A randomized placebo-controlled trial of desipramine, cognitive behavioral therapy, and active placebo therapy for low back pain.

This clinical trial evaluated the independent and combined effects of a tricyclic antidepressant (desipramine) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic back pain relative to an active placebo treatment. Participants (n = 142) were patients experiencing daily chronic back pain at an intensity of ≥4/10 who were randomized to a single-center, double-blind, 12-week, 4-arm, parallel groups controlled clinical trial of (1) low concentration desipramine titrated to reach a serum concentration level of 15 to 65 ng/mL; (2) CBT and active placebo medication (benztropine mesylate, 0.125 mg); (3) low concentration desipramine and CBT; and (4) active benztropine placebo medication. Participants completed the Differential Description Scale and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaires before and after treatment as validated measures of outcomes in back pain intensity and disability, respectively. Participants within each condition showed significant reductions from pre-treatment to post-treatment in pain intensity (mean changes ranged from = -2.58 to 3.87, Cohen's d's = 0.46-0.84) and improvements in pain disability (mean changes = -3.04 to 4.29, Cohen's d's = 0.54-0.88). However, intent-to-treat analyses at post-treatment showed no significant differences between any condition, with small effect sizes ranging from 0.06 to 0.27. The results from this clinical trial did not support the hypothesis that desipramine, CBT, or their combination would be statistically superior to an active medicine placebo for reducing chronic back pain intensity or disability. Key limitations included recruiting 71% of the planned sample size and use of multiple inclusion/exclusion criteria that may limit generalizability to broader populations of patients with chronic back pain.

Telehealth Therapy Effects of Nurses and Mental Health Professionals From 2 Randomized Controlled Trials for Chronic Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of mental health professional versus primary care nurse-delivered telehealth cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and supportive care (SC) treatments for chronic low back pain, using data from 2 separate randomized controlled trials. Both trials were completed in the same hospital and used the same study design, research team, and outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants from Study 1 (Mental Health Professional Study) (N=66; 2007 to 2011) and Study 2 (Nursing Study) (N=61; 2012 to 2016) were patients with chronic low back pain (≥4/10 intensity) randomized to either an 8-week CBT or an SC telehealth condition matched for contact frequency, format, and time. Participants completed validated measures of improvement in back pain disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory 2 [BDI-2]), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), and overall improvement (Global Clinical Impressions [GCI]). RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses at posttreatment showed that scores on the RMDQ (Cohen d=0.33 to 0.55), NRS (d=0.45 to 0.90), PCS (d=0.21 to 0.41), and GCI (18.5% to 39.1%) improved significantly in both studies and in both treatments from pretreatment to posttreatment. Changes in BDI scores were inconsistent (d=-0.06 to 0.51). The analyses revealed no significant differences in treatment efficacy between the trained nurse versus the mental health professionals on the RMDQ, NRS, PCS, or GCI measures (P>0.20). DISCUSSION: Results from these clinical trials suggest that the benefits of home-based, telehealth-delivered CBT and SC treatments for chronic back pain were comparable when delivered by a primary care nurse or mental health professional.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Nurse-Delivered Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Versus Supportive Psychotherapy Telehealth Interventions for Chronic Back Pain.

This study evaluated a nurse-delivered, telehealth intervention of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) versus supportive psychotherapy for chronic back pain. Participants (N = 61) had chronic back pain (pain "daily" ≥6 months at an intensity of ≥4 of 10 scale) and were randomized to an 8-week, 12-session, CBT or to supportive care (SC) matched for frequency, format, and time, with each treatment delivered by a primary care nurse. The primary outcome was the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Patient Global Impressions Scale (CGI). CBT participants (n = 30) showed significant improvements on the RMDQ (mean = 11.4 [SD = 5.9] vs 9.4 [SD = 6.1] at baseline and post-treatment, respectively, P < .05; d = .33), NRS (mean = 4.9 [SD = 2.1] vs 4.0 [SD = 1.9], respectively, P < .05; d = .45), and on the CGI (39.1% reporting "much improved" or "very much improved"). SC participants (n = 31) also showed significant improvements on the RMDQ (mean = 11.1 [SD = 5.4] vs 9.1 [SD = 5.2], respectively, P < .05; d = .38), the NRS, (mean = 5.0 [SD = 1.9] vs 3.8 [SD = 2.1], respectively, P < .05; d = .60), and 26.7% reporting "much improved" or "very much improved" on the CGI. Between groups comparisons of CBT and SC showed no differences on the study outcomes (Ps > .10). The results suggest that telehealth, nurse-delivered CBT, and SC treatments for chronic back pain can offer significant and relatively comparable benefits. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes the benefits of training primary care nurses to deliver evidence-based behavioral therapies for low back pain. Because of the high prevalence of chronic pain and the growing emphasis on nonopioid therapies, training nurses to provide behavior therapies could be a cost-effective way to improve pain management.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Telephone-delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Supportive Care for Chronic Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a telephone-delivered, home-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for chronic low back pain in comparison to a matched supportive care (SC) treatment. METHODS: Participants (N=66) were patients with chronic back pain that were randomized to either an 8-week Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or a SC condition matched for contact frequency, format, and time. Participants completed validated measures of improvement in back pain disability, pain severity, and overall improvement. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses at posttreatment showed that the treatment groups not show significantly different improvements in back pain disability (mean changes, -2.4 and -2.6 for CBT and SC, respectively; Cohen d, 0.49 and 0.55, respectively) or reductions in pain severity (mean changes, -0.9 and -1.4 for CBT and SC respectively; Cohen d, 0.50, and 0.90, respectively). Participants rated their overall improvement levels at 31% (CBT) versus 18.5% (SC). DISCUSSION: Results from this clinical trial suggest that home-based, telephone-delivered CBT and SC treatments did not significantly differ in their benefits for back pain severity and disability, and may warrant further research for applications to hospital settings. Major limitations included recruitment difficulties that underpowered primary analyses, the lack of objective improvement measures, and the absence of a usual care/untreated control group for comparisons.