Design, recruitment outcomes, and sample characteristics of the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial

Buprenorphine, Pain, and Opioid Use in Patients Taking High-Dose Long-Term Opioids: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Guidelines recommend dose reduction or discontinuation of long-term opioid therapy when harm outweighs benefit, but strategies to help patients do so are limited.

Objective

To test optionally switching to buprenorphine as a strategy for improving pain and reducing opioids among patients prescribed high-dose, full agonist long-term opioid therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this pragmatic, multisite, 12-month randomized clinical trial with masked outcome assessment, patients treated at Veterans Affairs primary care clinics were recruited from October 2017 to March 2021, with follow-up completed June 2022. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic pain despite high-dose opioid therapy (≥70 mg/d for at least 3 months). Patients were randomized to having the option to switch to buprenorphine or not having the option to switch.

Interventions

The buprenorphine option was discussed with eligible patients as part of a larger trial of collaborative pain care interventions. Those who switched had structured follow-up to optimize dosing and address adverse effects.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was Brief Pain Inventory total score at 12 months. The main secondary outcome was opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents at 12 months.

Results

Of 207 included participants, 185 (89.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9 (10.2) years. A total of 104 were randomized to the buprenorphine option and 103 to the no buprenorphine option. In the buprenorphine option arm, 27 participants (26.0%) switched. Over 12 months, the mean (SD) Brief Pain Inventory score improved from 6.8 (1.5) to 6.1 (1.9; adjusted mean difference [AMD], -0.59; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.29) in the buprenorphine option arm and from 6.8 (1.6) to 6.3 (1.7; AMD, -0.50; 95% CI, -0.81 to 0.20) in the no option arm (between-group AMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.34). Over 12 months, mean (SD) opioid dosage decreased from 157 (75) mg/d to 94 (98) mg/d in the buprenorphine option arm (AMD, -61.0 mg/d; 95% CI, -74.1 to -47.9) and from 165 (88) mg/d to 107 (89) mg/d (AMD, -58.5 mg/d; 95% CI, -71.6 to -45.4) in the no option arm (between-group AMD, -2.5 mg/d; 95% CI, -21.1 to 16.0).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this trial, outcomes did not differ between groups; both had small improvements in pain and substantial reductions in opioid dosage, but the proportion of participants who switched to buprenorphine was low.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03026790.

Care Models to Improve Pain and Reduce Opioids Among Patients Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy: The VOICE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain often experience unrelieved pain, poor quality of life, and serious adverse events.

Objective

To compare the effects of integrated pain team (IPT) vs pharmacist collaborative management (PCM) on pain and opioid dosage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study was a pragmatic multisite 12-month randomized comparative effectiveness trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from October 2017 to March 2021; follow-up was completed June 2022. The study sites were Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic pain despite long-term opioid therapy (≥20 mg/d for at least 3 months).

Interventions

IPT involved interdisciplinary pain care planning, visits throughout 12 months with medical and mental health clinicians, and emphasis on nondrug therapies and motivational interviewing. PCM was a collaborative care intervention involving visits throughout 12 months with a clinical pharmacist care manager who conducted structured monitoring and medication optimization. Both interventions provided individualized pain care and opioid tapering recommendations to patients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain response (≥30% decrease in Brief Pain Inventory total score) at 12 months. The main secondary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in opioid daily dosage at 12 months.

Results

A total of 820 patients were randomized to IPT (n = 411) or PCM (n = 409). Participants' mean (SD) age was 62.2 (10.6) years, and 709 (86.5%) were male. A pain response was achieved in 58/350 patients in the IPT group (16.4%) vs 54/362 patients in the PCM group (14.9%) (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.74-1.67]; P = .61). A 50% opioid dose reduction was achieved in 102/403 patients in the IPT group (25.3%) vs 98/399 patients in the PCM group (24.6%) (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.75-1.42]; P = .85). Over 12 months, the mean (SD) Brief Pain Inventory total score improved from 6.7 (1.5) points to 6.1 (1.8) points (P < .001) in IPT and from 6.6 (1.6) points to 6.0 (1.9) points (P < .001) in PCM (between-group P = .82). Over 12 months, mean (SD) opioid daily dosage decreased from 80.8 (74.2) mg/d to 54.2 (65.0) mg/d in IPT (P < .001) and from 74.5 (56.9) mg/d to 52.8 (51.9) mg/d (P < .001) in PCM (between-group P = .22).

Conclusions and Relevance

Outcomes in this randomized clinical trial did not differ between groups; both had small improvements in pain and substantial reductions in opioid dosage.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03026790.

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.

Design, methods, and recruitment outcomes of the Veterans' Pain Care Organizational Improvement Comparative Effectiveness (VOICE) study

The Veterans' Pain Care Organizational Improvement Comparative Effectiveness (VOICE) study is a 12-month pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial conducted at ten United States Veterans Affairs (VA) health care sites. The overall goal was to test interventions to improve pain while reducing opioid use among VA patients with moderate-severe chronic pain despite treatment with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Aims were 1) to compare lower-intensity telecare collaborative pain management (TCM) versus higher-intensity integrated pain team management (IPT), and 2) to test the option of switching to buprenorphine (versus no option) in a high-dose subgroup. Recruitment challenges included secular trends in opioid prescribing and the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were recruited over 3.5 years. Of 6966 potentially eligible patients, 4731 (67.9%) were contacted for telephone eligibility interview; of those contacted, 3398 (71.8%) declined participation, 359 (7.6%) were ineligible, 821 (24.2%) enrolled, and 820 (24.1%) were randomized. The most common reason for declining was satisfaction with pain care (n = 731). The most common reason for ineligibility was not having moderate-severe chronic pain (n = 110). Compared with the potentially eligible population, randomized participants were slightly younger, more often female, had similar prescribed opioids, and had similar or higher rates of pain and mental health diagnoses. The enrolled patient number was lower than the original target, but sufficient to power planned analyses. In conclusion, the VOICE trial enrolled a diverse sample similar to the population of VA patients receiving LTOT. Results will add substantially to limited existing evidence for interventions to improve pain while reducing opioid use. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026790.

Implementing a pragmatic clinical trial to tailor opioids for acute pain on behalf of the IGNITE ADOPT PGx investigators

Opioid prescribing for postoperative pain management is challenging because of inter-patient variability in opioid response and concern about opioid addiction. Tramadol, hydrocodone, and codeine depend on the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme for formation of highly potent metabolites. Individuals with reduced or absent CYP2D6 activity (i.e., intermediate metabolizers [IMs] or poor metabolizers [PMs], respectively) have lower concentrations of potent opioid metabolites and potentially inadequate pain control. The primary objective of this prospective, multicenter, randomized pragmatic trial is to determine the effect of postoperative CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing on pain control and opioid usage. Up to 2020 participants, age ≥8 years, scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure will be enrolled and randomized to immediate pharmacogenetic testing with clinical decision support (CDS) for CYP2D6 phenotype-guided postoperative pain management (intervention arm) or delayed testing without CDS (control arm). CDS is provided through medical record alerts and/or a pharmacist consult note. For IMs and PM in the intervention arm, CDS includes recommendations to avoid hydrocodone, tramadol, and codeine. Patient-reported pain-related outcomes are collected 10 days and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome, a composite of pain intensity and opioid usage at 10 days postsurgery, will be compared in the subgroup of IMs and PMs in the intervention (n = 152) versus the control (n = 152) arm. Secondary end points include prescription pain medication misuse scores and opioid persistence at 6 months. This trial will provide data on the clinical utility of CYP2D6 phenotype-guided opioid selection for improving postoperative pain control and reducing opioid-related risks.

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

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

Design and methods of the Care Management for the Effective Use of Opioids (CAMEO) trial

Low back pain is the most common pain condition seen in primary care, with the most common treatment being analgesic medications, including opioids. A dramatic increase in opioid prescriptions for low back pain over the past few decades has led to increased non-medical use and opioid overdose deaths. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic pain is an evidence-based non-pharmacological treatment for pain with demonstrated efficacy when delivered using collaborative care models. No previous studies have tested CBT compared to analgesic optimization that includes opioid management in primary care. This paper describes the study design and methods of the CAre Management for the Effective use of Opioids (CAMEO) trial, a 2-arm, randomized comparative effectiveness trial in seven primary care clinics. CAMEO enrolled 261 primary care veterans with chronic (6 months or longer) low back pain of at least moderate severity who were receiving long-term opioid therapy and randomized them to either nurse care management focused on analgesic treatment and optimization (MED) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All subjects undergo comprehensive outcome assessments at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months by interviewers blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is pain severity and interference, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) total score. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, fatigue, sleep, functional improvement, pain disability, pain beliefs, alcohol and opioid problems, depression, anxiety, and stress.

Sleep Disturbance Predicts Less Improvement in Pain Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of the SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

Sleep disturbance may limit improvement in pain outcomes if not directly addressed in treatment. Moreover, sleep problems may be exacerbated by opioid therapy. This study examined the effects of baseline sleep disturbance on improvement in pain outcomes using data from the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial, a pragmatic 12-month randomized trial of opioid vs nonopioid medication therapy.

DESIGN

Participants with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain were randomized to either opioid therapy (N = 120) or nonopioid medication therapy (N = 120).

METHODS

We used mixed models for repeated measures to 1) test whether baseline sleep disturbance scores modified the effect of opioid vs nonopioid treatment on pain outcomes and 2) test baseline sleep disturbance scores as a predictor of less improvement in pain outcomes across both treatment groups.

RESULTS

The tests for interaction of sleep disturbance by treatment group were not significant. Higher sleep disturbance scores at baseline predicted less improvement in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference (β = 0.058, P = 0.0002) and BPI severity (β = 0.026, P = 0.0164).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline sleep disturbance adversely affects pain response to treatment regardless of analgesic regimen. Recognition and treatment of sleep impairments that frequently co-occur with pain may optimize outcomes.

Chronic Pain Self-Management Program for Low-Income Patients: Themes from a Qualitative Inquiry

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors influencing initial engagement, ongoing participation, learned behaviors, and subjective functional outcomes after a trial of the Living Better Beyond Pain (LBBP) chronic pain self-management program.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using the Grounded Theory approach.

SETTING

Two 60-minute focus groups and phone interviews in May 2017.

SUBJECTS

Focus groups with 18 participants who completed LBBP and six-month measures; telephone interviews with 17 participants who stopped attending.

METHODS

Study coordinators randomly selected program completers for focus groups and conducted phone interviews with noncompleters. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in semantic content with a recursive process applied to focus group transcripts and interview transcriptions to codify into themes. Themes were categorized according to the Theory of Planned Behavior.

RESULTS

Focus group and telephone interview participants were primarily Hispanic and unemployed. Attitudes fostering participation in LBBP included dissatisfaction with the status quo, need to reduce pain medication, and lack of training and knowledge about chronic pain. Positive social norms from meeting others with chronic pain and support from the LBBP team encouraged attendance and adoption of behaviors. Transportation, pain, and competing activities were barriers, whereas adapting activities for the disabled was a facilitator. Maintaining behaviors and activities at home was challenging but ultimately rewarding due to improvement in daily function with less pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study complements quantitative results showing clinically significant improvements in function after the LBBP program by adding practical insights into ways to increase participation and outcomes. Participants strongly endorsed the need for chronic pain self-management training.

Core Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Research: Recommendations from a Veterans Health Administration Work Group

OBJECTIVE

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. It would be advantageous to have common outcome measures when comparing results across different CMSP research studies.

METHODS

The Veterans Health Administration appointed a work group to recommend core outcome measures for assessing pain intensity and interference as well as important secondary domains in clinical research. The work group used three streams of data to inform their recommendations: 1) literature synthesis augmented by three recently completed trials; 2) review and comparison of measures recommended by other expert groups; 3) two Delphi surveys of work group members.

RESULTS

The single-item numerical rating scale and seven-item Brief Pain Inventory interference scale emerged as the recommended measures for assessing pain intensity and interference, respectively. The secondary domains ranked most important included physical functioning and depression, followed by sleep, anxiety, and patient-reported global impression of change (PGIC). For these domains, the work group recommended the Patient-Reported Outcome Information System four-item physical function and sleep scales, the Patient Health Questionnaire two-item depression scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder two-item anxiety scale, and the single-item PGIC. Finally, a single-item National Health Interview Survey item was favored for defining chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Two scales comprising eight items are recommended as core outcome measures for pain intensity and interference in all studies of chronic musculoskeletal pain, and brief scales comprising 13 additional items can be added when possible to assess important secondary domains.

Articles provided insufficient information to conduct an appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of medicine trials with the PRECIS-2 tool

PURPOSE

To assess whether, in the retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs), the nine PRECIS-2 domain scores using the information provided in articles were modified after using the information reported in other publicly available sources.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of participant-level pRCTs published in July 2018 to December 2019 in the four highest-impact general medicine journals. The articles described the main results of pRCTs assessing medicines in one or more arms that were not in the pre-licensing phases. The information reported in trial full protocols, published protocols, and other publications, registries, and trial websites were assessed and scored, and compared with that previously obtained after reviewing the information reported in the articles.

RESULTS

Out of 76 articles on pRCTs, 13 (17%) were included in the analysis. All were two-arm trials, assessing medicines only (n = 7), medicine vs device (n = 2), medicine vs surgery (n = 1), or medicine vs placebo (n = 3). Seven were open-label trials, and six had any type of masking. All except one had the full protocol available and/or published protocol; seven had other types of publication available. The assessment of the nine PRECIS-2 domains with the information reported in the 13 articles was changed in all trials after using the information included in other additional available sources. Between one (n = 1 article) and six (n = 2) domains were modified in each pRCT. The domains that most commonly changed were "organization" (n = 12), "recruitment" (n = 11), and "follow-up" (n = 8). "Primary outcome" and "primary analysis" were not modified in any trial. Eight percent of all domains could not be assessed due to inadequate or lack of information in seven articles; those were "recruitment" (n = 3), "organization" (n = 3), "setting" (n = 2), and "flexibility:adherence" (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Articles describing the trial main results are usually insufficient for the appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of a pRCT by authors not involved in the conduct of the trial. To address this issue, editors should require the submission of the original full protocol and final full protocol with the history of amendments to be published as supplementary material to the article.

Comparative Responsiveness of the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Forms With Legacy Pain Measures: Results From Three Randomized Clinical Trials

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) scales are reliable and publicly accessible; however, little is known about how responsive they are to detect change in clinical trials and how their responsiveness compares with legacy measures. The study purpose was to evaluate responsiveness for the PROMIS-PI scales and to compare their responsiveness with legacy pain measures. We used data from 3 clinical trials totaling 759 participants. The clinical trials included patients with chronic low back pain (n = 261), chronic back or osteoarthritis pain (n = 240), and a history of stroke (n = 258). At both baseline and follow-up, participants completed PROMIS-PI scales and legacy pain measures (Brief Pain Inventory Interference scale; Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Bodily Pain scale; and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). We measured global ratings of pain change, both prospectively and retrospectively, as anchors to identify patients as improved, unchanged, or worsened. Responsiveness was assessed with standardized response means, statistical tests comparing change groups, and area under the curve analysis. The PROMIS-PI scales had largely comparable responsiveness with the Brief Pain Inventory Interference and Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scales. The 4 PROMIS-PI short forms had comparable responsiveness. For all pain questionnaires, responsiveness varied based on the study population and whether pain improved or worsened. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents 1) how responsive the PROMIS-PI scales were to detect change over time in the context of 3 clinical trials and 2) how their responsiveness compared with legacy pain measures. The findings can help researchers and clinicians choose between different patient-reported pain outcome measures.

"I Was a Little Surprised": Qualitative Insights From Patients Enrolled in a 12-Month Trial Comparing Opioids With Nonopioid Medications for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major public health problem. Although opioid prescribing for chronic pain has increased dramatically since the 1990s, this practice has come under scrutiny because of increases in opioid-related harms and lack of evidence for long-term effectiveness. The Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial was a pragmatic 12-month randomized trial comparing the benefits and harms of opioid versus nonopioid medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The current qualitative study was designed to better understand trial results by exploring patients' experiences, including perceptions of medications, experiences with the intervention, and whether expectations were met. Thirty-four participants who were purposefully sampled based on treatment group and intervention response participated in semistructured interviews. The constant comparison method guided analysis. Results revealed that participants often held strong beliefs about opioid medications, which sometimes changed during the trial as they gained experience with medications; participants described a wide variety of experiences with treatment effectiveness, regardless of study group or their response to the intervention; and participants highly valued the personalized pain care model used in SPACE.

PERSPECTIVE

SPACE trial results indicated no advantage for opioid over nonopioid medications. Qualitative findings suggest that, for both treatment groups, preexisting expectations and anticipated improvement in pain shaped experiences with and responses to medications. The personalized pain care model was described as contributing to positive outcomes in both groups.

Effect of Opioid vs Nonopioid Medications on Pain-Related Function in Patients With Chronic Back Pain or Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: The SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain.

Objective

To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized.

Interventions

Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19).

Results

Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583985.