The yin and yang of pragmatic clinical trials of behavioral interventions for chronic pain: balancing design features to maximize impact

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

ABSTRACT

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

Assessment of decision-making autonomy in chronic pain patients: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Patient decision-making autonomy refers to the patients' ability to freely exert their own choices and make their own decisions, given sufficient resources and information to do so. In pain medicine, it is accepted that appropriate beneficial management aims to propose an individualized treatment plan shared with the patients, as agents, to help them live as autonomously as possible with their pain. However, are patients in chronic pain centers sufficiently autonomous to participate in the therapeutic decisions that concern them? As this question still remains unanswered, a pilot study was set up to that aim.

METHODS

Over a 2-month period, first-time patients within a tertiary multidisciplinary pain center underwent a systematic evaluation of their autonomy using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), considered the benchmark tool for measuring a patient's ability to consent to treatment. Demographic data and pain characteristics of the patients were collected and their respective attending pain physicians were asked to clinically assess their patients' degree of autonomy. Another physician, who had not participated in the initial patient evaluation, subsequently administered the MacCAT-T questionnaire to the same patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were included during the study period (21 women and 6 men), with an average age of 50 years. The average duration of pain was 8 years. Based on their clinical experience, the 4 different pain physicians in charge of these patients considered that out of 25 assessed patients, 22 of them (89%) had full decision-making capacity, with no deficit in autonomy. According to the MacCAT-T results, only 13 of these 25 patients (48%) had no deficit, while 7 (26%) had a major deficit in autonomy. The only patient characteristic that appeared to be related to autonomy was pain type, specifically nociplastic pain. The average time taken to complete the test was 20 min, and patients were very satisfied with the interview.

CONCLUSION

Results from the present pilot study suggest that patients suffering from chronic pain do not appear to be entirely autonomous in their decision to consent to the proposed treatment plan according to the MacCAT-T questionnaire, and physicians seem to find it difficult to properly assess this competence in a clinical setting. Further studies with larger samples are needed to better evaluate this concept to improve the complex management of these patients.

General and Pain-Associated Psychological Distress Phenotypes Among Patients With Low Back Pain in the Military Health System

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to describe rates of general and pain-related psychological distress for individuals with low back pain (LBP) in the Military Health System (MHS). We identified common phenotypes defined by rates of general and pain-related psychological distress and compared phenotypes on their level of pain interference, physical function, anxiety, and depression.

METHODS

We created a cohort from two completed trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment for LBP in the MHS (n = 510 total). The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag assessment tool identified the presence of 11 different yellow flags. Latent class analysis (LCA) used yellow flag indicators to identify common psychological phenotypes. We then compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems measures of pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety across phenotypes.

RESULTS

LCA identified five phenotypes (percentage of the sample): low distress (32%), high distress (27%), poor pain coping and low self-efficacy (18%), low self-efficacy and acceptance (14%), and poor pain coping (10%). Highly distressed phenotypes reported higher levels of pain interference, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety than those with other phenotypes, whereas the low distress phenotype had significantly lower pain interference and higher physical function scores than those characterized by all other phenotypes.

CONCLUSION

These phenotypes provide opportunities for clinicians and researchers to develop novel LBP treatment pathways tailored to patients with different profiles of psychological distress. Future work is needed to validate their predictive capabilities for clinical outcomes.

The effects of telehealth-delivered mindfulness meditation, cognitive therapy, and behavioral activation for chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant problem affecting millions of people worldwide. Three widely implemented psychological techniques used for CLBP management are cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and behavioral activation (BA). This study aimed to evaluate the relative immediate (pre- to post-treatment) and longer term (pre-treatment to 3- and 6-month follow-ups) effects of group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM for CLBP.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a three-arm, randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of three active treatments-CT, BA, and MM-with no inert control condition. Participants were N = 302 adults with CLBP, who were randomized to condition. The primary outcome was pain interference, and other secondary outcomes were also examined. The primary study end-point was post-treatment. Intent-to-treat analyses were undertaken for each time point, with the means of the changes in outcomes compared among the three groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Effect sizes and confidence intervals are also reported.

RESULTS

Medium-to-large effect size reductions in pain interference were found within BA, CT, and MM (ds from - .71 to - 1.00), with gains maintained at both follow-up time points. Effect sizes were generally small to medium for secondary outcomes for all three conditions (ds from - .20 to - .71). No significant between-group differences in means or changes in outcomes were found at any time point, except for change in sleep disturbance from pre- to post-treatment, improving more in BA than MM (d =  - .49).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this trial, one of the largest telehealth trials of psychological treatments to date, critically determined that group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM are effective for CLBP and can be implemented in clinical practice to improve treatment access. The pattern of results demonstrated similar improvements across treatments and outcome domains, with effect sizes consistent with those observed in prior research testing in-person delivered and multi-modal psychological pain treatments. Thus, internet treatment delivery represents a tool to scale up access to evidence-based chronic pain treatments and to overcome widespread disparities in healthcare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03687762.

Virtually delivered Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) reduces daily pain intensity in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Lumbosacral radiculopathy (LR), also known as sciatica, is a common type of radiating neurologic pain involving burning, tingling, and numbness in the lower extremities. It has an estimated lifetime prevalence as high as 43%.

Objectives

The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the impact of virtually delivered Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) on patients with LR during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Potentially eligible patients were identified using electronic health record queries and phone screenings. Participants were then randomized to MORE or treatment-as-usual (TAU) for 8 weeks, with pain intensity assessed daily. At baseline and follow-up visits, participants completed questionnaires assessing the primary outcome, disability, as well as quality of life, depression, mindful reinterpretation of pain, and trait mindfulness.

Results

In our study, patients undergoing virtual delivery of MORE had greater improvements in daily pain intensity (P = 0.002) but not in disability (P = 0.09), depression (P = 0.26), or quality of life (P = 0.99 and P = 0.89, SF-12 physical and mental component scores, respectively), relative to TAU patients. In addition, patients in MORE experienced significantly greater increases in mindful reinterpretation of pain (P = 0.029) and trait mindfulness (P = 0.035).

Conclusion

Among patients with lumbar radiculopathy, MORE significantly reduced daily pain intensity but did not decrease disability or depression symptoms. Given the long duration of symptoms in our sample, we hypothesize the discrepancy between changes in daily pain intensity and disability is due to fear avoidance behaviors common in patients with chronic pain. As the first trial of a mindfulness intervention in patients with LR, these findings should inform future integrative approaches to LR treatment, particularly when considering the increasing use of virtual interventions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

If You Build It, Will They Come? Patient and Provider Use of a Novel Hybrid Telehealth Care Pathway for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the referrals and use of a hybrid care model for low back pain that includes on-site care by physical therapists, physical activity training, and psychologically informed practice (PiP) delivered by telehealth in the Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Low Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial.

METHODS

Data were collected from November 2020 through February 2023 from 5 Veteran Health Administration clinics participating in AIM-Back, a multisite, cluster-randomized embedded pragmatic trial. The authors extracted data from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse to describe referral and enrollment metrics, telehealth use (eg, distribution of physical activity and PiP calls), and treatments used by physical therapists and telehealth providers.

RESULTS

Seven hundred one veterans were referred to the AIM-Back trial with 422 enrolling in the program (consult-to-enrollment rate = 60.2%). After travel restrictions were lifted, site visits resulted in a significant increase in referrals and a number of new referring providers. At initial evaluation by on-site physical therapists, 92.2% of veterans received pain modulation (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, manual therapy). Over 81% of enrollees completed at least 1 telehealth physical activity call, with a mean of 2.8 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of the 167 veterans who screened as medium to high risk of persistent disability, 74.9% completed at least 1 PiP call, with a mean of 2.5 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of those who completed at least 1 PiP call (n = 125), 100% received communication strategies, 97.6% received pain coping skills training, 89.6% received activity-based treatments, and 99.2% received education in a home program.

CONCLUSION

In implementing a hybrid care pathway for low back pain, the authors observed consistency in the delivery of core components (ie, pain modulation, use of physical activity training, and risk stratification to PiP), notable variability in telehealth calls, high use of PiP components, and increased referrals with tailored provider engagement.

IMPACT

These findings describe variability occurring within a hybrid care pathway and can inform future implementation efforts.

ANF therapy® for pain management, feasibility, satisfaction, perceived symptom reduction and side effects: a real-world multisite observational study

[Purpose] Non-invasive and drug-free interventions for pain are being developed. One of them is ANF (which stands for "Amino Neuro Frequency") Therapy®, which consists in the application of carbonized metal devices on a patient's skin. We aimed to: 1) test perceived changes in pain intensity after ANF application, 2) record frequency and severity of side effects, 3) assess clinician and patient satisfaction, 4) explore effects on swelling and range of motion (ROM). [Participants and Methods] In this real-world multisite observational study, N=113 physical therapists in 45 countries, applied ANF to N=1,054 patients (Mage=45.2, 56.2% female) with pain complaints. Demographic data, pain intensity (NRS-11), effects of ANF on swelling and ROM, clinician and patient satisfaction and side effects were collected. [Results] Main pain locations were: low back (14.9%), knee (12.4%), neck (10%), and shoulder (9.6%). Pre-treatment pain intensity was high (Mean=7.6, SD=1.9). It significantly decreased post-treatment (Mean=3.1, SD=2.0), t(1053)=7.25, with a large effect size (Cohen's d=2.2). Swelling decreased and ROM increased. Average satisfaction with ANF was 92/100. Patients often experienced mild side effects (42.3%): dry mouth, headache and fatigue. [Conclusion] Results show large effect sizes, high satisfaction, and mild and short-term side effects. This is very promising but should be interpreted with caution considering the study limitations.

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

ABSTRACT

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Intervention Fidelity in Pain Pragmatic Trials for Nonpharmacologic Pain Management: Nuanced Considerations for Determining PRECIS-2 Flexibility in Delivery and Adherence

Nonpharmacological treatments are considered first-line pain management strategies, but they remain clinically underused. For years, pain-focused pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have generated evidence for the enhanced use of nonpharmacological interventions in routine clinical settings to help overcome implementation barriers. The Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework describes the degree of pragmatism across 9 key domains. Among these, "flexibility in delivery" and "flexibility in adherence," address a key goal of pragmatic research by tailoring approaches to settings in which people receive routine care. However, to maintain scientific and ethical rigor, PCTs must ensure that flexibility features do not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that the results are ethically and scientifically sound. Key principles of achieving this balance include clear definitions of intervention core components, intervention monitoring and documentation that is sufficient but not overly burdensome, provider training that meets the demands of delivering an intervention in real-world settings, and use of an ethical lens to recognize and avoid potential trial futility when necessary and appropriate. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents nuances to be considered when applying the PRECIS-2 framework to describe pragmatic clinical trials. Trials must ensure that patient-centered treatment flexibility does not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that measurement and analysis of treatment effects is reliable.