Design, methods, and recruitment outcomes of the Veterans' pain care organizational improvement comparative effectiveness (VOICE) study.

The Veterans' Pain Care Organizational Improvement Comparative Effectiveness (VOICE) study is a 12-month pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial conducted at ten United States Veterans Affairs (VA) health care sites. The overall goal was to test interventions to improve pain while reducing opioid use among VA patients with moderate-severe chronic pain despite treatment with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Aims were 1) to compare lower-intensity telecare collaborative pain management (TCM) versus higher-intensity integrated pain team management (IPT), and 2) to test the option of switching to buprenorphine (versus no option) in a high-dose subgroup. Recruitment challenges included secular trends in opioid prescribing and the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were recruited over 3.5 years. Of 6966 potentially eligible patients, 4731 (67.9%) were contacted for telephone eligibility interview; of those contacted, 3398 (71.8%) declined participation, 359 (7.6%) were ineligible, 821 (24.2%) enrolled, and 820 (24.1%) were randomized. The most common reason for declining was satisfaction with pain care (n = 731). The most common reason for ineligibility was not having moderate-severe chronic pain (n = 110). Compared with the potentially eligible population, randomized participants were slightly younger, more often female, had similar prescribed opioids, and had similar or higher rates of pain and mental health diagnoses. The enrolled patient number was lower than the original target, but sufficient to power planned analyses. In conclusion, the VOICE trial enrolled a diverse sample similar to the population of VA patients receiving LTOT. Results will add substantially to limited existing evidence for interventions to improve pain while reducing opioid use. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026790.

Adaptations to Opioid Use Disorder Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Prescribers.

OBJECTIVES: Among opioid use disorder (OUD)-treating providers, to characterize adaptations used to provide medications for OUD (MOUD) and factors associated with desire to continue virtual visits post-COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In a national electronic survey of OUD-treating prescribers (July-August 2020), analyses restricted to X-waivered buprenorphine prescribers providing outpatient, longitudinal care for adults with OUD, quantitative and qualitative analyses of survey items and free text responses were conducted. RESULTS: Among 797 respondents, 49% were men, 57% ≥50 years, 76% White, 68% physicians. Respondents widely used virtual visits to continue prescribing existing MOUD regimens (79%), provide behavioral healthcare (71%), and initiate new MOUD prescriptions (49%). Most prescribers preferred to continue/expand use of virtual visits after COVID-19. In multivariable models, factors associated with preference to continue/expand virtual visits to initiate MOUD postpandemic were treating a moderate number of patients prepandemic (aOR = 1.67; 95%[CI] = 1.06,2.62) and practicing in an urban setting (aOR = 2.17; 95%[CI] = 1.48,3.18). Prescribing buprenorphine prepandemic (aOR = 2.06; 95%[CI] = 1.11,3.82) and working in an academic medical center (aOR = 2.47; 95%[CI] = 1.30,4.68) were associated with preference to continue/expand use of virtual visits to continue MOUD postpandemic. Prescribing naltrexone extended-release injection prepandemic was associated with preference to continue/expand virtual visits to initiate and continue MOUD (aOR = 1.51; 95%[CI] = 1.10,2.07; aOR = 1.74; 95%[CI] = 1.19,2.54). Qualitative findings suggest that providers appreciated virtual visits due to convenience and patient accessibility, but were concerned about liability and technological barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed prescribers widely used virtual visits to provide MOUD with overall positive experiences. Future studies should evaluate the impact of virtual visits on MOUD access and retention and clinical outcomes.

Serious Illness and Limitations of Death Certificate-Based Data: Urgent Lessons From the Opioid Epidemic

CAUSE OF DEATH REPORTING Even if immediate and underlying CODs are entered accurately according to these standards, important information is lost in the process that leads to the "leading causes of death" reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [...]when regional vital statistics offices share death certificate data with the CDC, the CDC's computerized algorithm selects one diagnosis as the underlying COD, and this is the diagnosis that is reported in CDC mortality statistics.4 Other diagnoses appear in separate COD fields in mortality databases but in no particular order, and they are not included in the vast majority of mortality statistics. [...]in this example, the death might be attributed to cancer orto something else entirely. Another recent study of opioidrelated deaths among "cancer survivors" (which the authors did not explicitly define, but they cited an article that Included In Its definition Individuals with active disease and those with a more remote history of cancer) highlights the potential for loss of data on acute events when a serious Illness and an acute event coexist at the time of death.6 The authors found that decedents with opioid-related primary CODs were less likely to have a cancer diagnosis Included as a contributing COD than would be expected.

Optimizing the Impact of Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Veteran and Military Populations: Lessons From the Pain Management Collaboratory.

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.