Clinical trial NCT03687762: Back on Track to Healthy Living Study
Official title: Mechanisms of Psychosocial Treatments for Chronic Pain
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Chronic Pain
Keywords: chronic pain
mechanisms
cognitive therapy
mindfulness meditation
behavioral activation
Lead sponsor: University of Washington
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Rush University
name: Medical University of South Carolina
name: The University of Queensland
name: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
First posted: 2018-09-27
Enrollment: 397
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: A randomized, 3-group parallel design, 240-subject clinical trial to test the mechanisms of cognitive therapy, mindfulness meditation, and behavioral activation on individuals with chronic pain who endorse low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem.
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: Chronic pain is a significant problem affecting millions of Americans. Research has shown that psychological treatments can help people with chronic pain manage their pain and improve their quality of life. Three common psychological treatments for chronic pain are Cognitive Therapy (CT), Mindfulness Meditation (MM), and Behavioral Activation (BA). While research has shown these treatments are helpful for people with chronic pain, there is little research explaining why these treatments are helpful. The purpose of this study is to understand the specific ways these treatments work. Increasing our understanding of how these treatments work will help researchers and clinicians improve treatments for people with chronic pain in the future. As a secondary aim, this study will also examine the post-treatment mechanisms that explain relapse, maintenance, and continued gains associated with these treatments. Treatment moderators will also be explored.

Detailed description: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the mechanisms of cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and behavioral activation (BA) as treatments for individuals with chronic pain who endorse low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem. Participants (240 individuals) will be randomly assigned to eight (8), 1.5 hour telehealth group sessions of (1) CT, (2) MM, or (3) BA. Mechanisms and outcomes will be assessed twice daily during 2-week baseline, 4-week treatment period, and 4-week post-treatment epoch via cue-elicited ecological momentary assessment (EMA); activity level will be monitored during these time epochs via daily monitoring with ActiGraph technology. Follow-up macro-level assessments will be conducted at 3- and 6-months post-treatment. The study will address two aims.

Primary Objective: The objective of the proposed research is to examine the mechanisms of cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation training (MM), and behavioral activation (BA) \[Aim 1; Primary\]. After ensuring that there is at least a small effect of time on early treatment changes in the three mechanism variables, researchers will determine the extent to which late-treatment improvement in primary outcome (pain interference) associated with CT, MM, and BA is predicted by early-treatment changes in cognitive content (i.e., pain catastrophizing), cognitive process (i.e., non-judgment), and/or activity level (i.e., ActiGraph "activity counts").

Hypothesis 1a: Early treatment changes in pain catastrophizing, non-judgment, and activity counts are significantly associated with late treatment improvements in pain interference.

Hypothesis 1b: The Shared Mechanisms Model hypothesizes that if changes in cognitive content, cognitive process, and activity levels are shared mechanisms across the three treatments, then treatment condition will have small and non-significant effects on early changes in the mechanism variables (i.e., the effects of the three treatments on the three mechanism variables will be similar; Shared Mechanisms Model).

Hypothesis 1c: The Specific Mechanisms Model hypothesizes that if changes in content, process, and activity level are mechanisms specific to CT, MM, and BA, respectively, then treatment condition will have a significant effect on early changes in the mechanism variables (i.e., the effects of the three treatments on the three mechanism variables will be different, with CT having the largest effects on early treatment decreases in catastrophizing, MM having the largest effects on early treatment increases in non-judgment, and BA having the largest effects on early treatment increases in activity level). Further, later improvement in the primary outcome will be predicted by different mechanism variables as a function of treatment condition; that is, late treatment changes in pain interference will be substantially and uniquely predicted by early treatment changes in: (1) cognitive content (i.e., pain catastrophizing) in CT but not in MM or BA; (2) cognitive process (i.e., non-judgment) in MM but not in CT or BA; and (3) activity level in BA but not in CT or MM, in addition to each mechanism variable significantly predicting the primary outcome (Specific Mechanisms Model).

Researchers also predict that change in the mechanism variables will precede and predict change in outcome, but not vice versa.

Secondary Objective: As a secondary aim, this study will also evaluate the post-treatment mechanisms that explain relapse, maintenance, and continued gains associated with these treatments \[Aim 2; Secondary\]. The Shared (Hypothesis 2a) and Specific (Hypothesis 2b) Mechanism models will also be applied to data collected via EMA and ActiGraph daily during the 4-weeks post-treatment to better understand the post-treatment mechanisms that underlie maintenance of gains and relapse.

Exploratory Objective: Test the Limit, Activate, and Enhance (LAE) moderation model. Specifically, to test if (1) higher baseline levels of catastrophizing are associated with a positive response to the CT intervention, (2) lower baseline levels of activity are associated with a positive response to BA, and (3) higher baseline levels of non-judgment are associated with a positive response to MM.

Primary and Secondary Endpoint: The primary endpoint researchers propose for the primary study aim (Aim 1) is the post-treatment pain interference score, operationalized as an average of pain interference ratings made on the twice-daily diaries during the first four days after treatment (i.e., Days 43-46). The endpoint for the secondary study aim (Aim 2) is the post-treatment score at 28 days follow-up, as operationalized as the average of days 67-70 of pain interference ratings on the diaries.

Design and Outcomes

A randomized, 3-group parallel design, 240-subject clinical trial to test the mechanisms of cognitive therapy, mindfulness meditation, and activation skills on individuals with chronic pain who endorse low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem.

Interventions and Duration

Participants will be randomly assigned to eight (8) telehealth group sessions of (1) cognitive therapy (CT), (2) mindfulness meditation (MM), or (3) behavioral activation (BA). Treatment groups will meet, on average, twice per week over the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Each session will last for a duration of about 90 minutes. Proposed mechanisms and outcomes will be assessed twice daily during 2-week baseline, 4-week treatment period, and 4-week post-treatment epoch via cue-elicited ecological momentary assessment (EMA); activity level will be monitored during these time epochs via daily monitoring with ActiGraph technology. Macro-level assessments will be conducted at pre- and post-treatment and at 3- and 6-months post-treatment.

The total time involved in the study (excluding between session skills practice) is approximately 35-40 hours over an 8 to 9-month period.

Sample Size and Population

Researchers plan to enroll 300 participants with moderate to severe chronic pain including low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem to achieve a sample size of 240 completers, with 80 completers in each of the treatment groups.

Enrolled participants who complete the required baseline components (baseline data and demographic questions, pre-treatment extended assessment period, technology training, re-assessment of pain interference for general activities with a score of ≥3 for the past 3 months, re-assessment of pain consistency with a response of ≥50% of the time in the past 6 months, and a minimum number of EMA surveys during one week of Baseline Monitoring (Days 1-7) will be randomized to one of the three conditions.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

1. Age ≥18 years;
2. Endorse having low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem in the past 6 months;
3. Meet criteria for having a chronic pain problem (≥3 months, with pain experienced on ≥50% of days in past 6 months);
4. Average intensity of chronic pain ≥3 on a 10-point scale for most days of the previous 3 months;
5. Chronic pain interference for general activities ≥3 on a 10-point scale for the past 3 months;
6. Able to read, speak, and understand English;
7. If currently taking analgesic or psychotropic medication, medications must have been stabilized for ≥4 weeks prior to this study; and
8. Availability of a telephone, webcam, and microphone through computer or telephone, as well as daily internet access.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Primary pain condition is headache;
2. Severe cognitive impairment;
3. Current alcohol or substance dependence;
4. Active malignancy (e.g., cancer not in remission), terminal illnesses, or serious medical conditions that may interfere with either study participation or with receiving potential treatment benefits (e.g., severe lupus);
5. Inability to walk (defined as unable to walk at least 50 yards), which would limit the ability of participants to benefit from the activation skills intervention;
6. Significant pain from a recent surgery or injury;
7. Pain condition for which surgery has been recommended and is planned;
8. Any planned surgery, procedure, or hospitalization that may conflict with or otherwise influence participation in the study;
9. Currently receiving or had received other psychosocial treatments for any pain condition;
10. Current or past participation in a research study with treatment components that may overlap those in the current study;
11. Current or history of diagnosis of primary psychotic or major thought disorder within the past 5 years;
12. Psychiatric hospitalization within the past 6 months;
13. Psychiatric or behavioral conditions in which symptoms were unstable or severe within the past 6 months;
14. Any psychiatric or behavioral issues as noted in the medical record or disclosed/observed during self-report screening that would indicate participant may be inappropriate in a group setting; and
15. Presenting symptoms at the time of screening that would interfere with participation, specifically active suicidal or homicidal ideation with intent to harm oneself or others or active delusional or psychotic thinking.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Change in Pain Interference (Micro-level Change)
timeFrame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
measure: Change in Pain Interference (Macro-level Change)
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Change in Pain Intensity (Micro-level)
timeFrame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
measure: Change in Mood (Micro-level)
timeFrame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
measure: Change in Physical Function
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Sleep Quality
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Depression Severity
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Anxiety Severity
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Medication Use
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Pain Intensity (Macro-level)
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Mood (Macro-level)
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Other outcomes:
measure: Change in Pain Catastrophizing (i.e., Cognitive Content Mechanism; Micro-level)
timeFrame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
measure: Change in Non-Judgment (i.e., Cognitive Process Mechanism; Micro-level)
timeFrame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
measure: Change in Activity Level (Actigraph, Vector Magnitude Average Counts)
timeFrame: Worn daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (baseline-2 weeks) and late treatment (2-4 weeks) reported
measure: Change in Pain Catastrophizing (i.e., Cognitive Content Mechanism; Macro-level)
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
measure: Change in Non-Judgment (i.e., Cognitive Process Mechanism; Macro-level)
timeFrame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Locations:
city: Seattle
country: United States
facility: University of Washington, Ninth and Jefferson Building
state: Washington
Study officials:
affiliation: University of Washington
name: Mark Jensen, Ph.D.
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: The University of Queensland
name: Melissa Day, Ph.D.
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Day MA, Ehde DM, Burns J, Ward LC, Friedly JL, Thorn BE, Ciol MA, Mendoza E, Chan JF, Battalio S, Borckardt J, Jensen MP. A randomized trial to examine the mechanisms of cognitive, behavioral and mindfulness-based psychosocial treatments for chronic pain: Study protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Jun;93:106000. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106000. Epub 2020 Apr 14.
citation: Day MA, Ciol MA, Mendoza ME, Borckardt J, Ehde DM, Newman AK, Chan JF, Drever SA, Friedly JL, Burns J, Thorn BE, Jensen MP. The effects of telehealth-delivered mindfulness meditation, cognitive therapy, and behavioral activation for chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Med. 2024 Apr 12;22(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03383-2.