[Skip to Content]

Quiz

Pain Medicine

Effect of Pain Reprocessing Therapy vs Placebo and Usual Care for Patients With Chronic Back PainA Randomized Clinical Trial

Educational Objective
To test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary chronic back pain and to investigate treatment mechanisms.

1 Credit CME

JAMA Psychiatry

Published Online: September 29, 2021

Original Investigation

Article Information and Disclosures

Yoni K. Ashar, PhD^1,2,3;

Alan Gordon, LCSW⁴;

Howard Schubiner, MD^5,6;

Christie Uipi, LCSW⁴;

Karen Knight, MD⁷;

Zachary Anderson, BS^2,3,8;

Judith Carlisle, MA^2,3,9;

Laurie Polisky, BA^2,3;

Stephan Geuter, PhD^2,3,10;

Thomas F. Flood, MD, PhD¹¹;

Philip A. Kragel, PhD^2,3,12;

Sona Dimidjian, PhD^2,13;

Mark A. Lumley, PhD¹⁴;

Tor D. Wager, PhD^2,3,15

Author Affiliations

¹Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, New York
²Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder
³Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder
⁴Pain Psychology Center, Los Angeles, California
⁵Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan
⁶Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing
⁷Panorama Orthopedics and Spine Center, Golden, Colorado
⁸Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
⁹Department of Philosophy, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri
¹⁰Johns Hopkins University Department of Biostatistics, Baltimore, Maryland
¹¹Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
¹²Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
¹³Renée Crown Wellness Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder
¹⁴Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
¹⁵Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire

Read article on JAMA Network

Read Article Take Quiz

Key Points

Question Can a psychological treatment based on the reappraisal of primary chronic back pain as due to nondangerous central nervous system processes provide substantial and durable pain relief?

Findings In this randomized clinical trial, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to 4 weeks of pain reprocessing therapy were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment, compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care, with gains largely maintained through 1-year follow-up. Treatment effects on pain were mediated by reduced beliefs that pain indicates tissue damage, and longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging showed reduced prefrontal responses to evoked back pain and increased resting prefrontal-somatosensory connectivity in patients randomized to treatment relative to patients randomized to placebo or usual care.

Meaning Psychological treatment focused on changing beliefs about the causes and threat value of primary chronic back pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief.

Abstract

Importance Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability, and treatment is often ineffective. Approximately 85% of cases are primary CBP, for which peripheral etiology cannot be identified, and maintenance factors include fear, avoidance, and beliefs that pain indicates injury.

Objective To test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients’ beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary CBP and to investigate treatment mechanisms.

Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and 1-year follow-up assessment was conducted in a university research setting from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Clinical and fMRI data were analyzed from January 2019 to August 2020. The study compared PRT with an open-label placebo treatment and with usual care in a community sample.

Interventions Participants randomized to PRT participated in 1 telehealth session with a physician and 8 psychological treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Treatment aimed to help patients reconceptualize their pain as due to nondangerous brain activity rather than peripheral tissue injury, using a combination of cognitive, somatic, and exposure-based techniques. Participants randomized to placebo received an open-label subcutaneous saline injection in the back; participants randomized to usual care continued their routine, ongoing care.

Main Outcomes and Measures One-week mean back pain intensity score (0 to 10) at posttreatment, pain beliefs, and fMRI measures of evoked pain and resting connectivity.

Results At baseline, 151 adults (54% female; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [15.6] years) reported mean (SD) pain of low to moderate severity (mean [SD] pain intensity, 4.10 [1.26] of 10; mean [SD] disability, 23.34 [10.12] of 100) and mean (SD) pain duration of 10.0 (8.9) years. Large group differences in pain were observed at posttreatment, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.18 (1.24) in the PRT group, 2.84 (1.64) in the placebo group, and 3.13 (1.45) in the usual care group. Hedges g was −1.14 for PRT vs placebo and −1.74 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001). Of 151 total participants, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to PRT were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment (reporting a pain intensity score of 0 or 1 of 10), compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care. Treatment effects were maintained at 1-year follow-up, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.51 (1.59) in the PRT group, 2.79 (1.78) in the placebo group, and 3.00 (1.77) in the usual care group. Hedges g was −0.70 for PRT vs placebo (P = .001) and −1.05 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001) at 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal fMRI showed (1) reduced responses to evoked back pain in the anterior midcingulate and the anterior prefrontal cortex for PRT vs placebo; (2) reduced responses in the anterior insula for PRT vs usual care; (3) increased resting connectivity from the anterior prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula to the primary somatosensory cortex for PRT vs both control groups; and (4) increased connectivity from the anterior midcingulate to the precuneus for PRT vs usual care.

Conclusions and Relevance Psychological treatment centered on changing patients’ beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief for people with CBP.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

Take Quiz

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 27, 2021.

Published Online: September 29, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2669

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Ashar YK et al. JAMA Psychiatry.

Corresponding Author: Tor D. Wager, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, 352 Moore Hall, HB 6207, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 (tor.d.wager@dartmouth.edu); Yoni K. Ashar, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 (yoniashar@gmail.com).

Author Contributions: Drs Ashar and Wager had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Ashar, Gordon, Schubiner, Uipi, Knight, Geuter, Dimidjian, Wager.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Ashar, Gordon, Schubiner, Uipi, Knight, Anderson, Carlisle, Polisky, Geuter, Flood, Kragel, Lumley, Wager.

Drafting of the manuscript: Ashar, Gordon, Schubiner, Polisky, Lumley, Wager.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Ashar, Polisky, Geuter, Lumley, Wager.

Obtained funding: Gordon, Schubiner, Flood, Wager.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Ashar, Uipi, Knight, Anderson, Carlisle, Polisky, Kragel, Dimidjian, Lumley, Wager.

Supervision: Ashar, Gordon, Wager.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ashar reports grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and personal fees from UnitedHealth Group, Lin Health, Inc, Pain Reprocessing Therapy Center, Inc, and Mental Health Partners of Boulder County outside the submitted work. Mr Gordon is a consultant with UnitedHealth Group, director of the Pain Psychology Center and the Pain Reprocessing Therapy Center, and is the author of the book The Way Out. Dr Schubiner is the co-owner of Freedom From Chronic Pain, Inc, earns book royalties for Unlearn Your Pain, Unlearn Your Anxiety and Depression and Hidden From View; serves as a consultant with UnitedHealth Group, Karuna Labs, and Curable Health; and receives personal fees from OVID Dx outside the submitted work. Mrs Uipi serves as a consultant for UnitedHealth Group. Dr Dimidjian reports being a co-founder of Mindful Noggin, Inc, and received royalties from Guilford Press and Wolters Kluwer as well as funding from The National Institutes of Health. Dr Lumley reports personal fees from CognifiSense, Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr Wager reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for the Study of the Therapeutic Encounter, and funding to support trainees from the Radiological Society of North America and the German Research Foundation; he is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Curable Health. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding and Support: This study was funded by National Institutes of Health grants R01 DA035484 (Dr Wager), R01 MH076136 (Dr Wager), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant TL1-TR-002386 (Dr Ashar), Radiological Society of North America (Dr Flood), German Research Foundation grant GE 2774/1-1 (Dr Geuter), the Psychophysiologic Disorders Association, the Foundation for the Study of the Therapeutic Encounter, and community donations.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Information: Deidentified demographic and clinical outcomes data and subject-level functional magnetic resonance imaging statistical parameter maps for evoked pain and seed connectivity are provided here: https://figshare.com/s/1840dc4c0e236a7072ca

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
1.00 credit toward the CME [and Self-Assessment requirements] of the American Board of Surgery’s Continuous Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.