Graded chronic pain scale revised: validation in a Veteran sample.

OBJECTIVE: The Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) is frequently used in pain research and treatment to classify mild, bothersome, and high impact chronic pain. This study's objective was to validate the revised version of the GCPS (GCPS-R) in a US Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare sample to support its use in this high-risk population. METHODS: Data were collected from Veterans (n = 794) via self-report (GCPS-R and relevant health questionnaires) and electronic health record extraction (demographics and opioid prescriptions). Logistic regression, adjusting for age and gender, was used to test for differences in health indicators by pain grade. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported with CIs not including an AOR of 1 indicating that the difference exceeded chance. RESULTS: In this population, the prevalence of chronic pain (pain present most or every day, prior 3 months) was 49.3%: 7.1% with mild chronic pain (mild pain intensity and lower interference with activities); 23.3% bothersome chronic pain (moderate to severe pain intensity with lower interference); and 21.1% high impact chronic pain (higher interference). Results of this study mirrored findings in the non-VA validation study; differences between bothersome and high impact were consistent for activity limitations and present but not fully consistent for psychological variables. Those with bothersome chronic pain or high impact chronic pain were more likely to receive long-term opioid therapy compared to those with no/mild chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight categorical differences captured with the GCPS-R, and convergent validity supports use of the GCPS-R in US Veterans.

Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote (telehealth and online) cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatments for high-impact chronic pain relative to usual care: study protocol for the RESOLVE multisite randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an effective but underused treatment for high-impact chronic pain. Increased access to CBT-CP services for pain is of critical public health importance, particularly for rural and medically underserved populations who have limited access due to these services being concentrated in urban and high income areas. Making CBT-CP widely available and more affordable could reduce barriers to CBT-CP use. METHODS: As part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term® (NIH HEAL) initiative, we designed and implemented a comparative effectiveness, 3-arm randomized control trial comparing remotely delivered telephonic/video and online CBT-CP-based services to usual care for patients with high-impact chronic pain. The RESOLVE trial is being conducted in 4 large integrated healthcare systems located in Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington state and includes demographically diverse populations residing in urban and rural areas. The trial compares (1) an 8-session, one-on-one, professionally delivered telephonic/video CBT-CP program; and (2) a previously developed and tested 8-session online CBT-CP-based program (painTRAINER) to (3) usual care augmented by a written guide for chronic pain management. Participants are followed for 1 year post-allocation and are assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-allocation. The primary outcome is minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 30% reduction) in pain severity (composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) assessed by a modified 11-item version of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, pain intensity, and pain-related interference scores, quality of life measures, and patient global impression of change at 3, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is assessed by incremental cost per additional patient with MCID in primary outcome and by cost per quality-adjusted life year achieved. Outcome assessment is blinded to group assignment. DISCUSSION: This large-scale trial provides a unique opportunity to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 2 relatively low-cost and scalable modalities for providing CBT-CP-based treatments to persons with high-impact chronic pain, including those residing in rural and other medically underserved areas with limited access to these services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523714. This trial was registered on 24 August 2020.

Opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review of international guidelines.

ABSTRACT: In response to the overuse of prescription opioid analgesics, clinical practice guidelines encourage opioid deprescribing (ie, dose reduction or cessation) in patients with chronic noncancer pain. Therefore, this study evaluated and compared international clinical guideline recommendations on opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), and MAGICapp databases from inception to June 4, 2021, with no language or publication restrictions. In addition, we searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and International Guideline Network databases from inception to December 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted the initial title and abstract screening. After discrepancies were resolved through discussion, 2 independent reviewers conducted the full-text screening of each potentially eligible reference. Four independent reviewers completed the prepiloted, standardized data extraction forms of each included guideline. Extracted information included bibliographical details; strength of recommendations; and the outcomes, such as when and how to deprescribe, managing withdrawal symptoms, additional support, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. A narrative synthesis was used to present the results. This study found that clinical practice guidelines agree on when and how to deprescribe opioid analgesics but lack advice on managing a patient's withdrawal symptoms, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. Quality assessment of the guidelines suggests that greater discussion on implementation and dissemination is needed.

Diagnosing Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in Patients Using Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation. METHODS: Patients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures. RESULTS: The prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures. CONCLUSIONS: Adapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.

Comparing Perceived Pain Impact Between Younger and Older Adults With High Impact Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Qualitative and Quantitative Survey.

High impact chronic pain (HICP) is a recently proposed concept for treatment stratifying patients with chronic pain and monitoring their progress. The goal is to reduce the impact of chronic pain on the individual, their family, and society. The US National Pain Strategy defined HICP as the chronic pain associated with substantial restrictions on participation in work, social, and self-care activities for at least 6 months. To understand the meaning and characteristics of HICP from the younger (<65 years old) and older adults (≥65 years old) with chronic pain, our study examined patients' perceived pain impact between the two age groups. We also characterize the degree of pain impact, assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI), between adults and older adults with HICP. We recruited patients at a tertiary pain clinic. The survey included open-ended questions about pain impact, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised to identify patients' meeting criteria for HICP, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 8-item PI short form (v.8a). A total of 55 younger adults (65.5% women, 72.7% HICP, mean age = 55.0 with SD of 16.2) and 28 older adults (53.6% women, 64.3% HICP, mean age = 72.6 with SD of 5.4) with chronic pain participated in this study. In response to an open-ended question in which participants were asked to list out the areas of major impact pain, those with HICP in the younger group most commonly listed work, social activity, and basic physical activity (e.g., walking and standing); for those in the older group, basic physical activity, instrumental activity of daily living (e.g., housework, grocery shopping), and participating in social or fun activity for older adults with HICP were the most common. A 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted using age (younger adults vs. older adults) and HICP classification (HICP vs. No HICP). A statistically significant difference was found in the PROMIS-PI T-scores by HICP status (HICP: M = 58.4, SD = 6.3; No HICP: M = 67.8, SD = 6.3), but not by age groups with HICP. In conclusion, perceived pain impacts were qualitatively, but not quantitatively different between younger and older adults with HICP. We discuss limitations and offer recommendations for future research.

A Review of Potential National Chronic Pain Surveillance Systems in the United States.

Pain has been established as a major public health problem in the United States (U.S.) with 50 million adults experiencing chronic pain and 20 million afflicted with high-impact chronic pain (ie, chronic pain that interferes with life or work activities). High financial and social costs are associated with chronic pain. Over the past 2 decades, pain management has been complicated by the marked increase in opioids prescribed to treat chronic noncancer pain and by the concurrent opioid crisis. Monitoring the prevalence of chronic pain and pain management is especially important because pain management is changing in uncertain ways. We review potential U.S. chronic pain surveillance systems, present potential difficulties of chronic pain surveillance, and explore how to address chronic pain surveillance in the current opioid era. We consider case definitions, severity, anatomic site, and varieties of chronic pain management strategies in reviewing and evaluating national surveys for chronic pain surveillance. Based on the criteria evaluated, the National Health Interview Survey offers the best single source for pain surveillance as the pain-related questions administered are brief, valid, and cover a broad scope of pain-related phenomena. PERSPECTIVE: This review article describes data sources that can be leveraged to conduct national chronic pain surveillance in the United States, explores case defining or pain-related questions administered, and evaluates them against 8 surveillance attributes.

Reduction of Long-Term Opioid Prescribing for Back Pain in Community Health Centers After a Medicaid Policy Change.

INTRODUCTION: Beginning around 2011, innumerable policies have aimed to improve pain treatment while minimizing harms from excessive use of opioids. It is not known whether changing insurance coverage for specific conditions is an effective strategy. We describe and assess the effect of an innovative Oregon Medicaid back/neck pain coverage policy on opioid prescribing patterns. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record data from a network of community health centers (CHCs) in Oregon to analyze prescription opioid dose changes among patients on long-term opioid treatment (LOT) affected by the policy. RESULTS: Of the 1,789 patients on LOT at baseline, 41.6% had an average daily dose of <20 morphine milligram equivalents (MME), 32.3% had ≥20 to <50 MME, 14.5% had ≥50 to <90 MME, and 11.6% ≥90 MME. Around half of each group discontinued opioids within the 18-month policy period. Those who discontinued did so gradually (average of 11 months) regardless of starting dosage. Predictors of discontinuation included: diagnosis of opioid use disorder, older, non-Hispanic white, and less medical complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of starting opioid dose, nearly half of patients affected by the 2016 Oregon Medicaid back/neck pain treatment policy no longer received opioid prescriptions by the end of the 18-month study period; another 30% decreased their dose. Gradual dose reduction was typical. These outcomes suggest that the policy impacted opioid prescribing. Understanding patient experiences resulting from such policies could help clinicians and policy makers navigate the complex balance between potential harms and benefits of LOT.

Cost-effectiveness of telephone cognitive behavioral therapy for osteoarthritis-related insomnia.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis-related insomnia is the most common form of comorbid insomnia among older Americans. A randomized clinical trial found that six sessions of telephone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) improved sleep outcomes in this population. Using these data, we evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of CBT-I from a healthcare sector perspective. METHODS: The study was based on 325 community-dwelling older adults with insomnia and osteoarthritis pain enrolled with Kaiser Permanente of Washington State. We measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EuroQol 5-dimension scale. Arthritis-specific quality of life was measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Insomnia-specific quality of life was measured using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and nights without clinical insomnia (i.e., "insomnia-free nights"). Total healthcare costs included intervention and healthcare utilization costs. RESULTS: Over the 12 months after randomization, CBT-I improved ISI and WOMAC by -2.6 points (95% CI: -2.9 to -2.4) and -2.6 points (95% CI: -3.4 to -1.8), respectively. The ISI improvement translated into 89 additional insomnia-free nights (95% CI: 79 to 98) over the 12 months. CBT-I did not significantly reduce total healthcare costs (-$1072 [95% CI: -$1968 to $92]). Improvements in condition-specific measures were not reflected in QALYs gained (-0.01 [95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01]); at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY, CBT-I resulted in a positive net monetary benefit of $369 with substantial uncertainty (95% CI: -$1737 to $2270). CONCLUSION: CBT-I improved sleep and arthritis function without increasing costs. These findings support the consideration of telephone CBT-I for treating insomnia among older adults with comorbid OA. Our findings also suggest potential limitations of the general quality of life measures in assessing interventions designed to improve sleep and arthritis outcomes.

Long-term improvements in sleep, pain, depression, and fatigue in older adults with comorbid osteoarthritis pain and insomnia.

In a primary care population of 327 older adults (age 60+) with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain and insomnia, we examined the relationship between short-term improvement in sleep or pain and long-term sleep, pain, depression, and fatigue by secondary analyses of randomized controlled trial data. Study participants, regardless of trial arm, were classified as Sleep or Pain Improvers with ≥30% baseline to 2-month reduction on the Insomnia Severity Index or the Brief Pain Inventory, respectively, or Sleep or Pain Non-Improvers. After controlling for trial arm and potential confounders, both Sleep and Pain Improvers showed significant (p < .01) sustained improvements across 12 months compared to respective Non-Improvers for the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Brief Pain Inventory-short form (total, Interference, and Severity subscales), Patient Health Questionnaire, and Flinders Fatigue Scale. The effect sizes (Cohen's f2) for the sustained benefits in both Sleep and Pain Improvers compared to their respective Non-Improvers for all variables were small (<0.15) with the exception of medium effect size for sustained reduction in insomnia symptoms for the Sleep Improvers. We conclude that short-term sleep improvements in pain populations with comorbid insomnia precede benefits not only for long-term improvement in sleep but also for reduced pain over the long-term, along with associated improvements in depression and fatigue. Short-term improvements in pain appear to have similar long-term sequelae. Successfully improving sleep in pain populations with comorbid insomnia may have the additional benefits of improving both short- and long-term pain, depression, and fatigue. Trial Registration: OsteoArthritis and Therapy for Sleep (OATS) NCT02946957: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02946957.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Pain (P), Enjoyment (E), and General activity (G) scale, a three-item questionnaire, for grading the impact of orofacial pain-related dysfunction.

ABSTRACT: Purpose of this study was to examine the discriminative properties of the 3-item Pain (P), Enjoyment (E), and General activity (G) (PEG) questionnaire for grading impact of nondental orofacial pain. Two hundred eighty-six consecutive patients with orofacial pain of nondental origin filled out the PEG questionnaire and Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS, version 2). Correlation between the PEG and GCPS scores, internal consistency of the PEG, and differences between groups were examined statistically (level of significance: P ≤ 0.05). The mean (±SD) age of the 213 patients (158 female) who were included in the analysis was 43.1 (±16.7) years. Of the sample, 48.8% (n = 104) had some degree of orofacial pain-related disability (mean overall characteristic pain intensity: 51.2 ± 23.2, average overall PEG score: 4.3 ± 2.7, and average PHQ-9 score: 8.2 ± 6.5). No significant differences were found between the sexes for any score. The number of disability points (GCPS) and overall PEG score showed a strong and positive correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.77, P < 0.001). The internal consistency of the PEG questionnaire was high (Cronbach α = 0.86). Assuming 3 different levels of orofacial pain-related disability (mild, moderate, and severe), we obtained overall accuracy of 69.01%, with high specificity for mild and severe cases. The 3 PEG groups (mild, moderate, or severe) differed from each other significantly regarding their clinical grading according to the GCPS (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.001). Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve showed that a single cutoff value of 3.8 points in the PEG score yields adequate validity (sensitivity = 0.91 and specificity = 0.78). The proposed 2 cutoff points (upper = 7 and lower = 4) yield low sensitivity for the upper threshold. The 3-item PEG questionnaire is suitable for grading impact of nondental orofacial pain.

ISI-3: evaluation of a brief screening tool for insomnia.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the performance of the Insomnia Severity Index-3 (ISI-3) as a short screening tool to identify clinically significant insomnia derived from the 7-item ISI in an older primary care population. METHODS: We used results from two surveys including the 7-item ISI: Sample 1 (n = 3197) and Sample 2 (n = 247) individuals aged ≥60 years with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from electronic health records. The 7 items were: difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep, waking too early, sleep satisfaction, sleep interference with daytime functioning, noticeability of sleep problems by others, and worry about sleep. The ISI-3 included items with highest item-total correlations to the 7-item ISI from Sample 1. A 7-item ISI score ≥15 was defined as clinically significant insomnia and served as the primary criterion for the ISI-3. We derived operating characteristics to determine the diagnostic accuracy and cut-points to maximize sensitivity and specificity for both samples. RESULTS: The items with the highest item-total correlations were: sleep dissatisfaction, sleep interference with daily functioning, and worry about sleep problems (r = 0.78-0.81); while difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep, waking too early and noticeability of sleep problems by others showed lower correlations (r = 0.60-0.74). The ISI-3 achieved high discriminant validity in identifying insomnia (AUC = 0.97-0.98). An ISI-3 score of ≥7 maximized sensitivity (0.94-0.97) and specificity (0.88-0.91) with kappa = 0.68-0.71, 89.1-91.5% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The ISI-3 can effectively screen for insomnia to trigger a more thorough diagnostic evaluation including the 7-item ISI for research or clinical purposes. Future validation studies are needed in other community and clinical populations. CLINICAL TRIAL: This manuscript describes secondary analyses of data two National Institutes on Aging-funded clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01142349, NCT02946957).

Effect of Telephone Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Older Adults With Osteoarthritis Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Scalable delivery models of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), an effective treatment, are needed for widespread implementation, particularly in rural and underserved populations lacking ready access to insomnia treatment. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of telephone CBT-I vs education-only control (EOC) in older adults with moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a randomized clinical trial of 327 participants 60 years and older who were recruited statewide through Kaiser Permanente Washington from September 2016 to December 2018. Participants were double screened 3 weeks apart for moderate to severe insomnia and osteoarthritis (OA) pain symptoms. Blinded assessments were conducted at baseline, after 2 months posttreatment, and at 12-month follow-up. Interventions: Six 20- to 30-minute telephone sessions provided over 8 weeks. Participants submitted daily diaries and received group-specific educational materials. The CBT-I instruction included sleep restriction, stimulus control, sleep hygiene, cognitive restructuring, and homework. The EOC group received information about sleep and OA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at 2 months posttreatment and 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain (score on the Brief Pain Inventory-short form), depression (score on the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire), and fatigue (score on the Flinders Fatigue Scale). Results: Of the 327 participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.2 (6.8) years, and 244 (74.6%) were women. In the 282 participants with follow-up ISI data, the total 2-month posttreatment ISI scores decreased 8.1 points in the CBT-I group and 4.8 points in the EOC group, an adjusted mean between-group difference of -3.5 points (95% CI, -4.4 to -2.6 points; P < .001). Results were sustained at 12-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -3.0 points; 95% CI, -4.1 to -2.0 points; P < .001). At 12-month follow-up, 67 of 119 (56.3%) participants receiving CBT-I remained in remission (ISI score, ≤7) compared with 33 of 128 (25.8%) participants receiving EOC. Fatigue was also significantly reduced in the CBT-I group compared with the EOC group at 2 months posttreatment (mean between-group difference, -2.0 points; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.9 points; P = <.001) and 12-month follow-up (mean between-group difference, -1.8 points; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6 points; P = .003). Posttreatment significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, telephone CBT-I was effective in improving sleep, fatigue, and, to a lesser degree, pain among older adults with comorbid insomnia and OA pain in a large statewide health plan. Results support provision of telephone CBT-I as an accessible, individualized, effective, and scalable insomnia treatment. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT02946957.

Identifying Multisite Chronic Pain with Electronic Health Records Data.

BACKGROUND: Multisite chronic pain (MSCP) is associated with increased chronic pain impact, but methods for identifying MSCP for epidemiological research have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the validity of identifying MSCP using electronic health care data compared with survey questionnaires. METHODS: Stratified random samples of adults served by Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Washington (N = 2,059) were drawn for a survey, oversampling persons with frequent use of health care for pain. MSCP and single-site chronic pain were identified by two methods, with electronic health care data and with self-report of common chronic pain conditions by survey questionnaire. Analyses were weighted to adjust for stratified sampling. RESULTS: MSCP was somewhat less common when ascertained by electronic health records (14.7% weighted prevalence) than by survey questionnaire (25.9% weighted prevalence). Agreement of the two MSCP classifications was low (kappa agreement statistic of 0.21). Ascertainment of MSCP with electronic health records was 30.9% sensitive, 91.0% specific, and had a positive predictive value of 54.5% relative to MSCP identified by self-report as the standard. After adjusting for age and gender, patients with MSCP identified by either electronic health records or self-report showed higher levels of pain-related disability, pain severity, depressive symptoms, and long-term opioid use than persons with single-site chronic pain identified by the same method. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of MSCP with electronic health care data was insufficiently accurate to be used as a surrogate or screener for MSCP identified by self-report, but both methods identified persons with heightened chronic pain impact.

Measuring problem prescription opioid use among patients receiving long-term opioid analgesic treatment: development and evaluation of an algorithm for use in EHR and claims data.

Objective: Opioid surveillance in response to the opioid epidemic will benefit from scalable, automated algorithms for identifying patients with clinically documented signs of problem prescription opioid use. Existing algorithms lack accuracy. We sought to develop a high-sensitivity, high-specificity classification algorithm based on widely available structured health data to identify patients receiving chronic extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) therapy with evidence of problem use to support subsequent epidemiologic investigations. Methods: Outpatient medical records of a probability sample of 2,000 Kaiser Permanente Washington patients receiving ≥60 days' supply of ER/LA opioids in a 90-day period from 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2015 were manually reviewed to determine the presence of clinically documented signs of problem use and used as a reference standard for algorithm development. Using 1,400 patients as training data, we constructed candidate predictors from demographic, enrollment, encounter, diagnosis, procedure, and medication data extracted from medical claims records or the equivalent from electronic health record (EHR) systems, and we used adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression to develop a model. We evaluated this model in a comparable 600-patient validation set. We compared this model to ICD-9 diagnostic codes for opioid abuse, dependence, and poisoning. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as study NCT02667262 on 28 January 2016. Results: We operationalized 1,126 potential predictors characterizing patient demographics, procedures, diagnoses, timing, dose, and location of medication dispensing. The final model incorporating 53 predictors had a sensitivity of 0.582 at positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.572. ICD-9 codes for opioid abuse, dependence, and poisoning had a sensitivity of 0.390 at PPV of 0.599 in the same cohort. Conclusions: Scalable methods using widely available structured EHR/claims data to accurately identify problem opioid use among patients receiving long-term ER/LA therapy were unsuccessful. This approach may be useful for identifying patients needing clinical evaluation.

The impact of primary care behavioral health services on patient behaviors: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Greater understanding of the impact of low intensity psychosocial interventions delivered by behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) working in an integrated care program (ICP) may promote better depression care. METHOD: In a randomized controlled trial, 153 participants identified as depressed by their primary care provider (PCP) were assigned to ICP or usual care (UC, management by PCP, including specialty referral). In the ICP condition, BHCs worked collaboratively with PCPs and liaison psychiatrists. RESULTS: ICP participants with lower and higher severity symptoms reported significantly greater use of coping strategies than UC participants at the 1-month follow up (lower: p = .002; higher: p = .016). ICP participants with lower severity continued to report significantly greater use of coping strategies than UC participants at the 4-month (p = .024), and 7-month (p = .012) follow ups. ICP participants were more likely to be following relapse preventions plans at the 4-month follow up (lower: 89.5% vs. 50%, p = .0.000; higher 74.1% vs. 33%, p = .0001). ICP participants also reported use of antidepressant medications on more days than UC participants at the 4-month follow up (lower: 21.27 vs. 14.49 days, p = .049; higher: 24.61 vs. 17.08 days, p = .035). Patient retention in the ICP was high, and ICP participants were significantly more satisfied with depression care than UC participants at follow-up assessments. DISCUSSION: Delivery of low intensity psychosocial interventions by BHCs was associated with improvements to behavior charge targets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Characterizing Behavioral Activity Rhythms in Older Adults Using Actigraphy.

Wrist actigraphy has been used to assess sleep in older adult populations for nearly half a century. Over the years, the continuous raw activity data derived from actigraphy has been used for the characterization of factors beyond sleep/wake such as physical activity patterns and circadian rhythms. Behavioral activity rhythms (BAR) are useful to describe individual daily behavioral patterns beyond sleep and wake, which represent important and meaningful clinical outcomes. This paper reviews common rhythmometric approaches and summarizes the available data from the use of these different approaches in older adult populations. We further consider a new approach developed in our laboratory designed to provide graphical characterization of BAR for the observed behavioral phenomenon of activity patterns across time. We illustrate the application of this new approach using actigraphy data collected from a well-characterized sample of older adults (age 60+) with osteoarthritis (OA) pain and insomnia. Generalized additive models (GAM) were implemented to fit smoothed nonlinear curves to log-transformed aggregated actigraphy-derived activity measurements. This approach demonstrated an overall strong model fit (R2 = 0.82, SD = 0.09) and was able to provide meaningful outcome measures allowing for graphical and parameterized characterization of the observed activity patterns within this sample.

Patient Advisory Committee for a Chronic Opioid Therapy Risk Reduction Evaluation: Engaging Diverse Patients.

BACKGROUND: Active patient engagement in research is critically important, but can be difficult in controversial areas where patients have conflicting perspectives. OBJECTIVES: In this Lesson's Learned report, we describe engagement of patients with divergent views in guiding a controlled interrupted time series evaluation of chronic opioid therapy risk reduction initiatives implemented by a large health plan. METHODS: A nine-person Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) advised the scientific team on the evaluation and reporting of results on diverse outcomes important to patients, including pain and function, opioid use disorder, overdose, motor vehicle accidents, and medically attended injuries. Patients were selected with varied perspectives on opioid prescribing for chronic pain. Multiple strategies facilitated PAC engagement: making room for personal experience; investing upfront in setting the stage for working together including an initial face to face meeting; clarifying shared values; and including individuals skilled in group process and collaboration. PAC meetings were organized separately from regular meetings of the scientific team. RESULTS: Shared values identified to guide the research were: Safety, respect, autonomy, compassion, knowledge and teamwork. PAC guidance altered key scientific decisions regarding assessment of patient outcomes, doctor-patient collaboration, and analytic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Separate meetings of the PAC and scientific team enhanced opportunities for patients to influence the study design, analyses and interpretation of evaluation results. Convening a large group of patients with diverse perspectives and experiences was productive and influential in guiding the evaluation. Patient selection and building rapport allowed PAC members with divergent perspectives to work together effectively.

Long-Term Courses of Sepsis Survivors: Effects of a Primary Care Management Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis survivors face mental and physical sequelae even years after discharge from the intensive care unit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term courses of sepsis survivors and the effects of a primary care management intervention in sepsis aftercare. METHODS: This study presents a 24-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial that recruited 291 patients who survived sepsis (including septic shock) from nine German intensive care units. Participants were randomized to usual care (n=143) or to a 12-month-intervention (n=148). The intervention included training of patients and their primary care physicians (PCP) in evidence-based post-sepsis care, case management provided by trained nurses, and clinical decision support for PCPs by consulting physicians. Usual care was provided by PCPs in the control group. At the 24-month follow-up, 12 months after the 1-year-intervention, survival and measures of mental and physical health were collected by telephone interviews. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six (63.9%, 98 intervention, 88 control) of 291 patients completed the 24-month follow-up, showing both increased mortality and recovery from functional impairment. Unlike the intervention group, the control group showed a significant increase of posttraumatic stress symptoms according to the Posttraumatic Symptom Scale (difference between baseline and 24-months follow-up values, mean [standard deviation] 3.7 [11.8] control vs -0.7 [12.1] intervention; P = .016). There were no significant differences in all other outcomes between the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months after completion, a primary care management intervention among survivors of sepsis did not improve mental health-related quality of life. Patients in the intervention group showed less posttraumatic stress symptoms.