A prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial of an "embodied" virtual reality intervention for adults with low back pain.

ABSTRACT: Adults with chronic low back pain, disability, moderate-to-severe pain, and high fear of movement and reinjury were recruited into a trial of a novel, automated, digital therapeutics, virtual reality, psychological intervention for pain (DTxP). We conducted a 3-arm, prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial comparing DTxP with a sham placebo comparator and an open-label standard care. Participants were enrolled for 6 to 8 weeks, after which, the standard care control arm were rerandomized to receive either the DTxP or sham placebo. Forty-two participants completed assessments at baseline, immediately posttreatment (6-8 weeks), 9-week, and 5-month follow-up. We found that participants in the DTxP group reported greater reductions in fear of movement and better global impression of change when compared with sham placebo and standard care post treatment. No other group differences were noted at posttreatment or follow-up. When compared with baseline, participants in the DTxP group reported lower disability at 5-month follow-up, lower pain interference and fear of movement post treatment and follow-up, and lower pain intensity at posttreatment. The sham placebo group also reported lower disability and fear of movement at 5-month follow-up compared with baseline. Standard care did not report any significant changes. There were a number of adverse events, with one participant reporting a serious adverse event in the sham placebo, which was not related to treatment. No substantial changes in medications were noted, and participants in the DTxP group reported positive gaming experiences.

Smart Program Design Through a Common Information Model.

Although much information is already available publically from information-sharing initiatives such as ClinicalTrials.gov, information about clinical programs is unstructured, inconsistent, and incomplete. Clinical research within bioscience companies, health care, academia, and governmental agencies could benefit from easier access to best practices, historical information, and improved information sharing. Facilitating information sharing requires a standardized information model. Information standards today focus on individual clinical trials and the representation of clinical trial data. Although work is ongoing to expand standards to cover the protocol, these are insufficient to capture the objectives, rationale, and design thinking behind clinical programs. An information model is proposed to cover the rationalization and decision-making aspects of designing a clinical program and its associated trials. This paper is the output of a newly formed multicompany working group that examines the merits of a clinical program-level information standard. An example information model is presented to explain the concept.