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.

Nonpharmacological treatments are considered first-line pain management strategies, but they remain clinically underused. For years, pain-focused pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have generated evidence for the enhanced use of nonpharmacological interventions in routine clinical settings to help overcome implementation barriers. The Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework describes the degree of pragmatism across 9 key domains. Among these, flexibility in delivery and flexibility in adherence, address a key goal of pragmatic research by tailoring approaches to settings in which people receive routine care. However, to maintain scientific and ethical rigor, PCTs must ensure that flexibility features do not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that the results are ethically and scientifically sound. Key principles of achieving this balance include clear definitions of intervention core components, intervention monitoring and documentation that is sufficient but not overly burdensome, provider training that meets the demands of delivering an intervention in real-world settings, and use of an ethical lens to recognize and avoid potential trial futility when necessary and appropriate. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents nuances to be considered when applying the PRECIS-2 framework to describe pragmatic clinical trials. Trials must ensure that patient-centered treatment flexibility does not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that measurement and analysis of treatment effects is reliable.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is experienced by most patients with cancer and opioids are a cornerstone of management. Our objectives were (1) to identify patterns or trajectories of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and their correlates among patients with and without cancer and (2) to assess the association between trajectories and risk for opioid overdose, considering the potential moderating role of cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among individuals in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database with incident LTOT with and without cancer (N=44,351; N=285,772, respectively) between 2010-2017. We investigated the relationship between LTOT trajectory and all International Classification of Diseases-9 and 10-defined accidental and intentional opioid-related overdoses. RESULTS: Trajectories of opioid receipt observed in patients without cancer and replicated in patients with cancer were: low-dose/stable trend, low-dose/de-escalating trend, moderate-dose/stable trend, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend, and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend. Time to first overdose was significantly predicted by higher-dose and escalating trajectories; the two low-dose trajectories conferred similar, lower risk. Conditional hazard ratios (99% CI) for the moderate-dose, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trends were 1·84 (1·18, 2·85), 2·56 (1·54, 4·25), and 2·41 (1·37, 4·26), respectively. Effects of trajectories on time to overdose did not differ by presence of cancer; inferences were replicated when restricting to patients with stage 3/4 cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer face opioid overdose risks like patients without cancer. Future studies should seek to expand and address our knowledge about opioid risk in cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: None.

BackgroundRecent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions.MethodsA working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory.ResultsAn extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.ConclusionThe Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

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.

Type 2 diabetes is associated with insulin resistance, impaired pancreatic β-cell insulin secretion, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Tissue-specific SWELL1 ablation impairs insulin signaling in adipose, skeletal muscle, and endothelium, and impairs β-cell insulin secretion and glycemic control. Here, we show that ICl,SWELL and SWELL1 protein are reduced in adipose and β-cells in murine and human diabetes. Combining cryo-electron microscopy, molecular docking, medicinal chemistry, and functional studies, we define a structure activity relationship to rationally-design active derivatives of a SWELL1 channel inhibitor (DCPIB/SN-401), that bind the SWELL1 hexameric complex, restore SWELL1 protein, plasma membrane trafficking, signaling, glycemic control and islet insulin secretion via SWELL1-dependent mechanisms. In vivo, SN-401 restores glycemic control, reduces hepatic steatosis/injury, improves insulin-sensitivity and insulin secretion in murine diabetes. These findings demonstrate that SWELL1 channel modulators improve SWELL1-dependent systemic metabolism in Type 2 diabetes, representing a first-in-class therapeutic approach for diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Characterizing the impacts of disruption attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research is important, especially in pain research where psychological, social, and economic stressors attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic may greatly impact treatment effects. The National Institutes of Health - Department of Defense - Department of Veterans Affairs Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) is a collective effort supporting 11 pragmatic clinical trials studying nonpharmacological approaches and innovative integrated care models for pain management in veteran and military health systems. The PMC rapidly developed a brief pandemic impacts measure for use across its pragmatic trials studying pain while remaining broadly applicable to other areas of clinical research. Through open discussion and consensus building by the PMC's Phenotypes and Outcomes Work Group, the PMC Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) Measure was iteratively developed. The measure assesses the following domains (one item/domain): access to healthcare, social support, finances, ability to meet basic needs, and mental or emotional health. Two additional items assess infection status (personal and household) and hospitalization. The measure uses structured responses with a three-point scale for COVID-19 infection status and four-point ordinal rank response for all other domains. We recommend individualized adaptation as appropriate by clinical research teams using this measure to survey the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on study participants. This can also help maintain utility of the measure beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to characterize impacts during future public health emergencies that may require mitigation strategies such as periods of quarantine and isolation.

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.

Objective Despite careful design of clinical trials, unforeseen disruptions can arise. The PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timepoints, Setting) framework was used to assess disruptions in pain management research imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the Pain Management Collaboratory. Methods Rapid qualitative methods were employed to identify trial disruptions due to COVID-19 in 11 pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. The PICOTS framework was applied by investigators of 4 Collaboratory trials selected to cover 4 types of trial designs (individually randomized, stepped-wedge, cluster, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial—SMART). Interviews with the lead investigators of these trials were completed, and findings were presented/discussed on video calls over a 6-month period (March-August 2021) from which themes/lessons learned were identified and consensus reached. Results Investigators indicated that patient populations remained generally stable. A major COVID-19 trial disruption was moving from in-person to virtual care affecting delivery of interventions/comparators and outcome assessments. The resultant mixed-mode of care delivery created issues with intervention fidelity posing analytic challenges. COVID-19 also induced ongoing/intermittent delays and other barriers to accessing primary and specialty care at some facilities, creating research capacity issues affecting delivery of experimental interventions requiring sustained, reliable participation of clinical partners. Study designs most affected by COVID-19 were stepped-wedge (intervention/comparator changing over time), cluster (increased site variability inflating intracluster correlation), and SMART (second-stage randomizations disrupted); stratified individually-randomized trials were less vulnerable because of individual-level randomization. Conclusions PICOTS provides a framework for assessing the impact of trial disruptions in a structured manner. Given the COVID-19 experience, it is important for researchers to consider the potential impact of future trial disruptions during study planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on monitoring and reporting adverse events (AEs) in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) testing nonpharmacological pain management interventions. Topics discussed include the challenges of AE data collection and reporting in PCTs, the variability of monitoring methods across trials, and recommendations to improve AE reporting and consistency in pain-focused PCTs.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of evidence-based practices that can reduce morbidity and mortality is important to combat the growing opioid overdose crisis in the USA. Research and expert consensus support reducing high-dose opioid therapy, avoiding risky opioid-benzodiazepine combination therapy, and promoting multi-modal, collaborative models of pain care. Collaborative care interventions that support primary care providers have been effective in medication tapering. We developed a patient-centered Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS) collaborative care clinical program based on effective components of previous collaborative care interventions. Implementation facilitation, a multi-faceted and dynamic strategy involving the provision of interactive problem-solving and support during implementation of a new program, is used to support key organizational staff throughout PIPS implementation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation facilitation strategy for implementing and sustaining PIPS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The secondary aim is to examine the effect of the program on key patient-level clinical outcomes-transitioning to safer regimens and enhancing access to complementary and integrative health treatments. The tertiary aim is to determine the categorical costs and ultimate budget impact of PIPS implementation. METHODS: This multi-site study employs an interrupted time series, hybrid type III design to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation facilitation for a collaborative care clinical program-PIPS-in primary care clinics in three geographically diverse VHA health care systems (sites). Participants include pharmacists and allied staff involved in the delivery of clinical pain management services as well as patients. Eligible patients are prescribed either an outpatient opioid prescription greater than or equal to 90 mg morphine equivalent daily dose or a combination opioid-benzodiazepine regimen. They must also have an upcoming appointment in primary care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the mixed methods work across the formative evaluation phases and informs the selection of activities included in implementation facilitation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of PIPS. DISCUSSION: This implementation study will provide important insight into the effectiveness of implementation facilitation to enhance uptake of a collaborative care program in primary care, which targets unsafe opioid prescribing practices.

Chronic pain is an important and understudied comorbidity in people living with HIV (PLWH). We conducted a pilot trial of Skills TO Manage Pain (STOMP), an innovative social cognitive theory-based pain self-management intervention tailored to PLWH, to assess feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. Eligibility criteria included being HIV+, ≥ moderate pain for ≥ 3 months and a score of ≥ 4 on the three-item PEG pain severity and interference scale. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to STOMP or a usual care comparison. Among 22 participants randomized to STOMP, median session attendance was 9/12 (75%). Of 19 STOMP participants surveyed, 13 reported being "much better" overall since beginning treatment. Brief pain inventory-total scores decreased by 2 points in the intervention group and 0.9 in the control group (p = 0.11). STOMP is feasible, acceptable, and shows preliminary evidence of efficacy and promise for a full-scale trial.

Chronic pain is an important comorbidity among individuals with HIV. Behavioral interventions are widely regarded as evidence-based, efficacious non-pharmacologic interventions for chronic pain in the general population. An accepted principle in behavioral science is that theory-based, systematically-developed behavioral interventions tailored to the unique needs of a target population are most likely to be efficacious. Our aim was to use Intervention Mapping to systematically develop a Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)-based intervention for chronic pain tailored to individuals with HIV that will improve pain intensity and pain-related functional impairment. Our Intervention Mapping process was informed by qualitative inquiry of 24 patients and seven providers in an HIV primary care clinic. The resulting intervention includes group and one-on-one sessions and peer and staff interventionists. We also developed a conceptual framework that integrates our qualitative findings with SCT-based theoretical constructs. Using this conceptual framework as a guide, our future work will investigate the intervention's impact on chronic pain outcomes, as well as our hypothesized proximal mediators of the intervention's effect.

BackgroundChronic pain is a common, disabling, and costly comorbidity, particularly in people living with HIV (PLWH). This study developed and pilot tested a pain self-management intervention for chronic pain tailored to PLWH called Skills TO Manage Pain (STOMP).ObjectivesGiven the additional resources needed to deliver STOMP in HIV clinical settings, an important objective of the pilot study was to assess not only STOMP's preliminary efficacy, but also its cost-effectiveness.Research design and subjectsThe present study draws from a 44-participant, 2-arm randomized pilot trial of the STOMP intervention vs usual care among PLWH and at least moderate chronic pain (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02824562). Cost-effectiveness is presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were considered from the clinic perspective over a 1-year time horizon using real costs from the pilot trial. It was conservatively assumed there would be no costs savings. The Standard Gamble (SG) method was used to directly measure utilities.ResultsThirty-six participants met inclusion criteria for the present analyses. Mean age was 52 years; 61% were female and 86% were black. The total cost of STOMP was $483.83 per person. Using the SG method, the change in QALYs was 0.15, corresponding to an ICER of $3,225.ConclusionsSTOMP's cost/QALY is substantially lower than the $50,000 to $100,000/QALY benchmark often used to indicate cost-effectiveness. Although based on a pilot trial and, therefore, preliminary, these findings are promising, and suggest the importance of cost analyses in future STOMP trials.

BackgroundChronic pain is a common and disabling comorbidity in individuals living with HIV. Behavioral interventions are among the most effective and safe nonpharmacologic treatments for chronic pain. However, the success of a behavioral intervention is influenced by how well it is tailored to the target population's biological, psychological, and social context. Given well-documented psychosocial vulnerabilities among persons with HIV, it is critical to develop a behavioral intervention for chronic pain tailored to this population.ObjectiveTo use qualitative methods to investigate patient preferences for the structure and delivery of a behavioral intervention for chronic pain in individuals with HIV.MethodsInterviews and focus groups were used to elicit participant preferences. A thematic analysis approach, with an initial round of open coding, was used to develop the codebook and analyze the data.ResultsQualitative data from 12 interviews and 3 focus groups with patients living with HIV and chronic pain (total N = 24) were analyzed. Emergent themes fell into four major categories: perceived value of group sessions, incorporating peer leadership, and two key elements of how the intervention should be delivered: the HIV status of group participants and views on phone-delivered intervention content.DiscussionThis study provides a framework for the structure and delivery of a behavioral intervention for chronic pain in individuals with HIV based on patient preferences. We will use these results to design our intervention, and hope that our approach informs the work of investigators in other disciplines who seek to incorporate patient preferences during intervention development.

We examined the effectiveness and safety of a walking program offered as part of cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP). Participants were randomized to 10 weeks of CBT-CP, delivered either in person or by interactive voice response. Participants reported pedometer-measured step counts daily throughout treatment and received a weekly goal to increase their steps by 10% over the prior week's average. Walking-related adverse events (AEs) were assessed weekly. Participants (n = 125) were primarily male (72%), and white (80%) with longstanding pain (median: 11 years). There was no significant difference between treatment groups in rate of change in daily steps, but there was a significant increase in steps from baseline to treatment termination in the combined study sample (1648 steps (95% CI 1063-2225)). Participants classified as active doubled. AEs were mostly minor and temporary. Treatment was effective and safe whether the program was delivered in-person or remotely. Trial registration number: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01025752., Author(s): Alicia A. Heapy [sup.1] [sup.2] , Hallie Tankha [sup.3] , Diana M. Higgins [sup.4] [sup.5] , Mary Driscoll [sup.1] [sup.2] , Kathryn M. LaChappelle [sup.1] , Joseph L. Goulet [...]

The article focuses on future directions of the Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC), a tri-government initiative involving the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and Veterans Affairs (VA) to improve pain management through nonpharmacological approaches. Topics include challenges with electronic health record data, strategies for data sharing, and the importance of monitoring adherence and fidelity in pain management interventions.

The article focuses on developing the Nonpharmacological and Self-Care Approaches for Pain Management (NSCAP) survey to capture patient-reported use of nonpharmacological treatments and self-care strategies. It discusses the need for accurate measurement of these approaches, the involvement of a panel of experts in the survey's creation, and its potential use in research and clinical care for monitoring pain management.

The article discusses the lessons learned from engaging clinical partners in pragmatic clinical trials within the Pain Management Collaboratory, focusing on nonpharmacological pain management approaches in military and veteran healthcare systems. Topics discussed include the challenges of sustaining clinical partnerships, the integration of patient-centered research infrastructure, and the importance of building strong relationships with clinical leadership.