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.

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.

Evaluating the Implementation of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System Among Older Adults: Results of a Natural Experiment.

The purpose of this natural experiment study was to assess the effectiveness of a 12-month digital Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) for adults aged 65-75 years with prediabetes and obesity within a large, integrated health care system. Adjusting for propensity scores and covariates, patients who enrolled and participated in the digital DPP had a mean weight loss of 8.6 lb over 12 months and 5.7 lb by 24 months, compared with a steady, minimal weight loss of 1.3 lb over 12 months and 2.8 lb by 24 months among patients not enrolled. There was a significant difference in mean change in A1C between enrolled and nonenrolled patients over 12 months (-0.10%), but not by 24 months (-0.06%). Digital DPP appears to be an effective weight loss option and potential diabetes prevention intervention for older adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes.

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.

Evaluating the Implementation of Digital and In-Person Diabetes Prevention Program in a Large, Integrated Health System: Natural Experiment Study Design.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in both in-person and digital health-care settings has been increasing. The purpose of this article is to describe the protocol of a mixed-methods, natural experiment study designed to evaluate the implementation of DPP in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who were 19 to 75 years with prediabetes (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin, 5.7-6.4) and obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) were invited, via the Kaiser Permanente Northwest patient portal, to participate in the digital (n = 4124) and in-person (n = 2669) DPP during 2016 through 2018. Primary (weight) and secondary (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin level) outcome data will be obtained from electronic health records. A cost-effectiveness analysis as well as qualitative interviews with patients (enrolled and not enrolled in the DPP) and stakeholders will be conducted to examine further implementation, acceptability, and sustainability. CONCLUSION: The mixed-methods, natural experiment design we will use to evaluate Kaiser Permanente Northwest's implementation of the digital and in-person DPP builds on existing evidence related to the effectiveness of these two DPP delivery modes and will contribute new knowledge related to best practices for implementing and sustaining the DPP within large health systems over the long term.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Health Coach-Delivered Smartphone-Guided Self-Help With Standard Care for Adults With Binge Eating.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has shown efficacy in the treatment of eating disorders. The authors conducted a randomized controlled telemedicine trial of CBT-guided self-help (CBT-GSH) assisted with a smartphone app, Noom Monitor, for binge eating with or without purging. They hypothesized that coach-delivered CBT-GSH telemedicine sessions plus Noom Monitor would yield greater reductions in symptoms of binge eating, purging, and eating disorders compared with standard care. METHODS: Fifty-two-week outcomes for CBT-GSH plus Noom Monitor (N=114) were compared with outcomes for standard care (N=111) among members of an integrated health care system in the Pacific Northwest. Patients in the health system who met inclusion criteria were ≥18 years old, had a body mass index ≥18.5, met criteria for DSM-5 binge eating disorder or bulimia nervosa, had 12 months of continuous health care enrollment in Kaiser Permanente Northwest, and had a personal smartphone. Participants received eight CBT-GSH telemedicine sessions over 12 weeks administered by health coaches, and outcomes were assessed at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52. The use of available treatment offered within the Kaiser Permanente health care system was permitted for participants assigned to standard care. RESULTS: Participants who received CBT-GSH plus Noom Monitor reported significant reductions in objective binge-eating days (ß=-0.66, 95% CI=-1.06, -0.25; Cohen's d=-1.46, 95% CI=-4.63, -1.09) and achieved higher rates of remission (56.7% compared with 30%; number needed to treat=3.74) at 52 weeks compared with participants in standard care, none of whom received any eating disorder treatment during the intervention period (baseline and weeks 1-12). Similar patterns emerged for compensatory behaviors (vomiting, use of laxatives, and excessive exercise; 76.3% compared with 56.8%; number needed to treat=5.11), eating disorder symptoms (body shape, weight, eating concerns, and dietary restraint), and clinical impairment (Cohen's d=-10.07, -2.15). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that CBT-GSH plus Noom Monitor delivered via telemedicine by routine-practice health coaches in a nonacademic health care system yields reductions in symptoms and impairment over 52 weeks compared with standard care.

Taking opioids in times of crisis: Institutional oversight, chronic pain and suffering in an integrated healthcare delivery system in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Opioid treatment for chronic pain has garnered heightened public attention and political pressure to control a devastating public health crisis in the United States (U.S.). Resulting policy changes, together with ongoing public and political attention, have pushed health care systems and providers to lower doses or deprescribe and taper patients off opioids. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of such practice changes on patients who had relied on opioid treatment to manage their chronic pain. The aim of this article is to explore experiences with opioid-related care under aggressive tapering efforts and concomitant heightened monitoring and institutional oversight among patients with chronic pain in an integrated delivery system through in-depth interviews. METHODS: We interviewed 97 patients with chronic pain who were assigned to the usual care arm of the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) study. These patients had been prescribed opioids as part of their treatment regimens and taken opioids closely monitored by their health care providers. We followed the framework method for coding and analysing transcripts using NVivo 12. RESULTS: The experiences of these patients during this period of change can be understood through three interconnected themes: (1) many patients taking opioids experience debilitating physical side effects; (2) navigating opioid treatment contributes to significant emotional distress among many patients with chronic pain and; (3) the quality of patients' relationship with their primary care provider can be negatively affected by negotiations regarding long-term opioid treatment for chronic pain. CONCLUSION: We highlight the importance of utilizing communication approaches that are patient-centered and include shared decision making during the tapering and/or deprescribing processes of opioids and ensuring alternative pain treatments are available to patients with chronic pain.

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.