Early phase drug development for treatment of chronic pain — Options for clinical trial and program design

Essential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments

This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

Drug-development concepts as guides for optimizing clinical trials of supplemental zinc for populations at risk of deficiency or diarrhea

Studies on the efficacy of zinc supplementation for treatment or prevention of diarrhea have shown an inconsistent effect in populations at risk for zinc deficiency. Unlike drugs, which have no preexisting presence in the body, endogenous zinc must be assessed pharmacokinetically by isotope tracer studies. Although such methods have produced much data, very few studies have estimated the dose and the timing of dosing of zinc supplementation. This review examines drug kinetics used to establish the best dose, the timing of such doses, and the mechanism of action through pharmacodynamic markers and applies them, where possible, to zinc supplements. The findings reveal that little is known, especially in children at highest risk of zinc deficiency. Key data missing to inform proper dosing, whether for treatment of disease or for preventive nutrient supplementation, are noted. Addressing these uncertainties could improve study design, leading to future studies of zinc supplements that might be of greater benefit.

Systematic review of enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal trial designs in chronic pain: a new framework for design and reporting

Enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) pain trials select, before randomisation, patients who respond by demonstrating a predetermined degree of pain relief and acceptance of adverse events. There is uncertainty over the value of this design. We report a systematic review of EERW trials in chronic noncancer pain together with a critical appraisal of methods and potential biases in the methods used and recommendations for the design and reporting of future EERW trials. Electronic and other searches found 25 EERW trials published between 1995 and June 2014, involving 5669 patients in a randomised withdrawal phase comparing drug with placebo; 13 (median, 107 patients) had a randomised withdrawal phase of 6 weeks or less, and 12 (median, 334) lasted 12 to 26 weeks. Risks of bias included short duration, inadequate outcome definition, incomplete outcome data reporting, small size, and inadequate dose tapering on randomisation to placebo. Active treatment was usually better than placebo (22/25 trials). This review reduces the uncertainty around the value of EERW trials in pain. If properly designed, conducted, and reported, they are feasible and useful for making decisions about pain therapies. Shorter, small studies can be explanatory; longer, larger studies can inform practice. Current evidence is inadequate for valid comparisons in outcome between EERW and classical trials, although no gross differences were found. This systematic review provides a framework for assessing potential biases and the value of the EERW trials, and for the design of future studies by making recommendations for the conduct and reporting of EERW trials.

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no-go decision in a cost-effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia, with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single-dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade-off between parallel-group and crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N-of-1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and sequential parallel comparison designs, are summarized, and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.

Evaluation of a novel chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2)-antagonist in painful diabetic polyneuropathy

Background and aims Preclinical data suggest that the chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) is involved in the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain through modulation of neuronal excitability, synaptic transmission and activation of spinal cord microglia. CCR2-antagonists have shown to be effective in preclinical models of neuropathic pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy, safety and tolerability of a novel CCR2-antagonist, AZD2423, in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Methods This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multi-center study in patients with symmetric distal sensory polyneuropathy due to type 1 or 2 diabetes and duration of neuropathic pain between 3 months and 5 years. Concomitant treatment with neuropathic pain medications (e.g. anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline uptake inhibitors, opioids, topical lidocaine or capsaicin) was not allowed. 134 patients with PDN were equally randomized to 28 days oral administration of 20 mg AZD2423,150 mg AZD2423, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was the change of average pain score from 5-days baseline to the last 5 days of treatment, measured with numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10). The secondary efficacy measures included NRS worst pain scores, patient global impression of change, pain interference on sleep and activity, and neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI). Results The change of NRS average pain score was not significantly different between treatment groups (AZD2423 20mg: -1.50; AZD2423 150 mg: -1.35; placebo: -1.61). The NPSI total score and three out of five subscores (evoked pain, pressing/deep pain and paresthesia/dysesthesia) tended to be reduced more by AZD2423 150 mg than by placebo. No other secondary efficacy variables differed between treatment groups. The frequency and type of adverse events for AZD2423 were similar to placebo. The achieved plasma levels of AZD2423 in the two dose groups were in line with predictions from pharmacokinetic data previously obtained in healthy volunteers. Dose-dependent increase of plasma levels of the ligand of CCR2 (CCL2; chemokine ligand 2) and decrease of the mean levels of monocytes (-27% by AZD2423 150 mg) suggested that the administrated doses of AZD2423 interacted with the CCR2 target. Conclusion The CCR2-antagonist AZD2423 showed no analgesic efficacy in PDN based on NRS average pain scores and global and functional pain outcome measures. The NPSI data suggested possible effects on certain sensory components of pain. There were no major safety or tolerability concerns. Implications Treatment with a CCR2-antagonist does not have a clinically important analgesic effect in an overall PDN population.