A Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) for Stepped Care Management of Low Back Pain in the Military Health System: A Trial Protocol

Stepped Care for Patients to Optimize Whole Recovery (SC-POWR): An Effectiveness Trial Evaluating a Stepped Care Model for Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder and Chronic Pain

Many patients who receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) report experiencing chronic pain (CP), which is associated with high levels of ongoing nonmedical opioid use and low retention in OUD treatment. In pilot studies of patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine or methadone who had CP, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) attenuated nonmedical opioid use compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU), but patients in both treatment arms exhibited similar pain improvements. Adding exercise and stress reduction to this model may augment pain-related outcomes. With funding from National Institutes of Health, we plan to conduct a randomized clinical trial of 316 patients with OUD and CP to test the effectiveness of TAU compared with Stepped Care for Patients to Optimize Whole Recovery (SC-POWR) to reduce nonmedical opioid use and pain (primary outcomes) (Aim 1) and decrease pain intensity and interference, alcohol use, anxiety, depression and stress, and improve sleep (secondary outcomes) (Aim 2). Eligible participants will be randomized to receive TAU (buprenorphine or methadone and at least once a month individual or group counseling) or SC-POWR (ie, TAU and up to 12 CBT sessions) for 24 weeks. Based on prespecified nonresponse criteria, SC-POWR may be stepped up at week 6 to receive onsite weekly group sessions of exercise (Wii Fit, Tai Chi) and "stepped up" again at week 15 to receive weekly group sessions of stress reduction (relaxation training, auricular acupuncture). They will be followed for another 24 weeks to evaluate durability of treatment response for illicit opioid use, alcohol use, pain, anxiety, depression, stress, sleep, and retention in medications for OUD (Aim 3).

A Regional Analysis of Low Back Pain Treatments in the Military Health System

STUDY DESIGN

Claims-based analysis of cohorts of TRICARE Prime beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of utilization of 5 low back pain (LBP) treatments (physical therapy (PT), manual therapy, behavioral therapies, opioid, and benzodiazepine prescription) across catchment areas and assess their association with the resolution of LBP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

Guidelines support focusing on nonpharmacologic management for LBP and reducing opioid use. Little is known about patterns of care for LBP across the Military Health System.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Incident LBP diagnoses were identified data using the International Classification of Diseases ninth revision before October 2015 and 10th revision after October 2015; beneficiaries with "red flag" diagnoses and those stationed overseas, eligible for Medicare, or having other health insurance were excluded. After exclusions, there were 159,027 patients remained in the final analytic cohort across 73 catchment areas. Treatment was defined by catchment-level rates of treatment to avoid confounding by indication at the individual level; the primary outcome was the resolution of LBP defined as an absence of administrative claims for LBP during a 6 to 12-month period after the index diagnosis.

RESULTS

Adjusted rates of opioid prescribing across catchment areas ranged from 15% to 28%, physical therapy from 17% to 39%, and manual therapy from 5% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression models showed a negative and marginally significant association between opioid prescriptions and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00; P = 0.051) but no significant association with physical therapy, manual therapy, benzodiazepine prescription, or behavioral therapies. When the analysis was restricted to the subset of only active-duty beneficiaries, there was a stronger negative association between opioid prescription and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial variability across catchment areas within TRICARE for the treatment of LBP. Higher rates of opioid prescription were associated with worse outcomes.

Partner engagement for planning and development of non-pharmacological care pathways in the AIM-Back trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly recommended for non-pharmacological pain care research due to their focus on examining intervention effectiveness within real-world settings. Engagement with patients, health care providers, and other partners is essential, yet there is limited guidance for how to use engagement to meaningfully inform the design of interventions to be tested in pain-related pragmatic clinical trials. This manuscript aims to describe the process and impacts of partner input on the design of two interventions (care pathways) for low back pain currently being tested in an embedded pragmatic trial in the Veterans Affairs health care system.

METHODS

Sequential cohort design for intervention development was followed. Engagement activities were conducted with 25 participants between November 2017 and June 2018. Participants included representatives from multiple groups: clinicians, administrative leadership, patients, and caregivers.

RESULTS

Partner feedback led to several changes in each of the care pathways to improve patient experience and usability. Major changes to the sequenced care pathway included transitioning from telephone-based delivery to a flexible telehealth model, increased specificity about pain modulation activities, and reduction of physical therapy visits. Major changes to the pain navigator pathway included transitioning from a traditional stepped care model to one that offers care in a feedback loop, increased flexibility regarding pain navigator provider type, and increased specificity for patient discharge criteria. Centering patient experience emerged as a key consideration from all partner groups.

CONCLUSION

Diverse input is important to consider before implementing new interventions in embedded pragmatic trials. Partner engagement can increase acceptability of new care pathways to patients and providers and enhance uptake of effective interventions by health systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT#04411420. Registered on 2 June 2020.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Intervention Fidelity in Pain Pragmatic Trials for Nonpharmacologic Pain Management: Nuanced Considerations for Determining PRECIS-2 Flexibility in Delivery and Adherence

Nonpharmacological treatments are considered first-line pain management strategies, but they remain clinically underused. For years, pain-focused pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have generated evidence for the enhanced use of nonpharmacological interventions in routine clinical settings to help overcome implementation barriers. The Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework describes the degree of pragmatism across 9 key domains. Among these, "flexibility in delivery" and "flexibility in adherence," address a key goal of pragmatic research by tailoring approaches to settings in which people receive routine care. However, to maintain scientific and ethical rigor, PCTs must ensure that flexibility features do not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that the results are ethically and scientifically sound. Key principles of achieving this balance include clear definitions of intervention core components, intervention monitoring and documentation that is sufficient but not overly burdensome, provider training that meets the demands of delivering an intervention in real-world settings, and use of an ethical lens to recognize and avoid potential trial futility when necessary and appropriate. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents nuances to be considered when applying the PRECIS-2 framework to describe pragmatic clinical trials. Trials must ensure that patient-centered treatment flexibility does not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that measurement and analysis of treatment effects is reliable.

Get SMART - Understanding Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) have been used to advance treatments for complex problems that lack clearly defined interventions.1,2 Unlike in traditional clinical trials in which participants are randomly assigned to only one intervention or one intervention strategy,3,4 in SMARTs participants are randomly assigned to an intervention at two or more stages of the trial. The adaptive reallocation strategy constructs a tailored or personalized strategy of interventions on the basis of the individuals' responses.5-8 An example of a SMART design is reported in this issue of NEJM Evidence.9.

Perception of lower back pain associated with use of body armor in police officers of the countryside specialized battalion of Ceará, Brazil

Introduction

The strict demands of the military environment, associated with the increase in violence, as well as the frequent use of body armor, can further aggravate health problems.

Objectives

To investigate the perception of police officers of the Countryside Specialized Police Battalion in relation to comfort, fatigue, and lower back pain, resulting from the use of body armor.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted with 260 male military police officers (34.62 ± 5.83 years old) belonging to the ostensive rural police battalion in the state of Ceará, Brazil. The questionnaire related to comfort, fatigue, and lower back pain was used to identify the perception of pain from the use of body armor, with staggered responses, and the results were analyzed using the SPSS 21.0 software.

Results

Regarding the use of body armor, 41.5% of participants perceived it to be little comfortable in general; furthermore, 45 and 47.5% of military police officers considered it little comfortable in relation to weight and use during operational activities, respectively. With regard to body measurements, 48.5% reported being little comfortable, and 70% perceived that the body armor is adjustable to the body. At the end of the work shift, 37.3% complained of lower back pain, and 45.8% felt moderate fatigue. Moreover, 70.1% felt pain in the lower back after the work shift.

Conclusions

Military police officers reported lower back pain at the end and after the work shift due to use of body armor, as well as little comfort of the protective equipment and moderate fatigue at the end of the work shift.

Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture VS neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of chronic low back pain in active-duty personals: A single-center, randomized control study

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent form of chronic pain in active-duty military personnel worldwide. Electroacupuncture (EA) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) are the two most widely used treatment methods in the military, while evidence for their benefits is lacking. The aim of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the effectiveness of EA vs. NMES in reducing pain intensity among active-duty navy personals with chronic LBP.

Methods

The study is designed as a single-center, randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome is a positive categorical response for treatment success in the first-time follow-up, which is predesignated as a two-point or greater decrease in the NRS score and combined with a score > 3 on the treatment satisfaction scale. The secondary outcomes include pain intensity, rate of treatment success, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) score along with muscular performance. The first follow-up starts on the first day after completing the last treatment session, and then the 4-weeks and 12-weeks follow-up are applied via telephone visit.

Results

Eighty-five subjects complete the treatment diagram and are included in the analysis. For the primary outcome, no difference has been found between EA and NMES, with 65.1% (28 in 43) individuals reporting a positive response to EA treatment, while 53.5% (23 in 43) in NMES. However, for longer follow-ups, superiority in positive response of EA has been found in 4-weeks (26 in 39, 66.7% vs. 16 in 40, 40%; P = 0.018) and 12-weeks (24 in 36, 66.7% vs. 12 in 36, 33.3%; P = 0.005) follow-up. In the regression analysis, baseline pain intensity and FABQ score are identified to be highly associated with positive treatment outcomes. Finally, the subgroup analysis suggests that EA treatment is associated with better long-term outcomes in patients with LBP with a severe pain score (NRS score >4, Figure 4B) and stronger fear-avoidance beliefs.

Conclusion

Both the EA and NMES are associated with a positive response in treating military LBP, and the former offers lasting benefits in the later follow-ups. Thus, electroacupuncture is a more recommended treatment for military LBP. A lot of research is needed to verify an efficient and standardized treatment session, with more information and evidence about indications for these treatments.

Trial registration

ChiCTR, (ChiCTR2100043726); registered February 27, 2021.

Challenges With Engaging Military Stakeholders for Clinical Research at the Point of Care in the U.S. Military Health System

The DoD has a specific mission that creates unique challenges for the conduct of clinical research. These unique challenges include (1) the fact that medical readiness is the number one priority, (2) understanding the role of military culture, and (3) understanding the highly transient flow of operations. Appropriate engagement with key stakeholders at the point of care, where research activities are executed, can mean the difference between success and failure. These key stakeholders include the beneficiaries of the study intervention (patients), clinicians delivering the care, and the military and clinic leadership of both. Challenges to recruitment into research studies include military training, temporary duty, and deployments that can disrupt availability for participation. Seeking medical care is still stigmatized in some military settings. Uniformed personnel, including clinicians, patients, and leaders, are constantly changing, often relocating every 2-4 years, limiting their ability to support clinical trials in this setting which often take 5-7 years to plan and execute. When relevant stakeholders are constantly changing, keeping them engaged becomes an enduring priority. Military leaders are driven by the ability to meet the demands of the assigned mission (readiness). Command endorsement and support are critical for service members to participate in stakeholder engagement panels or clinical trials offering novel treatments. To translate science into relevant practice within the Military Health System, early engagement with key stakeholders at the point of care and addressing mission-relevant factors is critical for success.

Move to health-a holistic approach to the management of chronic low back pain: an intervention and implementation protocol developed for a pragmatic clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of chronic pain conditions is growing. Low back pain was the primary cause of disability worldwide out of 156 conditions assessed between 1990 and 2016, according to the Global Burden of Disease Study. Conventional medical approaches have failed to identify effective and long-lasting approaches for the management of chronic pain, and often fail to consider the multiple domains that influence overall health and can contribute to the pain experience. Leading international organizations that focus on pain research have stated the importance of considering these other domains within holistic and multidisciplinary frameworks for treating pain. While the research behind the theoretical link between these domains and chronic pain outcomes has expanded greatly over the last decade, there have been few practical and feasible methods to implement this type of care in normal clinical practice.

METHODS

The purpose of this manuscript is to describe an implementation protocol that is being used to deliver a complex holistic health intervention at multiple sites within a large government health system, as part of a larger multisite trial for patients with chronic low back pain. The Move to Health program developed by the US Army Medical Command was tailored for specific application to patients with low back pain and begins by providing an empirical link between eight different health domains (that include physical, emotional, social, and psychological constructs) and chronic low back pain. Through a six-step process, a health coach leverages motivational interviewing and information from a personal health inventory to guide the patient through a series of conversations about behavioral lifestyle choices. The patient chooses which domains they want to prioritize, and the health coach helps implement the plan with the use of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals and a series of resources for every domain, triaged from self-management to specialist referral.

DISCUSSION

Complex interventions described in clinical trials are often challenging to implement because they lack sufficient details. Implementation protocols can improve the ability to properly deliver trial interventions into regular clinical practice with increased fidelity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Implementation of this intervention protocol was developed for a clinical trial that was registered a priori (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT04172038).