Search

BackgroundThe Whole Health model of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) emphasizes holistic self-care and multimodal approaches to improve pain, functioning, and quality of life. wHOPE (Whole Health Options and Pain Education) seeks to be the first multisite pragmatic trial to establish evidence for the VA Whole Health model for chronic pain care.DesignwHOPE is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a Whole Health Team (WHT) approach to Primary Care Group Education (PC-GE); both will be compared to Usual VA Primary Care (UPC). The WHT consists of a medical provider, a complementary and integrative health (CIH) provider, and a Whole Health coach, who collaborate with VA patients to create a Personalized Health Plan emphasizing CIH approaches to chronic pain management. The active comparator, PC-GE, is adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain. The first aim is to test whether the WHT approach is superior to PC-GE and whether both are superior to UPC in decreasing pain interference in functioning in 750 veterans with moderate to severe chronic pain (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include changes in pain severity, quality of life, mental health symptoms, and use of nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies for pain. Outcomes will be collected from the VA electronic health record and patient-reported data over 12 months of follow-up. Aim 2 consists of an implementation-focused process evaluation and budget impact analysis.SummaryThis trial is part of the Pain Management Collaboratory, which seeks to create national-level infrastructure to support evidence-based nonpharmacological pain management approaches for veterans and military service personnel.

BackgroundPeople living with HIV (PLWH) commonly report marijuana use for chronic pain, although there is limited empirical evidence to support its use. There is hope that marijuana may reduce prescription opioid use. Our objective was to investigate whether marijuana use among PLWH who have chronic pain is associated with changes in pain severity and prescribed opioid use (prescribed opioid initiation and discontinuation).MethodsParticipants completed self-report measures of chronic pain and marijuana use at an index visit and were followed up for 1 year in the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS). Self-reported marijuana use was the exposure variable. Outcome variables were changes in pain and initiation or discontinuation of opioids during the study period. The relationship between exposure and outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models for pain and multivariable binary logistic regression models for opioid initiation/discontinuation.ResultsOf 433 PLWH and chronic pain, 28% reported marijuana use in the past 3 months. Median pain severity at the index visit was 6.3/10 (interquartile range 4.7-8.0). Neither increases nor decreases in marijuana use were associated with changes in pain severity, and marijuana use was not associated with either lower odds of opioid initiation or higher odds of opioid discontinuation.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that marijuana use in PLWH is associated with improved pain outcomes or reduced opioid prescribing. This suggests that caution is warranted when counseling PLWH about potential benefits of recreational or medical marijuana.

Veterans seeking care in VA medical facilities have high rates of chronic pain, which often co-occur with mental health and substance use disorders, including prescription opioid misuse. The overall goal of the Optimizing Pain Treatment Interventions (OPTI) study was to pilot a 12-week Collaborative Care intervention to improve opioid safety, chronic pain disability, and use of non-pharmacological pain management strategies in veterans in VA primary care. Between November 2014 and January 2017, 100 veteran patients with chronic pain and high-risk prescription opioid use (e.g., high-dose therapy, early refills, etc.) were enrolled and completed an initial one-hour study visit with a primary care provider (PCP) within 4 weeks of enrollment. Study PCPs were guided by a web-based opioid management decision support program and templated notes in the VA electronic medical record. After assessment and education, study PCPs used Shared Decision-Making to formulate a Pain Care Plan aligned with a participant's personal values and goals. After the initial visit, patients randomized to Collaborative Care received one Motivational Interviewing (MI) session with a Care Manager followed by 3 Care Manager-delivered brief telephone MI sessions at 6, 8, and 12 weeks to reinforce Pain Care Plans; patients randomized to an Attention Control condition met with a Care Manager briefly, followed by 3 brief scripted telephone psychoeducation sessions at 6, 8, and 12 weeks. Masked evaluators assessed outcomes at baseline, end of intervention (12 weeks), and after eight weeks of no contact (20 weeks). We present study rationale, detailed methods, preliminary results and lessons learned.

Background Despite the increased availability of evidence-based treatments for chronic pain, many patients in rural areas experience poor access to services. Patients receiving care through the VA may also need to navigate multiple systems of care. Objective To examine the effectiveness of a remotely delivered collaborative care intervention for improving pain interference among veterans with high-impact chronic pain living in rural areas. Design We will conduct a four-site pragmatic effectiveness trial of remotely delivered collaborative care for high-impact chronic pain. Participants (n  = 608) will be randomized to the Tele-Collaborative Outreach to Rural Patients (CORPs) intervention or to minimally enhanced usual care (MEUC). Participants randomized to CORPs will complete a biopsychosocial assessment and five follow-up sessions with a nurse care manager (NCM), who will collaborate with a consulting clinician to provide personalized recommendations and care management. CORP participants will also be invited to a virtual 6-session pain education group class. Participants randomized to MEUC will receive a one-time education session with the NCM to review available pain services. All participants will complete quarterly research assessments for one year. The primary study outcome is pain interference. This trial will oversample veterans of female birth sex and minoritized race or ethnicity to test heterogeneity of treatment effects across these patient characteristics. We will conduct an implementation process evaluation and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Discussion This pragmatic trial will test the real-world effectiveness of a remotely delivered collaborative care intervention for chronic pain. Study findings will inform future implementation efforts to support potential uptake of the intervention. [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 Best practices for clinical trials stipulate that statistical analysis plans (SAPs) need to be finalized before initiation of any analysis. However, there is limited guidance about when changes to SAPs are acceptable and how these changes should be incorporated into the research plan with appropriate documentation. Methods We conducted a survey of 12 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) in the Pain Management Collaboratory that evaluated nonpharmacological interventions for pain to assess the following SAP information: (1) location of statistical analysis details, (2) types of statistical analyses planned, (3) sponsor requirements, (4) templates used for development, (5) publication plan, (6) changes since trial launch, (7) process of documenting changes, and (8) process of updating the trial registry. Results All 12 PCTs provided details of their SAPs for the primary outcomes in the institutional review board–approved trial protocol; 8 included plans for secondary outcomes, and 6 included plans for tertiary/exploratory outcomes. Most PCTs made SAP changes after trial initiation, many as a result of COVID-19–related issues. Eleven of the PCTs were actively recruiting participants. Changes were made to sample size, study design, study arms, and analytical methods, all before the data lock/unblinding. In all cases, justification for the changes was documented in the trial protocol or SAP, signed off by the trial biostatistician and principal investigator, and reviewed/approved by an institutional review board, data and safety monitoring board, or sponsor. Conclusions We recommend that SAP changes can be acceptable up to the time of data lock/unblinding. To maintain full transparency and necessary rigor, clear documentation of such changes should include details, rationale, date(s) such changes were implemented, and evidence of approval by relevant oversight bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe a learning health care system research process designed to increase buprenorphine prescribing for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in rural primary care settings within U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment facilities. Data Sources and Study Setting: Using national administrative data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified six rural VA health care systems that had improved their rate of buprenorphine prescribing within primary care from 2015 to 2020 (positive deviants). We conducted qualitative interviews with leaders, clinicians, and staff involved in buprenorphine prescribing within primary care from these sites to inform the design of an implementation strategy. Study Design: Qualitative interviews to inform implementation strategy development. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer. Analysis utilized a mixed inductive/deductive approach. To develop an implementation strategy, we matched clinical needs identified within interviews with resources and strategies participants had utilized to address these needs in their own sites. Principal Findings: Interview participants (n = 30) identified key clinical needs and strategies for implementing buprenorphine in rural, primary care settings. Common suggestions included the need for clinical mentorship or a consult service, buprenorphine training, and educational resources. Building upon interview findings and in partnership with a clinical team, we developed an implementation strategy composed of an engaging case‐based training, an audit and feedback process, and educational resources (e.g., Buprenorphine Frequently Asked Questions, Rural Care Model Infographic). Conclusions: We describe a learning health care system research process that leveraged national administrative data, health care provider interviews, and clinical partnership to develop an implementation strategy to encourage buprenorphine prescribing in rural primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We characterized prescription opioid medication use up to 2 years following the head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis and examined associations with moderate or high daily opioid prescription dose. Methods: Using administrative data from Veterans Health Administration, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 5522 Veterans treated for cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract between 2012 and 2019. Data included cancer diagnosis and treatments, pain severity, prescription opioid characteristics, demographics, and other clinical factors. Results: Two years post‐HNC, 7.8% (n = 428) were receiving moderate or high‐dose opioid therapy. Patients with at least moderate pain (18%, n = 996) had 2.48 times higher odds (95% CI = 1.94–3.09, p < 0.001) to be prescribed a moderate opioid dose or higher at 2 years post diagnosis. Conclusions: Survivors of HNC with at least moderate pain were at elevated risk of continued use of moderate and high dose opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]