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.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering. OBJECTIVE: Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system. METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Implementing a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) has been translated into digital formats. We report an economic evaluation of a digital DPP implemented in a large, integrated health care system. MethodsPatients (n = 4148) were invited to participate in digital DPP based on clinical characteristics (HbA1c 5.7%-6.4% and body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) assessed using electronic medical record data. Using a propensity score we matched (1:1) enrolled and not enrolled patients for a total of 784. We identified high-risk patients (ie, above the 50th percentile of risk; n = 202) by calculating each patient's 2-year of developing diabetes. We report the cost of the intervention and the costs of medical care over 12- and 24-month follow-up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the cost per additional kilogram weight loss at 24 months. ResultsAt 12 months, enrolled patients had lower total costs ($6,926, 95% CI $5,681-$8,171) than not enrolled patients ($7,538, 95% CI $6,293-$8,783). This pattern attenuated slightly at 24 months (enrolled = $16,255, 95% CI $14,097-$18,412; not enrolled = $16,688, 95% CI $14,531-$18,846). We found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $81.92 per additional kilogram weight loss. For high-risk patients, the digital DPP group had, on average, lower costs and greater weight loss. We found a 55% chance of the digital DPP program being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $150 per additional kilogram of weight loss; at the same willingness-to-pay, there is a 60% chance in the high-risk subgroup. Limitations include the nonrandomized design and potential volunteer bias. ConclusionDigital DPP had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile compared to other lifestyle interventions.

"We Need to Taper." Interviews with Clinicians and Pharmacists About Use of a Pharmacy-Led Opioid Tapering Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence or interfere with referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) to a pharmacist-led telephone-based program to assist patients undergoing opioid tapering. The Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM) program provides individualized patient care and supports PCPs in managing opioid tapers. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with referring PCPs and STORM staff. Interview guides addressed concepts from the RE-AIM framework, focusing on issues affecting referral to the STORM program. SETTING: An integrated healthcare system (HCS) in the Northwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs and 15 STORM staff. METHODS: Constant comparative analysis was used to identify key themes from interviews. A codebook was developed based on interview data and a qualitative software program was used for coding, iterative review, and content analysis. Representative quotes illustrate identified themes. RESULTS: Use of the STORM opioid tapering program was influenced by PCP, patient, and HCS considerations. Factors motivating use of STORM included lack of PCP time to support chronic pain patients requiring opioid tapering and the perception that STORM is a valued partner in patient care. Impediments to referral included PCP confidence in managing opioid tapering, patient resistance to tapering, forgetting about program availability, and PCP resistance to evolving guidelines regarding opioid tapering goals. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs recognized that STORM supported patient safety and reduced clinician burden. Utilization of the program could be improved through ongoing PCP education about the service and consistent co-location of STORM pharmacists within primary care clinics.