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

Pragmatic Clinical Trials: A Study Design for Real-World Evidence

Editor's note: This is the 25th article in a series on clinical research by nurses coordinated by the Heilbrunn Family Center for Research Nursing at Rockefeller University. The series is designed to be used as a resource for nurses to understand the concepts and principles essential to research. Each column will present the concepts that underpin evidence-based practice-from research design to data interpretation. To see all the articles in the series, go to https://links.lww.com/AJN/A204.

Clinical Dental Midline Shift Is Not a Predictor of the Side of Shorter Hemimandible: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Diagnostic Study

Background/Objectives: Interincisive midline deviation is frequent. Determining the cause (dental versus skeletal) is crucial for treatment planning. This study assessed the null hypothesis that neither clinical dental midline shift nor the temporomandibular disorder (TMD)-affected side correlate with maxillary/mandibular asymmetry. Methods: Thirty-eight CBCT scans were analyzed: thirty-five (92.1%) females, three (7.9%) males; mean (SD) age 34.6 (11.9) years old. Tomographic images were acquired using the i-CAT® Imaging System; mandibular/maxillary measurements were obtained with the Planmeca Romexis® software v.6.This is an ancillary study of a clinical trial (NCT02144233) that included chronic pain (TMD diagnosis; DC/TMD criteria), fully dentate, and stable normo-occlusion participants. Results: We found sixteen (42.1%) dental midline deviations to the right and thirteen (34.2%) to the left. In the study population, the right side was more developed: a hemimandible length of 119.4 (5.7) mm versus 118.6 (5.3) mm for the right and left sides, respectively (95% CI 0.21 to 1.51), p = 0.01. Conclusions: Neither the dental midline shift side nor the affected side predicted a less developed hemimandible.

Cohort Profile: Baseline Characteristics of Veterans from Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) - an Embedded Pragmatic, Cluster Randomized Trial in the United States

Purpose

AIM-Back is an embedded pragmatic clinical trial (ePCT) with cluster randomization designed to increase access and compare the effectiveness of two different non-pharmacological care pathways for low back pain (LBP) delivered within the Veteran Administration Health Care System (VAHCS). This manuscript describes baseline characteristics of AIM-Back participants as well as the representativeness of those referred to the AIM-Back program by sex, age, race, and ethnicity, relative to Veterans with low back pain at participating clinics.

Participants

To be eligible for AIM-Back, Veterans were referred to the randomized pathway at their clinic by trained primary care providers (Referral cohort). Veterans from the Referral cohort that participated in the study included: 1) an Electronic Health Record (EHR) sample of Veterans enrolled in the program (i.e., attended initial AIM-Back visit with no consent required) and a Survey sample of Veterans that were consented for further study. Descriptive statistics for age, race, ethnicity, sex, high-impact chronic pain (HICP), a comorbidity measure, post-traumatic stress diagnosis (PTSD) and opioid exposure were reported for the Referral cohort and by sample; mean baseline PROMIS pain interference, physical function and sleep disturbance scores were reported by sample. Additional measures of pain, mental health and social risk were reported on the Survey sample. Participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for sex, age, race, and ethnicity by clinic to describe representativeness of the Referral cohort.

Findings to Date

Across 17 randomized primary care clinics, the Referral cohort included 2767 unique Veterans with n=1817 in the EHR sample, n=996 in the Survey sample and n=799 of the EHR sample (44%) were also in the Survey sample. High rates of HICP were observed in the EHR and Survey samples (>59%). Mean scores (SD) based on self-reported PROMIS Pain Interference (63.2 (6.8), 63.1 (6.6)) and PROMIS Physical Function (37.1 (5.3), 38.1 (5.8)) indicated moderate impairment in the EHR sample and Survey sample respectively. Approximately 10% of the EHR sample had documented opioid use in the year leading up to the AIM-Back referral. At most clinics, older Veterans (>=65 years) were underrepresented in the Referral cohort compared to those with LBP visits at clinics (PPRs < 0.8).

Future Plans

The AIM-Back trial will conduct analysis to examine the comparative effectiveness of the two care pathways and identify individual characteristics that may improve responses to each pathway. The trial is expected to complete 12-month follow-up data collection by December 2024, with subsequent analyses and publications providing insights into optimizing non-pharmacological care for Veterans with LBP.

Trial Registration

NCT04411420 (clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

8. Herpes zoster and post herpetic neuralgia

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) report unilateral chronic pain in one or more dermatomes after an acute herpes zoster (HZ) infection. The incidence of acute HZ ranges between three and five patients per 1000 person-years. In one out of four patients, acute HZ-related pain will transition into PHN. PHN can be very disabling for patients and reduce quality of life. Additionally, the treatment of PHN is characterized by high failure rates. The aim of this review is to give an update on the previous practical guideline published in 2011 and revised in 2015 (published in 2019) and to provide an overview of current interventional treatment options for HZ infection and PHN.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of HZ and PHN was systematically reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

The most important treatment for acute HZ-related pain is antiviral therapy within 72 h of symptom onset. Additional symptomatic treatment options are analgesic drugs according to the WHO pain ladder, tricyclic antidepressants (eg, nortriptyline), and antiepileptic drugs (eg, gabapentin). If pain is not sufficiently reduced, interventional treatment such as an epidural injection with local anesthetics and corticosteroids or pulsed radiofrequency of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) are options. Treatment for PHN is preferably transdermal capsaicin, lidocaine, or oral drugs such as antidepressants or antiepileptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of acute HZ-related pain especially PHN is challenging. Besides the conventional treatment for PHN, interventional management is considered a new treatment option. PRF of DRG seems to be the most promising interventional management.

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.

Implementation research: a protocol for two three-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trials on continuous glucose monitoring devices in people with type 1 diabetes in South Africa and Kenya

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of glucose is an essential component of type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. In recent years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has provided an alternative to daily fingerstick testing for the optimisation of insulin dosing and general glucose management in people with T1D. While studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of CGM on clinical outcomes in the US, Europe and Australia, there are limited data available for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and further empirical evidence is needed to inform policy decision around their use in these countries.

METHODS

This trial was designed as a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, three-arm, randomised (1:1:1) controlled trial of continuous or periodic CGM device use versus standard of care in people with T1D in South Africa and Kenya. The primary objective of this trial will be to assess the impact of continuous or periodic CGM device use on glycaemic control as measured by change from baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Additional assessments will include clinical outcomes (glucose variation, time in/below/above range), safety (adverse events, hospitalisations), quality of life (EQ-5D, T1D distress score, Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey for T1D), and health economic measures (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, quality adjusted life years).

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to address the substantial evidence gap on the impact of CGM device use on clinical outcomes in LMICs, specifically South Africa and Kenya. The trial results will provide evidence to inform policy and treatment decisions in these countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05944731 (Kenya), July 6, 2023; NCT05944718 (South Africa), July 13, 2023.

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Placebo analgesia in physical and psychological interventions: Systematic review and meta-analysis of three-armed trials

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of placebo effects from physical and psychological 'sham' is unknown but could impact efficacy trials and treatment understanding. To quantify placebo effects, this systematic review of three-armed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical and psychological interventions for pain compared outcomes in 'sham' control intervention and non-exposure arms.

METHODS

RCTs with treatment, 'sham' control intervention, and non-exposure groups were included, enrolling adults with any pain. A protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42023413324), and twelve databases searched from 2008 to July 2023. Trial methods and blinding were analysed descriptively and risk of bias assessed. Meta-analysis of pain measures at short-, medium- and long-term was performed with random-effects models of standardised mean differences (SMD).Studies were sub-grouped according to control intervention type.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs were included. The average short-term placebo effect was small (0.21 SMD, 0.1-0.33 95% CI, p = 0.0002, 1440 participants). It showed no heterogeneity (Tau2  = 0.1, I2  = 11%, p = 0.3), preventing meta-regression analyses of effect modifiers. However, sub-group analyses revealed larger placebo effects in manual control interventions compared to disabled devices and miscellaneous control interventions. Overall, placebo analgesia accounted for 39% of treatments' short-term effectiveness. No placebo effects were found at medium-term (7 RCTs, 381 participants) or long-term follow-up (3 RCTs, 173 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

The observed placebo analgesia has mechanistic and methodological implications, though its clinical importance may be limited. Control intervention design affects placebo effects, highlighting the importance of considering methodology in RCT interpretation. Review limitations include a small number of long-term studies and sample heterogeneity.

SIGNIFICANCE

This systematic review directly quantifies placebo effects from physical and psychological 'sham' control interventions and compares them to treatments' overall effectiveness. By doing so, the review enhances our understanding of placebo effects, their relative contribution in clinical trials, and their susceptibly to trial design. It poses further questions regarding the influence of blinding, participant expectations, and features of the therapeutic context. Overall, the insights provided by this review carry methodological significance and are important for the interpretation and synthesis of efficacy trials in this field.

Feasibility and acceptability of design and conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial evaluating eVIS as a digital support for physical activity in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs: A randomised pilot study

Background

Patients with chronic pain often struggle to engage in physical activity despite its health benefits. The eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) was developed to support adherence to physical activity plans in Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IPRPs) by visualising activity, pain levels, pain interference, and pharmacological use. This pilot study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of trial design and trial conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial (R-RCT).

Method

This randomised clinical pilot study included the first 10% (n = 39, mean age 43.5, 74.4% females) of the R-RCT sample (n≈400). Participants with non-cancer chronic pain from six IPRP units were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IPRP + eVIS, n = 19) or the control group (IPRP, n = 20). Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated using pre-defined criteria on recruitment- and data collection procedures (e.g., inclusion rates, representativeness, adverse events), physiotherapists' ratings of trial design and conduct (e.g., acceptability, feasibility), and outcome data characteristics and completeness (e.g., adherence, data accessibility).

Results

Recruitment was largely feasible, though attrition differences and the need for refined eligibility screening were noted. Physiotherapists cited time and implementation challenges. Both groups had satisfactory data completeness, but the control group showed lower adherence to daily reporting in the final third of the study. The intervention group had greater improvements in physical health, with 19.5% more participants achieving the minimum clinically important difference (≥3) on the physical component summary scale (PCS). No adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

With minor adjustments, the R-RCT design is mostly feasible, though some challenges to feasibility were identified and addressed.