Role of Home-based Transcutaneous Electrical Acustimulation for Treatment of Pain in Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis- A Pilot Study
Overview
- Phase
- N/A
- Intervention
- Transcutaneous Electrical Acustimulation (TEA)
- Conditions
- Chronic Pancreatitis
- Sponsor
- University of Michigan
- Enrollment
- 12
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Proportion of Approached Individuals Who Met Eligibility Criteria
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 2 months ago
Overview
Brief Summary
This research is studying a new noninvasive device-based therapy called Transcutaneous Electrical Acustimulation (TEA) to learn about its safety and how well it works as a treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis. The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential of TEA to treat abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP).
The study hypothesizes that TEA can be used as a non-pharmaceutical opioid-free approach to treat pain in chronic pancreatitis.
Investigators
Jorge Machicado, MD, MPH
Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine
University of Michigan
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •Diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP), based on a score greater or equal to 4 using a previously validated Mayo scoring system that uses morphologic and functional criteria, or endosonographic features suggestive or consistent with CP based on Rosemont criteria.
- •Abdominal pain present at least once within the last month
- •Willing and able to provide written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
- •Pregnancy or breastfeeding mother
- •Imprisoned individuals
- •Non-English speaking patients
- •Scheduled for or with a history of pancreatic surgery (e.g. Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Auto Transplantation (TPIAT), Puestow, Frey, Whipple, other)
- •Currently undergoing or about to start endoscopic therapy with Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)
- •Recent history of acute pancreatitis as defined by the Revised Atlanta Classification within a month prior to enrollment
- •Radiologic and clinical findings consistent with symptomatic pseudocyst, wall-off necrosis, infected pancreatic necrosis, or biliary obstruction within the last 6 months
- •Self-reported daily use of opioids for \> 12 months for weak opioids (codeine, tramadol and hydrocodone) or \> 6 months for strong opioids (other opioids) in the last two years.
- •Self-reported ongoing illicit drug use or abuse-
- •Suspected or diagnosed pancreatic cancer
Arms & Interventions
Transcutaneous Electrical Acustimulation (TEA)
Intervention: Transcutaneous Electrical Acustimulation (TEA)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Proportion of Approached Individuals Who Met Eligibility Criteria
Time Frame: Approximately 1 year (during the recruitment period)
This feasibility outcome measured eligibility of individuals to participate, as opposed to any effects of the intervention. Results reflect the total number of individuals who were approached as the number analyzed, and of that population, the number who were eligible to be consented and proceed to the run-in period.
Proportion of Approached and Eligible Participants Who Provided Informed Consent
Time Frame: Approximately 1 year (during the recruitment period)
This outcome measured feasibility and willingness of individuals to participate, as opposed to any effects of the intervention. Therefore, the "participants" analyzed below include all of the individuals determined to be eligible as shown in Outcome Measure 1.
Proportion of Participants Who Met the Eligibility Criteria After the run-in Period for the Participants Who Provided Informed Consent.
Time Frame: Approximately 2 weeks
This outcome measured feasibility and continued eligibility of individuals to allow them to begin to participate in the actual trial, as opposed to any effects of the intervention. Therefore, the "participants" analyzed below include all of the individuals who were determined to be eligible and who were consented, as shown in Outcome Measure 2. These "participants" began a 2-week run-in period to confirm baseline pain and trial eligibility. Results reflect participants who were determined to still be eligible after the run-in period.
Proportion of Participants Who Started the Intervention Among Those Who Met run-in Period Criteria.
Time Frame: Baseline visit (V1)
Results reflect the participants who completed the run-in period and received the first TEA treatment.
Proportion of Participants That Adhere to the Intervention as Prescribed Among Participants That Start the Intervention
Time Frame: Weeks 1-4 (after the 4-week treatment period)
Adherence will be directly monitored through use of the TEA device. The TEA automatically records duration of use, time of the day, and stimulation intensity.
Proportion of Participants Who Completed Follow up Visit at 4 Weeks and Return Complete Follow-up Questionnaires at Week 8, Among Participants Who Started the Intervention
Time Frame: Week 8
Results reflect participants who started the TEA and who returned the follow-up questionnaires at week 4 and week 8 (end of the study).
Median Interquartile Range (IQR) of the Time That it Takes to Complete Visit Number One
Time Frame: Baseline visit (V1)
Results reflect the time taken to complete visit 1 in minutes. Data was collected using time-stamp data from the Redcap system.
Median Interquartile Range (IQR) of the Time That it Takes to Complete Visit Number Two
Time Frame: 4 weeks (after treatment period)
Results reflect the time taken to complete visit 2 in minutes. Data was collected using time-stamp data from the Redcap system.
Proportion of Participants Who Came for Visit 1 and Completed All the Surveys Involved in the Study
Time Frame: Approximately 2 weeks
Results reflect the participants who came for visit 1 and completed all the surveys involved in the study.
Percentage of Study Surveys That Were Completed Per Protocol
Time Frame: 8 weeks
Results reflect the percentage of surveys that participants completed during the treatment period (between visit 1 and visit 2) and the follow-up period (between visit 2 and visit 3). Each participant was sent 80 surveys total between visits 1 and 3, with 40 being sent between visit 1 and visit 2, and 40 being sent between visit 2 and visit 3. The time between visit 1 and visit 2 was 4 weeks, and the time between visit 2 and visit 3 was 4 weeks.