Pragmatic trials of pain therapies: a systematic review of methods

Investigating started sample size, completed sample size and drop-out rate in 10 252 phase III clinical trials: Insights from ClinicalTrials.gov

AIMS

This study investigated the started sample size, completed sample size and drop-out rate of 10 252 published and unpublished phase III clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov over the past 20 years.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search on ClinicalTrials.gov for all phase III clinical trials with registered results before 26 May 2023. We retrieved and downloaded 10 252, which covered a period of more than 20 years.

RESULTS

Out of the 10 252 trials analysed, 889 (8.7%) were sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health/US Federal agencies (NIH/US Fed), 8429 (82.2%) were sponsored by industry. The overall median started sample size was 302. The overall median completed sample size was 228. The median completed sample sizes were 258 for industry-sponsored trials, and 194 for NIH/US Fed-sponsored trials. The median completed sample sizes were 321 for biological interventions and 223 for drug interventions. The overall median drop-out rate was 11%. Statistically significant differences were observed in sample sizes between industry-sponsored trials and NIH/US Fed-sponsored trials (P < 0.0001). Neither the started sample sizes nor the completed sample sizes have shown any change over the course of the past 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that a majority of the analysed trials lack sufficient statistical power (80%) to detect small effect sizes, and approximately half of the trials did not have 80% power to detect medium effect sizes. Notably, trials funded by NIH/US Fed exhibit significantly smaller sample sizes compared to trials sponsored by industry. When conducting sample size calculations for clinical trials, it is crucial to consider the anticipated effect size, variability and drop-out rate.

Pharmacological interventions for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: disparity between synthesized evidence and real-world clinical practice

Introduction

Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain (CPMP) poses a major problem of public health, with high prevalence rates and economic burden. There is a wealth of clinical trials examining pharmacological interventions for patients with CPMP. Nevertheless, evidence from such trials does not necessarily mirror clinical realities.

Objectives

We aimed to compare data sets from a clinical sample with an randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based sample.

Methods

Both data sets included participants living with CPMP who received pharmacological interventions. The clinical sample was retrieved from electronic health records. The RCT-based sample stemmed from a network meta-analysis project. The following outcomes were used: demographic information, diagnosis-specific data, and pharmacological interventions (categorized according to the World Health Organization [WHO] analgesic ladder).

Results

The clinical sample consisted of 103 patients (mean age: 50.25 years; SD: 14.0) and the RCT-based samples contributed 8665 participants (mean age: 51.97 years; SD: 6.74). In both samples, the proportion of women was higher than that of men (ie, 74.8% vs 58.9%). Psychiatric disorders were the most common comorbidities in the clinic sample but also the most frequent reason for patient exclusion in RCTs. The 2 samples differed significantly in medication classified as WHO III (clinical sample: 12.9%; RCT sample: 23.5%; P = 0.023) and WHO IV (clinical sample: 23.4%; RCT sample: 8.6%; P < 0.001), yet not WHO I and II.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest a disparity between research-based study populations and clinical populations with CPMP. We advocate for future investigations on how to implement robust scientific evidence into real-world clinical practice, with a particular focus on addressing psychiatric comorbidities.

Comments, suggestions, and criticisms of the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 design tool: a citation analysis

INTRODUCTION

The pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) tool, initially published in 2009 and revised in 2015, was created to assist trialists to align their design choices with the intended purpose of their randomised controlled trial (RCT): either to guide real-world decisions between alternative interventions (pragmatic) or to test hypotheses about intervention mechanisms by minimising sources of variation (explanatory). There have been many comments, suggestions, and criticisms of PRECIS-2. This summary will be used to facilitate the development of to the next revision, which is PRECIS-3.

METHODS

We used Web of Science to identify all publication types citing PRECIS-2, published between May 2015 and July 2023. Citations were eligible if they contained 'substantive' suggestions, comments, or criticism of the PRECIS-2 tool. We defined 'substantive' as comments explicitly referencing at least one PRECIS-2 domain or a concept directly linked to an existing or newly proposed domain. Two reviewers independently extracted comments, suggestions, and criticisms, noting their implications for the update. These were discussed among authors to achieve consensus on the interpretation of each comment and its implications for PRECIS-3.

RESULTS

The search yielded 885 publications, and after full-text review, 89 articles met the inclusion criteria. Comments pertained to new domains, changes in existing domains, or were relevant across several or all domains. Proposed new domains included assessment of the comparator arm and a domain to describe blinding. There were concerns about scoring eligibility and recruitment domains for cluster trials. Suggested areas for improvement across domains included the need for more scoring guidance for explanatory design choices.

DISCUSSION

Published comments recognise PRECIS-2's success in aiding trialists with pragmatic or explanatory design choices. Enhancing its implementation and widespread use will involve adding new domains, refining domain definitions, and addressing overall tool issues. This citation review offers valuable user feedback, pivotal for shaping the upcoming version of the PRECIS tool, PRECIS-3.

Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials are getting more interest to improve trials' external validity. This study aimed to assess how pragmatic the design of the self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field is.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field until January 2024 were included. Two independent reviewers collected and extracted data related to the intention of the trial, the rationale for the intervention, and specific features of the trial and performed an assessment using the PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 39 self-labelled pragmatic trials, the mean PRECIS-2 score was 3.5 (SD: 0.6). Choice of outcome measures, how the interventions were performed, the follow-up of the participants and how all the available data were included in the statistical analysis were the domains rated as most 'pragmatic'. Participants' eligibility, recruitment, and setting obtained lower scores. Less than 25% of the trials claimed that the aim was to investigate an intervention under real-world conditions and to make clinical decisions about its effectiveness. In the 21% of the sample the authors described neither the proof-of-concept of the intervention nor the state of previous studies addressing related research questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials showed a moderately pragmatic attitude. Beyond the label 'pragmatic', the description of the intention of the trial and the context of every PRECIS-2 domain is crucial to understanding the real pragmatism of a trial.

How initial perceptions of the effectiveness of mind and body complementary and integrative health therapies influence long-term adherence in a pragmatic trial

OBJECTIVE

Beliefs and perceptions about pain intervention effectiveness when initiating a therapy may influence long-term engagement. This study examines how early perceived effectiveness of complementary and integrative health therapies impacts long-term engagement in a pragmatic trial context.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain participating in a pragmatic trial of provider-delivered complementary and integrative health therapies (acupuncture, chiropractic care, or massage therapy) used alone compared to combining those therapies with self-care therapies (yoga, Tai Chi/Qigong, or meditation). This analysis focuses on 1713 participants using self-care therapies at baseline.

SETTING

18 Veterans Healthcare Administration Medical Facilities.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Predictors of total self-care complementary and integrative health therapy sessions over a 6-month assessment period were assessed using linear regression to determine how strongly perceptions of initial therapy effectiveness was associated with total utilization. Perception of initial therapy effectiveness was assessed at study entry across four domains (pain, mental health, fatigue, and general well-being).

RESULTS

In total, 56% (1032/1713) of Veterans reported a positive perceived effectiveness of their recent complementary and integrative health therapy use at study initiation. Older individuals and those using meditation were more likely to report early positive perceptions. Mean number of therapy sessions over the 6-month study was 11 (range 1 to 168). Early positive perceptions had a small effect on overall use, increasing mean sessions by 2.5 (1.3 to 3.6). Other factors such as recent physical therapy use and distance to primary care explained more variation in total utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatic pain trials should examine factors associated with engagement across assigned treatment protocols, especially if any of the treatment protocols being tested are sensitive to long-term engagement.

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Fidelity to the acupuncture intervention protocol in the ACUpuncture In The EmergencY department for pain management (ACUITY) trial: Expanding the gold standard of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines

Background

Acupuncture shows promise as an effective nonpharmacologic option for reduction of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). Following CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally report intervention details and acupoint options, but fidelity to acupuncture interventions, critical to reliability in intervention research, is rarely reported.

Methods

ACUITY is an NCCIH-funded, multi-site feasibility RCT of acupuncture in 3 EDs (Cleveland, Nashville, and San Diego). ACUITY acupuncturists were trained in study design, responsive acupuncture manualization protocol, logistics and real-time recording of session details via REDCap forms created to track fidelity.

Results

Across 3 recruiting sites, 79 participants received acupuncture: 51 % women, 43 % Black/African American, with heterogeneous acute pain sites at baseline: 32 % low back, 22 % extremity, 20 % abdominal, 10 % head. Pragmatically, participants were treated in ED common areas (52 %), private rooms (39 %), and semi-private rooms (9 %). Objective tracking found 98 % adherence to the six components of the acupuncture manualization protocol: staging, number of insertion points (M = 13.2, range 2-22), needle retention time (M = 23.5 min, range 4-52), session length (M = 40.3 min, range 20-66), whether general recommendations were provided and completion of the session form.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to assess and report fidelity to an acupuncture protocol. Fidelity monitoring will be fundamental for ACUITY2, which would be a future definitive, multi-site RCT. Furthermore, we recommend that fidelity to acupuncture interventions be added to CONSORT and STRICTA reporting guidelines in future RCTs.

Protocol registration

The protocol of this study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04880733.

Telehealth delivery of physical therapist-led interventions for persons with chronic low back pain in underserved communities: lessons from pragmatic clinical trials

In this perspective, we present our experience developing and conducting two pragmatic clinical trials investigating physical therapist-led telehealth strategies for persons with chronic low back pain. Both trials, the BeatPain Utah and AIM-Back trials, are part of pragmatic clinical trial collaboratories and are being conducted with persons from communities that experience pain management disparities. Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic care, and advise against opioid therapy, for the primary care management of persons with chronic low back pain. Gaps between these recommendations and actual practice patterns are pervasive, particularly for persons from racial or ethnic minoritized communities, those with fewer economic resources, and those living in rural areas including Veterans. Access barriers to evidence-based nonpharmacologic care, which is often provided by physical therapists, have contributed to these evidence-practice gaps. Telehealth delivery has created new opportunities to overcome access barriers for nonpharmacologic pain care. As a relatively new delivery mode however, telehealth delivery of physical therapy comes with additional challenges related to technology, intervention adaptations and cultural competence. The purpose of this article is to describe the challenges encountered when implementing telehealth physical therapy programs for persons with chronic low back pain in historically underserved communities. We also discuss strategies developed to overcome barriers in an effort to improve access to telehealth physical therapy and reduce pain management disparities. Inclusion of diverse and under-represented communities in pragmatic clinical trials is a critical consideration for improving disparities, but the unique circumstances present in these communities must be considered when developing implementation strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with ACUTE sciatica: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.

RESULTS

None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

The Incidence of Residual Neuromuscular Block in Pediatrics: A Prospective, Pragmatic, Multi-institutional Cohort Study

Introduction Residual neuromuscular block, defined as a quantitatively measured train-of-four ratio (TOFr) <0.9, is common postoperatively. Using a pragmatic trial design, we hypothesized that qualitative and/or clinical assessment of neuromuscular block would inadequately detect residual block following antagonism with neostigmine or sugammadex. Method After IRB approval and written informed consent, 74 children (aged 2-17 years), undergoing elective surgery and receiving rocuronium, were prospectively enrolled in the study at Children's Hospital Colorado and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. Routine clinical practice at both institutions consisted of clinical signs and/or qualitative assessment with peripheral nerve stimulators. Children at the Colorado hospital routinely received sugammadex antagonism; whereas children at the Atlanta hospital received neostigmine. Residual neuromuscular block was assessed postoperatively using quantitative electromyography. If TOFr was <0.9, patients received sugammadex until TOFr ≥0.9. Result Qualitative and clinical assessment failed to detect residual block in 29.7% of patients in the neostigmine reversal cohort (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 29.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7 to 5,559.5, p-value = 0.002). No residual block was detected in the sugammadex reversal cohort. A correlation between increasing patient weight and incidence of postoperative residual block was observed in the neostigmine cohort (aOR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.10, p-value = 0.002). Conclusion Qualitative and/or clinical assessment of neuromuscular block inadequately detects residual block following neostigmine antagonism.

SOMAScience: A Novel Platform for Multidimensional, Longitudinal Pain Assessment

Chronic pain is one of the most significant health issues in the United States, affecting more than 20% of the population. Despite its contribution to the increasing health crisis, reliable predictors of disease development, progression, or treatment outcomes are lacking. Self-report remains the most effective way to assess pain, but measures are often acquired in sparse settings over short time windows, limiting their predictive ability. In this paper, we present a new mobile health platform called SOMAScience. SOMAScience serves as an easy-to-use research tool for scientists and clinicians, enabling the collection of large-scale pain datasets in single- and multicenter studies by facilitating the acquisition, transfer, and analysis of longitudinal, multidimensional, self-report pain data. Data acquisition for SOMAScience is done through a user-friendly smartphone app, SOMA, that uses experience sampling methodology to capture momentary and daily assessments of pain intensity, unpleasantness, interference, location, mood, activities, and predictions about the next day that provide personal insights into daily pain dynamics. The visualization of data and its trends over time is meant to empower individual users' self-management of their pain. This paper outlines the scientific, clinical, technological, and user considerations involved in the development of SOMAScience and how it can be used in clinical studies or for pain self-management purposes. Our goal is for SOMAScience to provide a much-needed platform for individual users to gain insight into the multidimensional features of their pain while lowering the barrier for researchers and clinicians to obtain the type of pain data that will ultimately lead to improved prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic pain.

Trials Investigating Exercise for Low Back Pain Lack Pragmatic Application: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the orientation of trials analyzing exercise for low back pain (LBP) on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for trials published between January 1, 2010, and August 13, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials investigating exercise for adults with LBP.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to determine the efficacy-effectiveness orientation. The same 2 reviewers assessed the risk of bias for all studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias 2.0 tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified 2975 records. Full-text review was conducted on 674 studies, and 159 studies were included. The proportion of trials with a strong or rather strong efficacy orientation (RITES rating=1 or 2), balanced emphasis (RITES rating=3), or strong or rather strong effectiveness (RITES rating=4 or 5) orientation on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum within each RITES domain were reported. A greater proportion of trials had an efficacy orientation when compared with effectiveness or a balanced emphasis within 4 domains: participant characteristics: efficacy 43.9%, 41.9% effectiveness, balanced 14.5%; trial setting: 69.0% efficacy, effectiveness 15.8% balanced 15.2%; flexibility of interventions: 74.2% efficacy, effectiveness 8.8%, balanced 17.0%; clinical relevance of experimental and comparison interventions: 50.3% efficacy, 33.3% effectiveness 33.3%, balanced 16.4%. A high risk of bias was found in 42.1% (n=67) of trials.

CONCLUSION

Trials investigating the effect of exercise for LBP have a greater orientation toward efficacy across multiple trial design domains. Researchers should consider pragmatic designs in future trials to improve generalizability. Clinicians should consider the efficacy-effectiveness orientation when translating evidence into clinical practice.

Analysis of pain research literature through keyword Co-occurrence networks

Pain is a significant public health problem as the number of individuals with a history of pain globally keeps growing. In response, many synergistic research areas have been coming together to address pain-related issues. This work reviews and analyzes a vast body of pain-related literature using the keyword co-occurrence network (KCN) methodology. In this method, a set of KCNs is constructed by treating keywords as nodes and the co-occurrence of keywords as links between the nodes. Since keywords represent the knowledge components of research articles, analysis of KCNs will reveal the knowledge structure and research trends in the literature. This study extracted and analyzed keywords from 264,560 pain-related research articles indexed in IEEE, PubMed, Engineering Village, and Web of Science published between 2002 and 2021. We observed rapid growth in pain literature in the last two decades: the number of articles has grown nearly threefold, and the number of keywords has grown by a factor of 7. We identified emerging and declining research trends in sensors/methods, biomedical, and treatment tracks. We also extracted the most frequently co-occurring keyword pairs and clusters to help researchers recognize the synergies among different pain-related topics.

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.

Analysis of the characteristics and the degree of pragmatism exhibited by pragmatic-labelled trials of antineoplastic treatments

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified.

METHODS

We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57-3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature.

CONCLUSION

PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

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.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article II): a meta-analysis relating methods to trial results

ABSTRACT

Sham interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of physical, psychological, and self-management (PPS) therapies for pain are highly variable in design and believed to contribute to poor internal validity. However, it has not been formally tested whether the extent to which sham controls resemble the treatment under investigation consistently affects trial outcomes, such as effect sizes, differential attrition, participant expectancy, and blinding effectiveness. Placebo- or sham-controlled RCTs of PPS interventions of clinical pain populations were searched in 12 databases. The similarity of control interventions to the experimental treatment was rated across 25 features. Meta-regression analyses assessed putative links between employed control interventions, observed effect sizes in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding success. The sample included 198 unique control interventions, dominated by manual therapy and chronic musculoskeletal pain research. Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate benefits of active treatments over control interventions, across subgroups of manual therapies, exercise, and rehabilitation, and psychological intervention trials. Multiple meta-regression modelling demonstrated that similarity between sham control and tested interventions predicted variability in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding effectiveness. Influential variables were differences relating to the extent of intervention exposure, participant experience, and treatment environments. The results support the supposed link between blinding methods and effect sizes, based on a large and systematically sourced overview of methods. However, challenges to effective blinding are complex and often difficult to discern from trial reports. Nonetheless, these insights have the potential to change trial design, conduct, and reporting and will inform guideline development.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article I): a systematic review and description of methods

ABSTRACT

Blinding is challenging in randomised controlled trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies for pain, mainly because of their complex and participatory nature. To develop standards for the design, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials, a systematic overview of currently used sham interventions and other blinding methods was required. Twelve databases were searched for placebo or sham-controlled randomised clinical trials of physical, psychological, and self-management treatments in a clinical pain population. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and trial features, description of control methods, and their similarity to the active intervention under investigation were extracted (protocol registration ID: CRD42020206590). The review included 198 unique control interventions, published between 2008 and December 2021. Most trials studied people with chronic pain, and more than half were manual therapy trials. The described control interventions ranged from clearly modelled based on the active treatment to largely dissimilar control interventions. Similarity between control and active interventions was more frequent for certain aspects (eg, duration and frequency of treatments) than others (eg, physical treatment procedures and patient sensory experiences). We also provide an overview of additional, potentially useful methods to enhance blinding, as well as the reporting of processes involved in developing control interventions. A comprehensive picture of prevalent blinding methods is provided, including a detailed assessment of the resemblance between active and control interventions. These findings can inform future developments of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials and best-practice recommendations.

A Clinically-Reasoned Approach to Manual Therapy in Sports Physical Therapy

Symptom modification techniques have been recently dichotomously labeled as either passive or active therapies. Active therapy such as exercise has been rightfully advocated for while "passive" therapies, mainly manual therapy have been regarded as low value within the physical therapy treatment spectrum. In sporting environments where physical activity and exercise are inherent to the athletic experience, the utilization of exercise-only strategies to manage pain and injury can be challenging when considering the demands and qualities of a sporting career which include chronically high internal and external workloads. Participation may be impacted by pain and its influence on related factors such as training and competition performance, career length, financial earning potential, educational opportunity, social pressures, influence of family, friends, and other key stakeholders of their athletic activity. Though highly polarizing viewpoints regarding different therapies create black and white "sides," a pragmatic gray area regarding manual therapy exists in which proper clinical reasoning can serve to improve athlete pain and injury management. This gray area includes both historic positive reported short-term outcomes and negative historical biomechanical underpinnings that have created unfounded dogma and inappropriate overutilization. Applying symptom modification strategies to safely allow the continuation of sport and exercise requires critical thinking utilizing not only the evidence-base, but also the multi-factorial nature of sports participation and pain management. Given the risks associated with pharmacological pain management, the cost of passive modalities like biophysical agents (electrical stimulation, photobiomodulation, ultrasound, etc), and the indications from the evidence-base when combined with active therapies, manual therapy can be a safe and effective treatment strategy to keep athletes active.

Level of Evidence

5.

Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice

The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies.

Yoga Plus Mantram Repetition to Reduce Chronic Pain in Veterans With Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Feasibility Trial

Background

Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report chronic pain than veterans without PTSD. Yoga has been shown to reduce both chronic pain and PTSD symptoms in clinical trials. The goal of our study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that combined yoga and mantram repetition (Yoga + MR) into one program for military veterans with both chronic pain and PTSD.

Methods

In this feasibility RCT, 27 veterans were randomized to either Yoga + MR or a relaxation intervention. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person recruitment, assessments, and intervention attendance were re-evaluated. Although remote delivery of aspects of the study were utilized, interventions were delivered in-person. Feasibility benchmarks met included full recruitment in 12 months or less, 75%+ retention at initial follow-up assessment, 50%+ attendance rate, and 75%+ of participants satisfied with the interventions.

Results

The sample was racially and ethnically diverse, and 15% of participants were women. Participant recruitment lasted approximately 11 months. Out of 32 participants initially randomized, two participants asked to be dropped from the study and three did not meet PTSD symptom criteria. For the remaining 27 participants, retention rates were 85% at 12 weeks and 81% at 18 weeks. Participants attended 66% of in-person yoga and 55% of in-person relaxation sessions. Satisfaction was high, with 100% of yoga participants and 75%/88% of relaxation participants agreeing or strongly agreeing they were satisfied with the intervention/instructors. After 12 weeks (end of intervention), Yoga + MR participants reported reduced back-pain related disability (primary outcome), reduced alcohol use, reduced fatigue, and increased quality of life, while relaxation group participants reported reductions in pain severity, PTSD symptoms, and fatigue.

Conclusions

Amidst many research challenges during the pandemic, recruitment, retention, and efficacy results from this feasibility trial support advancement to a larger RCT to study Yoga + MR for chronic pain and PTSD.

Recruitment and retention for chronic pain clinical trials: a narrative review

Opioid misuse is at a crisis level. In response to this epidemic, the National Institutes of Health has funded $945 million in research through the Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Pain Management Initiative, including funding to the Vanderbilt Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC) to strategize methods to catalyze participant recruitment. The RIC, recognizing the challenges presented to clinical researchers in recruiting individuals experiencing pain, conducted a review of evidence in the literature on successful participant recruitment methods for chronic pain trials, in preparation for supporting the HEAL Pain trials. Study design as it affects recruitment was reviewed, with issues such as sufficient sample size, impact of placebo, pain symptom instability, and cohort characterization being identified as problems. Potential solutions found in the literature include targeted electronic health record phenotyping, use of alternative study designs, and greater clinician education and involvement. For retention, the literature reports successful strategies that include maintaining a supportive staff, allowing virtual study visits, and providing treatment flexibility within the trial. Community input on study design to identify potential obstacles to recruitment and retention was found to help investigators avoid pitfalls and enhance trust, especially when recruiting underrepresented minority populations. Our report concludes with a description of generalizable resources the RIC has developed or adapted to enhance recruitment and retention in the HEAL Pain studies. These resources include, among others, a Recruitment and Retention Plan Template, a Competing Trials Tool, and MyCap, a mobile research application that interfaces with Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap).

The need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular clinical trials

The majority of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) test interventions in selected patient populations under explicitly protocol-defined settings. Although these ‘explanatory’ trial designs optimize conditions to test the efficacy and safety of an intervention, they limit the generalizability of trial findings in broader clinical settings. The concept of ‘pragmatism’ in RCTs addresses this concern by providing counterbalance to the more idealized situation underpinning explanatory RCTs and optimizing effectiveness over efficacy. The central tenets of pragmatism in RCTs are to test interventions in routine clinical settings, with patients who are representative of broad clinical practice, and to reduce the burden on investigators and participants by minimizing the number of trial visits and the intensity of trial-based testing. Pragmatic evaluation of interventions is particularly important in cardiovascular diseases, where the risk of death among patients has remained fairly stable over the past few decades despite the development of new therapeutic interventions. Pragmatic RCTs can help to reveal the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and elucidate barriers to their implementation. In this Review, we discuss the attributes of pragmatism in RCT design, conduct and interpretation as well as the general need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular RCTs. We also summarize current challenges and potential solutions to the implementation of pragmatism in RCTs and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs with pragmatic trial designs.

In this Review, Khan and colleagues discuss the benefits and challenges of including pragmatism in the design, conduct and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cardiovascular disease and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs that incorporate a pragmatic design.

Most cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to date have been ‘explanatory’, that is, designed to study the intervention in optimized conditions with selected patient populations and frequent protocolized assessments.

Although explanatory RCT designs increase validity, they limit the generalizability of trial findings, whereas a ‘pragmatic’ approach to RCTs yields findings more relevant to real-world practice.

In pragmatic RCTs, interventions are tested in patients who are broadly representative of the condition being studied, and the study is aligned with routine clinical care to reduce costs and organizational burden.

Although pragmatic RCTs tend to attenuate estimates of treatment effects, they do provide a more realistic understanding of population-level effectiveness and costs than explanatory trials.

Pragmatic trials can highlight barriers to the implementation of therapies and are better suited than explanatory RCTs to assessing the effects of implementation strategies and health-care policies at the population level.

Widespread implementation of pragmatic trials would require the development of technological infrastructure to collect and share data as well as regulatory guidelines amenable to findings derived from routinely collected data.

Applying the PRECIS-2 tool for self-declared 'pragmatic' acupuncture trials: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The pragmatic design has received much attention in the field of acupuncture clinical trials because of insufficient information about the specific effects of acupuncture. However, pragmatism in pragmatic acupuncture trials has not been comprehensively investigated. The PRECIS-2 tool was developed and has been gradually used to design pragmatic trials; therefore, we will apply the PRECIS-2 tool to investigate the pragmatism of pragmatic acupuncture trials in this study.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this systematic review, self-declared 'pragmatic' randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or protocols of self-declared 'pragmatic' RCTs investigating acupuncture will be searched and included to be reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, WANFANG, Taiwan Periodical Literature Database, KoreaMed, KMbase, Research Information Service System, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System, CiNii and ClinicalTrials.gov for registered trials will be electronically searched from inception to March 2022. Protocols of published RCTs or secondary analysis of RCTs will be excluded. Additionally, no language restriction will be applied. Two authors will independently extract descriptive information and assess the pragmatism of pragmatic acupuncture trials using nine domains of the PRECIS-2 tool and one additional domain-control. Descriptive statistics will be reported for each domain and the overall score, and a one-sample t-test will be used to statistically analyse whether the score is greater than 3 (equally pragmatic and explanatory). The wheel diagrams of the nine domains of the PRECIS-2 tool will be used to demonstrate the pragmatism of the included studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not warranted as this study will obtain data from previously reported articles. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236975.

EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology

Background

Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias.

Objectives

To develop European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.

Methods

The PtC were developed using a three-step process according to the EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. Based on a systematic review of methods currently used in comparative effectiveness studies, the PtC were formulated through two in-person meetings of a multidisciplinary task force and a two-round online Delphi, using expert opinion and a simulation study. Finally, feedback from a larger audience was used to refine the PtC. Mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated.

Results

Three overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated, addressing, in particular, potential biases relating to attrition or confounding by indication. Building on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, these PtC insist on the definition of the baseline for analysis and treatment effectiveness. They also focus on the reasons for stopping treatment as an important consideration when assessing effectiveness. Finally, the PtC recommend providing key information on missingness patterns.

Conclusion

To improve the reliability of an increasing number of real-world comparative effectiveness studies in rheumatology, special attention is required to reduce potential biases. Adherence to clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of observational comparative effectiveness studies will improve the trustworthiness of their results.