Search

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and clinical research, including a suite of 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), across clinics within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). These PCTs were designed to evaluate an array of nonpharmacological treatments and models of care for treatment of patients with pain and co-occurring conditions. The aims of the study are to (a) describe modifications to PCTs and interventions to address the evolving pandemic and (b) describe the application of implementation science methods for evaluation of those PCT modifications. The project used a two-phase, sequential, mixed-methods design. In Phase I, we captured PCT disruptions and modifications via a Research Electronic Data Capture questionnaire, using Periodic Reflections methods as a guide. In Phase II, we utilized the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) taxonomy to develop a focus group interview guide and checklist that would provide more in-depth data than Phase I. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Phase I revealed that all PCTs made between two and six trial modifications. Phase II, FRAME-guided analyses showed that the key goals for modifying interventions were increasing treatment feasibility and decreasing patient exposure to COVID-19, while preserving intervention core elements. Context (format) modifications led eight PCTs to modify parts of the interventions for virtual delivery. Content modifications added elements to enhance patient safety; tailored interventions for virtual delivery (counseling, exercise, mindfulness); and modified interventions involving manual therapies. Implementation science methods identified near-real-time disruptions and modifications to PCTs focused on pain management in veteran and military healthcare settings.

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are well-suited to address unmet healthcare needs, such as those arising from the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid misuse, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These overlapping epidemics have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and PCTs can be used to investigate the effectiveness of integrated therapies that are currently available but underused. Yet individual pragmatic studies can be limited in their reach because of existing structural and cultural barriers to dissemination and implementation. The National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs formed an interagency research partnership, the Pain Management Collaboratory. The partnership combines pragmatic trial design with collaborative tools and relationship building within a large network to advance the science and impact of nonpharmacological approaches and integrated models of care for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. The Pain Management Collaboratory team supports 11 large-scale, multisite PCTs in veteran and military health systems with a focus on team science with the shared aim that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Herein, we describe this integrated approach and lessons learned, including incentivizing all parties; proactively offering frequent opportunities for problem-solving; engaging stakeholders during all stages of research; and navigating competing research priorities. We also articulate several specific strategies and their practical implications for advancing pain management in active clinical, "real-world," settings.

BackgroundThe NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC.DesignOur collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT?SummaryOur experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

ObjectiveTo examine moderators and predictors of response to behavior therapy for tics in children and adults with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.MethodsData from 2 10-week, multisite studies (1 in children and 1 in adults; total n = 248) comparing comprehensive behavioral intervention for tics (CBIT) to psychoeducation and supportive therapy (PST) were combined for moderator analyses. Participants (177 male, 71 female) had a mean age of 21.5 ± 13.9 years (range 9-69). Demographic and clinical characteristics, baseline tic-suppressing medication, and co-occurring psychiatric disorders were tested as potential moderators for CBIT vs PST or predictors of outcome regardless of treatment assignment. Main outcomes measures were the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale Total Tic score and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score assessed by masked evaluators.ResultsThe presence of tic medication significantly moderated response to CBIT vs PST (p = 0.01). Participants showed tic reduction after CBIT regardless of tic medication status, but only participants receiving tic medication showed reduction of tics after PST. Co-occurring psychiatric disorders, age, sex, family functioning, tic characteristics, and treatment expectancy did not moderate response. Across both treatments, greater tic severity (p = 0.005) and positive participant expectancy (p = 0.01) predicted greater tic improvement. Anxiety disorders (p = 0.042) and premonitory urge severity (p = 0.005) predicted lower tic reduction.ConclusionsPresence of co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or anxiety disorders did not moderate response to CBIT. Although participants on tic medication showed improvement after CBIT, the difference between CBIT and PST was greater for participants who were not on tic-suppressing medication.Clinicaltrialsgov identifiersThe child and adult CBIT studies are listed on clinical trials.gov (NCT00218777 and NCT00231985, respectively).Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that CBIT is effective in reducing tic severity across subgroups of patients with chronic tic disorders, although the difference between treatments was smaller for participants on tic-suppressing medications, suggesting reduced efficacy in this subgroup.

ObjectiveTo compare three statistical strategies for classifying positive treatment response based on a dimensional measure (Yale Global Tic Severity Scale [YGTSS]) and a categorical measure (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] scale).MethodSubjects (N=232; 69.4% male; ages 9-69years) with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder participated in one of two 10-week, randomized controlled trials comparing behavioral treatment to supportive therapy. The YGTSS and CGI-I were rated by clinicians blind to treatment assignment. We examined the percent reduction in the YGTSS-Total Tic Score (TTS) against Much Improved or Very Much Improved on the CGI-I, computed a signal detection analysis (SDA) and built a mixture model to classify dimensional response based on the change in the YGTSS-TTS.ResultsA 25% decrease on the YGTSS-TTS predicted positive response on the CGI-I during the trial. The SDA showed that a 25% reduction in the YGTSS-TTS provided optimal sensitivity (87%) and specificity (84%) for predicting positive response. Using a mixture model without consideration of the CGI-I, the dimensional response was defined by 23% (or greater) reduction on the YGTSS-TTS. The odds ratio (OR) of positive response (OR=5.68, 95% CI=[2.99, 10.78]) on the CGI-I for behavioral intervention was greater than the dimensional response (OR=2.86, 95% CI=[1.65, 4.99]).ConclusionA 25% reduction on the YGTSS-TTS is highly predictive of positive response by all three analytic methods. For trained raters, however, tic severity alone does not drive the classification of positive response. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00218777; NCT00231985.

This study explores the manifestation and measurement of anxiety symptoms in 415 children with ASDs on a 20-item, parent-rated, DSM-IV referenced anxiety scale. In both high and low-functioning children (IQ above vs. below 70), commonly endorsed items assessed restlessness, tension and sleep difficulties. Items requiring verbal expression of worry by the child were rarely endorsed. Higher anxiety was associated with functional language, IQ above 70 and higher scores on several other behavioral measures. Four underlying factors emerged: Generalized Anxiety, Separation Anxiety, Social Anxiety and Over-arousal. Our findings extend our understanding of anxiety across IQ in ASD and provide guidance for improving anxiety outcome measurement.