AzTrials
AzTrials

Multiple SclerosisNCT03782246

MBCT and CBT for Chronic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis

A study testing MBCT and CBT in people with Multiple Sclerosis, run by University of Washington at 1 site in United States.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Chronic pain is one of the most prevalent, disabling and persistent symptoms affecting people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Different nonpharmacological treatments are known to be beneficial for managing pain, including cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness based cognitive therapy. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Multiple Sclerosis
What is being tested?
MBCT and CBT
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
273 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
28 Nov 2018to 1 Aug 2022
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • 18 years of age or older;
  • a diagnosis of clinically definite MS confirmed by participant's provider;
  • the presence of chronic pain, defined as average pain intensity in the past week of at least moderate severity (defined as a ≥3 on the 0-10 numerical rating scale) and pain of at least three months duration, with pain reportedly present > half the days in the past three months;
  • reads and speaks English;
  • has access and is able to communicate over the telephone; and
  • has a computer or digital device with video capabilities (any operating system) and internet access.

Who cannot join

  • severe cognitive impairment;
  • currently in psychotherapy for pain > once a month; and
  • previously participated in a pain study that used CBT or MBCT.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • UW Medicine Multiple Sclerosis Center

    Seattle, Washington, 98195

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis

Chronic pain is one of the most prevalent, disabling and persistent symptoms affecting people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Different nonpharmacological treatments are known to be beneficial for managing pain, including cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness based cognitive therapy. This study compares these two non-pharmacological approaches to pain management in people with Multiple Sclerosis. The purpose of this study is to see if these treatments can help decrease pain and other outcomes (e.g., sleep, fatigue) in persons with Multiple Sclerosis. The study will determine who benefits from these treatments and if these treatments can be given effectively by videoconference.

Read the detailed description

Chronic pain is one of the most prevalent, disabling, and persistent symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis (MS). Approximately 50 - 60% of adults with multiple sclerosis experience moderate or severe, persistent pain. Medications rarely provide adequate pain relief and can entail negative side-effects. As a result, individuals with Multiple Sclerosis have become increasingly interested in nonpharmacologic approaches to pain management.

Previously completed clinical trials, and those of others, support the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain in people with Multiple Sclerosis. Cognitive-behavioral therapy has been shown to decrease pain, decrease pain interference, and improve mood, sleep, and fatigue. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is another promising non-pharmacologic treatment that has been shown to improve pain outcomes in people with chronic pain; mindfulness-based cognitive therapy may also benefit individuals with Multiple Sclerosis and chronic pain. Although both of these treatments are effective pain treatments, the investigators do not know if one is more effective for the other. Furthermore, it is likely that there are both responders and non-responders to each of the treatments. That is, for any individual, two different treatments such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy may not necessarily be similarly beneficial in addressing pain. There is an urgent need to understand variability in responses across different psychosocial treatment interventions which will, in turn, lead to more effective and better-targeted interventions for chronic pain in Multiple Sclerosis. In other words, the investigators need to better understand for whom each of these pain interventions work best. Such knowledge will lead to better patient-treatment matching and, ultimately, better treatment outcomes.

This study is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing eight 2-hour sessions of group video-conference delivered mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy to usual care for chronic pain in 240 adults with Multiple Sclerosis. This study will identify not only the unique benefits conferred by each these two treatments but also for whom each treatment is most suitable. This study will address two specific aims:

Aim 1: To determine the efficacy of group-based, videoconference-delivered mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions, relative to usual care, in reducing pain intensity (the primary outcome) in adults with chronic pain and Multiple Sclerosis. Hypothesis 1: Primary Study Hypothesis: Participants randomly assigned to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or cognitive-behavioral therapy will report significantly greater reductions in average pain intensity (primary outcome) relative to participants assigned to usual care at post-treatment (12 weeks post randomization, primary endpoint).

Aim 2: To increase the ability to more effectively match patients to treatments by identifying pain treatment moderators. Although on average similar outcomes are expected in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, it is expected that there will be individual differences in who responds to each treatment. Specifically, that baseline mindfulness, behavioral activation, and pain catastrophizing will be associated with treatment response for the active treatment arms. Thus, to address Aim 2, the investigators will explore the ability of baseline mindfulness, behavioral activation, and pain catastrophizing to predict response to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. The investigators hypothesize that (1) baseline pain catastrophizing will be positively associated with treatment response for the two active treatment arms, but not the usual care condition (Hypothesis 2a); (2) baseline behavioral activation will be positively associated with treatment response for the two active treatment arms, but not the usual care condition (Hypothesis 2b), and (3) baseline mindfulness will be positively associated with treatment response to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy but not to either cognitive-behavioral therapy or the usual care condition (Hypothesis 2c).

In addition to testing the above specific hypotheses, the investigators will explore: (1) the effects of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy relative to each other on both the primary (i.e., change in average pain intensity) and secondary outcomes (pain interference and key co-morbid symptoms including fatigue, sleep, and depressive symptoms), as Hypothesis 1 pertains only to the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy relative to the usual care control, not to each other; (2) the relative effects of all three treatment conditions on the secondary outcomes; (3) the maintenance, loss or gain in any treatment effects at 6-months post-treatment; (4) dose effects; and (5) additional potential moderators of outcome, including demographics, baseline pain and disease characteristics (e.g., pain severity, pain type, disease severity) and baseline depressive symptom severity and fatigue.

Impact. As the first RCT evaluating the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy relative to cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain in adults with Multiple Sclerosis, study findings will provide critical information about the relative benefits of both mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy compared to one another and to usual care. This will determine the value of both of these approaches as adjunctive pain management tools, and if results support the use of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, this will expand the currently available treatment options for people with Multiple Sclerosis. Remote intervention delivery using video-conference technology may improve the reach of these nonpharmacologic interventions, transcending geographical, transportation, and other access barriers. In addition, the investigators anticipate that increased knowledge concerning patient characteristics associated with response to treatment (i.e., treatment effect moderators) may improve treatment efficacy by better matching patients to the most appropriate treatments. All of these findings will contribute to our long-term goal of increasing the availability and efficacy of chronic pain treatments for individuals with Multiple Sclerosis and chronic pain.

Being tested
MBCT, CBT
Keywords
chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, pain, mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy
Medical subject headings
Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Pain, Pain

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • MBCTBehavioural

    Mindfulness- based Cognitive Therapy

  • CBTBehavioural

    Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Study groups in NCT03782246
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Usual CareNo interventionNo intervention, participant will continue their usual care for pain and MS. We will collect information about what treatments are used by the usual care participants. They will be offered the opportunity to participate in one of the two active study treatments (MBCT or CBT) after completion of the 6-month followup.
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT)ExperimentalParticipants will attend eight, 2-hour group treatment MBCT sessions delivered using free video-conferencing technology. Groups will consist of 6-8 people who also have MS and chronic pain. Participants will be asked to practice skills learned in session between sessions. MBCT integrates mindfulness meditation practices within a CBT-oriented framework to address not only unhelpful pain cognitions and behaviors but also attentional control, decoupling of attention from emotion, mindful cognitions, and meditative behavior.
Receives: Behavioral: MBCT
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)ExperimentalParticipants will attend eight, 2-hour group treatment CBT sessions delivered using free video-conferencing technology. Groups will consist of 6-8 people who also have MS and chronic pain. Participants will be asked to practice skills learned in session between sessions. CBT focuses on increasing adaptive pain coping strategies and reducing unhelpful thoughts and behaviors related to pain. Strategies include relaxation techniques, goal-setting, activity pacing, and changing unhelpful thinking patterns.
Receives: Behavioral: CBT

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change in average pain intensity

    0-10 Numerical Pain Scale of average pain intensity in past week (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-reported pain intensity.

    Measured: Baseline to 10 weeks (posttreatment; primary endpoint)

Secondary outcomes (9)
  1. Pain interference

    Brief Pain Inventory -Interference scale (modified version for MS) Questions ask how much pain has interfered with various activities on a 0-10 scale where 0 is no interference and 10 is complete interference. All questions are averaged and lower scores indicate lower interference from pain.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  2. Average pain intensity - maintenance

    0-10 Numerical Pain Scale of average pain intensity in past week (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-reported pain intensity. We will examine whether any improvements in average pain intensity are maintained at 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

    Measured: 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  3. Depressive symptom severity

    Patient Health Questionnaire 9 which measures depressive symptom severity. The questions are summed to assess levels of depressive symptom severity. Lower scores indicate lower depressive symptoms/severity.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  4. Patient ratings of global improvement & satisfaction

    5-point Likert scales of patient global change, treatment helpfulness, \& satisfaction. Higher numbers indicate more satisfaction with and improvements from treatment.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  5. Fatigue severity

    Modified Fatigue Impact Scale which asks 24 questions about fatigue severity in the past 4 weeks. 0=never and 4=almost always. Scores are averaged and lower scores indicate lower fatigue severity.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  6. Sleep disturbance

    PROMIS Sleep Disturbance scale- 4 questions asking about sleep quality in the past week. Scores are averaged. Higher scores indicate higher self-reported levels of sleep disturbance.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  7. Self-efficacy

    UW Pain Self-Efficacy Scale-6 questions assessing confidence people have in managing their pain. Scores are averaged (1=not at all-5=very much) higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  8. Physical Function

    PROMIS_29 4 Item version 4 questions assessing ability to do various activities. Ratings range from 5=without any difficulty to 1=unable to do. Higher scores indicate more levels of physical functioning.

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

  9. Global Quality of LIfe

    Global QOL Scale- one question asking about quality of life. Higher numbers indicate higher quality of life

    Measured: baseline (week 0), 10 weeks (posttreatment), and 36 weeks (6-month follow up)

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Dec 2018
  2. Study start28 Nov 2018
  3. Primary completion1 Aug 2022 (estimated)
  4. Study completion1 Aug 2022 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
273 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03782246
Sponsor's protocol ID
STUDY00004422
Status last verified
Apr 2022
First submitted
5 Dec 2018
Last updated
18 Apr 2022
Results posted
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Bogosian A, Chadwick P, Windgassen S, Norton S, McCrone P, Mosweu I, Silber E, Moss-Morris R. Distress improves after mindfulness training for progressive MS: A pilot randomised trial. Mult Scler. 2015 Aug;21(9):1184-94. doi: 10.1177/1352458515576261. Epub 2015 Mar 12.

    PubMed 25767124
  • Harris MA, Freeman KA, Duke DC. Seeing Is Believing: Using Skype to Improve Diabetes Outcomes in Youth. Diabetes Care. 2015 Aug;38(8):1427-34. doi: 10.2337/dc14-2469. Epub 2015 Jun 1.

    PubMed 26033508
  • Lion KC, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Strelitz B, Gutman CK, Hencz P, Fernandez J, Mangione-Smith R. Effect of Telephone vs Video Interpretation on Parent Comprehension, Communication, and Utilization in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Dec;169(12):1117-25. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2630.

    PubMed 26501862
  • Foley PL, Vesterinen HM, Laird BJ, Sena ES, Colvin LA, Chandran S, MacLeod MR, Fallon MT. Prevalence and natural history of pain in adults with multiple sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2013 May;154(5):632-642. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.12.002. Epub 2012 Dec 14.

    PubMed 23318126
  • Ehde DM, Dillworth TM, Turner JA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain: efficacy, innovations, and directions for research. Am Psychol. 2014 Feb-Mar;69(2):153-66. doi: 10.1037/a0035747.

    PubMed 24547801
  • Fedoroff IC, Blackwell E, Speed B. Evaluation of group and individual change in a multidisciplinary pain management program. Clin J Pain. 2014 May;30(5):399-408. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31829ea1f7.

    PubMed 23887341
  • Turner JA, Turk DC. The significance of clinical significance. Pain. 2008 Jul 31;137(3):467-468. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.03.029. Epub 2008 May 1. No abstract available.

    PubMed 18455313
  • Morley S, Williams A, Hussain S. Estimating the clinical effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy in the clinic: evaluation of a CBT informed pain management programme. Pain. 2008 Jul 31;137(3):670-680. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.02.025. Epub 2008 Apr 3.

    PubMed 18394806
  • Dysvik E, Kvaloy JT, Stokkeland R, Natvig GK. The effectiveness of a multidisciplinary pain management programme managing chronic pain on pain perceptions, health-related quality of life and stages of change--A non-randomized controlled study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010 Jul;47(7):826-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.12.001. Epub 2009 Dec 29.

    PubMed 20036362
  • Ehde DM, Osborne TL, Hanley MA, Jensen MP, Kraft GH. The scope and nature of pain in persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2006 Oct;12(5):629-38. doi: 10.1177/1352458506071346.

    PubMed 17086910
  • Hadjimichael O, Kerns RD, Rizzo MA, Cutter G, Vollmer T. Persistent pain and uncomfortable sensations in persons with multiple sclerosis. Pain. 2007 Jan;127(1-2):35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.07.015. Epub 2006 Sep 1.

    PubMed 16949751
  • Khan F, Pallant J. Chronic pain in multiple sclerosis: prevalence, characteristics, and impact on quality of life in an Australian community cohort. J Pain. 2007 Aug;8(8):614-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.03.005. Epub 2007 May 31.

    PubMed 17543586
  • Ehde DM, Gibbons LE, Chwastiak L, Bombardier CH, Sullivan MD, Kraft GH. Chronic pain in a large community sample of persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003 Dec;9(6):605-11. doi: 10.1191/1352458503ms939oa.

    PubMed 14664474
  • O'Connor AB, Schwid SR, Herrmann DN, Markman JD, Dworkin RH. Pain associated with multiple sclerosis: systematic review and proposed classification. Pain. 2008 Jul;137(1):96-111. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.024. Epub 2007 Oct 24.

    PubMed 17928147
  • Alschuler KN, Ehde DM, Jensen MP. The co-occurrence of pain and depression in adults with multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. 2013 May;58(2):217-21. doi: 10.1037/a0032008.

    PubMed 23713732

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing MBCT and CBT in people with Multiple Sclerosis, run by University of Washington at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Apr 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change in average pain intensity (time frame: Baseline to 10 weeks (posttreatment; primary endpoint)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03782246, which also lists 73 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Apr 2022.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in