Partnering with Patients in Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments: A Narrative Review

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.

Leveraging Single-Case Experimental Designs to Promote Personalized Psychological Treatment: Step-by-Step Implementation Protocol with Stakeholder Involvement of an Outpatient Clinic for Personalized Psychotherapy

Our objective is to implement a single-case experimental design (SCED) infrastructure in combination with experience-sampling methods (ESM) into the standard diagnostic procedure of a German outpatient research and training clinic. Building on the idea of routine outcome monitoring, the SCED infrastructure introduces intensive longitudinal data collection, individual effectiveness measures, and the opportunity for systematic manipulation to push personalization efforts further. It aims to empower psychotherapists and patients to evaluate their own treatment (idiographic perspective) and to enable researchers to analyze open questions of personalized psychotherapy (nomothetic perspective). Organized around the principles of agile research, we plan to develop, implement, and evaluate the SCED infrastructure in six successive studies with continuous stakeholder involvement: In the project development phase, the business model for the SCED infrastructure is developed that describes its vision in consideration of the context (Study 1). Also, the infrastructure's prototype is specified, encompassing the SCED procedure, ESM protocol, and ESM survey (Study 2 and 3). During the optimization phase, feasibility and acceptability are tested and the infrastructure is adapted accordingly (Study 4). The evaluation phase includes a pilot implementation study to assess implementation outcomes (Study 5), followed by actual implementation using a within-institution A-B design (Study 6). The sustainability phase involves continuous monitoring and improvement. We discuss to what extent the generated data could be used to address current questions of personalized psychotherapy research. Anticipated barriers and limitations during the implementation processes are outlined.

Experiences and lessons learned from a patient-engagement service established by a national research consortium in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration

Introduction

Meaningful engagement of patients in the research process has increased over the past 20 years. Few accounts are available of engagement infrastructure and processes used by large research organizations. The Pain/Opioid Consortium of Research (Consortium) is a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) research network that provides infrastructure to accelerate health research and implementation of evidence-based health care. The Consortium's key activities include facilitating Veteran-engaged research and building community between Veterans and VA researchers. This report sought to describe experiences and lessons learned from the first 3 years of a national research engagement service, featuring a Veteran Engagement (VE) Panel, established by the Consortium.

Methods

We gathered authors' experiences to describe development and operation of the Consortium's VE Panel. Engagement staff collected program evaluation data about partners (Veterans and researchers), projects about which the VE Panel consulted, and meeting attendance during operation of the engagement service.

Results

We created a 12-member VE Panel; all of whom had lived experience with chronic pain, prescription opioid medication use, or opioid use disorder. Engagement staff and VE Panel members implemented an engagement service operational model designed to continuously learn and adapt. The panel consulted on 48 projects spanning the research process. Seventy-eight percent of panel members, on average, attended each monthly meeting. VE Panel members and participating researchers reported high satisfaction with the quality, ease, and outcomes of their engagement service experiences.

Conclusions

This work provides an illustrative example of how a national research consortium facilitated Veteran-engaged research and built community between Veterans and VA researchers by developing and operating an ongoing engagement consulting service, featuring a VE Panel. The service, designed as a learning community, relied on skilled engagement staff to cultivate high quality experiences and outcomes for all partners.

An online pain management program for people with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or hypermobility spectrum disorder: a three-staged development process

PURPOSE

Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) and hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) are painful, chronic and multi-systemic conditions. No online pain management programs for hEDS/HSD currently exist. We aimed to develop one by exploring what people with hEDS/HSD want in such programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Delphi was conducted via online surveys of stakeholders: participants with hEDS/HSD and healthcare professionals (HCP). In survey 1, participants were asked if a hEDS/HSD-specific online pain management program was important, listing up to 20 topics important to know about pain. In survey 2, participants rated the importance of those topics. Consensus was set as ≥75% rating of at least "important". Using topics that reached consensus, the online program was developed. Usability testing was performed using the Systems Usability Scale (SUS).

RESULTS

396 hEDS/HSD and 29 HCP completed survey 1; 151 hEDS/HSD and 12 HCP completed survey 2. 81% of hEDS/HSD and 69% of HCP rated a hEDS/HSD-specific program as at least "important". Thirty-five topics reached consensus to guide content for the HOPE program (Hypermobile Online Pain managemEnt). SUS score was 82.5, corresponding to "high acceptability".

CONCLUSIONS

A hEDS/HSD-specific online pain management program is important to stakeholders. Utilising a Delphi approach to incorporate stakeholder input, an evidence-informed and user appropriate program was developed.

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

ABSTRACT

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

Recruitment and retention of clinical trial participants: understanding motivations of patients with chronic pain and other populations

This paper aims to present and discuss the issues, challenges, and strategies related to recruitment and retention in clinical trials involving participants with chronic pain. The randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) is widely regarded as the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions. However, it is crucial to acknowledge and address the challenges associated with recruiting and retaining participants. To prioritize the experience of the study population, targeted outreach strategies and a patient-centric approach are necessary. Researchers should consider incorporating recruitment and retention strategies during the study design phase. Implementing multi-pronged recruitment methods, leveraging relationships with community providers, and involving representatives of the patient population are helpful approaches. Effective communication and maintaining a professional environment are vital for optimizing engagement and supporting the successful execution of clinical trials involving participants with chronic pain.

Shifting quality chronic pain treatment measures from processes to outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Misapplication of the 2016 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) opioid prescribing guidelines has led to overem-phasis of morphineequivalent daily dose (MEDD) as a "metric of success" in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), resulting in unintentional harms to patients. This article reviews CNCP-related guidelines and patient preferences in order to identify pragmatic, patient-centered metrics to assess treatment response and safety in opioid-treated CNCP.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical (CDC), research (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials), and implementability-related guidelines (GuideLine Implementability Appraisal), along with relevant patient-identified treatment goals. From these, we summarize a guideline-concordant, patient-centered, implementable set of measures to aid the clinical management of opioid-treated CNCP.

RESULTS

We identify metrics across three domains of care: (1) treatment response metrics, which align with the CNCP care goals (pain intensity, pain interference including function and quality of life, and global impression of change); (2) risk assessment ("safety") metrics, eg, MEDD, benzodiazepine-opioid or naloxone-opioid coprescribing, and severity of mental health disorders, which evaluate the risk-benefit profile of opioid therapy; and (3) adherence ("process") metrics, which assess clinician/patient adherence to the guideline-recommended opioid therapy monitoring practices, eg, the presence of completed treatment agreement or urine toxicology testing. All metrics should be informed by implementability principles, eg, be decidable, executable, and measurable.

CONCLUSIONS

This article summarizes guideline-concordant, patient-centered, implementable metrics for assessing treatment response, safety, and adherence in opioid-treated CNCP. Regardless of which specific treatment guidelines are applied, this approach could help conceptualize and standardize the collection and reporting of CNCP-relevant metrics, compare them across health systems, and optimize care and treatment outcomes in opioid-treated CNCP.

Enhancing Exposure Treatment for Youths With Chronic Pain: Co-design and Qualitative Approach

BACKGROUND

Increasing the access to and improving the impact of pain treatments is of utmost importance, especially among youths with chronic pain. The engagement of patients as research partners (in contrast to research participants) provides valuable expertise to collaboratively improve treatment delivery.

OBJECTIVE

This study looked at a multidisciplinary exposure treatment for youths with chronic pain through the lens of patients and caregivers with the aim to explore and validate treatment change processes, prioritize and develop ideas for improvement, and identify particularly helpful treatment elements.

METHODS

Qualitative exit interviews were conducted with patients and caregivers at their discharge from 2 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01974791 and NCT03699007). Six independent co-design meetings were held with patients and caregivers as research partners to establish a consensus within and between groups. The results were validated in a wrap-up meeting.

RESULTS

Patients and caregivers described that exposure treatment helped them better process pain-related emotions, feel empowered, and improve their relationship with each other. The research partners developed and agreed upon 12 ideas for improvement. Major recommendations include that pain exposure treatment should be disseminated more not only among patients and caregivers but also among primary care providers and the general public to facilitate an early referral for treatment. Exposure treatment should allow flexibility in terms of duration, frequency, and delivery mode. The research partners prioritized 13 helpful treatment elements. Most of the research partners agreed that future exposure treatments should continue to empower patients to choose meaningful exposure activities, break long-term goals into smaller steps, and discuss realistic expectations at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have the potential to contribute to the refinement of pain treatments more broadly. At their core, they suggest that pain treatments should be disseminated more, flexible, and transparent.

Perspectives on Participation in Clinical Trials Among Individuals With Pain, Depression, and/or Anxiety: An ACTTION Scoping Review

For individuals experiencing pain, the decision to engage in clinical trials may be influenced by a number of factors including current and past care, illness severity, physical functioning, financial stress, and caregiver support. Co-occurring depression and anxiety may add to these challenges. The aim of this scoping review was to describe perspectives about clinical trial participation, including recruitment and retention among individuals with pain and pain comorbidities, including depression and/or anxiety. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study features, sample demographics, perspectives, barriers and/or motivations were collected and described. A total of 35 assessments were included in this scoping review with 24 focused on individuals with pain (24/35, 68.6%), 9 on individuals with depression and/or anxiety (9/35, 25.7%), and 2 on individuals with pain and co-occurring depression/anxiety (2/35, 5.7%). Barriers among participants with pain and those with depression included: research team's communication of information, fear of interventional risks, distrust (only among respondents with pain), too many procedures, fear of inadequate treatment, disease-life stressors, and embarrassment with study procedures (more commonly reported in participants with depression). Facilitators in both groups included: altruism and supportive staff, better access to care, and the ability to have outcome feedback (more commonly among individuals with depression). Individuals with pain and depression experience challenges that affect trial recruitment and retention. Engaging individuals with pain within research planning may assist in addressing these barriers and the needs of individuals affected by pain and/or depression. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the need to address barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials, including the need for an assessment of perspectives from underserved or marginalized populations.