Methodological issues associated with clinical trials in neuropathic pain

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study

Background

A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life.

Objective

Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome.

Methods

A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment.

Results

Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.

Study protocol of the TEC-ORL clinical trial: a randomized comparative phase II trial investigating the analgesic activity of capsaicin vs Laroxyl in head and neck Cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain is common in cancer survivorship and is one of the most distressing symptoms for patients previously treated for head and neck cancer. Persistent neuropathic pain, when it is ongoing and uncontrolled, has a detrimental effect and erodes patients' quality of life. Patients treated for head and neck cancer are chronic opioid users to manage their post-treatment pain, which may entail an increased risk of addiction and overdose. We propose to evaluate the analgesic activity of high-concentration capsaicin patches for the treatment of head and neck cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae.

METHODS

TEC-ORL is a parallel, multicenter randomized comparative phase II study evaluating whether Capsaïcin patches (Qutenza®) reduce neuropathic pain when compared to Amitriptyline (Laroxyl®) in head and neck cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae. The primary efficacy outcome is the rate of patients with a pain reduction of at least two points at 9 months compared to baseline. Assuming that 5% of patients become lost to follow-up, 130 patients will need to be randomized to detect a 25% improvement (i.e., standard: 25%, experimental: 50%) using a one-sided chi-square test with an alpha of 0.05%. According to the recommendations for comparative phase II trials, the target differences and type I error rates are relaxed. Randomized patients will either be treated with a capsaicin 8% (Qutenza®) patch applied at three time intervals in the experimental arm or with Amitriptyline (Laroxyl®) (oral solution 40 mg/ml) taken for 9 months at the recommended daily dose of 25 mg to 75 mg in the control arm.

DISCUSSION

TEC-ORL is a randomized comparative phase II trial designed to comprehensively evaluate the analgesic activity of capsaicin compared to Laroxyl in Head and Neck Cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04704453 Date of registration: 2021/01/13.

Recruitment and retention for chronic pain clinical trials: a narrative review

Opioid misuse is at a crisis level. In response to this epidemic, the National Institutes of Health has funded $945 million in research through the Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Pain Management Initiative, including funding to the Vanderbilt Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC) to strategize methods to catalyze participant recruitment. The RIC, recognizing the challenges presented to clinical researchers in recruiting individuals experiencing pain, conducted a review of evidence in the literature on successful participant recruitment methods for chronic pain trials, in preparation for supporting the HEAL Pain trials. Study design as it affects recruitment was reviewed, with issues such as sufficient sample size, impact of placebo, pain symptom instability, and cohort characterization being identified as problems. Potential solutions found in the literature include targeted electronic health record phenotyping, use of alternative study designs, and greater clinician education and involvement. For retention, the literature reports successful strategies that include maintaining a supportive staff, allowing virtual study visits, and providing treatment flexibility within the trial. Community input on study design to identify potential obstacles to recruitment and retention was found to help investigators avoid pitfalls and enhance trust, especially when recruiting underrepresented minority populations. Our report concludes with a description of generalizable resources the RIC has developed or adapted to enhance recruitment and retention in the HEAL Pain studies. These resources include, among others, a Recruitment and Retention Plan Template, a Competing Trials Tool, and MyCap, a mobile research application that interfaces with Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap).

Design of clinical trials to assess diabetes treatment: Minimum duration of continuous glucose monitoring data to estimate time-in-ranges with the desired precision

AIM

To compute the uncertainty of time-in-ranges, such as time in range (TIR), time in tight range (TITR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR), to evaluate glucose control and to determine the minimum duration of a trial to achieve the desired precision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four formulas for the aforementioned time-in-ranges were obtained by estimating the equation's parameters on a training set extracted from study A (226 subjects, ~180 days, 5-minute Dexcom G4 Platinum sensor). The formulas were then validated on the remaining data. We also illustrate how to adjust the parameters for sensors with different sampling rates. Finally, we used study B (45 subjects, ~365 days, 15-minute Abbott Freestyle Libre sensor) to further validate our results.

RESULTS

Our approach was effective in predicting the uncertainty when time-in-ranges are estimated using n days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), matching the variability observed in the data. As an example, monitoring a population with TIR = 70%, TITR = 50%, TBR = 5% and TAR = 25% for 30 days warrants a precision of ±3.50%, ±3.68%, ±1.33% and ±3.66%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented approach can be used to both compute the uncertainty of time-in-ranges and determine the minimum duration of a trial to achieve the desired precision. An online tool to facilitate its implementation is made freely available to the clinical investigator.

Results of Mirogabalin Treatment for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Asian Subjects: A Phase 2, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Study

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-quarter of Asian patients with diabetes experience diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), which may be associated with moderate or severe levels of pain, insomnia, mood disorders, and worsened quality of life. Current treatments are generally ineffective and may be poorly tolerated. We evaluated mirogabalin as a treatment for DPNP in Asian subjects.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Subjects (n = 450) with DPNP were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to treatment with 5, 10, or 15 mg twice-daily (BID) mirogabalin, 150 mg BID pregabalin, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 7; secondary endpoints included responder rates, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), average daily sleep-interference score (ADSIS), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

A greater improvement was noted for each mirogabalin treatment group for change from baseline in ADPS at week 7 compared with both placebo and with pregabalin, although these improvements were not statistically significant. The percentage of 30, 50, and 75% responders and subjects with PGIC improvements was greater in each mirogabalin group versus placebo. Mirogabalin 15 mg BID significantly improved the SF-MPQ sensory (p = 0.0313) and visual analog scale scores (p = 0.0093), and ADSIS (p = 0.0002), versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated; the most frequently reported TEAEs in the mirogabalin groups were somnolence (14.7%) and dizziness (11.0%), and most AEs were mild or moderate even at the highest dose.

CONCLUSIONS

In Asian subjects with DPNP, mirogabalin (5, 10, and 15 mg BID) was well tolerated. Although no significant differences were observed in the primary endpoint, there was a tendency toward improvement of pain with mirogabalin treatment, and this trend was also observed in the secondary endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01504412.

Benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain: a rapid review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

Rapid review and meta-analysis of phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled trials.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18 years and above with neuropathic pain defined according to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria.

INTERVENTIONS

Pregabalin or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcomes were pain (as measured using validated scales) and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were sleep disturbance, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, Clinician Global Impression scale, anxiety and depression scores, overall discontinuations and discontinuations because of adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 28 trials comprising 6087 participants. The neuropathic pain conditions studied were diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, herpes zoster, sciatica (radicular pain), poststroke pain and spinal cord injury-related pain. Patients who took pregabalin reported significant reductions in pain (numerical rating scale (NRS)) compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.32, p<0.00001), very low quality evidence). Pregabalin significantly reduced sleep interference scores (NRS) compared with placebo (SMD -0.38 (95% CI -0.50 to -0.26, p<0.00001), moderate quality evidence. Pregabalin significantly increased the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.44, p<0.00001, low quality evidence)). The risks of experiencing weight gain, somnolence, dizziness, peripheral oedema, fatigue, visual disturbances, ataxia, non-peripheral oedema, vertigo and euphoria were significantly increased with pregabalin. Pregabalin was significantly more likely than placebo to lead to discontinuation of the drug because of adverse events (RR 1.91 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.37, p<0.00001), low quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin has beneficial effects on some symptoms of neuropathic pain. However, its use significantly increases the risk of a number of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. The quality of the evidence from journal publications is low.