Navigating trials of personalized pain treatments: we're going to need a bigger boat

Clinical predictors of treatment response to gabapentin in women with unexplained chronic pelvic pain

Introduction

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women worldwide and for up to 55% of these there is no associated pathology. Despite this there are no established treatments in this cohort. This is a secondary analysis of a randomised-controlled trial (GaPP2) to explore if there are measures which enable us to predict treatment outcome.

Methods

GaPP2 recruited women with chronic pelvic pain and no identified pathology and compared the response to gabapentin and placebo. This analysis used variables collected at baseline including validated questionnaires. Binary logistic regression was used to create models to explore whether baseline variables predicted treatment response. Treatment response was determined using 30% reduction in average pain intensity, 30% reduction in worst pain intensity and the Patient Global Impression of Change ('marked' or 'very marked' improvement) individually. We also explored whether baseline variables predicted the occurrence of side-effects (dizziness, visual disturbances and drowsiness).

Results

Using the Patient Global Impression of Change questionnaire, we found a significant binary logistic regression (p = 0.029, explaining 31% of the variance), with those with lower worst pain intensity (odds ratio (OR) of 0.393, 95% CI [0.217, 0.712]), lower bladder symptom score (OR = 0.788, CI [0.628, 0.989]), and higher mental component quality of life score (OR = 0.911, CI [0.840, 0.988]), more likely to have 'marked' or 'very marked' improvement when treated with gabapentin. We could not identify predictors of experiencing side-effects to gabapentin. However, we did find predictors of these in the placebo group (binary logistic regression (p = 0.009) and explained 33% of the variance). Worse mental health (OR = 1.247, CI [1.019, 1.525]) and lower baseline pain interference (OR = 0.687, CI [0.483, 0.978]) were associated with having side effects, whilst the use of hormones reduced the risk of experiencing side effects (OR = 0.239, CI [0.084, 0.676]).

Discussion

Researchers and clinicians are increasingly aware of the importance of personalised medicine and treatment decisions being driven by knowledge of what treatments work for whom. Our data suggests an important role of the Patient Global Impression of Change in clinical trials as it may better reflect balance between symptoms reduction and side-effects and therefore be more useful in clinician-patients joint decision making.

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Evaluation of a Clustering Approach to Define Distinct Subgroups of Patients With Migraine to Select Electroacupuncture Treatments

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to propose a clustering approach to identify migraine subgroups and test the clinical usefulness of the approach by providing prognostic information for electroacupuncture treatment selection.

METHODS

Participants with migraine without aura (MWoA) were asked to complete a daily headache diary, self-rating depression and anxiety, and quality-of-life questionnaires. Whole-brain functional connectivities (FCs) were assessed on resting-state functional MRI (fMRI). By integrating clinical measurements and fMRI data, partial least squares correlation and hierarchical clustering analysis were used to cluster participants with MWoA. Multivariate pattern analysis was applied to validate the proposed subgrouping strategy. Some participants had an 8-week electroacupuncture treatment, and the response rate was compared between different MWoA subgroups.

RESULTS

In study 1, a total of 97 participants (age of 28.2 ± 1.0 years, 70 female participants) with MWoA and 77 healthy controls (HCs) (age of 26.8 ± 0.1 years, 61 female participants) were enrolled (dataset 1), and 2 MWoA subgroups were defined. The participants in subgroup 1 had a significantly lower headache frequency (times/month of 4.4 ± 1.1) and significantly higher self-ratings of depression (depression score of 49.5 ± 2.3) when compared with participants in subgroup 2 (times/month of 7.0 ± 0.6 and depression score of 43.4 ± 1.2). The between-group differences of FCs were predominantly related to the amygdala, thalamus, hippocampus, and parahippocampal area. In study 2, 33 participants with MWoA (age of 30.9 ± 2.0 years, 28 female participants) and 23 HCs (age of 29.8 ± 1.1 years, 13 female participants) were enrolled as an independent dataset (dataset 2). The classification analysis validated the effectiveness of the 2-cluster solution of participants with MWoA in datasets 1 and 2. In study 3, 58 participants with MWoA were willing to receive electroacupuncture treatment and were assigned to different subgroups. Participants in different subgroups exhibited different response rates (p = 0.03, OR CI 0.086-0.93) to electroacupuncture treatment (18% and 44% for subgroups 1 and 2, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Our study proposed a novel clustering approach to define distinct MWoA subgroups, which could be useful for refining the diagnosis of participants with MWoA and guiding individualized strategies for pain prophylaxis and analgesia.

Biopsychosocial influence on shoulder pain: results from a randomized preclinical trial of exercise-induced muscle injury

ABSTRACT

Prior cohort studies validated that a subgroup defined by a specific COMT genotype and pain catastrophizing is at increased risk for heightened responses to exercise-induced or surgically induced shoulder pain. In this clinical trial, we used our preclinical model of exercise-induced muscle injury and pain to test the efficacy of interventions matched to characteristics of this high-risk subgroup (ie, personalized medicine approach). Potential participants provided informed consent to be screened for eligibility based on subgroup membership and then, as appropriate, were enrolled into the trial. Participants (n = 261) were randomized to 1 of 4 intervention groups comprised of pharmaceutical (propranolol or placebo) and informational (general education or psychologic intervention) combinations. After muscle injury was induced, participants received randomly assigned treatment and were followed for the primary outcome of shoulder pain intensity recovery over 4 consecutive days. Recovery rates were 56.4% (placebo and psychologic intervention), 55.4% (placebo and general education), 62.9% (propranolol and psychologic intervention), and 56.1% (propranolol and general education). No statistical differences were found between intervention groups in the primary analyses. Additional analyses found no differences between these intervention groups when shoulder pain duration was an outcome, and no differential treatment responses were detected based on sex, race, or level of pain catastrophizing. This trial indicates that these treatments were not efficacious for this high-risk subgroup when shoulder pain was induced by exercise-induced muscle injury. Accordingly, this phenotype should only be used for prognostic purposes until additional trials are completed in clinical populations.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

Identification of cuproptosis related subtypes and construction of prognostic signature in gastric cancer

Cuprotosis is a novel mechanism of cell death that differs from known mechanisms, which depends on mitochondrial respiration and is closely related to lipoylated components of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. However, it is unclear whether cuprotosis-related genes (CRGs) affect the tumor microenvironment (TME) and prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. In this study, the genetic and transcriptional characteristics of CRGs in gastric cancer (GC) were analyzed, and five CRGs that were differentially expressed and correlated with the survival of patients were obtained. Two different molecular subtypes were identified according to the five CRGs. Then, we constructed a CRG_score applied to patients of any age, gender, and stage. Subsequently, we found that cluster B and a high CRG_score had a worse prognosis, fewer immune checkpoints, and higher tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion (TIDE) compared to cluster A and a low CRG_score. In addition, two subtypes and the CRG_score were closely associated with clinicopathological characteristics, human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) and TME cell infiltration. A high CRG_score was featured with decreased microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and mutational burden. Meanwhile, the CRG_score was significantly related to the cancer stem cell (CSC) index and chemotherapeutic response. Moreover, we developed a nomogram to predict the survival probability of patients. Our study explained the role of CRGs in GC, and the prognostic signature could potentially provide an approach for personalized tumor therapy.

Treatment effect modifiers for individuals with acute low back pain: secondary analysis of the TARGET trial

ABSTRACT

Treatment effect modifiers identify patient characteristics associated with treatment responses. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify potential treatment effect modifiers for disability from the TARGET trial that compared usual care (control) with usual care + psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). The sample consisted of a STarT Back tool identified high-risk patients with acute low back pain that completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data at index visit and 6 months later (n = 1250). Candidate treatment effect modifiers were identified a priori and informed by the literature. Linear mixed models tested for treatment effect modification through tests of statistical interaction. All statistical interactions ( P ≤ 0.20) were stratified by modifier to inspect for specific effects ( P ≤ 0.05). Smoking was identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment * smoking interaction, P = 0.08). In participants who were smokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 5.5; 95% CI: 0.6-10.4; P = 0.03) compared with usual care. In participants who were nonsmokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 1.5; 95% CI: -1.4 to 4.4; P = 0.31) compared with usual care. Pain medication was also identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment × pain medication interaction, P = 0.10). In participants prescribed ≥3 pain medications, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 7.1; 95% CI: -0.1 to 14.2; P = 0.05) compared with usual care. The PIPT effect for participants prescribed no pain medication was (ODI = 3.5; 95% CI: -0.4 to 7.4; P = 0.08) and for participants prescribed 1 to 2 pain medications was (ODI = 0.6; 95% CI: -2.5 to 3.7; P = 0.70) when compared with usual care. These findings may be used for generating hypotheses and planning future clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of tailored application of PIPT.

Profiles of Risk and Resilience in Chronic Pain: Loneliness, Social Support, Mindfulness, and Optimism Coming out of the First Pandemic Year

OBJECTIVE

Individuals experience chronic pain differently, not only because of different clinical diagnoses, but also because of differing degrees of influence from biopsychosocial pain modulators. We aimed to cluster patients with chronic pain into distinct subgroups based on psychosocial characteristics and pain intensity, and we subsequently examined group differences in pain-related interference approximately 1 year later.

METHODS

In this observational, longitudinal study, patients with chronic pain (n = 94) completed validated assessments of psychosocial characteristics and pain intensity at the beginning of COVID-19-related social distancing (April to June 2020). One year later (May to June 2021), patients completed a follow-up survey with assessments of pain interference, loneliness, social support, mindfulness, and optimism.

RESULTS

A cluster analysis, using psychosocial factors and pain intensity, empirically produced three patient groups: 1) psychosocial predominant (PSP), characterized by high psychosocial distress and average pain intensity; 2) pain intensity predominant (PIP), characterized by average psychosocial distress and high pain intensity; and 3) less elevated symptoms (LES), characterized by low psychosocial distress and low pain intensity. At the 1-year follow-up, patients in the PSP and PIP clusters suffered greater pain interference than patients in the LES cluster, while patients in the PSP cluster also reported greater loneliness and lower mindfulness and optimism.

CONCLUSIONS

An empirical psychosocial-based clustering of patients identified three distinct groups that differed in pain interference. Patients with high psychosocial modulation of pain at the onset of social distancing (the PSP cluster) suffered not only greater pain interference but also greater loneliness and lower levels of mindfulness and optimism, which suggests some potential behavioral targets for this group in the future.

Prediction of Individual Analgesic Response to Intravenous Lidocaine in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVES

Intravenous lidocaine can alleviate painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in some patients. Whether quantitative sensory testing (QST) can identify treatment responders has not been prospectively tested.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial comparing intravenous lidocaine to normal saline (placebo) for painful DPN. Thirty-four participants with painful DPN were enrolled and administered intravenous lidocaine (5 mg/kg ideal body weight) or placebo as a 40-minute infusion, after a battery of QST parameters were tested on the dorsal foot, with a 3-week washout period between infusions.

RESULTS

Thirty-one participants completed both study sessions and were included in the final analysis. Lidocaine resulted in a 51% pain reduction 60 to 120 minutes after infusion initiation, as assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, while placebo resulted in a 33.5% pain reduction (difference=17.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9%-33.3%, P=0.03). Neither mechanical pain threshold, heat pain threshold, or any of the other measured QST parameters predicted the response to treatment. Lidocaine administration reduced mean Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory paresthesia/dysesthesia scores when compared with placebo by 1.29 points (95% CI, -2.03 to -0.55, P=0.001), and paroxysmal pain scores by 0.84 points (95% CI, -1.62 to -0.56, P=0.04), without significant changes in burning, pressing or evoked pain subscores.

DISCUSSION

While some participants reported therapeutic benefit from lidocaine administration, QST measures alone were not predictive of response to treatment. Further studies, powered to test more complex phenotypic interactions, are required to identify reliable predictors of response to pharmacotherapy in patients with DPN.

Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Recent Evidence

Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new independent review to assess whether more and better-quality evidence has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥2 drugs) with a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.

Back and neck pain: in support of routine delivery of non-pharmacologic treatments as a way to improve individual and population health

Chronic back and neck pain are highly prevalent conditions that are among the largest drivers of physical disability and cost in the world. Recent clinical practice guidelines recommend use of non-pharmacologic treatments to decrease pain and improve physical function for individuals with back and neck pain. However, delivery of these treatments remains a challenge because common care delivery models for back and neck pain incentivize treatments that are not in the best interests of patients, the overall health system, or society. This narrative review focuses on the need to increase use of non-pharmacologic treatment as part of routine care for back and neck pain. First, we present the evidence base and summarize recommendations from clinical practice guidelines regarding non-pharmacologic treatments. Second, we characterize current use patterns for non-pharmacologic treatments and identify potential barriers to their delivery. Addressing these barriers will require coordinated efforts from multiple stakeholders to prioritize evidence-based non-pharmacologic treatment approaches over low value care for back and neck pain. These stakeholders include patients, health care providers, health care organizations, administrators, payers, policymakers and researchers.

Brief Psychological Interventions for Reducing Prescription Opioid Use, Related Harm, and Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Patient Interest

OBJECTIVES

Brief psychological interventions (BPIs) have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing substance use and related harm. No systematic review has examined their potential to reduce or prevent prescription opioid use or related harm, and/or pain intensity in opioid-using patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Recognizing the importance of patient preferences in evidence-based practice, we also sought to assess patient interest in BPIs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2020 was conducted using 5 databases. Eligible treatment studies included patients ≥18 years old, with CNCP, and who were using prescription opioids. An adjunctive study independent of our review was also undertaken in 188 prescription opioid-using patients (77% female; Mage=49 y) diagnosed with CNCP. Patients completed pain-related questionnaires online and indicated if they would consider BPI treatment options.

RESULTS

The review identified 6 studies. Given the heterogeneity across studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted. A narrative review found that all of the 6 studies demonstrated some evidence for BPI effectiveness for reducing opioid use or related harms; these were assessed as having mostly low methodological quality. Mixed support for the effect on pain intensity was found in 1 study. Despite the inconclusive findings and heterogenous studies identified in the review, 92% of patients in our survey reported interest in receiving a BPI.

DISCUSSION

In combination, these findings highlight the inconsistency between patient demand and the availability of evidence for BPIs targeting opioid use, related harm, and pain intensity. Future work should examine the effectiveness of BPIs in higher quality studies.

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.

The ACTTION Guide to Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments, part II: mitigating bias, maximizing value

Summaries of the articles included in part II of the ACTTION Guide to Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments are followed by brief overviews of methodologic considerations involving precision pain medicine, pragmatic clinical trials, real world evidence, and patient engagement in clinical trials.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

Neuropathic Pain: From Mechanisms to Treatment

Neuropathic pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system is a common chronic pain condition with major impact on quality of life. Examples include trigeminal neuralgia, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and central poststroke pain. Most patients complain of an ongoing or intermittent spontaneous pain of, for example, burning, pricking, squeezing quality, which may be accompanied by evoked pain, particular to light touch and cold. Ectopic activity in, for example, nerve-end neuroma, compressed nerves or nerve roots, dorsal root ganglia, and the thalamus may in different conditions underlie the spontaneous pain. Evoked pain may spread to neighboring areas, and the underlying pathophysiology involves peripheral and central sensitization. Maladaptive structural changes and a number of cell-cell interactions and molecular signaling underlie the sensitization of nociceptive pathways. These include alteration in ion channels, activation of immune cells, glial-derived mediators, and epigenetic regulation. The major classes of therapeutics include drugs acting on α₂δ subunits of calcium channels, sodium channels, and descending modulatory inhibitory pathways.