John D. Loeser Award Lecture: Size does matter, but it isn't everything: the challenge of modest treatment effects in chronic pain clinical trials

Chronic pelvic pain and botulinum toxin

Botulinum toxin is being explored as a treatment for chronic pelvic pain, a major cause of suffering and disability in both women and men worldwide. For chronic pelvic pain in women, botulinum toxin may be injected into pelvic floor muscles such as levator ani and obturator internus. For pain associated with genitopelvic penetration disorders (vaginismus, vestibulitis, and vulvar pain, bulbospongioussus and ischiocavernosus may be treated. There have been numerous uncontrolled studies of botulinum toxin for chronic pelvic pain in women showing benefit, however, the few randomized controlled clinical trials published to date have given equivocal results. Chronic pelvic pain in men often implicates the prostate gland, so that the condition is commonly called "chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome." There are only a handful of clinical trials for male chronic pelvic pain, each using a different site of injection; some with promising results. This paper discusses the use of botulinum toxin in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain in men and women.

Treatment expectations and pain-related outcomes in clinical trials of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for youth with chronic pain

Treatment expectations (TE) are predictive of patient outcomes in clinical practice and suggested to moderate treatment responses in chronic pain clinical trials. However, evidence is mainly derived from studies conducted with adult populations with musculoskeletal pain, primarily focused on pharmacological treatments and a few alternative intervention modalities (e.g., acupuncture). We examined the role of pretreatment TE in youth participating in two randomized controlled trials of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic pain-the WebMAP2 Trial of youth with chronic primary pain (n = 273) and the iCC-SCD Trial of youth with sickle cell pain (n = 111). Specifically, we tested: 1) whether controlling for TE enhanced the detection of treatment efficacy, 2) the main effect of TE in predicting pain-related outcomes over time (regardless of treatment assignment), and 3) the effect of TE in moderating treatment efficacy (digital CBT vs education control). Findings indicated that adjusting for pretreatment TE did not enhance the ability to detect treatment efficacy. In the WebMAP2 Trial, higher pretreatment TE were associated with greater reductions in anxiety and lower CBT efficacy (relative to education control) in improving depressive and anxiety symptoms. In the iCC-SCD Trial, higher pretreatment TE were associated with greater improvement in mobility and enhanced CBT efficacy (relative to education control) for improving mobility. Overall, higher pretreatment TE were associated with better functioning over time, though the specific domains of improvement and the moderating effects on treatment efficacy somewhat differed between youth with primary and sickle cell-related chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: Incorporating TE into clinical assessments and ensuring consistent collection, reporting, and analysis in clinical trials are crucial for identifying potential heterogeneous treatment responses. Standardizing TE measures for youth with chronic pain and considering population characteristics are important for understanding TE's role in treatment responses.

A Randomized Hybrid-Effectiveness Trial Comparing Pharmacogenomics (PGx) to Standard Care: The PGx Applied to Chronic Pain Treatment in Primary Care (PGx-ACT) Trial

This trial aimed to identify the effects of providing pharmacogenomic (PGx) results and recommendations for patients with chronic pain treated in primary care practices compared to standard care. An open-label, prospective, largely virtual, type-2 hybrid effectiveness trial randomized participants to PGx or standard care arms. Adults with pain ≥ 3 months who were treated with tramadol, codeine, or hydrocodone enrolled. Alternative analgesics were recommended for CYP2D6 intermediate or poor metabolizers (IM/PMs). Prescribing decisions were at providers' discretion. The trial randomized 253 participants. A modified intent-to-treat primary analysis assessed change in pain intensity over 3 months among IM/PMs (PGx: 49; Standard care: 57). The PGx and standard care arms showed no difference in pain intensity change (-0.10 ± 0.63 vs. -0.21 ± 0.75 standard deviation; p = 0.74) or PGx-aligned care (69% vs. 63%; standardized difference [SD] = 0.13). In IM/PMs, secondary analyses of pain intensity change suggested improvements with PGx-aligned (n = 70; -0.21 ± 0.70) vs. unaligned care (n = 36; -0.06 ± 0.69) (SD = -0.22), with this difference increasing when examining IM/PMs with an analgesic change (aligned: n = 31, -0.28 ± 0.76; unaligned: n = 36, -0.06 ± 0.69; SD = -0.31). This approach to PGx implementation for chronic pain was not associated with different prescribing (i.e., similar proportions of PGx-aligned care) or clinical outcomes. Secondary analyses suggest that prescribing aligned with PGx recommendations showed a small improvement in pain intensity. However, the proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement (≥ 30%) in pain intensity was similar. Future efforts should identify effective implementation methods.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of long-acting dexamethasone viscous gel delivered by transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161.

Optimizing Pain Intensity Assessment in Clinical Trials: How Many Ratings are Needed to Best Balance the Need for Validity and to Minimize Assessment Burden?

Pain intensity is the most commonly used outcome domain in pain clinical trials. To minimize the chances of type II error (ie, concluding that a treatment does not have beneficial effects, when in fact it does), the measure of pain intensity used should be sensitive to changes produced by effective pain treatments. Here we sought to identify the combination of pain intensity ratings that would balance the need for reliability and validity against the need to minimize assessment burden. We conducted secondary analyses using data from a completed 4-arm clinical trial of psychological pain treatments (N = 164 adults). Current, worst, least, and average pain intensity in the past 24 hours were assessed 4 times before and after treatment using 0 to 10 numerical rating scale-11. We created a variety of composite scores using these ratings and evaluated their reliability (Cronbach's alphas) and validity (ie, associations with a gold standard score created by averaging 16 ratings and sensitivity for detecting between-group differences in treatment efficacy). We found that for each measure, reliability increased as the number of ratings used to create the measures increased and that ratings from 3 or more days were needed to have adequately strong associations with the gold standard. Regarding sensitivity, the findings suggest that composite scores made up of ratings from 4 days are needed to maximize the chances of detecting treatment effects, especially with smaller sample sizes. In conclusion, using data from 3 or 4 days of assessment may be the best practice. PERSPECTIVE: Composite scores made up of at least 3 days of pain ratings appear to be needed to maximize reliability and validity while minimizing the assessment burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01800604.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled head-to-head trials of recommended drugs for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is a challenging chronic pain condition. Limited knowledge exists regarding the relative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and differences in trial design and impact of the placebo response preclude indirect comparisons of efficacy between drug classes. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of drugs recommended for neuropathic pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct-comparison double-blind randomized trials. Primary outcomes were mean change in pain intensity and number of responders with a 50% reduction in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes encompassed quality of life, sleep, emotional functioning, and number of dropouts because of adverse events. We included 30 trials (4087 patients), comprising 16 crossover and 14 parallel-group design studies. All studies were conducted in adults, and the majority were investigator-initiated trials. We found moderate-quality evidence for equivalence (no clinically relevant difference) between tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and gabapentin/pregabalin with a combined mean difference in pain score of 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). We could not document differences between TCA and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), between SNRI and gabapentin/pregabalin, or between opioids and TCA (low quality of evidence). We found more dropouts because of adverse events with SNRI and opioids compared with TCA (low quality of evidence). We did not identify any studies that included topical treatments. This systematic review of direct-comparison studies found evidence for equivalence between TCA and gabapentin/pregabalin and fewer dropouts with TCA than SNRI and opioids.

Depression and treatment with anti-calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies for migraine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate the effect of anti-calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies on depressive symptoms in subjects with migraine and to determine whether depressive symptoms predict treatment response.

METHODS

Patients with migraine treated with erenumab and fremanezumab at the Leiden Headache Centre completed daily E-headache diaries. A control group was included. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) questionnaires at baseline (T0) and after 3 months (T1). First, the effect of treatment on the reduction in HADS-D and CES-D scores was assessed, with reduction in depression scores as the dependent variable and reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) and treatment with anti-CGRP medication as independent variables. Second, depression as a predictor of treatment response was investigated, using the absolute reduction in MMD as a dependent variable and age, gender, MMD, active depression, impact, stress and locus of control scores as independent variables.

RESULTS

In total, n = 108 patients were treated with erenumab, n = 90 with fremanezumab and n = 68 were without active treatment. Treatment with anti-CGRP medication was positively associated with a reduction in the HADS-D (β = 1.65, p = 0.01) compared to control, independent of MMD reduction. However, the same effect was not found for the CES-D (β = 2.15, p = 0.21). Active depression predicted poorer response to erenumab (p = 0.02) but not to fremanezumab (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP (ligand or receptor) monoclonals lead to improvement of depressive symptoms in individuals with migraine, independent of migraine reduction. Depression may predict treatment response to erenumab but not to fremanezumab.

Placebo and nocebo responses in painful diabetic neuropathy: systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

This preregistered (CRD42021223379) systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to characterize the placebo and nocebo responses in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), updating the previous literature by a decade. Four databases were searched for PDN trials published in the past 20 years, testing oral medications, adopting a parallel-group design. Magnitude of placebo or nocebo responses, Cochrane risk of bias, heterogeneity, and moderators were evaluated. Searches identified 21 studies (2425 placebo-treated patients). The overall mean pooled placebo response was -1.54 change in the pain intensity from baseline [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.52, -1.56, I 2 = 72], with a moderate effect size (Cohen d = 0.72). The pooled placebo 50% response rate was 25% [95% CI: 22, 29, I 2 = 50%]. The overall percentage of patients with adverse events (AEs) in the placebo arms was 53.3% [95% CI: 50.9, 55.7], with 5.1% [95% CI: 4.2, 6] of patients dropping out due to AEs. The year of study initiation was the only significant moderator of placebo response (regression coefficient = -0.06, [95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, P = 0.007]). More recent RCTs tended to be longer, bigger, and to include older patients (N = 21, rs = 0.455, P = 0.038, rs = 0.600, P = 0.004, rs = 0.472, P = 0.031, respectively). Our findings confirm the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses, identify the year of study initiation as the only significant moderator of placebo response, draw attention to contextual factors such as confidence in PDN treatments, patients' previous negative experiences, intervention duration, and information provided to patients before enrollment.

Pain-Related Beliefs, Coping, and Function: An Observational Study on the Moderating Influence of Country of Origin

Chronic pain is a multidimensional experience and pain treatments targeting psychosocial factors reduce pain and improve function. These treatments often overlook the sociocultural factors that influence pain and the psychological factors associated with function in people with chronic pain. Although preliminary findings suggest that cultural background may influence pain and function via their effects on beliefs and coping, no previous study has directly tested if the country of origin moderates the associations between these psychological factors and pain and function. This study sought to address this knowledge gap. Five hundred sixty-one adults with chronic pain, born and living in the USA (n = 273) or Portugal (n = 288), completed measures of pain, function, pain-related beliefs, and coping. Between-country similarities were found in the endorsement of beliefs related to disability, pain control, and emotion, and in asking for assistance, task persistence, and coping self-statement responses. Portuguese participants reported greater endorsement of harm, medication, solicitude, and medical cure beliefs, more frequent use of relaxation and support seeking, and less frequent use of guarding, resting, and exercising/stretching. In both countries, disability and harm beliefs and guarding responses were associated with worse outcomes; pain control and task persistence were associated with better outcomes. Six country-related small effect-size moderation effects emerged, such that task persistence and guarding are stronger predictors of pain and function in adults from the USA, but pain control, disability, emotion, and medication beliefs are more important in adults from Portugal. Some modifications may be needed when adapting multidisciplinary treatments from one country to another. PERSPECTIVE: This article examines the similarities and differences in beliefs and coping endorsed by adults with chronic pain from 2 countries, and the potential moderation effects of country on the associations between these variables and pain and function. The findings suggest that some modifications may be needed when culturally customizing psychological pain treatments.

Covariate Adjustment in Chronic Pain Trials: An Oft-Missed Opportunity

Self-reported pain intensity, frequently used as an outcome in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain, is often highly variable and could be associated with multiple baseline factors. Thus, the assay sensitivity of pain trials (ie, the ability of the trial to detect a true treatment effect) could be improved by including prespecified baseline factors in the primary statistical model. The objective of this focus article was to characterize the baseline factors included in statistical analyses of chronic pain RCTs. Seventy-three RCTs published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were included. The majority of trials identified a single primary analysis (72.6%; n = 53). Of these, 60.4% (n = 32) included one or more covariates in the primary statistical model, most commonly baseline value of the primary outcome, study site, sex, and age. Only one of the trials reported information regarding associations between covariates and outcomes (ie, information that could inform prioritization of covariates for prespecification in future analyses). These findings demonstrate inconsistent use of covariates in the statistical models in chronic pain clinical trials. Prespecified adjustments for baseline covariates that could increase precision and assay sensitivity should be considered in future clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. PERSPECTIVE: This review demonstrates inconsistent inclusion and potential underutilization of covariate adjustment in analyses of chronic pain RCTs. This article highlights areas for possible improvement in design and reporting related to covariate adjustment to improve efficiency in future RCTs.

Expectations for Improvement: A Neglected but Potentially Important Covariate or Moderator for Chronic Pain Clinical Trials

Variability in pain-related outcomes can hamper assay sensitivity of chronic pain clinical trials. Expectations of outcome in such trials may account for some of this variability, and thereby impede development of novel pain treatments. Measurement of participants' expectations prior to initiating study treatment (active or placebo) is infrequent, variable, and often unvalidated. Efforts to optimize and standardize measurement, analysis, and management of expectations are needed. In this Focus Article, we provide an overview of research findings on the relationship between baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in clinical trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatments. We highlight the potential benefit of adjusting for participants' expectations in clinical trial analyses and draw on findings from patient interviews to discuss critical issues related to measurement of expectations. We conclude with suggestions regarding future studies focused on better understanding the utility of incorporating these measures into clinical trial analyses. PERSPECTIVE: This focus article provides an overview of the relationship between participants' baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in the setting of clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Systematic research focused on the measurement of expectations and the impact of adjusting for expectations in clinical trial analyses may improve assay sensitivity.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.

Immediate Effects of Hypnosis, Mindfulness Meditation, and Prayer on Cold Pressor Outcomes: A Four-Arm Parallel Experimental Study

Purpose

Previous research supports the usefulness of hypnosis (HYP), mindfulness meditation (MM), and prayer as pain self-management strategies in adults with chronic pain. However, their effects on acute pain have been less researched, and no previous head-to-head study compared the immediate effects of these three approaches on pain-related outcomes. This study compared the immediate effects of HYP, MM, and Christian prayer (CP) on pain intensity, pain tolerance, and stress as assessed by heart rate variability (HRV).

Participants and Methods

A total of 232 healthy adults were randomly assigned to, and completed, a single 20-minute session of MM, SH, CP, or an attention control (CN), and underwent two cycles (one pre- and one post-intervention) of Cold Pressor Arm Wrap (CPAW). Sessions were audio-delivered. Participants responded to pre- and post-intervention pain intensity measurements. Pain tolerance (sec) was assessed during the CPAW cycles. HRV was assessed at baseline, and at pre- and post-intervention CPAW cycles. The study protocol was pre-registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04491630).

Results

Small within-group decreases in pain intensity and small increases in pain tolerance were found for HYP and MM from the pre- to the post-intervention. Small within-group improvements in the LH/HF ratio were also found for HYP. The exploratory between-group pairwise comparisons revealed a medium effect size effects of HYP on pain tolerance relative to the control condition. The effects of CP were positive, but small and not statistically significant. Only small to medium, though non-significant, Time × Group interaction effects were found.

Conclusion

Study results suggest that single short-term HYP and MM sessions, but not biblical-based CP, may be useful for acute pain self-management, with HYP being the slightly superior option. Future research should compare the effects of different types of prayer and examine the predictors and moderators of these pain approaches' effects on pain-related outcomes.

Clinical Trials in Pancreatitis: Opportunities and Challenges in the Design and Conduct of Patient-Focused Clinical Trials in Recurrent Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop

ABSTRACT

Recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis represent high morbidity diseases, which are frequently associated with chronic abdominal pain, pancreatic insufficiencies, and reduced quality of life. Currently, there are no therapies to reverse or delay disease progression, and clinical trials are needed to investigate potential interventions that would address this important gap. This conference report provides details regarding information shared during a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases-sponsored workshop on Clinical Trials in Pancreatitis that sought to clearly delineate the current gaps and opportunities related to the design and conduct of patient-focused trials in recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis. Key stakeholders including representatives from patient advocacy organizations, physician investigators (including clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health convened to discuss challenges and opportunities with particular emphasis on lessons learned from trials in participants with other painful conditions, as well as the value of incorporating the patient perspective throughout all stages of trials.

NRD.E1, an innovative non‐opioid therapy for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy ‐ a randomised proof of concept study

Background

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) affects up to 26% of patients with diabetes mellitus, with major impacts on their general health and well‐being. Most available drugs fail to deliver acceptable pain reduction in the majority of patients and are often poorly tolerated. NRD.E1 is a novel product that has shown anti‐nociceptive preclinical effects and good tolerability in healthy volunteer studies.

Methods

This phase 2a, randomized, dose‐finding, Proof of Concept study enrolled patients with PDPN of ≥3 months duration. After at least one treatment‐free week (WO week), 88 patients entered a 1‐week single‐blind (SB)‐placebo run‐in period, followed by 3 weeks' double‐blind (DB) treatment, during which they received NRD.E1 at 10, 40 or 150 mg/day or placebo.

Results

The primary endpoint (change from SB‐placebo run‐in week to week 3 in weekly mean of daily average numerical rating scale [NRS] pain intensity) showed clinically relevant placebo‐corrected treatment effect pain reductions at 40 mg and 150 mg/day of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.07, 1.58, p = 0.034) and 0.66 (95% CI: −0.03, 1.35; p = 0.061) NRS points, respectively, though did not meet the pre‐specified value of p = 0.016 required due to multiplicity. An additional post hoc endpoint looking at the change from WO baseline to week 3 in weekly mean of daily average NRS showed the placebo‐corrected treatment effect was 1.46 (95% CI: 0.26, 2.66), and 1.20 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.29) NRS points, respectively. Secondary and post hoc analyses of NRS pain data (including 30 & 50% responder rate and NNT), sleep interference, Short‐form McGill pain questionnaire (especially pain intensity assessed on Visual Analogue Scale), Patient's and Clinician's Global Impression of Change showed effects consistent with the primary findings. NRD.E1 was well tolerated, with only headache reported in more than two patients and more frequently on NRD.E1 than placebo.

Conclusions

The data suggest that NRD.E1 potentially represents a novel non‐opioid therapeutic option for patients with PDPN, with at least similar efficacy and better tolerability than available therapies, justifying its further evaluation in larger‐scale confirmatory studies.

Significance

NRD.E1 is a novel non‐opioid therapeutic which is being developed for the treatment of PDPN. In this randomized, controlled, dose‐finding, Proof of Concept study, NRD.E1 induced a clinically relevant pain reduction and it was well tolerated. Available data suggest that NRD.E1 has at least similar efficacy and better tolerability than the currently available therapies, potentially offering a promising new therapeutic option to patients with PDPN and possibly other neuropathic pain indications.

If the doors of perception were cleansed, would chronic pain be relieved? Evaluating the benefits and risks of psychedelics

Psychedelic substances have played important roles in diverse cultures, and ingesting various plant preparations to evoke altered states of consciousness has been described throughout recorded history. Accounts of the subjective effects of psychedelics typically focus on spiritual and mystical-type experiences, including feelings of unity, sacredness, and transcendence. Over the past two decades, there has been increasing interest in psychedelics as treatments for various medical disorders, including chronic pain. Although concerns about adverse medical and psychological effects contributed to their controlled status, contemporary knowledge of psychedelics suggests that risks are relatively rare when patients are carefully screened, prepared, and supervised. Clinical trial results have provided support for the effectiveness of psychedelics in different psychiatric conditions. However, there are only a small number of generally uncontrolled studies of psychedelics in patients with chronic pain (e.g., cancer pain, phantom limb pain, migraine, and cluster headache). Challenges in evaluating psychedelics as treatments for chronic pain include identifying neurobiologic and psychosocial mechanisms of action and determining which pain conditions to investigate. Truly informative proof-of-concept and confirmatory randomized clinical trials will require careful selection of control groups, efforts to minimize bias from unblinding, and attention to the roles of patient mental set and treatment setting. Perspective: There is considerable promise for the use of psychedelic therapy for pain, but evidence-based recommendations for the design of future studies are needed to ensure that the results of this research are truly informative.

Comparison of Amitriptyline and US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Treatments for Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.

Objective

To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.

Data Sources

Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.

Results

A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.

An implantable restorative-neurostimulator for refractory mechanical chronic low back pain: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Chronic low back pain can be caused by impaired control and degeneration of the multifidus muscles and consequent functional instability of the lumbar spine. Available treatment options have limited effectiveness and prognosis is unfavorable. We conducted an international randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial at 26 multidisciplinary centers to determine safety and efficacy of an implantable, restorative neurostimulator designed to restore multifidus neuromuscular control and facilitate relief of symptoms (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02577354). Two hundred four eligible participants with refractory mechanical (musculoskeletal) chronic LBP and a positive prone instability test indicating impaired multifidus control were implanted and randomized to therapeutic (N = 102) or low-level sham (N = 102) stimulation of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus nerve (multifidus nerve supply) for 30 minutes twice daily. The primary endpoint was the comparison of responder proportions (≥30% relief on the LBP visual analogue scale without analgesics increase) at 120 days. After the primary endpoint assessment, participants in the sham-control group switched to therapeutic stimulation and the combined cohort was assessed through 1 year for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The primary endpoint was inconclusive in terms of treatment superiority (57.1% vs 46.6%; difference: 10.4%; 95% confidence interval, -3.3% to 24.1%, P = 0.138). Prespecified secondary outcomes and analyses were consistent with a modest but clinically meaningful treatment benefit at 120 days. Improvements from baseline, which continued to accrue in all outcome measures after conclusion of the double-blind phase, were clinically important at 1 year. The incidence of serious procedure- or device-related adverse events (3.9%) compared favorably with other neuromodulation therapies for chronic pain.

Efficacy and safety of EMA401 in peripheral neuropathic pain: results of 2 randomised, double-blind, phase 2 studies in patients with postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy

ABSTRACT

The analgesic efficacy and safety of 2 phase 2b studies of EMA401 (a highly selective angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonist) in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (EMPHENE) and painful diabetic neuropathy (EMPADINE) were reported. These were multicentre, randomised, double-blind treatment studies conducted in participants with postherpetic neuralgia or type I/II diabetes mellitus with painful distal symmetrical sensorimotor neuropathy. Participants were randomised 1:1:1 to either placebo, EMA401 25 mg, or 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d) in the EMPHENE and 1:1 to placebo or EMA401 100 mg b.i.d. in the EMPADINE. The primary outcome for both the studies was change in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score, using a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12. Both the studies were prematurely terminated due to preclinical hepatotoxicity on long-term dosing, although not observed in these studies. Out of the planned participants, a total of 129/360 (EMPHENE) and 137/400 (EMPADINE) participants were enrolled. The least square mean reduction in numeric rating scale pain score was numerically in favour of EMA401 100 mg arm in both EMPHENE (treatment difference: -0.5 [95% confidence interval: -1.6 to 0.6; P value: 0.35]) and EMPADINE (treatment difference: -0.6 [95% confidence interval: -1.4 to 0.1; P value: 0.10]) at the end of week 12. However, as the studies were terminated prematurely, no firm conclusion could be drawn but the consistent clinical improvement in pain intensity reduction across these 2 studies in 2 different populations is worth noting.

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.