Leveraging mobile health technology and research methodology to optimize patient education and self-management support for advanced cancer pain

Efficacy of a Pain Self-Management Intervention Tailored to People With HIV: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Chronic pain is a common condition for which efficacious interventions tailored to highly affected populations are urgently needed. People with HIV have a high prevalence of chronic pain and share phenotypic similarities with other highly affected populations.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of a behavioral pain self-management intervention called Skills to Manage Pain (STOMP) compared to enhanced usual care (EUC).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial included adults with HIV who experienced at least moderate chronic pain for 3 months or more. The study was set at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill large medical centers from August 2019 to September 2022.

Intervention

STOMP combined 1-on-1 skill-building sessions delivered by staff interventionists with group sessions co-led by peer interventionists. The EUC control group received the STOMP manual without any 1-on-1 or group instructional sessions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain severity and the impact of pain on function, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) summary score. The primary a priori hypothesis was that STOMP would be associated with a decreased BPI in people with HIV compared to EUC.

Results

Among 407 individuals screened, 278 were randomized to STOMP intervention (n = 139) or EUC control group (n = 139). Among the 278 people with HIV who were randomized, the mean (SD) age was 53.5 (10.0) years; 126 (45.0%) identified as female, 146 (53.0%) identified as male, 6 (2.0%) identified as transgender female. Of the 6 possible 1-on-1 sessions, participants attended a mean (SD) of 2.9 (2.5) sessions. Of the 6 possible group sessions, participants attended a mean (SD) of 2.4 (2.1) sessions. Immediately after the intervention compared to EUC, STOMP was associated with a statistically significant mean difference for the primary outcome, BPI total score: -1.25 points (95% CI, -1.71 to -0.78 points; P < .001). Three months after the intervention, the mean difference in BPI total score remained statistically significant, favoring the STOMP intervention -0.62 points (95% CI, -1.09 to -0.14 points; P = .01).

Conclusion and Relevance

The findings of this randomized clinical trial support the efficaciousness of STOMP as an intervention for chronic pain in people with HIV. Future research will include implementation studies and work to understand the optimal delivery of the intervention.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03692611.

Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

METHODS

A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

RESULTS

A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

Successes and pitfalls in orphan drug development for sickle cell disease

ABSTRACT

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hereditary red cell disorder with a large disease burden at a global level. In the United States and Europe, medicines may qualify for orphan designation (OD), a regulatory status that provides incentives to boost development. We evaluated the development of new therapies for SCD using data for OD granted in the United States and Europe over the last 2 decades (2000-2021). We analyzed their characteristics, pathophysiological targets, trends, and OD sponsors. We then investigated the approval outcomes, including the phase success rate and reasons for discontinuation across different variables. We identified 57 ODs for SCD: 43 (75.4%) small molecules, 32 (56.1%) for oral administration, and 36 (63.1%) for chronic use to prevent SCD complications. At the end of the study (2021), development of 34 of 57 ODs was completed. Four ODs were approved with a success rate of 11.8%. Products targeting upstream causative events of SCD pathophysiology had a 1.8 higher success rate compared with products targeting disease consequences. Large companies showed a fourfold higher success rate compared with small-medium enterprises. Failures in clinical development were mainly seen in phase 3 for a lack of efficacy on vaso-occlusive crisis as the primary study end point, likely related to variable definitions and heterogeneity of pain scoring and treatment. Both advances in SCD knowledge and regulatory incentives paved the way for new therapies for SCD. Our finding of high failure rates in late-stage clinical development signals the need for better early-stage predictive models, also in the context of meaningful clinical end points.

Development and pre-pilot testing of STAMP + CBT: an mHealth app combining pain cognitive behavioral therapy and opioid support for patients with advanced cancer and pain

PURPOSE

We developed and piloted a mobile health app to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy for pain (pain-CBT), remote symptom monitoring, and pharmacologic support for patients with pain from advanced cancer.

METHODS

Using an iterative process of patient review and feedback, we developed the STAMP + CBT app. The app delivers brief daily lessons from pain-CBT and pain psychoeducation, adapted for advanced cancer. Daily surveys assess physical symptoms, psychological symptoms, opioid utilization and relief. Just-in-time adaptive interventions generate tailored psychoeducation in response. We then conducted a single-arm pilot feasibility study at two cancer centers. Patients with advanced cancer and chronic pain used the app for 2 or 4 weeks, rated its acceptability and provided feedback in semi-structured interviews. Feasibility and acceptability were defined as ≥ 70% of participants completing ≥ 50% of daily surveys, and ≥ 80% of acceptability items rated ≥ 4/5.

RESULTS

Fifteen participants (female = 9; mean age = 50.3) tested the app. We exceeded our feasibility and accessibility benchmarks: 73% of patients completed ≥ 50% of daily surveys; 87% of acceptability items were rated ≥ 4/5. Participants valued the app's brevity, clarity, and salience, and found education on stress and pain to be most helpful. The app helped participants learn pain management strategies and decrease maladaptive thoughts. However, participants disliked the notification structure (single prompt with one snooze), which led to missed content.

CONCLUSION

The STAMP + CBT app was an acceptable and feasible method to deliver psychological/behavioral treatment with pharmacologic support for cancer pain. The app is being refined and will be tested in a larger randomized pilot study. TRN: NCT05403801 (05/06/2022).

Digital Therapeutics for Improving Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Biological Products: Preclinical and Clinical Studies Supporting Development of Drug + Digital Combination Therapies for Chronic Diseases

Limitations of pharmaceutical drugs and biologics for chronic diseases (e.g., medication non-adherence, adverse effects, toxicity, or inadequate efficacy) can be mitigated by mobile medical apps, known as digital therapeutics (DTx). Authorization of adjunct DTx by the US Food and Drug Administration and draft guidelines on "prescription drug use-related software" illustrate opportunities to create drug + digital combination therapies, ultimately leading towards drug-device combination products (DTx has a status of medical devices). Digital interventions (mobile, web-based, virtual reality, and video game applications) demonstrate clinically meaningful benefits for people living with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, epilepsy, depression, and anxiety. In the respective animal disease models, preclinical studies on environmental enrichment and other non-pharmacological modalities (physical activity, social interactions, learning, and music) as surrogates for DTx "active ingredients" also show improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss how drug + digital combination therapies can impact translational research, drug discovery and development, generic drug repurposing, and gene therapies. Market-driven incentives to create drug-device combination products are illustrated by Humira® (adalimumab) facing a "patent-cliff" competition with cheaper and more effective biosimilars seamlessly integrated with DTx. In conclusion, pharma and biotech companies, patients, and healthcare professionals will benefit from accelerating integration of digital interventions with pharmacotherapies.

Application of a WeChat Mini Program to provide pharmaceutical care for cancer pain patients: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

This study aimed to develop an individual WeChat Mini Program to provide pharmaceutical care to better manage cancer pain patients and to evaluate its feasibility and the differences in analgesic efficacy, medication adherence and safety versus conventional pharmacy interventions.

Methods

In this parallel randomized clinical trial, 42 cancer pain patients were equally allocated into the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group received individualized pharmaceutical care based on the "Yao Nin You Wo" WeChat Mini Program, while the control group received conventional care during the 4-week period. Main outcomes contained pain scores, medication adherence, incidences and relief rates of breakthrough pain, and incidences of adverse events. Relief rates of pain were also calculated according to pain scores.

Results

At the beginning of intervention, none of the pain scores and medication adherence showed relevant differences between the two groups (all P > .05). After intervention, the experimental group had significantly lower pain scores compared to the control group (P = .003). Breakthrough pain of both groups was alleviate; not only the incidence of breakthrough pain considerably was lower at 4 weeks than at baseline, but the relief rate of breakthrough in the experimental group was higher than that in the control group. Compared with the control group, the medication adherence rate of the experimental group was significantly improved (P = .02). Types of adverse events that happened in experimental and groups were similar, but the total incidence of adverse events in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group.

Conclusions

WeChat Mini Program is a useful and facilitative tool with the potential to improve cancer pain self-management ability in discharged patients. In addition, pharmacists could play a key role through the Mini Program to connect with patients successfully by providing personalized pharmaceutical services.

Mobile health interventions for cancer patient education: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Mobile health (mHealth) is using mobile devices and applications to deliver health information and services. mHealth has been increasingly applied in cancer care to support patients in various aspects of their disease journey. This scoping review aimed to explore the current evidence on the use of mHealth interventions for cancer patient education.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. We searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane) using a combination of keywords related to mHealth, cancer, and education. After finding articles at the initial search the screening has been done based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included only original research articles and excluded all other types of publications, such as review papers, reports, editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, short communications, conference proceedings, graduate dissertations, protocols, and commentaries. We extracted data on the characteristics and outcomes of the included studies using a standardized form. We conducted a narrative synthesis and inductive content analysis to summarize and categorize the evidence.

RESULTS

Out of 2131 records found in the initial search, 28 full-text articles reported on the use of mHealth educational interventions for cancer patients. The majority of the studies focused on breast cancer patients (n = 21, 75%). The most common type of mHealth intervention was exercise-based education delivered through various media such as text messages, videos, audio, images, and social networks. The main objectives of mHealth educational interventions were to enhance self-management skills, improve psychological well-being, and promote healthy lifestyle behaviors among cancer patients. The reported outcomes of mHealth interventions included reduced chemotherapy-related side effects, improved mental health, improved quality of life and lifestyle, and better pain management.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review showed that mHealth is a promising and feasible modality for delivering educational interventions to cancer patients. However, more rigorous and diverse studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for different types of cancers, stages, and settings.

Innovative treatment formats, technologies, and clinician trainings that improve access to behavioral pain treatment for youth and adults

Chronic pain is prevalent across the life span and associated with significant individual and societal costs. Behavioral interventions are recommended as the gold-standard, evidence-based interventions for chronic pain, but barriers, such as lack of pain-trained clinicians, poor insurance coverage, and high treatment burden, limit patients' ability to access evidenced-based pain education and treatment resources. Recent advances in technology offer new opportunities to leverage innovative digital formats to overcome these barriers and dramatically increase access to high-quality, evidenced-based pain treatments for youth and adults. This scoping review highlights new advances. First, we describe system-level barriers to the broad dissemination of behavioral pain treatment. Next, we review several promising new pediatric and adult pain education and treatment technology innovations to improve access and scalability of evidence-based behavioral pain treatments. Current challenges and future research and clinical recommendations are offered.

Non-Pharmacological Self-Management Strategies for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in People with Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Non-pharmacological self-management interventions for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotherapy (CIPN) are of clinical interest; however, no systematic review has synthesized the evidence for their use in people with advanced cancer. Five databases were searched from inception to February 2022 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of non-pharmacological self-management interventions in people with advanced cancer on the incidence and severity of CIPN symptoms and related outcomes compared to any control condition. Data were pooled with meta-analysis. Quality of evidence was appraised using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB2), with data synthesized narratively. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was applied to assess the certainty of the evidence. Thirteen studies were included, which had a high (69%) or unclear (31%) risk of bias. Greatest confidence was found for physical exercise decreasing CIPN severity (SMD: −0.89, 95% CI: −1.37 to −0.41; p = 0.0003; I² = 0%; n = 2 studies, n = 76 participants; GRADE level: moderate) and increasing physical function (SMD: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.00; p = 0.04; I² = 42%; n = 3 studies, n = 120; GRADE level: moderate). One study per intervention provided preliminary evidence for the positive effects of glutamine supplementation, an Omega-3 PUFA-enriched drink, and education for symptom self-management via a mobile phone game on CIPN symptoms and related outcomes (GRADE: very low). No serious adverse events were reported. The strongest evidence with the most certainty was found for physical exercise as a safe and viable adjuvant to chemotherapy treatment for the prevention and management of CIPN and related physical function in people with advanced cancer. However, the confidence in the evidence to inform conclusions was mostly very low to moderate. Future well-powered and appropriately designed interventions for clinical trials using validated outcome measures and clearly defined populations and strategies are warranted.

Contrasting the Expectations and Experiences of Mobile Health Use on Chronic Pain: A Questionnaire Study (Preprint)

Background

Chronic pain is a prolonged condition that deteriorates one's quality of life. Treating chronic pain requires a multicomponent approach, and in many cases, there are no “silver bullet” solutions. Mobile health (mHealth) is a rapidly expanding category of solutions in digital health with proven potential in chronic pain management.

Objective

This study aims to contrast the viewpoints of 2 groups of people with chronic pain concerning mHealth: people who have adopted the use of mHealth and those who have not. We highlight the benefits of mHealth solutions for people with chronic pain and the perceived obstacles to their increased adoption. We also provide recommendations to encourage people to try mHealth solutions as part of their self-care.

Methods

The Prolific crowdsourcing platform was used to collect crowdsourced data. A prescreening questionnaire was released to determine what type of pain potential participants have and whether they are currently using mHealth solutions for chronic pain. The participants were invited based on their experience using mHealth to manage their pain. Similar questions were presented to mHealth users and nonusers. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to determine the outcomes of this study.

Results

In total, 31 responses were collected from people (aged 19-63 years, mean 31.4, SD 12.1) with chronic pain who use mHealth solutions. Two-thirds (n=20, 65%) of the users identified as female and 11 (35%) as male. We matched these mHealth users with an equal number of nonusers: 31 responses from the pool of 361 participants in the prescreening questionnaire. The nonusers’ ages ranged from 18 to 58 years (mean 30.8, SD 11.09), with 15 (50%) identifying as female and 15 (50%) as male. Likert-scale questions were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW) test. Results showed that the 2 groups differed significantly on 10 (43%) of 23 questions and shared similar views in the remaining 13 (57%). The most significant differences were related to privacy and interactions with health professionals. Of the 31 mHealth users, 12 (39%) declared that using mHealth solutions has made interacting with health or social care professionals easier (vs n=22, 71%, of nonusers). The majority of the nonusers (n=26, 84%) compared with about half of the users (n=15, 48%) expressed concern about sharing their data with, for example, third parties.

Conclusions

This study investigated how mHealth is currently used in the context of chronic pain and what expectations mHealth nonusers have for mHealth as a future chronic pain management tool. Analysis revealed contrasts between mHealth use expectations and actual usage experiences, highlighting privacy concerns toward mHealth solutions. Generally, the results showed that nonusers are more concerned about data privacy and expect mHealth to facilitate interacting with health professionals. The users, in contrast, feel that such connections do not exist.

Patient-Centered Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer

The evidence base demonstrating the benefits of an early focus on palliative care for patients with serious cancers, including advanced lung cancer, is substantial. Early involvement of specialty-trained palliative care clinicians in the care of patients with advanced lung cancer improves patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, and health care delivery, including hospice utilization. Since the time that many of these palliative care trials were conducted, the paradigm of cancer care for many cancers, including lung cancer, has changed dramatically. The majority of patients with advanced lung cancer are now treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapies, both of which have had a significant impact on patient's experience and outcomes. With this changing landscape of lung cancer therapeutics, patients are facing new and different challenges, including dealing with novel side effect profiles and coping with greater uncertainty regarding their prognosis. Patients who are living longer with their advanced cancer also struggle with how to address survivorship issues, such as sexual health and exercise, and decision making about end-of-life care. Although palliative care clinicians remain well-suited to address these care needs, they may need to learn new skills to support patients treated with novel therapies. Additionally, as the experience of patients with advanced lung cancer is becoming more varied and individualized, palliative care research interventions and clinical programs should also be delivered in a patient-centered manner to best meet patient's needs and improve their outcomes. Tailored and technology-based palliative care interventions are promising strategies for delivering patient-centered palliative care.

What to Do and What Not to Do in the Management of Cancer Pain: A Physician Survey and Expert Recommendations

Background

Despite the prevalence of pain among patients with cancer and the availability of pertinent guidelines, the clinical management of oncological pain is decisively insufficient. To address this issue, we evaluated current trends in clinical practice and subsequently generated a list of ten corrective actions—five things to do and five things not to do—for the diagnosis, management, and monitoring of cancer pain.

Methods

The survey included 18 questions about clinical practice surrounding background pain and breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). Survey questions were developed by a scientific board of 10 physician experts and communicated via email to an expanded panel of physicians in Italy. Responses were tabulated descriptively for analysis.

Results

Of 51 invited physicians, 32 (63%) provided complete survey responses. The responses revealed several incongruencies with current guideline recommendations: physicians did not always diagnose or monitor pain using diagnostically validated or disease-specific instruments; frequently based clinical decision-making on time availability or convenience; and pharmacological therapy was often inappropriate (eg, prescribing NSAIDs or corticosteroids for BTcP). The list of corrective actions generated by the scientific board favored a guideline-oriented approach that systematically characterizes oncological pain and implements treatment based on pain characteristics (eg, fast-acting transmucosal opioids for BTcP) and evidence-based recommendations.

Conclusion

Oncologists require better education and training about the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of oncological pain. Physicians should be aware of current guideline recommendations as well as available pharmacological tools for BTcP.