Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Graded chronic pain scale revised: validation in a Veteran sample.

OBJECTIVE: The Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) is frequently used in pain research and treatment to classify mild, bothersome, and high impact chronic pain. This study's objective was to validate the revised version of the GCPS (GCPS-R) in a US Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare sample to support its use in this high-risk population. METHODS: Data were collected from Veterans (n = 794) via self-report (GCPS-R and relevant health questionnaires) and electronic health record extraction (demographics and opioid prescriptions). Logistic regression, adjusting for age and gender, was used to test for differences in health indicators by pain grade. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported with CIs not including an AOR of 1 indicating that the difference exceeded chance. RESULTS: In this population, the prevalence of chronic pain (pain present most or every day, prior 3 months) was 49.3%: 7.1% with mild chronic pain (mild pain intensity and lower interference with activities); 23.3% bothersome chronic pain (moderate to severe pain intensity with lower interference); and 21.1% high impact chronic pain (higher interference). Results of this study mirrored findings in the non-VA validation study; differences between bothersome and high impact were consistent for activity limitations and present but not fully consistent for psychological variables. Those with bothersome chronic pain or high impact chronic pain were more likely to receive long-term opioid therapy compared to those with no/mild chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight categorical differences captured with the GCPS-R, and convergent validity supports use of the GCPS-R in US Veterans.

Acupuncture for chronic low back pain in older adults: Design and protocol for the BackInAction pragmatic clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain prevalence and burden increase with age; approximately one-third of U.S. adults 65 years of age and older experience lower back pain (LBP). For chronic low back pain (cLBP), typically defined as lasting three months or longer, many treatments for younger adults may be inappropriate for older adults given their greater prevalence of comorbidities with attendant polypharmacy. While acupuncture has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for cLBP in adults overall, few studies of acupuncture have either included or focused on adults ≥65 years old. METHODS: The BackInAction study is a pragmatic, multi-site, three-arm, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness of acupuncture needling for improving back pain-related disability among 807 older adults ≥65 years old with cLBP. Participants are randomized to standard acupuncture (SA; up to 15 treatment sessions across 12 weeks), enhanced acupuncture (EA; SA during first 12 weeks and up to 6 additional sessions across the following 12 weeks), and usual medical care (UMC) alone. Participants are followed for 12 months with study outcomes assessed monthly with the primary outcome timepoint at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The BackInAction study offers an opportunity to further understand the effectiveness, dose-dependence, and safety of acupuncture in a Medicare population. Additionally, study results may encourage broader adoption of more effective, safer, and more satisfactory options to the continuing over-reliance on opioid- and invasive medical treatments for cLBP among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04982315. Clinical trial registration date: July 29, 2021.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

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.

A patient-centered nurse-supported primary care-based collaborative care program to treat opioid use disorder and depression: Design and protocol for the MI-CARE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) contributes to rising morbidity and mortality. Life-saving OUD treatments can be provided in primary care but most patients with OUD don't receive treatment. Comorbid depression and other conditions complicate OUD management, especially in primary care. The MI-CARE trial is a pragmatic randomized encouragement (Zelen) trial testing whether offering collaborative care (CC) to patients with OUD and clinically-significant depressive symptoms increases OUD medication treatment with buprenorphine and improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. METHODS: Adult primary care patients with OUD and depressive symptoms (n ≥ 800) from two statewide health systems: Kaiser Permanente Washington and Indiana University Health are identified with computer algorithms from electronic Health record (EHR) data and automatically enrolled. A random sub-sample (50%) of eligible patients is offered the MI-CARE intervention: a 12-month nurse-driven CC intervention that includes motivational interviewing and behavioral activation. The remaining 50% of the study cohort comprise the usual care comparison group and is never contacted. The primary outcome is days of buprenorphine treatment provided during the intervention period. The powered secondary outcome is change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scores. Both outcomes are obtained from secondary electronic healthcare sources and compared in "intent-to-treat" analyses. CONCLUSION: MI-CARE addresses the need for rigorous encouragement trials to evaluate benefits of offering CC to generalizable samples of patients with OUD and mental health conditions identified from EHRs, as they would be in practice, and comparing outcomes to usual primary care. We describe the design and implementation of the trial, currently underway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05122676. Clinical trial registration date: November 17, 2021.

Intervention delivery for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Development of a tool to measure complexity.

BACKGROUND: Conducting an embedded pragmatic clinical trial in the workflow of a healthcare system is a complex endeavor. The complexity of the intervention delivery can have implications for study planning, ability to maintain fidelity to the intervention during the trial, and/or ability to detect meaningful differences in outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a literature review, developed a tool, and conducted two rounds of phone calls with NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Demonstration Project principal investigators to develop the Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool. After refining the tool, we piloted it with Collaboratory demonstration projects and developed an online version of the tool using the R Shiny application (https://duke-som.shinyapps.io/ICT-ePCT/). RESULTS: The 6-item tool consists of internal and external factors. Internal factors pertain to the intervention itself and include workflow, training, and the number of intervention components. External factors are related to intervention delivery at the system level including differences in healthcare systems, the dependency on setting for implementation, and the number of steps between the intervention and the outcome. CONCLUSION: The Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool was developed as a standard way to overcome communication challenges of intervention delivery within an embedded pragmatic trial. This version of the tool is most likely to be useful to the trial team and its health system partners during trial planning and conduct. We expect further evolution of the tool as more pragmatic trials are conducted and feedback is received on its performance outside of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

Pre-implementation formative evaluation of cooperative pain education and self-management expanding treatment for real-world access: A pragmatic pain trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an evidence-based treatment for improving functioning and pain intensity for people with chronic pain with extensive evidence of effectiveness. However, there has been relatively little investigation of the factors associated with successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP, particularly clinician and system level factors. This formative evaluation examined barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP from the perspective of CBT-CP clinicians and referring primary care clinicians. METHODS: Qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were conducted at nine geographically diverse Veterans Affairs sites as part of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing synchronous, clinician-delivered CBT-CP and remotely delivered, technology-assisted CBT-CP. Analysis was informed by a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinicians (CBT-CP clinicians = 17, primary care clinicians = 9) from nine VA medical centers participated in individual qualitative interviews conducted by telephone from April 2019 to August 2020. Four themes emerged in the qualitative interviews: (1) the complexity and variability of referral pathways across sites, (2) referring clinician's lack of knowledge about CBT-CP, (3) referring clinician's difficulty identifying suitable candidates for CBT-CP, and (4) preference for interventions that can be completed from home. CONCLUSIONS: This formative evaluation identified clinician and system barriers to widespread implementation of CBT-CP and allowed for refinement of the subsequent implementation of two forms of CBT-CP in an ongoing pragmatic trial. Identification of relative difference in barriers and facilitators in the two forms of CBT-CP may emerge more clearly in a pragmatic trial that evaluates how treatments perform in real-world settings and may provide important information to guide future system-wide implementation efforts.

"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.

Treating Persistent Pain: A Nurse Co-Led, Interdisciplinary Model for Primary Care.

The public health crisis of chronic pain has only increased in recognition since the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Relieving Pain in America (2011) called for a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed, treated, and put forward specific recommendations for action. The National Pain Strategy (NPS) provides a roadmap for putting these recommendations into practice. We implemented a program that placed nurses and behavioral specialists at the head of an interdisciplinary team utilizing best practices. In this program, nurses enacted the NPS recommendations to advance care for patients with persistent pain on long-term opioid treatment. This program promoted professional growth in nurses along with fostering success for patients. Compared with patients receiving usual care, patients in the program achieved greater reductions in pain severity, pain-related disability, and pain-related functional interference and reported greater satisfaction with pain-related care and primary care services. This article will detail the NPS-aligned practice approaches these nurses and their teams used, describe the training for the nurses, and speak to opportunities to enhance the nurse's capacity for this role in hopes of providing a model for the future implementation of an NPS-based approach by nurses.

Characteristics of Patients with Non-Cancer Pain and Perceived Severity of COVID-19 Related Stress.

Synopsis Patients with non-cancer pain reported increased pain and pain interference during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We determined if pain, prescription opioid use, and comorbidities were associated with perceived COVID-19-related stress as the pandemic peaked. Analysis of survey data revealed that depression/anxiety, pain severity, and pain interference were most strongly and consistently associated with greater stress due to COVID-19 related changes in lifestyle, worsening of emotional/mental health and worsening pain. Identifying specific stressful experiences that most impacted patients with non-cancer pain may help target public health and treatment interventions. Background: During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with chronic pain reported increased pain severity and interference. This study measured the association between pain, prescription opioid use, and comorbidities with perceived COVID-19-related stress as the pandemic peaked in the United States. Methods: From 9/2020 to 3/2021, the first 149 subjects from a prospective cohort study of non-cancer pain, completed a survey which contained the Complementary and Integrative Research (CAIR) Pandemic Impact Questionnaire (C-PIQ). Respondents also reported whether the pandemic has contributed to their pain or opioid use. Bivariate comparisons explored patient characteristics with each CAIR domain. Results: Respondents mean age was 54.6 (±11.3) years, 69.8% were female, 64.6% were White. Respondent characteristics were not associated with reading/watching/thinking about the pandemic or with worry about health. Depression/anxiety (p=0.003), using any prescription opioid in the prior three months (p=0.009), higher morphine milligram equivalent used (p=0.005), higher pain severity (p=0.011), and higher pain interference (p=0.0004) were all positively and significantly associated with moderate to severe stress due to COVID-19 related lifestyle changes. Depression/anxiety, pain severity, and pain interference were positively associated with COVID-19-related worsening emotional/mental health. Depression/anxiety were significantly (p<0.0001) associated with reporting that the pandemic made their pain worse. Conclusion: Depression, anxiety, pain severity, and pain interference were most strongly and consistently associated with COVID-19 changes in way of life, worsening of emotional/mental health, and worsening pain. Identifying specific stressful experiences that most impacted patients with noncancer pain may inform public health and treatment interventions.

Reduction of Long-Term Opioid Prescribing for Back Pain in Community Health Centers After a Medicaid Policy Change.

INTRODUCTION: Beginning around 2011, innumerable policies have aimed to improve pain treatment while minimizing harms from excessive use of opioids. It is not known whether changing insurance coverage for specific conditions is an effective strategy. We describe and assess the effect of an innovative Oregon Medicaid back/neck pain coverage policy on opioid prescribing patterns. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record data from a network of community health centers (CHCs) in Oregon to analyze prescription opioid dose changes among patients on long-term opioid treatment (LOT) affected by the policy. RESULTS: Of the 1,789 patients on LOT at baseline, 41.6% had an average daily dose of <20 morphine milligram equivalents (MME), 32.3% had ≥20 to <50 MME, 14.5% had ≥50 to <90 MME, and 11.6% ≥90 MME. Around half of each group discontinued opioids within the 18-month policy period. Those who discontinued did so gradually (average of 11 months) regardless of starting dosage. Predictors of discontinuation included: diagnosis of opioid use disorder, older, non-Hispanic white, and less medical complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of starting opioid dose, nearly half of patients affected by the 2016 Oregon Medicaid back/neck pain treatment policy no longer received opioid prescriptions by the end of the 18-month study period; another 30% decreased their dose. Gradual dose reduction was typical. These outcomes suggest that the policy impacted opioid prescribing. Understanding patient experiences resulting from such policies could help clinicians and policy makers navigate the complex balance between potential harms and benefits of LOT.

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.

Long-term prescription opioid users' risk for new-onset depression increases with frequency of use.

ABSTRACT: Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is associated with increased risk for depression. It is not known if the frequency of opioid use during LTOT is associated with new-onset depression. We used Optum's de-identified Integrated Claims-Clinical dataset (2010-2018) to create a cohort of 5146 patients, 18 to 80 years of age, with an encounter or claims in the year before new LTOT. New LTOT was defined by >90-day opioid use after remaining opioid free for 6 months. Opioid use frequency during the first 90 days of LTOT was categorized into occasional use (<50% days covered), intermittent use (50% to <80% days covered), frequent use (80% to <90% days covered), and daily use (≥90% days covered). Propensity scores and inverse probability of exposure weighting controlled for confounding in models estimating risk for new-onset depression. Patients were on average 54.5 (SD ± 13.6) years of age, 55.7% were female, 72.5% were White, and 9.5% were African American. After controlling for confounding, daily users (hazard ratio = 1.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.73) and frequent users (hazard ratio = 1.34; 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.71) were significantly more likely to develop new-onset depression compared with occasional users. This association remained after accounting for the contribution of post-index pain diagnoses and opioid use disorder. In LTOT, risk for new depression episodes is up to 40% greater in near-daily users compared with occasional users. Patients could reduce depression risk by avoiding opioid use on as many low pain days as possible. Repeated screening for depression during LTOT is warranted.

A Pilot Study to Adapt a Trauma-Informed, Mindfulness-Based Yoga Intervention for Justice-Involved Youth.

The purpose of the present study was to adapt and pilot a trauma-informed, mindfulness-based yoga (TIMBY) intervention focused on enhancing self-regulation among youth in the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice system. In this article we (1) describe the process by which we systematically adapted an evidence-based protocol specifically for this population, (2) describe the nature of and rationale for those adaptations, (3) present some preliminary qualitative findings based on interviews with youth participants, and (4) briefly summarize how the adapted protocol will be evaluated in the subsequent feasibility trial. The iterative drafting and revision process involved modifications to a well-established, protocolized Trauma-Informed Yoga program and was identified by the project advisory board and t h rough formal interviews with intervention staff. Qualitative interviews were conducted with youth participants concerning intervention impact, credibility, and satisfaction. Several needed modifications were identified so that the intervention would be contextually appropriate for justice-involved youth. Thirty youth were enrolled in the pilot study: 77% we re Non - Hispanic Black/African-American, 18% were Non-Hispanic White, and 5% were Hispanic White. The average age was 16.45 years (range 14-20). The youth consistently reported satisfaction with the sessions and positive beliefs about how the sessions were helping them with a range of physical and psychological/ emotional challenges. Adaptations to the protocol in the present study highlight how mindfulness-based interventions for justice-involved youth need to consider what is both developmentally suitable for youth and appropriate in a justice setting. A feasibility study using this revised TIMBY protocol is underway at four Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice facilities to formally identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation for the present study and a future, larger-scale trial.

Zelen design clinical trials: why, when, and how.

BACKGROUND: In 1979, Marvin Zelen proposed a new design for randomized clinical trials intended to facilitate clinicians' and patients' participation. The defining innovation of Zelen's proposal was random assignment of treatment prior to patient or participant consent. Following randomization, a participant would receive information and asked to consent to the assigned treatment. METHODS: This narrative review examined recent examples of Zelen design trials evaluating clinical and public health interventions. RESULTS: Zelen designs have often been applied to questions regarding real-world treatment or intervention effects under conditions of incomplete adherence. Examples include evaluating outreach or engagement interventions (especially for stigmatized conditions), evaluating treatments for which benefit may vary according to participant motivation, and situations when assignment to a control or usual care condition might prompt a disappointment effect. Specific practical considerations determine whether a Zelen design is scientifically appropriate or practicable. Zelen design trials usually depend on identifying participants automatically from existing records rather than by advertising, referral, or active recruitment. Assessments of baseline or prognostic characteristics usually depend on available records data rather than research-specific assessments. Because investigators must consider how exposure to treatments or interventions might bias ascertainment of outcomes, assessment of outcomes from routinely created records is often necessary. A Zelen design requires a waiver of the usual requirement for informed consent prior to random assignment of treatment. The Revised Common Rule includes specific criteria for such a waiver, and those criteria are most often met for evaluation of a low-risk and potentially beneficial intervention added to usual care. Investigators and Institutional Review Boards must also consider whether the scientific or public health benefit of a Zelen design trial outweighs the autonomy interests of potential participants. Analysis of Zelen trials compares outcomes according to original assignment, regardless of any refusal to accept or participate in the assigned treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A Zelen design trial assesses the real-world consequences of a specific strategy to prompt or promote uptake of a specific treatment. While such trials are poorly suited to address explanatory or efficacy questions, they are often preferred for addressing pragmatic or policy questions.

Accounting for quality improvement during the conduct of embedded pragmatic clinical trials within healthcare systems: NIH Collaboratory case studies.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and quality improvement (QI) activities often occur simultaneously within healthcare systems (HCSs). Embedded PCTs within HCSs are conducted to test interventions and provide evidence that may impact public health, health system operations, and quality of care. They are larger and more broadly generalizable than QI initiatives, and may generate what is considered high-quality evidence for potential use in care and clinical practice guidelines. QI initiatives often co-occur with ePCTs and address the same high-impact health questions, and this co-occurrence may dilute or confound the ability to detect change as a result of the ePCT intervention. During the design, pilot, and conduct phases of the large-scale NIH Collaboratory Demonstration ePCTs, many QI initiatives occurred at the same time within the HCSs. Although the challenges varied across the projects, some common, generalizable strategies and solutions emerged, and we share these as case studies. KEY LESSONS: Study teams often need to monitor, adapt, and respond to QI during design and the course of the trial. Routine collaboration between ePCT researchers and health systems stakeholders throughout the trial can help ensure research and QI are optimally aligned to support high-quality patient-centered care.

"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.