home-based CBT for low back pain

​As mentioned in a recent blog (see http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2017/04/diabetic-peripheral-neuropathy-and-more.html ), the effectiveness of medications for chronic pain is somewhat limited, and more studies have been coming out about nonpharmacologic therapy, either as solo or adjunctive therapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been shown to benefit patients with chronic low back pain (see blog referenced below), but patient access to such therapy may be limited. In this light, a new trial showed that home-based, telephonic therapy may be as good as in-person CBT (see lbp interactive CBT online works jamaintmed2017in dropbox, or doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0223).

-- Details:

-- a single center VA study enrolled 125 patients with chronic back pain, allocated equally to interactive voice response-based CBT (IVR-CBT) versus standard CBT

-- this was a non-inferiority study, with primary outcome being change from baseline to 3 months in patient-reported Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) of pain, a scale from 0 to 10. Secondary outcomes included pain-related interference in daily activities; and emotional functioning, sleep quality, and quality of life at 3, 6, and 9 months. These were assessed by the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory, and the Morris Disability Questionnaire.

-- 97 men and 28 women, 65% white/26% black, mean age 60, 20% full-time employed/14% part-time/15% unemployed/29% retired, 18% disabled, 26% with history of substance abuse, mean duration of back pain was 11 years, 55% with nonspecific cause/43% with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, 12% with opioid prescriptions at baseline, average NRS pain rating was 5.58,

-- All patients received a manual specific to their intervention (CBT versus IVR-CBT), to be followed over 10 weeks. The manual included an introductory module about the rationale for CBT, 8 pain-coping skill modules, and a relapse prevention module. All patients received IVR, consisting of 11 weeks of daily telephone calls to the patient to assess pain, sleep, step count, and pain-coping skill practice; if patients were engaged in a progressive walking program; and if they continue to receive care from their primary care clinician. All patients in both groups received these calls.

-- In-person CBT involved weekly 30 to 40 minute treatment sessions, where the therapist reviewed the IVR reports and provided feedback during the sessions

-- IVR-CBT involved receiving therapist reviews of the IVR reports in a 2 to 5 minute personalized feedback session

-- Results:

-- 82% completed at least 3 treatment sessions, though the IVR-CBT group attended 2.3 more sessions than in-person CBT (8.9 versus 6.6)

-- NRS score: IVR-CBT decreased 0.77 points, versus a decrease of 0.84 with CBT, signifying noninferiority. Both groups had statistically significant reductions in average pain intensity at 3 and 6 months post-baseline but not after 9 months. These improvements were considered clinically meaningful changes, though of modest effect size.

-- Statistically significant improvements in physical functioning, sleep quality, and physical activity of life at 3 months occurred in both treatment groups, with no difference between the groups.

-- Post-treatment, 33% of those with standard CBT reported clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity of at least 30% compared with 19% in those receiving IVR-CBT, not statistically significant.

-- Adverse events: 46 participants, mostly related to increased pain from exercise, no difference between groups

-- Commentary:

-- IVR-CBT seems to offer a more accessible and lower cost treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain, which may well apply to other types of chronic pain (there are data supporting CBT benefit for back pain, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). CBT involves helping patients reconceptualize pain as influenced not only by biological but by psychological, behavioral, and social factors. Patients learn cognitive (e.g. reframing catastrophic thoughts) and behavioral (e.g. relaxation techniques) coping skills through this process, as elaborated in the article.

-- It is notable that patients were more engaged with the IVR-CBT-based therapy, attending significantly more sessions, than with standard CBT therapy. This suggests not just the acceptability of this IVR-CBT therapy, but likely also the decrease in burden/increase in accessibility and appeal of this treatment.

-- There are several limitations to the study, including the fact that it was carried out in only one VA Hospital and with a small number of patients. Also, there was no nonintervention/placebo arm. However, this last concern may be less significant given that the average duration of pain was 11 years, suggesting that patients actually act as their own control.

-- Also, it would be really interesting to know how those with a history of substance use disorder (26% in this article) or those on prescription opioids (12%) would do with IVR-CBT. The numbers of patients in this study was probably too small to get meaningful insight into this.

So, this may well be a viable and accessible alternative or adjunct for chronic pain management, and may really help patients who are functionally impaired by the pain, adding to the increasing numbers of nonpharmacologic therapies for this common and difficult problem. It also adds to the impetus for us to offer these types of therapies instead of just jumping to prescribe medications.

http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2016/06/tai-chi-for-knee-oa-mindfulness-for.html reviews a few articles: the main one on tai chi for knee arthritis, another on mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic pain, and another on CBT for back pain