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

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is prevalent and costly; cost-effective nonpharmacological approaches that reduce pain and improve patient functioning are needed. OBJECTIVE: Report the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), compared with usual care, of cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at improving functioning and pain among patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment (N=814). INTERVENTION: A cognitive behavioral therapy intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorists, nurses) with additional support from physical therapists, and pharmacists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per additional responder (≥30% improvement on standard scale assessment of Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity, and Sleep). Costs were estimated as-delivered, and replication. RESULTS: Per patient intervention replication costs were $2145 ($2574 as-delivered). Those costs were completely offset by lower medical care costs; inclusive of the intervention, total medical care over follow-up was $1841 lower for intervention patients. Intervention group patients also had greater QALY and responder gains than did controls. Supplemental analyses using pain-related medical care costs revealed ICERs of $35,000, and $53,000 per QALY (for replication, and as-delivered intervention costs, respectively); the ICER when excluding patients with outlier follow-up costs was $106,000. LIMITATIONS: Limited to 1-year follow-up; identification of pain-related utilization potentially incomplete. CONCLUSION: The intervention was the optimal choice at commonly accepted levels of willingness-to-pay for QALY gains; this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

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

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592). SETTING: Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy. INTERVENTION: A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATION: The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear. CONCLUSION: Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Automating Collection of Pain-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Clinical Care and Research.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is highly prevalent, and the ability to routinely measure patients' pain and treatment response using validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments is important to clinical care. Despite this recognition, systematic use in everyday clinical care is rare. AIMS: The aims of this study were to (1) describe infrastructure designed to automate PRO data collection, (2) compare study-enhanced PRO completion rates to those in clinical care, and (3) evaluate patient response rates by method of PRO administration and sociodemographic and/or clinical characteristics. SETTING: The Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) is a pragmatic clinical trial conducted within three regions of the Kaiser Permanente health care system. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: PPACT evaluates the effect of integrative primary care-based pain management services on outcomes for chronic pain patients on long-term opioid treatment. We implemented a tiered process for quarterly assessment of PROs to supplement clinical collection and ensure adequate trial data using three methods: web-based personal health records (PHR), automated interactive voice response (IVR) calls, and live outreach. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Among a subset of PPACT participants examined (n = 632), the tiered study-enhanced PRO completion rates were higher than in clinical care: 96% completed ≥ 1 study-administered PRO with mean of 3.46 (SD = 0.85) vs. 74% completed in clinical care with a mean of 2.43 (SD = 2.08). Among all PPACT participants at 3 months (n = 831), PRO completion was 86% and analyses of response by key characteristics found only that participant age predicted an increased likelihood of responding to PHR and IVR outreach. DISCUSSION: Adherence to pain-related PRO data collection using our enhanced tiered approach was high. No demographic or clinical identifiers other than age were associated with differential response by modality. Successful ancillary support should employ multimodal electronic health record functionalities for PRO administration. Using automated modalities is feasible and may facilitate better sustainability for regular PRO administration within health care systems. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.

Interdisciplinary team-based care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment in primary care (PPACT) - Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.

Health Care Systems Support to Enhance Patient-Centered Care: Lessons from a Primary Care-Based Chronic Pain Management Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Supporting day-to-day self-care activities has emerged as a best practice when caring for patients with chronic pain, yet providing this support may introduce challenges for both patients and primary care physicians. It is essential to develop tools that help patients identify the issues and outcomes that are most important to them and to communicate this information to primary care physicians at the point of care. OBJECTIVE: We describe our process to engage patients, primary care physicians, and other stakeholders in the context of a pilot randomized controlled trial of a patient-centered assessment process implemented in an everyday practice setting. We identify lessons on how to engage stakeholders and improve patient-centered care for those with chronic conditions within the primary care setting. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of project minutes, interviews, and focus groups was conducted to evaluate stakeholder experiences. Stakeholders included patients, caregivers, clinicians, medical office support staff, health plan administrators, an information technology consultant, and a patient advocate. RESULTS: Our stakeholders included many patients with no prior experience with research. This approach enriched the applicability of feedback but necessitated extra time for stakeholder training and meeting preparation. Types of stakeholders varied over the course of the project, and more involvement of medical assistants and Information Technology staff was required than originally anticipated. CONCLUSION: Meaningful engagement of patient and physician stakeholders must be solicited in a well-coordinated manner with broad health care system supports in place to ensure full execution of patient-centered processes.