A Primary Care-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Long-Term Opioid Users With Chronic Pain : A Randomized Pragmatic Trial

Psychological treatments for comorbid chronic pain and opioid use disorder: Current research and future directions

Chronic pain and opioid use disorder cause significant social, physical, and economic burdens on individuals and society. Historically, chronic pain and opioid use disorder have been treated individually, yet they often are comorbid conditions and treatment targeting both concurrently might improve outcomes. This article reviewed psychological treatment approaches for comorbid chronic pain and opioid use disorder. Treatments were classified as cognitive behavioral therapy-based, mindfulness-based, or integrated treatments. Treatments were primarily delivered in-person other than a cognitive behavioral digital health approach. Mindfulness-based and integrated interventions demonstrated the best outcomes. Given the significant public health burden from comorbid chronic pain and opioid use disorder, there is an urgent need for increased research and implementation of psychological treatments for these conditions.

Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Alternative care models seek to improve the quality or efficiency of care, or both, and thus optimise patient health outcomes. They provide the same health care but change how, when, where, or by whom health care is delivered and co-ordinated. Examples include care delivered via telemedicine versus in-person care or care delivered to groups versus individual patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of alternative models of evidenced-based care for people with non-specific low back pain on the quality of care and patient self-reported outcomes and to summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of these alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 14 June 2024, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing alternative care models to usual care or other care models. Eligible trials had to investigate care models that changed at least one domain of the Cochrane EPOC delivery arrangement taxonomy and provide the same care as the comparator arm. Participants were individuals with non-specific low back pain, regardless of symptom duration. Main outcomes were quality of care (referral for/receipt of lumbar spine imaging, prescription/use of opioids, referral to a surgeon/lumbar spine surgery, admission to hospital for back pain), patient health outcomes (pain, back-related function), and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was alternative models of care versus usual care at closest follow-up to 12 months.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-seven trials (29,578 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Trials were primarily set within primary care (18 trials) or physiotherapy practices (15 trials) in high-income countries (51 trials). Forty-eight trials compared alternative models of care to usual care. There was substantial clinical diversity across alternative care models. Alternative care models most commonly differed from usual care by altering the co-ordination/management of care processes (18 trials), or by utilising information and communication technology (10 trials). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models probably result in little difference in referral for or receipt of any lumbar spine imaging at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.98; I2 = 2%; 18 trials, 16,157 participants). In usual care, 232/1000 people received lumbar spine imaging compared to 213/1000 people who received alternative care models. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternative care models probably result in little or no difference in the prescription or use of opioid medication at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 13,185 participants). In usual care, 349 out of 1000 people used opioid medication compared to 332 out of 1000 people in alternative care models. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). We are uncertain if alternative care models alter referral for or use of lumbar spine surgery at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence was very low (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 4189 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to very serious imprecision (wide CIs) and serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). We are uncertain if alternative care models alter hospital admissions for non-specific low back pain at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care as the certainty of evidence was very low (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; I2 = 8%; 12 trials, 10,485 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement), serious publication bias (asymmetry of results), minor imprecision (wide CIs), and minor risk of bias (blinding of participants/personnel). High-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models result in a small but clinically unimportant improvement in pain on a 0 to 10 scale (mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.05; I2 = 68%; 36 trials, 9403 participants). Mean pain at follow-up closest to 12 months was 2.4 points on a 0 to 10 rating scale (lower score indicates less pain) with usual care compared to 2.2 points with alternative care models, a difference of 0.2 points better (95% CI 0.4 better to 0.0 better; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 0.5 to 1.5 points). High-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models result in a small, clinically unimportant improvement in back-related function compared with usual care (standardised mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; I2 = 66%; 44 trials, 13,688 participants). Mean back-related function at follow-up closest to 12 months was 6.4 points on a 0 to 24 rating scale (lower score indicates less disability) with usual care compared to 5.7 points with alternative care models, a difference of 0.7 points better (95% CI 1.2 better to 0.2 better; MCID 1.5 to 2.5 points). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence was very low (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 43%; 10 trials, 2880 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to serious risk of bias (blinding of participants/personnel), serious indirectness (variation in assumed risk), and serious inconsistency (substantial between-study heterogeneity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative care models for non-specific low back pain probably lead to little or no difference in the quality of care and result in small but clinically unimportant improvements in pain and back-related function. Whether alternative care models result in a difference in total adverse events compared to usual care remains unresolved.

Management of patients at risk of harms from both continuing and discontinuing their long-term opioid therapy: A qualitative study to inform the gap in clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Although long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain has declined, it remains common in the U.S. Providers do not have clinical practice guidelines for vulnerable LTOT patients, in whom both LTOT continuation and tapering to discontinuation pose risks of harm and in whom opioid use disorder (OUD) is absent.

METHODS

To begin to meet the gap in guidelines, the study used a multiple case study approach. Five cases were constructed to systematically vary key elements of LTOT continuation and discontinuation harms among patients reporting LTOT's lack of efficacy (experience of pain and poor function). For each, treatment approaches were collected from 28 opioid safety experts identified through their participation in a national policy panel (19 were physicians) and analyzed using template analysis.

RESULTS

For patients receiving LTOT with harms of continuation and discontinuation, experts recommended attempting a slow taper (even with a prior unsuccessful taper, possibly with adjuvant medications to manage withdrawal) and not maintaining opioid therapy. Experts considered switching to buprenorphine, especially if the patient had aberrant behaviors. They also considered adding non-opioid pain therapies (especially re-trying such therapies if they were unhelpful before) and engaging in shared decisionmaking, although with little consensus on specific approaches. Some experts would address co-occurring conditions related to patient safety (alcohol use, mental health symptoms, opioid side effects). Few experts referenced assessing or addressing OUD or overdose risk. In quantitative data, 36% of experts agreed LTOT is beneficial, 36% agreed most LTOT patients should be discontinued, and 57% agreed patients experience harm from tapering and from discontinuation.

DISCUSSION

Evidence is needed to build on and test these experts' recommendations to attempt tapering and add non-opioid pain therapies for patients reporting harms of continued LTOT who may experience harms from tapering. Such evidence informs the development of clinical practice guidelines that provide comprehensive protocols to support the safety and functioning of this group of patients.

Making Pragmatic Clinical Trials More Pragmatic

This Viewpoint discusses pragmatic trials and their role in developing knowledge that can be broadly applicable throughout the health care system.

Decision Support and Behavioral Health for Reducing High-Dose Opioids in Comorbid Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

High prevalence of depression or anxiety with opioid use for chronic pain complicates co-management and may influence prescribing behaviors.

OBJECTIVE

Compare clinical effectiveness of electronic medical record clinical decision support (EMR-CDS) versus additional behavioral health (BH) care management for reducing rates of high-dose opioid prescriptions.

DESIGN

Type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 35 primary care clinics within a health system in LA, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18+ receiving chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain with depression or anxiety and matched controls.

INTERVENTION

EMR-CDS included opioid risk mitigation procedures. BH care included cognitive behavioral therapy; depression or anxiety medication adjustments; and case management.

MAIN MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included difference-in-difference (DID) estimate of changes in probability for prescribing high-dose morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD ≥50 mg/day and MEDD ≥90), average MEDD, and rates of hospitalization, emergency department use, and opioid risk mitigation.

KEY RESULTS

Most participants were female with 3+ pain syndromes. Data analysis included 632 patients. Absolute risk differences for MEDD≥50 and ≥90 decreased post-index compared to pre-index (DID of absolute risk difference [95%CI]: -0.036 [-0.089, 0.016] and -0.029 [-0.060, 0.002], respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The average MEDD decreased at a higher rate for the BH group compared to EMR-CDS only (DID rate ratio [95%CI]: 0.85 [0.77, 0.93]). There were no changes in hospitalization and emergency department utilization. The BH group had higher probabilities of new specialty referrals and prescriptions for naloxone and antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of a multidisciplinary behavioral health care team into primary care did not decrease high-dose prescribing; however, it improved adherence to clinical guideline recommendations for managing chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03889418.

Analyzing the roles, workflows, and communication dynamics of social workers within interprofessional care teams

Social workers frequent interprofessional healthcare teams, but few studies examine the day-to-day experiences of these providers on interprofessional teams. Our study utilized semi-structured interviews with 54 medical social workers practicing on interprofessional healthcare teams. A thematic analysis was used to analyze the day-to-day functions of these social workers. The analysis resulted in three primary themes: 1) Social Workers' Self-Perceptions of their Roles within Interprofessional Teams, 2) Social Workers Shifting Roles on Interprofessional Teams, and 3) Interprofessional Team Dynamics that Impact the Role of a Social Worker. Social workers perceived their primary roles as contributing a unique systems approach to interprofessional healthcare teams while emphasizing patient self-determination. These self-perceptions influenced their shifting roles on interprofessional healthcare teams (e.g. clinician, case manager, bridge builder). In addition to individual self-perceptions, the healthcare system infrastructure influenced social work roles. For example, social workers in outpatient settings more frequently assumed the role of a mental health practitioner compared to those in inpatient settings. Last, there was variation in interprofessional communication and workflow assignment based on the healthcare infrastructure. Future research should examine the education and training efforts of social workers and other allied health professions for interprofessional healthcare teams.

Characterising pharmacists' interventions in chronic non-cancer pain care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-cancer pain may affect up to 51% of the general population. Pharmacist interventions have shown promise in enhancing patient safety and outcomes. However, our understanding of the scope of pharmacists' interventions remains incomplete.

AIM

Our goal was to characterise pharmacists' interventions for the management of chronic non-cancer pain.

METHOD

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO databases and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Abstracts and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer, and validated by the second. Outcomes of studies were charted using the dimensions of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).

RESULTS

Forty-eight reports were included. Interventions ensuring appropriate drug prescription occurred in 37 (79%) studies. Patient education and healthcare professional education were reported in 28 (60%) and 5 (11%) studies, respectively. Therapy monitoring occurred in 17 (36%) studies. Interventions regularly involved interprofessional collaboration. A median of 75% of reported outcome domains improved due to pharmacist interventions, especially patient disposition (adherence), medication safety and satisfaction with therapy.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists' interventions enhanced the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Underreported outcome domains and interventions, such as medication management, merit further investigation.

Outcomes of Psychotherapy for Co-Morbid Pain and Substance Use Disorders: A Review of the Literature

Chronic pain is often treated with opioids, placing patients at risk for misuse. An estimated 11.5% of these patients engage in opioid misuse behaviors such as self-medication. Non-pharmacological interventions have efficacy in managing chronic pain and substance use disorders separately; comorbid management may benefit from psychotherapy. This review provides perspective on novel and existing therapies and their efficacy. The literature search was conducted using PubMed. Boolean search terms were selected from DSM and ICD diagnoses. Studies were included if patients had comorbid substance use disorder and chronic pain diagnoses, participants were age 18 or older, and psychotherapeutic interventions were implemented. The PubMed search yielded 1937 references; 25 references were obtained through other means. 30 sources met inclusion criteria. Reported trials included: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT, 2 trials); Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT, 11 trials); Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE, 5 trials); and novel psychotherapies (12 trials). Unique features included primary care (4 trials), technology such as phone or Internet (6 trials), and group settings (9 trials). Several psychotherapies effectively treat co-occurring substance use disorders and chronic pain; novel treatments continue to be developed. Further investigation may lead to a wider variety of treatments for clinical use.

Addressing depression and comorbid health conditions through solution-focused brief therapy in an integrated care setting: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Co-occurring physical and mental health conditions are common, but effective and sustainable interventions are needed for primary care settings.

PURPOSE

Our paper analyzes the effectiveness of a Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) intervention for treating depression and co-occurring health conditions in primary care. We hypothesized that individuals receiving the SFBT intervention would have statistically significant reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms, systolic blood pressure (SBP), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), and body mass index (BMI) when compared to those in the control group. Additionally, we hypothesized that the SFBT group would have increased well-being scores compared to the control group.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted at a rural federally qualified health center. Eligible participants scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and met criteria for co-occurring health conditions (hypertension, obesity, diabetes) evidenced by chart review. SFBT participants (n = 40) received three SFBT interventions over three weeks in addition to treatment as usual (TAU). The control group (n = 40) received TAU over three weeks. Measures included depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7), well-being (Human Flourishing Index), and SFBT scores, along with physical health outcomes (blood pressure, body mass index, and hemoglobin A1c).

RESULTS

Of 80 consented participants, 69 completed all measures and were included in the final analysis. 80% identified as female and the mean age was 38.1 years (SD = 14.5). Most participants were white (72%) followed by Hispanic (15%) and Black (13%). When compared to TAU, SFBT intervention participants had significantly greater reductions in depression (baseline: M = 18.17, SD = 3.97, outcome: M = 9.71, SD = 3.71) and anxiety (baseline: M = 14.69, SD = 4.9, outcome: M = 8.43, SD = 3.79). SFBT intervention participants also had significantly increased well-being scores (baseline: M = 58.37, SD = 16.36, outcome: M = 73.43, SD = 14.70) when compared to TAU. Changes in BMI and blood pressure were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The SFBT intervention demonstrated efficacy in reducing depressive and anxiety symptoms and increasing well-being but did not affect cardio-metabolic parameters over a short period of intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05838222 on 4/20/2023. *M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation.

The Impact of Nonpharmacological Interventions on Opioid Use for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Scoping Review

Despite the lack of evidence, opioids are still routinely used as a solution to long-term management for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Given the significant risks associated with long-term opioid use, including the increased number of unregulated opioid pills at large in the opioid ecosystem, opioid cessation or reduction may be the desired goal of the patient and clinician. Viable nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) to complement and/or replace opioids for CNCP are needed. Comprehensive reviews that address the impact of NPIs to help adults with CNCP reduce opioid use safely are lacking. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus for studies published in English. The initial search was conducted in April 2021, and updated in January 2024. The literature search yielded 19,190 relevant articles. Thirty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria and underwent data extraction. Of these, nineteen (49%) were randomized controlled trials, eighteen (46%) were observational studies, and two (5%) were secondary analyses. Among adults with CNCP who use opioids for pain management, studies on mindfulness, yoga, educational programs, certain devices or digital technology, chiropractic, and combination NPIs suggest that they might be an effective approach for reducing both pain intensity and opioid use, but other NPIs did not show a significant effect (e.g., hypnosis, virtual reality). This review revealed there is a small to moderate body of literature demonstrating that some NPIs might be an effective and safe approach for reducing pain and opioid use, concurrently.

Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Model-robust and efficient covariate adjustment for cluster-randomized experiments

Cluster-randomized experiments are increasingly used to evaluate interventions in routine practice conditions, and researchers often adopt model-based methods with covariate adjustment in the statistical analyses. However, the validity of model-based covariate adjustment remains unclear when the working models are misspecified, leading to ambiguity of estimands and risk of bias. In this article, we first adapt two model-based methods-generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models-with weighted g-computation to achieve robust inference for cluster-average and individual-average treatment effects. To further overcome the limitations of model-based covariate adjustment methods, we propose efficient estimators for each estimand that allow for flexible covariate adjustment and additionally address cluster size variation dependent on treatment assignment and other cluster characteristics. Such cluster size variations often occur post-randomization and, if ignored, can lead to bias of model-based estimators. For our proposed covariate-adjusted estimators, we prove that when the nuisance functions are consistently estimated by machine learning algorithms, the estimators are consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient. When the nuisance functions are estimated via parametric working models, the estimators are triply-robust. Simulation studies and analyses of three real-world cluster-randomized experiments demonstrate that the proposed methods are superior to existing alternatives.

STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): results of a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy

ABSTRACT

Because long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) for chronic pain has uncertain benefits and dose-dependent harms, safe and effective strategies for opioid tapering are needed. Adapting a promising pilot study intervention, we conducted the STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE) pragmatic clinical trial. Patients in integrated health system on moderate-to-high dose of LtOT for chronic noncancer pain were randomized individually to usual care plus intervention (n = 79) or usual care only (n = 74). The intervention included pain coping skills training and optional support for opioid taper, delivered in 18 telephone sessions over a year, with pharmacologic guidance provided to participants' primary care providers by a pain physician. Coprimary outcomes were daily opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]), calculated using pharmacy dispensing data, and the self-reported Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity scale at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included opioid misuse, opioid difficulties, opioid craving, pain self-efficacy, and global impression of change, depression, and anxiety. Only 41% randomized to the intervention completed all sessions. We did not observe significant differences between intervention and usual care for MME (adjusted mean difference: -2.3 MME; 95% confidence interval: -10.6, 5.9; P = 0.578), the Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity scale (0.0 [95% confidence interval: -0.5, 0.5], P = 0.985), or most secondary outcomes. The intervention did not lower opioid dose or improve pain or functioning. Other strategies are needed to reduce opioid doses while improving pain and function for patients who have been on LtOT for years with high levels of medical, mental health, and substance use comorbidity.

Everybody Hurts: Intersecting and Colliding Epidemics and the Need for Integrated Behavioral Treatment of Chronic Pain and Substance Use

Chronic pain and substance use disorders are both common, debilitating, and often persist over the longer term. On their own, each represents a significant health problem, with estimates indicating a substantial proportion of the adult population has chronic pain or a substance use disorder (SUD), and their co-occurrence is increasing. Chronic pain and SUD are also both often invisible, stigmatized disorders and persons with both regularly have difficulty accessing evidence-based treatments, particularly those that offer coordinated and integrated treatment for both conditions. But there is hope. Research is unraveling the mechanisms of chronic pain and substance use, as well as their co-occurrence, integrated behavioral treatment options based on acceptance- and mindfulness-based approaches are increasingly being developed and tested, government agencies are devoting more funds and resources to increase research on chronic pain and SUD, and there have been growing efforts in training, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based treatments. At the very heart of the matter, though, is to recognize that everybody hurts sometimes, and treatments must empower people to life effectively with these experiences of being human.

Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote (telehealth and online) cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatments for high-impact chronic pain relative to usual care: study protocol for the RESOLVE multisite randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an effective but underused treatment for high-impact chronic pain. Increased access to CBT-CP services for pain is of critical public health importance, particularly for rural and medically underserved populations who have limited access due to these services being concentrated in urban and high income areas. Making CBT-CP widely available and more affordable could reduce barriers to CBT-CP use.

METHODS

As part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term® (NIH HEAL) initiative, we designed and implemented a comparative effectiveness, 3-arm randomized control trial comparing remotely delivered telephonic/video and online CBT-CP-based services to usual care for patients with high-impact chronic pain. The RESOLVE trial is being conducted in 4 large integrated healthcare systems located in Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington state and includes demographically diverse populations residing in urban and rural areas. The trial compares (1) an 8-session, one-on-one, professionally delivered telephonic/video CBT-CP program; and (2) a previously developed and tested 8-session online CBT-CP-based program (painTRAINER) to (3) usual care augmented by a written guide for chronic pain management. Participants are followed for 1 year post-allocation and are assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-allocation. The primary outcome is minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 30% reduction) in pain severity (composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) assessed by a modified 11-item version of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, pain intensity, and pain-related interference scores, quality of life measures, and patient global impression of change at 3, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is assessed by incremental cost per additional patient with MCID in primary outcome and by cost per quality-adjusted life year achieved. Outcome assessment is blinded to group assignment.

DISCUSSION

This large-scale trial provides a unique opportunity to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 2 relatively low-cost and scalable modalities for providing CBT-CP-based treatments to persons with high-impact chronic pain, including those residing in rural and other medically underserved areas with limited access to these services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523714. This trial was registered on 24 August 2020.

Intervention delivery for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Development of a tool to measure complexity

BACKGROUND

Conducting an embedded pragmatic clinical trial in the workflow of a healthcare system is a complex endeavor. The complexity of the intervention delivery can have implications for study planning, ability to maintain fidelity to the intervention during the trial, and/or ability to detect meaningful differences in outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review, developed a tool, and conducted two rounds of phone calls with NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Demonstration Project principal investigators to develop the Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool. After refining the tool, we piloted it with Collaboratory demonstration projects and developed an online version of the tool using the R Shiny application (https://duke-som.shinyapps.io/ICT-ePCT/).

RESULTS

The 6-item tool consists of internal and external factors. Internal factors pertain to the intervention itself and include workflow, training, and the number of intervention components. External factors are related to intervention delivery at the system level including differences in healthcare systems, the dependency on setting for implementation, and the number of steps between the intervention and the outcome.

CONCLUSION

The Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool was developed as a standard way to overcome communication challenges of intervention delivery within an embedded pragmatic trial. This version of the tool is most likely to be useful to the trial team and its health system partners during trial planning and conduct. We expect further evolution of the tool as more pragmatic trials are conducted and feedback is received on its performance outside of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

"The Pain Doesn't Have to Control You." A Qualitative Evaluation of Three Pain Clinics Teaching Nonopioid Pain Management Strategies

PURPOSE

To explore factors related to effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatment for opioid-dependent patients suffering with chronic pain.

APPROACH

A qualitative study incorporating individual interviews and focus group interviews.

SETTING

3 rural Oregon nonopioid pain management clinics.

INTERVENTION

A 10-week nonpharmacological educational program incorporating cognitive-behavioral therapy, movement therapy, mindfulness, and other skills.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Across sites, we conducted 9 individual interviews with clinic staff and 3 focus group interviews with 34 patients who had participated in the course. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes within and across respondent groups.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed 4 primary themes: program goals; program benefits; characteristics of patients who benefit from the program; coordination of clinic experiences with other care. Several primary findings can be highlighted. The clinics focused on improving patients' quality of life, while opioid use reduction was a potential secondary benefit, driven by patients. Major program benefits included enhanced pain self-management skills, patients' greater assertiveness in communications with healthcare providers, and, in numerous cases, opioid use reduction. Participants were unanimous that predisposition toward active self-management of one's pain was an essential factor for positive outcomes. Patients reported considerable variability in providers' understanding of their clinic participation.

CONCLUSION

Nonpharmacological approaches for treating chronic pain can be effective for many patients. Clinics teaching these approaches should be more fully integrated into the healthcare system.

Interprofessional Active Learning for Chronic Pain: Transforming Student Learning From Recall to Application

Chronic pain (CP) affects over 50 million Americans daily and represents a unique challenge for healthcare professionals due to its complexity. Across all health professions, only a small percentage of the curriculum is devoted to treating patients with CP. Unfortunately, much of the content is delivered passively via lecture without giving students an opportunity to practice the communication skills to effectively treat patients in the clinic. An interprofessional team of health educators identified 5 essential messages that students frequently struggle to convey to patients with CP. Those messages were based on interprofessional and profession-specific competencies to treat patients with CP from the International Association for the Study of Pain. The 5 messages highlighted the importance of (1) therapeutic alliance, (2) consistent interdisciplinary language, (3) patient prognosis, (4) evidence for pain medicine, surgery, and imaging, and (5) early referral to the interprofessional team. For each message, the team summarized relevant research supporting the importance of each individual message that could serve as a foundation for didactic content. The team then developed active learning educational activities that educators could use to have students practice the skills tied to each message. Each learning activity was designed to be delivered in an interprofessional manner.

Treating Persistent Pain: A Nurse Co-Led, Interdisciplinary Model for Primary Care

The public health crisis of chronic pain has only increased in recognition since the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Relieving Pain in America (2011) called for a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed, treated, and put forward specific recommendations for action. The National Pain Strategy (NPS) provides a roadmap for putting these recommendations into practice. We implemented a program that placed nurses and behavioral specialists at the head of an interdisciplinary team utilizing best practices. In this program, nurses enacted the NPS recommendations to advance care for patients with persistent pain on long-term opioid treatment. This program promoted professional growth in nurses along with fostering success for patients. Compared with patients receiving usual care, patients in the program achieved greater reductions in pain severity, pain-related disability, and pain-related functional interference and reported greater satisfaction with pain-related care and primary care services. This article will detail the NPS-aligned practice approaches these nurses and their teams used, describe the training for the nurses, and speak to opportunities to enhance the nurse's capacity for this role in hopes of providing a model for the future implementation of an NPS-based approach by nurses.

Effect of Medication Optimization vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Among US Veterans With Chronic Low Back Pain Receiving Long-term Opioid Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Medication management and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) are commonly used treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, little evidence is available comparing the effectiveness of these approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To compare collaborative care medication optimization vs CBT on pain intensity, interference, and other pain-related outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Care Management for the Effective Use of Opioids (CAMEO) trial was a 12-month, comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Recruitment of veterans with CLBP prescribed long-term opioids occurred at 7 Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from September 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014, and follow-up was completed December 31, 2015. Analyses were based on intention to treat in all randomized participants and were performed from March 22, 2015, to November 1, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either collaborative care with nurse care manager-delivered medication optimization (MED group) (n = 131) or psychologist-delivered CBT (CBT group) (n = 130) for 6 months, with check-in visits at 9 months and final outcome assessment at 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) total score, a composite of the pain intensity and interference subscales at 6 (treatment completion) and 12 (follow-up completion) months. Scores on the BPI range from 0 to 10, with higher scores representing greater pain impact and a 30% improvement considered a clinically meaningful treatment response. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, pain catastrophizing, self-reported substance misuse, health-related quality of life, depression, and anxiety.

RESULTS

A total of 261 patients (241 [92.3%] men; mean [SD] age, 57.9 [9.5] years) were randomized and included in the analysis. Baseline mean (SD) BPI scores in the MED and CBT groups were 6.45 (1.79) and 6.49 (1.67), respectively. Improvements in BPI scores were significantly greater in the MED group at 12 months (between-group difference, -0.54 [95% CI, -1.18 to -0.31]; P = .04) but not at 6 months (between-group difference, -0.46 [95% CI, -0.94 to 0.11]; P = .07). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial among US veterans with CLBP who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy, collaborative care medication optimization was modestly more effective than CBT in reducing pain impact during the 12-month study. However, this difference may not be clinically meaningful or generalize to nonveteran populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01236521.

Economic Evaluation: A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of a Primary Care-based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Adults Receiving Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is prevalent and costly; cost-effective nonpharmacological approaches that reduce pain and improve patient functioning are needed.

OBJECTIVE

Report the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), compared with usual care, of cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at improving functioning and pain among patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

SUBJECTS

Adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment (N=814).

INTERVENTION

A cognitive behavioral therapy intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorists, nurses) with additional support from physical therapists, and pharmacists.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per additional responder (≥30% improvement on standard scale assessment of Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity, and Sleep). Costs were estimated as-delivered, and replication.

RESULTS

Per patient intervention replication costs were $2145 ($2574 as-delivered). Those costs were completely offset by lower medical care costs; inclusive of the intervention, total medical care over follow-up was $1841 lower for intervention patients. Intervention group patients also had greater QALY and responder gains than did controls. Supplemental analyses using pain-related medical care costs revealed ICERs of $35,000, and $53,000 per QALY (for replication, and as-delivered intervention costs, respectively); the ICER when excluding patients with outlier follow-up costs was $106,000.

LIMITATIONS

Limited to 1-year follow-up; identification of pain-related utilization potentially incomplete.

CONCLUSION

The intervention was the optimal choice at commonly accepted levels of willingness-to-pay for QALY gains; this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

Emotional distress and pain catastrophizing predict cue-elicited opioid craving among chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy

BACKGROUND

Individuals who use illicit substances exhibit cue-elicited craving and autonomic cue-reactivity when exposed to cues associated with past drug use. However, little is known about this phenomenon among chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Negative cognitive-emotional reactivity in general (e.g., distress) and cognitive-emotional reactivity specific to pain (e.g., pain catastrophizing) might drive cue-reactivity independent of pain severity. Here we examined emotional distress and pain catastrophizing as predictors of cue-reactivity among a sample of chronic pain patients receiving LTOT. We also tested whether associations between distress, catastrophizing, and cue-reactivity differed as a function of opioid misuse status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients receiving LTOT (N = 243) were classified as exhibiting aberrant behavior consistent with opioid misuse (MISUSE+, n = 145) or as using opioids as prescribed (MISUSE-, n = 97). Participants completed assessments of pain catastrophizing and emotional distress and then participated in an opioid cue-reactivity task one week later. Cue-elicited opioid craving and autonomic cue-reactivity were measured with craving ratings and high-frequency heart rate variability (HRV), respectively.

RESULTS

Distress and catastrophizing predicted cue-elicited craving and HRV, whereas pain severity did not. Misuser status moderated the relationship between emotional distress and self-reported craving, such that higher levels of distress predicted craving among the MISUSE+ group, but not among the MISUSE- group. No moderating effects were found for catastrophizing.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that although opioids are prescribed for analgesia, the exacerbating influence of negative cognitive-emotional reactivity, both in general and specific to pain, on cue-elicited opioid craving extends beyond the effects of pain severity alone.

Behavioral Health, Telemedicine, and Opportunities for Improving Access

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize advances in behavioral treatments for pain and headache disorders, as well as recent innovations in telemedicine for behavioral treatments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research for behavioral treatments continues to support their use as part of a multidisciplinary approach to comprehensive management for pain and headache conditions. Behavioral treatments incorporate both behavioral change and cognitive interventions and have been shown to improve outcomes beyond that of medical management alone. The onset of the COVID-19 public health emergency necessitated the rapid uptake of nontraditional modalities for behavioral treatments, particularly telemedicine. Telemedicine has long been considered the answer to several barriers to accessing behavioral treatments, and as a result of COVID-19 significant progress has been made evaluating a variety of telemedicine modalities including synchronous, asynchronous, and mobile health applications. Researchers are encouraged to continue investigating how best to leverage these modalities to improve access to behavioral treatments and to continue evaluating the efficacy of telemedicine compared to traditional in-person care. Comprehensive pain and headache management should include behavioral treatments to address a variety of behavior change and cognitive targets. Policy changes and advances in telemedicine for behavioral treatments provide the opportunity to address historical barriers limiting access.