stigma associated with methadone use are known, but difficulties with dosing methadone and lack of an established conversion protocol from other opiates have limited the access for patient populations who could potentially benefit from this medication. For palliative care patients, the benefits of methadone can far outweigh its risks. This article provides an overview and specific recommendations on the use of parenteral methadone in pain and palliative care, with a focus on the transition from hospital to home/hospice care. The goal of this consensus guideline is to assist clinicians who are providing chronic pain management in acute care hospital and nonhospital settings (i.e., hospice, long-term care facilities, and community) for patients with life-limiting illnesses, where the goals of care are focused on comfort (i.e., palliative care). The recommendations in this article intend to promote a standard of care involving the use of intravenous methadone with the aim of reaching a broader population of patients for whom this drug would provide important benefits.

Purpose To prospectively compare outcomes and processes of hospital-based early palliative care with standard care in surgical oncology patients (N = 152). Methods A randomized, mixed methods, longitudinal study evaluated the effectiveness of a hospital-based Pain and Palliative Care Service (PPCS). Interviews were conducted presurgically and at follow-up visits up to 1 year. Primary outcome measures included the Gracely Pain Intensity and Unpleasantness Scales and the Symptom Distress Scale. Qualitative interviews assessed social support, satisfaction with care, and communication with providers. Survival analysis methods explored factors related to treatment crossover and study discontinuation. Models for repeated measures within subjects over time explored treatment and covariate effects on patient-reported pain and symptom distress. Results None of the estimated differences achieved statistical significance; however, for those who remained on study for 12 months, the PPCS group performed better than their standard of care counterparts. Patients identified consistent communication, emotional support, and pain and symptom management as positive contributions delivered by the PPCS. Conclusions It is unclear whether lower pain perceptions despite greater symptom distress were clinically meaningful; however, when coupled with the patients’ perceptions of their increased resources and alternatives for pain control, one begins to see the value of an integrated PPCS.

Use of opioid analgesics for pain management has increased dramatically over the past decade, with corresponding increases in negative sequelae including overdose and death. There is currently no well-validated objective means of accurately identifying patients likely to experience good analgesia with low side effects and abuse risk prior to initiating opioid therapy. This paper discusses the concept of data-based personalized prescribing of opioid analgesics as a means to achieve this goal. Strengths, weaknesses, and potential synergism of traditional randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) and practice-based evidence (PBE) methodologies as means to acquire the clinical data necessary to develop validated personalized analgesic prescribing algorithms are overviewed. Several predictive factors that might be incorporated into such algorithms are briefly discussed, including genetic factors, differences in brain structure and function, differences in neurotransmitter pathways, and patient phenotypic variables such as negative affect, sex, and pain sensitivity. Currently available research is insufficient to inform development of quantitative analgesic prescribing algorithms. However, responder subtype analyses made practical by the large numbers of chronic pain patients in proposed collaborative PBE pain registries, in conjunction with follow-up validation RCTs, may eventually permit development of clinically useful analgesic prescribing algorithms. Perspective Current research is insufficient to base opioid analgesic prescribing on patient characteristics. Collaborative PBE studies in large, diverse pain patient samples in conjunction with follow-up RCTs may permit development of quantitative analgesic prescribing algorithms which could optimize opioid analgesic effectiveness, and mitigate risks of opioid-related abuse and mortality.