Heapy Alicia A, Higgins Diana M, Goulet Joseph L, LaChappelle Kathryn M, Driscoll Mary A, Czlapinski Rebecca A, Buta Eugenia, Piette John D, Krein Sarah L, Kerns Robert D
VA Connecticut Healthcare System Pain Research, Informatics, Multimorbidities, and Education (PRIME) Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, West Haven2Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts4Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jun 1;177(6):765-773. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0223.
Recommendations for chronic pain treatment emphasize multimodal approaches, including nonpharmacologic interventions to enhance self-management. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment that facilitates management of chronic pain and improves outcomes, but access barriers persist. Cognitive behavioral therapy delivery assisted by health technology can obviate the need for in-person visits, but the effectiveness of this alternative to standard therapy is unknown. The Cooperative Pain Education and Self-management (COPES) trial was a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing IVR-CBT to in-person CBT for patients with chronic back pain.
To assess the efficacy of interactive voice response-based CBT (IVR-CBT) relative to in-person CBT for chronic back pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a noninferiority randomized trial in 1 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. A total of 125 patients with chronic back pain were equally allocated to IVR-CBT (n = 62) or in-person CBT (n = 63).
Patients treated with IVR-CBT received a self-help manual and weekly prerecorded therapist feedback based on their IVR-reported activity, coping skill practice, and pain outcomes. In-person CBT included weekly, individual CBT sessions with a therapist. Participants in both conditions received IVR monitoring of pain, sleep, activity levels, and pain coping skill practice during treatment.
The primary outcome was change from baseline to 3 months in unblinded patient report of average pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included changes in pain-related interference, physical and emotional functioning, sleep quality, and quality of life at 3, 6, and 9 months. We also examined treatment retention.
Of the 125 patients (97 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.6] years), the adjusted average reduction in NRS with IVR-CBT (-0.77) was similar to in-person CBT (-0.84), with the 95% CI for the difference between groups (-0.67 to 0.80) falling below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 indicating IVR-CBT is noninferior. Fifty-four patients randomized to IVR-CBT and 50 randomized to in-person CBT were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Statistically significant improvements in physical functioning, sleep quality, and physical quality of life at 3 months relative to baseline occurred in both treatments, with no advantage for either treatment. Treatment dropout was lower in IVR-CBT with patients completing on average 2.3 (95% CI, 1.0-3.6) more sessions.
IVR-CBT is a low-burden alternative that can increase access to CBT for chronic pain and shows promise as a nonpharmacologic treatment option for chronic pain, with outcomes that are not inferior to in-person CBT.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01025752.
慢性疼痛治疗的建议强调多模式方法,包括非药物干预以加强自我管理。认知行为疗法(CBT)是一种循证治疗方法,有助于慢性疼痛的管理并改善治疗结果,但获取障碍依然存在。借助健康技术提供的认知行为疗法可以避免面对面就诊的需要,但这种标准疗法替代方案的有效性尚不清楚。合作疼痛教育与自我管理(COPES)试验是一项随机、非劣效性试验,比较了交互式语音应答认知行为疗法(IVR-CBT)与面对面认知行为疗法对慢性背痛患者的疗效。
评估基于交互式语音应答的认知行为疗法(IVR-CBT)相对于面对面认知行为疗法治疗慢性背痛的疗效。
设计、地点和参与者:我们在1个退伍军人事务部(VA)医疗保健系统中进行了一项非劣效性随机试验。总共125名慢性背痛患者被平均分配到IVR-CBT组(n = 62)或面对面认知行为疗法组(n = 63)。
接受IVR-CBT治疗的患者收到一本自助手册,并根据他们通过IVR报告的活动、应对技能练习和疼痛结果,每周收到预先录制的治疗师反馈。面对面认知行为疗法包括每周与治疗师进行一次个体认知行为治疗。两种治疗方式的参与者在治疗期间均接受IVR对疼痛、睡眠、活动水平和疼痛应对技能练习的监测。
主要结局是从基线到3个月时,采用数字评定量表(NRS)测量的未设盲患者报告的平均疼痛强度的变化。次要结局包括3、6和9个月时疼痛相关干扰、身体和情绪功能、睡眠质量及生活质量方面的变化。我们还对治疗保留率进行了检查。
在125名患者(97名男性,28名女性;平均[标准差]年龄为57.9[11.6]岁)中,IVR-CBT组NRS的调整后平均降低值(-0.77)与面对面认知行为疗法组(-0.84)相似,两组差异的95%置信区间(-0.67至0.80)低于预先设定的非劣效性界值1,表明IVR-CBT不劣于面对面认知行为疗法。54名随机分配至IVR-CBT组和50名随机分配至面对面认知行为疗法组的患者纳入了主要结局分析。与基线相比,两种治疗在3个月时身体功能、睡眠质量和身体生活质量方面均有统计学意义的显著改善,两种治疗均无优势。IVR-CBT组的治疗退出率较低,患者平均多完成2.3次(95%置信区间,1.0 - 3.6)治疗。
IVR-CBT是一种低负担的替代方法,可以增加慢性疼痛患者获得认知行为疗法的机会,并显示出作为慢性疼痛非药物治疗选择的前景,其治疗结果不劣于面对面认知行为疗法。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01025752。