Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Helena Knotkova

Publications and source records attributed to Helena Knotkova.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Adjuvant analgesics.

Chronic pain, whether arising from viscera, bone, or any other tissue or structure, is, more often than commonly thought, the result of a mixture of pain mechanisms, and therefore there is no simple formula available to manage chronic complex pain states. Box 1 summarizes a pharmacological algorithm for difficult-to-treat chronic pain, which merely introduces the medication aspect of the treatment. In effect, any comprehensive algorithm should call for an interdisciplinary approach that would include rehabilitation, as well as psychosocial, and when indicated, interventional techniques. Box 1 Analgesic algorithm for difficult-to-treat pain syndromes. Pharmacological Interventions. Moderate to severe pain/functional impairment; pain with a score of >4 on the brief pain inventory. 1. Gabapentinoid (gabapentin, pregabalin)+/-Opioid/opioid rotation or 2. Antidepressant (TCA, duloxetine, venlafaxine)+/-Opioid/opioid rotation or 3. Gabapentinoid+antidepressant+Opioid/opioid rotation; in addition, may consider trials of one or more of the following adjuvants when clinically appropriate: Topical therapies for cutaneous allodynia/hyperalgesia. Anti-inflammatory drugs (corticosteroids for acute inflammatory neuropathic pain)IV bisphosphonates for cancer bone pain or CRPS/RSDNon-gabapentinoid AEDs such as carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine or lamotrigine+/-baclofen for intermittent lancinating pain due to cranial neuralgiasNMDA antagonists Mexiletine On a compassionate basis, according to the patient's clinical condition and pain mechanism, the physician may want to consider an empirical trial of one or more of the emergent topical, oral or parenteral/intrathecal therapies as discussed in the text. If SMP, consider topical clonidine and sympatholytic interventions; if clinically feasible, trials of topical therapies, eg, lidocaine 5% patch, may be considered for a variety of pain states and features.The major rationale for introducing adjuvants is to better balance efficacy and adverse effects. The following scenarios should prompt the use of adjuvants in clinical practice: The toxic limit of a primary analgesic has been reached. The therapeutic benefit of a primary analgesic has plateaued, eg, treatment has reached its true efficacy limit or pharmachodynamic tolerance has developed. The primary analgesic is contraindicated, eg, substance abuse, aberrant behavior, organ failure, allergy, and so forth. Subjective and qualitative symptoms demand broader coverage. Patients often convey that different medications will impart distinct analgesic benefits. Presence of disabling nonpainful complaints and need to manage symptoms such as insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue that all cause worsening of the patient's quality of life and function. Physicians have also been drawn to the adjuvants secondary to new realities of clinical practice. Moreover, aversion to addiction and diversion remains a potent force that shapes prescribing profiles.

Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic↗

Validation of the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS).

UNLABELLED: The concurrent construct validity of the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) was determined in a sample of 100 oncology outpatients. As recommended by Jensen, we examined the frequency pattern of correlations between MAPS and standard questionnaires that reached a criterion level of significance. As predicted, the 17 subclusters in the MAPS Somatosensory Pain supercluster showed a higher mean frequency of criterion correlations with the 4 sensory-related groups of items from the MPQ and, equally important, a lower frequency of criterion correlations with unrelated constructs, POMS, and the MPQ Affective Class. The 8 subclusters in the MAPS Emotional Pain supercluster revealed a high frequency of correlations with related POMS and FACT-G scales and (negatively) with the KPS score; equally important, there were far fewer criterion correlations of these scales with unrelated MPQ sensory classes. The 5 subclusters of the MAPS Well-Being supercluster showed a high frequency of criterion correlations with the POMS Vigor/Activity Scale, related FACT-G scales, and the KPS score and lower frequencies of correlation with the unrelated MPQ sensory groups. In conclusion, the 101-item MAPS yields more information about a patient's pain, emotional, physical, and cognitive status than does a much longer test battery consisting of 191 items contained in the MPQ, POMS, and FACT-G questionnaires. PERSPECTIVE: This study demonstrates the validity of a new pain questionnaire developed objectively by multivariate cluster analysis rather than subjectively by expert opinion. MAPS assesses patients' somatosensory and emotional experiences, and feelings of well-being with greater scope and accuracy than a battery of questionnaires, and it does so in much less time.

Adult↗

What do ratings on unidimensional pain and emotion scales really mean? A Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) analysis of cancer patient responses.

The purpose of the study was to determine what dimensions of pain predicted scores on numerical rating scales (NRSs) of Pain, Anxiety, Depression, and Health Expectation in cancer patients. Seventy-one patients with intra-abdominal cancer responded to the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) and rated their pain and emotion on the NRSs. Scores on the Pain NRS were predicted by 41% of clusters in the MAPS Somatosensory Pain Supercluster, but by 100% of clusters in the Emotional Pain Supercluster, and negatively by 51% of clusters in the Well-Being Supercluster. The Anxiety and Depression NRSs were each predicted by only the Intense Pain cluster in the Somatosensory Pain Supercluster, but by all of clusters in the Emotional Pain Supercluster. The findings indicate that cancer patients' emotional state is a strong co-determinant of their sensory pain ratings. Negative emotional aspects of pain contribute also to scores on the Anxiety, Depression and Health Expectation NRSs.

Aged↗

Factor analysis validates the cluster structure of the dendrogram underlying the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) and challenges the a priori classification of the descriptors in the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ).

The purpose of this study was to validate the content and structure of the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) by means of factor analysis. The 101-MAPS is based on a dendrogram obtained by cluster analysis and contains 30 clusters subsumed within three superclusters. If the MAPS is a valid questionnaire for the quantification of emotion and pain in patients, then factor analysis of patients' intensity ratings should produce factors which correspond to the cluster structure of the dendrogram. To confirm the structure of the dendrogram and hence, MAPS, factor analysis was applied to the responses by 100 outpatients diagnosed with early stage cancer. Principal components analysis of responses to the MAPS yielded six factors. In accordance with the hypothesis, 13 of the 17 clusters within the MAPS somatosensory pain supercluster loaded on three sensory factors: factor 1, severe sensory pain; factor 3, moderate sensory pain; and factor 6, numb/cold. Five of the eight clusters within the emotional pain supercluster loaded on factor 2, negative emotions. Four of the five clusters in the well-being supercluster loaded on factor 4, good health. Factor 5, manageable illness was loaded on by clusters from the well-being supercluster and the somatosensory pain supercluster. The homogeneity of the six factors found demonstrate the validity of the MAPS and the cluster structure of the dendrogram. MAPS proved sensitive to sex differences; women endorsed the negative emotions factor more strongly than did men. The MAPS factors were much more homogeneous than those reported in the literature for the McGill Pain Questionnaire.

Adult↗