Dataset Information

Interdisciplinary team-based care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment in primary care (PPACT) - Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care.

Methods/design

This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems.

Discussion

This trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.

SUBMITTER: DeBar L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5931339 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.MethodsPROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.DiscussionThe PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundChronic 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.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592).SettingKaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest.ParticipantsAdults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy.InterventionA 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.MeasurementsSelf-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.ResultsA 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.LimitationThe inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear.ConclusionPrimary 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 sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:ImportancePrescription opioid misuse is a national crisis. Few interventions have improved adherence to opioid-prescribing guidelines.ObjectiveTo determine whether a multicomponent intervention, Transforming Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care (TOPCARE; http://mytopcare.org/), improves guideline adherence while decreasing opioid misuse risk.Design, setting, and participantsCluster-randomized clinical trial among 53 primary care clinicians (PCCs) and their 985 patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. The study was conducted from January 2014 to March 2016 in 4 safety-net primary care practices.InterventionsIntervention PCCs received nurse care management, an electronic registry, 1-on-1 academic detailing, and electronic decision tools for safe opioid prescribing. Control PCCs received electronic decision tools only.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included documentation of guideline-concordant care (both a patient-PCC agreement in the electronic health record and at least 1 urine drug test [UDT]) over 12 months and 2 or more early opioid refills. Secondary outcomes included opioid dose reduction (ie, 10% decrease in morphine-equivalent daily dose [MEDD] at trial end) and opioid treatment discontinuation. Adjusted outcomes controlled for differing baseline patient characteristics: substance use diagnosis, mental health diagnoses, and language.ResultsOf the 985 participating patients, 519 were men, and 466 were women (mean [SD] patient age, 54.7 [11.5] years). Patients received a mean (SD) MEDD of 57.8 (78.5) mg. At 1 year, intervention patients were more likely than controls to receive guideline-concordant care (65.9% vs 37.8%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.0; 95% CI, 3.6-10.2), to have a patient-PCC agreement (of the 376 without an agreement at baseline, 53.8% vs 6.0%; P < .001; AOR, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.4-32.2), and to undergo at least 1 UDT (74.6% vs 57.9%; P < .001; AOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.0). There was no difference in odds of early refill receipt between groups (20.7% vs 20.1%; AOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). Intervention patients were more likely than controls to have either a 10% dose reduction or opioid treatment discontinuation (AOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, intervention patients had a mean (SE) MEDD 6.8 (1.6) mg lower than controls (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceA multicomponent intervention improved guideline-concordant care but did not decrease early opioid refills.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909076.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the fidelity of general practitioners' (GPs) adherence to a long-term pragmatic trial protocol.DesignRetrospective analyses of electronic primary care records of participants in the pragmatic cluster-randomised ADDITION (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care)-Cambridge trial, comparing intensive multifactorial treatment (IT) versus routine care (RC). Data were collected from the date of diagnosis until December 2010.SettingPrimary care surgeries in the East of England.Study sample/participantsA subsample (n=189, RC arm: n=99, IT arm: n=90) of patients from the ADDITION-Cambridge cohort (867 patients), consisting of patients 40-69 years old with screen-detected diabetes mellitus.InterventionsIn the RC arm treatment was delivered according to concurrent treatment guidelines. Surgeries in the IT arm received funding for additional contacts between GPs/nurses and patients, and GPs were advised to follow more intensive treatment algorithms for the management of glucose, lipids and blood pressure and aspirin therapy than in the RC arm.Outcome measuresThe number of annual contacts between patients and GPs/nurses, the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions for cardiometabolic medication in years 1-5 after diabetes diagnosis and the adherence to prescription algorithms.ResultsThe difference in the number of annual GP contacts (?=0.65) and nurse contacts (?=-0.15) between the study arms was small and insignificant. Patients in the IT arm were more likely to receive glucose-lowering (OR=3.27), ACE-inhibiting (OR=2.03) and lipid-lowering drugs (OR=2.42, all p values <0.01) than patients in the RC arm. The prescription adherence varied between medication classes, but improved in both trial arms over the 5-year follow-up.ConclusionsThe adherence of GPs to different aspects of the trial protocol was mixed. Background changes in healthcare policy need to be considered as they have the potential to dilute differences in treatment intensity and hence incremental effects.Trial registration numberISRCTN86769081.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is growing as the population ages, and at least 15% of ischemic strokes are attributed to AF. However, many high-risk AF patients are not offered guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy due to a variety of system, provider, and patient-level barriers.MethodsWe will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial randomizing primary care clinics to test a "toolkit" of quality improvement interventions in primary care. In keeping with the recommendations of the chronic care model to simultaneously activate patients and facilitate proactive care by providers, the toolkit includes provider-focused strategies (education, audit and feedback, electronic decision support, and reminders) plus patient-directed strategies (educational letters and reminders). The trial will include two feedback cycles at baseline and approximately 6 months and a final data collection at approximately 12 months. The study will be powered to show a difference of 10% in the primary outcome of proportion of patients receiving guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and will be blind to treatment allocation. Unit of analysis will be the patient; models will use generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the clinical level.DiscussionStroke prevention therapy using anticoagulation in patients with AF is known to reduce strokes by two thirds or more in clinical trials, but most studies indicate under-use of this treatment in real-world practice. If the toolkit successfully improves care for patients with AF, stakeholders will be engaged to facilitate broader application to maximize the potential to improve patient outcomes. The intervention toolkit tested in this project could also provide a model to improve quality of care for other chronic cardiovascular conditions managed in primary care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01927445 ). Registered August 14, 2014 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ .

Project description:BackgroundElders living with polypharmacy may be taking medications that do not benefit them. Polypharmacy can be associated with elevated risks of poor health, reduced quality of life, high care costs, and persistently complex care needs. While many medications could be problematic, this project targets medications that should be deprescribed for most elders and for which guidelines and evidence-based deprescribing tools are available. These are termed potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) and are as follows: proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and sulfonylureas. Implementation strategies for deprescribing PIPs in complex older patient populations are needed.MethodsThis will be a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices across Canada. Eligible practices provide comprehensive primary care and have at least one physician that consents to participate. Community-dwelling patients aged 65 years and older with ten or more unique medication prescriptions in the past year will be included. The objective is to assess whether the intervention reduces targeted PIPs for these patients compared with usual care. The intervention, Structured Process Informed by Data, Evidence and Research (SPIDER), is a collaboration between quality improvement (QI) and research programs. Primary care teams will form interprofessional Learning Collaboratives and work with QI coaches to review electronic medical record data provided by their regional Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs), identify areas of improvement, and develop and implement changes. The study will be tested for feasibility in three PBRNs (Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton) using prospective single-arm mixed methods. Findings will then guide a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in five PBRNs (Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax). Seven practices per PBRN will be recruited for each arm. The analysis will be by intention to treat. Ten percent of patients who have at least one PIP at baseline will be randomly selected to participate in the assessment of patient experience and self-reported outcomes. Qualitative methods will be used to explore patient and physician experience and evaluate SPIDER's processes.ConclusionWe are testing SPIDER in a primary care population with complex care needs. This could provide a widely applicable model for care improvement.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03689049 ; registered September 28, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundNaloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice.ObjectiveTo explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids.DesignWe surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after co-prescribing began.Key resultsOne hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as <20 morphine equivalent mg daily (59.8 %), ≥65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.93, p = 0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.35-3.25, p = 0.001), and those with more patients prescribed long-term opioids (IRR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures.ConclusionsNaloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.