Reporting of cross-over clinical trials of analgesic treatments for chronic pain: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review and recommendations

Epidural methadone and morphine pharmacokinetics and clinical effects in healthy volunteers: A randomized, crossover-design trial

AIMS

Epidural opioids can provide effective analgesia for acute postoperative pain. Due to its unique physicochemical properties and long systemic elimination half-life, epidural methadone may provide lasting analgesia with minimal adverse effects; however, human studies are lacking. The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that epidural methadone would exhibit greater segmental analgesia (analgesia at the dermatome of injection vs. distant dermatomes) than epidural morphine.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study, thirteen healthy volunteers received a 4-mg epidural bolus of methadone or morphine at L3-L4 and underwent repeated assessment of dermatomal heat pain tolerance and pressure pain threshold at lumbar (L3) and trigeminal (V2) dermatomes, pupil diameter, respiratory parameters and venous opioid concentration for 24 h. The primary outcome was selective (lumbar vs. trigeminal) segmental analgesia for heat pain, as a marker of a spinal analgesic mechanism.

RESULTS

The degree of segmental analgesia to heat pain tolerance was not different between morphine and methadone (P = .09), although morphine (P = .0009) but not methadone (P = .81) produced significant analgesia to heat pain at the lumbar vs. trigeminal dermatome over 0-12 h. Morphine overall provided longer lasting analgesia to heat pain vs. methadone (24 vs. 2 h, respectively). Morphine elicited greater systemic effects, including miosis (P = .009) and opioid-related adverse effects (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that, with equal epidural doses, both methadone and morphine produced analgesia and methadone did not produce greater segmental effects than morphine. Epidural methadone provided a more favourable adverse effect profile.

Effects of an Interdisciplinary Approach in the Management of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Scoping Review

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is an umbrella term that encompasses many musculoskeletal problems that include the masticatory muscles, the temporomandibular joint, and other associated structures. TMD can be divided into two large groups: those that affect the musculature and those that affect the joint. The treatment of TMD requires the combined skills of physiotherapists and dentists, as well as sometimes psychologists and other medical specialists. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary approach using physiotherapy and dental techniques on pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). This is a Scoping Review of studies investigating the effects of combined therapy on patients with TMD. PRISMA guidelines were followed during this review's design, search, and reporting stages. The search was carried out in the MEDLINE, CINHAL, and EMBASE databases. A total of 1031 studies were detected and analyzed by performing the proposed searches in the detailed databases. After removing duplicates and analyzing the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles, six studies were ultimately selected for this review. All the included studies showed a positive effect on pain decreasing after a combined intervention. The interdisciplinary approach characterized by the combination of manual therapy and splint or electrotherapy can positively influence the perceived symptoms; positively decrease pain; and reduce disability, occlusal impairments, and perception of change.

A systematic review of the quality of reporting and risk of bias for randomized crossover trials in digestive disease journals

BACKGROUND

The quality of randomized crossover studies on digestive diseases is unclear. We aimed to review crossover trials in digestive disease journals and evaluate their reporting quality and risk of bias.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for all crossover trials in 39 digestive journals between January 2011 and September 2021. Reporting adherence was based on the CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomized crossover trials published in July 2019. A newly released Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 extension for crossover trials was applied to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

In total, 173 studies were included in the analysis, and 16.2% were published following the CONSORT statement extension. The crossover design was not only widely used in drug efficacy trials (48.6%) but also in endoscopic ultrasound trials (23.7%) and dietary studies (17.9%) in the field of digestive diseases. The overall reporting adherence was 37.6% for full texts and 43.4% for abstracts. The proportions of trials with low, some concerns, and high risk of bias were 13.9%, 15.6%, and 70.5%, respectively. The difference in reporting adherence and high risk of bias between pre- and post-CONSORT was not significant. Having a sample size plan, defining primary end points, and pre-registration showed higher reporting adherence and lower risk of bias than those who did not.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrated the inadequate quality of randomized crossover trials for digestive diseases. Compliance with the CONSORT extension for crossover trials must be strengthened and improved (PROSPERO CRD: 42021248723).

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations

ABSTRACT

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials

The purpose of this article is to provide readers with a basis for understanding the emerging science of clinical trials and to provide a set of practical, evidence-based suggestions for designing and executing confirmatory clinical trials in a manner that minimizes measurement error. The most important step in creating a mindset of quality clinical research is to abandon the antiquated concept that clinical trials are a method for capturing data from clinical practice and shifting to a concept of the clinical trial as a measurement system, consisting of an interconnected set of processes, each of which must be in calibration for the trial to generate an accurate and reliable estimate of the efficacy (and safety) of a given treatment. The status quo of inaccurate, unreliable, and protracted clinical trials is unacceptable and unsustainable. This article gathers aspects of study design and conduct under a single broad umbrella of techniques available to improve the accuracy and reliability of confirmatory clinical trials across traditional domain boundaries.

WITHDRAWN: Size Does Matter, But It Isn't Everything: The Challenge of Modest Treatment Effects in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials

Available online This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

Designing and conducting proof-of-concept chronic pain analgesic clinical trials

Introduction:

The evolution of pain treatment is dependent on successful development and testing of interventions. Proof-of-concept (POC) studies bridge the gap between identification of a novel target and evaluation of the candidate intervention's efficacy within a pain model or the intended clinical pain population.

Methods:

This narrative review describes and evaluates clinical trial phases, specific POC pain trials, and approaches to patient profiling.

Results:

We describe common POC trial designs and their value and challenges, a mechanism-based approach, and statistical issues for consideration.

Conclusion:

Proof-of-concept trials provide initial evidence for target use in a specific population, the most appropriate dosing strategy, and duration of treatment. A significant goal in designing an informative and efficient POC study is to ensure that the study is safe and sufficiently sensitive to detect a preliminary efficacy signal (ie, a potentially valuable therapy). Proof-of-concept studies help avoid resources wasted on targets/molecules that are not likely to succeed. As such, the design of a successful POC trial requires careful consideration of the research objective, patient population, the particular intervention, and outcome(s) of interest. These trials provide the basis for future, larger-scale studies confirming efficacy, tolerability, side effects, and other associated risks.

Management of pain in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD): challenges and solutions

Thanks to advances in neuroscience, biopsychosocial models for diagnostics and treatment (including physical, psychological, and pharmacological therapies) currently have more clinical support and scientific growth. At present, a conservative treatment approach prevails over surgery, given it is less aggressive and usually results in satisfactory clinical outcomes in mild–moderate temporomandibular disorder (TMD). The aim of this review is to evaluate the recent evidence, identify challenges, and propose solutions from a clinical point of view for patients with craniofacial pain and TMD. The treatment we propose is structured in a multi-modal approach based on a biobehavioral approach that includes medical, physiotherapeutic, psychological, and dental treatments. We also propose a new biobehavioral model regarding pain perception and motor behavior for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with painful TMD.