Background Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. Objective We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between–within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. Results The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre–post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. Conclusions EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/25291

IMPORTANCE Chronic low back pain (CLBP), the most prevalent chronic pain condition, imparts substantial disability and discomfort. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces the effect of CLBP, but access is limited.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a single class in evidence-based pain management skills (empowered relief) is noninferior to 8-session CBT and superior to health education at 3 months after treatment for improving pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This 3-arm randomized clinical trial collected data fromMay 24, 2017, to March 3, 2020. Participants included individuals in the community with selfreported CLBP for 6 months or more and an average pain intensity of at least 4 (range, 0-10, with 10 indicating worst pain imaginable). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches.Author affiliations and article information are listed at the end of this article.

The risks associated with prescription opioids are well described. 1,2 Although reducing opioid use is a national priority, existing opioid tapering models use costly interdisciplinary teams that are largely inaccessible to patients and their physicians. 3,4 Patients and physicians need solutions to successfully reduce long-term prescription opioid dosages in settings without behavioral services. We conducted a study of voluntary, patient-centered opioid tapering in outpatients with chronic pain without behavioral treatment.

Objective This study aims to assess the feasibility of digital perioperative behavioral pain medicine intervention in breast cancer surgery and evaluate its impact on pain catastrophizing, pain, and opioid cessation after surgery. Design and Setting A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Stanford University (Palo Alto, CA, USA) comparing a digital behavioral pain medicine intervention (“My Surgical Success” [MSS]) with digital general health education (HE). Participants A convenience sample of 127 participants were randomized to treatment group. The analytic sample was 68 patients (N = 36 MSS, N = 32 HE). Main Outcomes The primary outcome was feasibility and acceptability of a digital behavioral pain medicine intervention (80% threshold for acceptability items). Secondary outcomes were pain catastrophizing, past seven-day average pain intensity, and time to opioid cessation after surgery for patients who initiated opioid use. Results The attrition rate for MSS intervention (44%) was notably higher than for HE controls (18%), but it was lower than typical attrition rates for e-health interventions (60–80%). Despite greater attrition for MSS, feasibility was demonstrated for the 56% of MSS engagers, and the 80% threshold for acceptability was met. We observed a floor effect for baseline pain catastrophizing, and no significant group differences were found for postsurgical pain catastrophizing or pain intensity. MSS was associated with 86% increased odds of opioid cessation within the 12-week study period relative to HE controls (hazard ratio = 1.86, 95% confidence interval = 1.12–3.10, P = 0.016). Conclusions Fifty-six percent of patients assigned to MSS engaged with the online platform and reported high satisfaction. MSS was associated with significantly accelerated opioid cessation after surgery (five-day difference) with no difference in pain report relative to controls. Perioperative digital behavioral pain medicine may be a low-cost, accessible adjunct that could promote opioid cessation after breast cancer surgery.

Central facilitation and modulation of incoming nociceptive signals play an important role in the perception of pain. Disruption in central pain processing is present in many chronic pain conditions and can influence responses to specific therapies. Thus, the ability to precisely describe the state of central pain processing has profound clinical significance in both prognosis and prediction. Because it is not practical to record neuronal firings directly in the human spinal cord, surrogate behavior tests become an important tool to assess the state of central pain processing. Dynamic QST is one such test, and can probe both the ascending facilitation and descending modulation of incoming nociceptive signals via TS and CPM, respectively. Due to the large between-individual variability in the sensitivity to noxious signals, standardized TS and CPM tests may not yield any meaningful data in up to 50% of the population due to floor or ceiling effects. We present methodologies to individualize TS and CPM so we can capture these measures in a broader range of individuals than previously possible. We have used these methods successfully in several studies at the lab, and data from one ongoing study will be presented to demonstrate feasibility and potential applications of the methods.

Three-month follow-up results of a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of 8-week self-administered at-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality (VR) for chronic low back pain,

Background We previously reported the efficacy of an 8-week home-based therapeutic immersive virtual reality (VR) program in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. Community-based adults with self-reported chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1 to receive either (1) a 56-day immersive therapeutic pain relief skills VR program (EaseVRx) or (2) a 56-day sham VR program. Immediate posttreatment results revealed the superiority of therapeutic VR over sham VR for reducing pain intensity; pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress (but not sleep); physical function; and sleep disturbance. At 3 months posttreatment, therapeutic VR maintained superiority for reducing pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, and sleep (new finding). Objective This study assessed between-group and within-group treatment effects 6 months posttreatment to determine the extended efficacy, magnitude of efficacy, and clinical importance of home-based therapeutic VR. Methods E-surveys were deployed at pretreatment, end-of-treatment, and posttreatment months 1, 2, 3, and 6. Self-reported data for 188 participants were analyzed in a mixed-model framework using a marginal model to allow for correlated responses across the repeated measures. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, stress, and sleep at 6 months posttreatment. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep disturbance and physical function. Results Therapeutic VR maintained significant and clinically meaningful effects 6 months posttreatment and remained superior to sham VR for reducing pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, and sleep (ds=0.44-0.54; P<.003). Between-group comparisons for physical function and sleep disturbance showed superiority of EaseVRx over sham VR (ds=0.34; P=.02 and ds=0.46; P<.001, respectively). Participants were encouraged to contact study staff with any problems experienced during treatment; however, no participants contacted study staff to report adverse events of any type, including nausea and motion sickness. Conclusions Our 8-week home-based VR pain management program caused important reductions in pain intensity and interference up to 6 months after treatment. Additional studies are needed in diverse samples. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/25291

BACKGROUND Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE To conduct a double-blind, parallel arm, single cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported non-malignant low back pain > 6 months duration and with average pain intensity > 4/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to one of two 56-day VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (pain relief skills immersive VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. RESULTS The study sample was 179 adults (female: 77%; Caucasian: 91%; at least some college education: 92%; mean age: 51.5 years, SD=13.1; average pain intensity: 5/10, SD=1.2; back pain duration >5 years: 67%). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx vs. Sham VR (p<0.0001). Both groups improved significantly for all five primary outcomes; EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes except pain-related sleep interference. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.06-1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. A greater proportion of participants in the EaseVRx group achieved > 30% reduction in pain intensity (EaseVRx: 65.5%; Sham VR: 40.5%), and 46% of EaseVRx achieved >50% reduction in pain. Physical function and sleep disturbance significantly improved for both treatment groups with superior improvements found for EaseVRx (p=0.0019 and p=.0353, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent; MME) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (p<0.01) but not for Sham VR. CONCLUSIONS EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand non-pharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415177 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-25291