1
|
Langford DJ, Baron R, Edwards RR, Gewandter JS, Gilron I, Griffin R, Kamerman PR, Katz NP, McDermott MP, Rice AS, Turk DC, Vollert J, Dworkin RH. What should be the entry pain intensity criteria for chronic pain clinical trials? An IMMPACT update. Pain 2023; 164:1927-1930. [PMID: 37288944 PMCID: PMC10523853 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2022] [Accepted: 03/06/2023] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Dale. J. Langford
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Management, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Ralf Baron
- Department of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Robert R. Edwards
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jennifer S. Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Ian Gilron
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, USA
| | - Robert Griffin
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Management, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter R. Kamerman
- School of Psychology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | | | - Michael P. McDermott
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Andrew S.C. Rice
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Dennis C. Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jan Vollert
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert H. Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Farrar J, Bilker WB, Cochetti PT, Argoff CE, Bell R, Haythornthwaite J, Gilron I, Katz NP. Determinants Of Stable Pain And Long Acting Opioid Use For Chronic Non-Cancer Related Pain Treatment Over 12 Months. The Journal of Pain 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.02.212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
|
3
|
Langford DJ, Lou R, Sheen S, Amtmann D, Colloca L, Edwards RR, Farrar JT, Katz NP, McDermott MP, Reeve BB, Wasan AD, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Gewandter JS. Expectations for Improvement: A Neglected but Potentially Important Covariate or Moderator for Chronic Pain Clinical Trials. J Pain 2023; 24:575-581. [PMID: 36577461 PMCID: PMC10079631 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.12.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Revised: 12/09/2022] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dale J Langford
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care & Pain Management, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York; Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine/Division of Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle Washington.
| | - Raissa Lou
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Soun Sheen
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Dagmar Amtmann
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine/Division of Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle Washington
| | - Luana Colloca
- Department of Pain & Translational Symptom Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Robert R Edwards
- Department of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - John T Farrar
- Departments of Epidemiology, Neurology, and Anesthesia, Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Tufts University and Ein Sof Innovation, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Michael P McDermott
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Bryce B Reeve
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Center for Health Measurement, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Ajay D Wasan
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Dennis C Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine/Division of Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle Washington
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Jennifer S Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kleykamp BA, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Bhagwagar Z, Cowan P, Eccleston C, Ellenberg SS, Evans SR, Farrar JT, Freeman RL, Garrison LP, Gewandter JS, Goli V, Iyengar S, Jadad AR, Jensen MP, Junor R, Katz NP, Kesslak JP, Kopecky EA, Lissin D, Markman JD, McDermott MP, Mease PJ, O'Connor AB, Patel KV, Raja SN, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Singh JA, Steigerwald I, Strand V, Tive LA, Tobias J, Wasan AD, Wilson HD. Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2022; 163:1006-1018. [PMID: 34510135 PMCID: PMC8904641 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002475] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2021] [Accepted: 08/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bethea A Kleykamp
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Center for Health and Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Dennis C Turk
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Zubin Bhagwagar
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, CT, United States
| | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, United States
| | | | - Susan S Ellenberg
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Scott R Evans
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
| | - John T Farrar
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Roy L Freeman
- Harvard Medical School, Center for Autonomic and Peripheral Nerve Disorders, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Louis P Garrison
- School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Jennifer S Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Veeraindar Goli
- Pfizer, Inc, New York, NY, United States. Dr. Goli is now with the Emeritus Professor, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Smriti Iyengar
- Division of Translational Research, NINDS, NIH, Rockville, MD, United States
| | - Alejandro R Jadad
- Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Beati, Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mark P Jensen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | | | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
- Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, MA, United States
| | | | | | - Dmitri Lissin
- DURECT Corporation, Cupertino, CA, United States. Dr. Lissin is now woth the Scilex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., San Diego, CA, United States
| | - John D Markman
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Michael P McDermott
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Philip J Mease
- Division of Rheumatology Research, Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Alec B O'Connor
- Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Kushang V Patel
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Srinivasa N Raja
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Michael C Rowbotham
- Department of Anesthesia, UCSF School of Medicine, Research Institute, CPMC Sutter Health, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Cristina Sampaio
- Clinical Pharmacology Lab, Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Jasvinder A Singh
- Medicine Service, VA Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, United States
- Department of Medicine at the School of Medicine, University of Alabama (UAB) at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
- Department of Epidemiology at the UAB School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - Ilona Steigerwald
- Chief Medical Officer SVP Neumentum, Inc, Morristown NJ, United States
| | - Vibeke Strand
- Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University, Palo Alto CA, United States
| | - Leslie A Tive
- Department of Biopharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Inc, New York, NY, United States
| | | | - Ajay D Wasan
- Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, and Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, United States
| | - Hilary D Wilson
- Patient Affairs and Engagement, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ridgefield, CT, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Farrar JT, Bilker WB, Cochetti PT, Argoff CE, Haythornthwaite J, Katz NP, Gilron I. Evaluating the stability of opioid efficacy over 12 months in patients with chronic noncancer pain who initially demonstrate benefit from extended release oxycodone or hydrocodone: harmonization of Food and Drug Administration patient-level drug safety study data. Pain 2022; 163:47-57. [PMID: 34261978 PMCID: PMC8675053 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Opioids relieve acute pain, but there is little evidence to support the stability of the benefit over long-term treatment of chronic noncancer pain. Previous systematic reviews consider only group level published data which did not provide adequate detail. Our goal was to use patient-level data to explore the stability of pain, opioid dose, and either physical function or pain interference in patients treated for 12 months with abuse deterrent formulations of oxycodone and hydrocodone. All available studies in the Food and Drug Administration Document Archiving, Reporting, and Regulatory Tracking System were included. Patient-level demographics, baseline data, exposure, and outcomes were harmonized. Individual patient slopes were calculated from a linear model of pain, physical function, and pain interference to determine response over time. Opioid dose was summarized by change between baseline and the final month of observation. Patients with stable or less pain, stable or lower opioid dose, and stable or better physical function (where available) met our prespecified criteria for maintaining long-term benefit from chronic opioids. Of the complete data set of 3192 patients, 1422 (44.5%) maintained their pain level and opioid dose. In a secondary analysis of 985 patients with a measured physical function, 338 (34.3%) maintained their physical function in addition to pain and opioid dose. Of 2040 patients with pain interference measured, 788 (38.6%) met criteria in addition. In a carefully controlled environment, about one-third of patients successfully titrated on opioids to treat chronic noncancer pain demonstrated continued benefit for up to 12 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John T. Farrar
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Warren B. Bilker
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Philip T. Cochetti
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Charles E. Argoff
- Department of Neurology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, United States
| | - Jennifer Haythornthwaite
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Nathaniel P. Katz
- Adjunct, Department of Anesthesia, Tufts University School of Medicine and Chief Science Officer, Analgesic Solutions, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Ian Gilron
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Queens University School of Medicine, Kingston, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gewandter JS, Smith SM, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Gan TJ, Gilron I, Hertz S, Katz NP, Markman JD, Raja SN, Rowbotham MC, Stacey BR, Strain EC, Ward DS, Farrar JT, Kroenke K, Rathmell JP, Rauck R, Brown C, Cowan P, Edwards RR, Eisenach JC, Ferguson M, Freeman R, Gray R, Giblin K, Grol-Prokopczyk H, Haythornthwaite J, Jamison RN, Martel M, McNicol E, Oshinsky M, Sandbrink F, Scholz J, Scranton R, Simon LS, Steiner D, Verburg K, Wasan AD, Wentworth K. Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations. Pain 2021; 162:2669-2681. [PMID: 33863862 PMCID: PMC8497633 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Tong Joo Gan
- Stony Brook School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA
| | - Ian Gilron
- Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sharon Hertz
- (Formally) U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Denham S. Ward
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | - Kurt Kroenke
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - James P. Rathmell
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA
| | - Robert R. Edwards
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | - Roy Freeman
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Roy Gray
- GW Pharmaceuticals, Carlsbad, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Robert N. Jamison
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Friedhelm Sandbrink
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs / George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Gewandter JS, McDermott MP, Evans S, Katz NP, Markman JD, Simon LS, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Composite outcomes for pain clinical trials: considerations for design and interpretation. Pain 2021; 162:1899-1905. [PMID: 33449513 PMCID: PMC8991304 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 12/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Michael P McDermott
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Scott Evans
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, George Washington University, Rochville, MD, United States
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, United States
- Tufts University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - John D Markman
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States
| | | | - Dennis C Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Smith SM, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Eccleston C, Farrar JT, Rowbotham MC, Bhagwagar Z, Burke LB, Cowan P, Ellenberg SS, Evans SR, Freeman RL, Garrison LP, Iyengar S, Jadad A, Jensen MP, Junor R, Kamp C, Katz NP, Kesslak JP, Kopecky EA, Lissin D, Markman JD, Mease PJ, O'Connor AB, Patel KV, Raja SN, Sampaio C, Schoenfeld D, Singh J, Steigerwald I, Strand V, Tive LA, Tobias J, Wasan AD, Wilson HD. Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations. Pain 2020; 161:2446-2461. [PMID: 32520773 PMCID: PMC7572524 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon M Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Center for Health and Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Dennis C Turk
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Michael P McDermott
- Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Center for Health and Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | | | - John T Farrar
- Departments of Epidemiology, Neurology, and Anesthesia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | | | - Zubin Bhagwagar
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States
- Rallybio, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Laurie B Burke
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States
- LORA Group, LLC, Royal Oak, MD, United States
| | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, United States
| | - Susan S Ellenberg
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Scott R Evans
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Roy L Freeman
- Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Louis P Garrison
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | | | - Alejandro Jadad
- Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mark P Jensen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | | | - Cornelia Kamp
- Center for Health and Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Clinical Materials Services Unit, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, United States
| | | | | | - Dmitri Lissin
- Scilex Pharmaceuticals, Palo Alto, CA, United States
| | - John D Markman
- Neuromedicine Pain Management and Translational Pain Research, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Philip J Mease
- Rheumatology Clinical Research, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Alec B O'Connor
- Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Kushang V Patel
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Srinivasa N Raja
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Cristina Sampaio
- Faculdade Medicinda de Lisboa, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
- CHDI Foundation, Princeton, NJ, United States
| | - David Schoenfeld
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Jasvinder Singh
- Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AB, United States
| | | | - Vibeke Strand
- Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States
| | | | - Jeffrey Tobias
- Aquila Consulting Group, LLC, Petaluma, CA, United States
| | - Ajay D Wasan
- Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gandhi K, Wei W, Huang A, Wang L, Iyer R, Katz NP. A Real-World Study Using Claims Data to Evaluate Possible Failure of Opioid Treatment Regimens Among Patients with Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis in the US. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2020; 12:285-297. [PMID: 32606845 PMCID: PMC7293383 DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s244329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2020] [Accepted: 04/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Although opioids may be used in the management of pain in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), there is a dearth of real-world data characterizing opioid regimen failure in these patients. Objective Using claims data, this study explored measures that may be potentially indicative of opioid treatment failure and the association of such potential failure with health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs. Patients and Methods Using a national employer-sponsored insurance claims database covering the years 2011–2016, this retrospective longitudinal study identified adults with hip/knee osteoarthritis who filled ≥1 opioid prescription (index event) and had continuous health plan enrollment 6 months pre- and ≥12 months post-index. Index opioid regimen intensity was defined in the 3-month post-index period by frequency, average daily dose, and duration of action. Possible index opioid regimen failure was defined as an increase in opioid regimen intensity, addition of a non-opioid pain medication, joint surgery, or opioid-abuse-related events. One-year follow-up HRU and costs were compared between those with possible treatment failure and those without. Results Among 271,512 OA patients (61.5% knee; 11.1% hip; 27.4% both), 34.9% met the definition of possible index opioid regimen failure within a year: increased regimen intensity (16.1%), joint surgery (14.0%), addition of non-opioid pain medication (11.4%), and opioid-abuse-related events (1.9%). Rates of possible failure generally increased with higher index regimen intensity. Compared with those who did not fail, those who potentially failed their index treatment regimen had significantly higher HRU (P<0.001), and all-cause ($36,699 vs $15,114) and osteoarthritis-related costs ($17,298 vs $1,967) (both P<0.0001). Conclusion Among OA patients treated with opioids, approximately one-third may fail their index opioid regimen within a year and incur significantly higher HRU and costs than those without. Further research is needed to validate these findings with clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Wenhui Wei
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY, USA
| | | | - Li Wang
- STATinMED Research, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Ravi Iyer
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Frazer, PA, USA
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, MA, USA.,Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
As-Sanie S, Soliman AM, Evans K, Erpelding N, Lanier RK, Katz NP. Short-acting and Long-acting Opioids Utilization among Women Diagnosed with Endometriosis in the United States: A Population-based Claims Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020; 28:297-306.e2. [PMID: 32531340 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.05.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2020] [Revised: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 05/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence and pattern of opioid use in endometriosis and the characteristics of patients prescribed an opioid using medical insurance claims data. DESIGN We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial database for the period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2016. SETTING The Truven database includes inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims covering more than 115 million unique individuals and over 36 million inpatient hospital discharges across multiple payer types and all 50 states. PATIENTS Women with endometriosis were defined as those with 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient codes for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS No interventions were assigned. Women who filled an opioid prescription within 12 months of diagnosis were placed in the opioid cohort and women who did not fill an opioid prescription were placed in the nonopioid cohort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Baseline characteristics were evaluated 12 months preindex (date of the first diagnosis) and opioid use was assessed for 12 months after the index date. The dataset included 58 472 women with endometriosis. Of these, 61.7% filled an opioid prescription during the study period. More than 95% filled prescriptions for short-acting opioids (SAOs) only, 4.1% filled prescriptions for both SAOs and extended-release/long-acting opioids (LAOs), and 0.6% filled prescriptions for LAOs only. Patients who filled an opioid prescription had higher baseline comorbidities (especially gynecologic and chronic pain comorbidities) and endometriosis-related medication use compared with patients who did not fill an opioid prescription during the study period. Patients who filled both LAO and SAO prescriptions had the highest total days' supply of opioids, the proportion of days covered by prescriptions, and morphine equivalent daily dose. These patients also had the highest proportions of opioid switching and dose augmentation. Statistical trends in data were not substantially altered when analyses excluded patients with chronic pain comorbidities or surgical opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSION Although opioids are not a recommended treatment for endometriosis, more than half of our cohort filled an opioid prescription within 1 year after a first recorded diagnosis of endometriosis. Patients who filled an opioid prescription tended to use more endometriosis-related medications and have a higher comorbidity burden. Additional research is necessary to better understand the reasons and outcomes associated with opioid utilization in endometriosis and to determine if there is a more effective pain management treatment plan for patients taking opioids.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sawsan As-Sanie
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Dr. As-Sanie).
| | | | - Kathryn Evans
- WCG Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, (Drs. Evans and Katz)
| | | | - Ryan K Lanier
- Canopy Growth Corporation, Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada (Dr. Lanier)
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- WCG Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, (Drs. Evans and Katz); Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr. Katz)
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
As-Sanie S, Soliman AM, Evans K, Erpelding N, Lanier R, Katz NP. Healthcare utilization and cost burden among women with endometriosis by opioid prescription status in the first year after diagnosis: a retrospective claims database analysis. J Med Econ 2020; 23:371-377. [PMID: 31856613 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1707212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Aims: Opioids do not represent standard therapy for endometriosis; however, women with endometriosis are frequently prescribed an opioid to manage related abdominal or pelvic pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of opioid use on endometriosis-related economic and healthcare burden in the United States.Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort analysis of the Truven MarketScan Commercial database from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2016. Eligible women had at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient codes for endometriosis and 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after the index date (i.e. first recorded endometriosis diagnosis). The primary analysis examined healthcare costs and utilization for 12 months after the index date in women who filled at least 1 opioid prescription versus those who did not. The secondary analysis examined healthcare costs and utilization by the pattern of opioid use.Results: The primary analysis matched 43,516 women across 2 groups and the secondary analysis matched 13,230 women across 5 groups. In the primary analysis, total 12-month healthcare costs were significantly higher in the opioid group compared to the non-opioid group ($29,236.00 vs. $18,466.00, respectively; p < .001); the same pattern was observed for all healthcare utilization parameters. In the secondary analysis, higher morphine equivalent daily dose and proportion of days covered were associated with the highest healthcare costs and utilization compared to the non-opioid group.Limitations: Retrospective design and inability to confirm whether filled opioid prescriptions were actually taken.Conclusions: Filling an opioid prescription within 1 year after an endometriosis diagnosis was associated with significant excess healthcare burden. Patients prescribed an opioid may experience inadequate symptom management and benefit from the use of disease-specific, non-opioid therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S As-Sanie
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | | - K Evans
- WCG Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, MA, USA
| | | | - R Lanier
- Canopy Growth Corporation, Smith Falls, ON, Canada
| | - N P Katz
- WCG Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, MA, USA
- Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gewandter JS, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Devine EG, Hewitt D, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Kirkwood AA, Malamut R, Markman JD, Vrijens B, Burke L, Campbell JN, Carr DB, Conaghan PG, Cowan P, Doyle MK, Edwards RR, Evans SR, Farrar JT, Freeman R, Gilron I, Juge D, Kerns RD, Kopecky EA, McDermott MP, Niebler G, Patel KV, Rauck R, Rice ASC, Rowbotham M, Sessler NE, Simon LS, Singla N, Skljarevski V, Tockarshewsky T, Vanhove GF, Wasan AD, Witter J. Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations. J Pain 2019; 21:931-942. [PMID: 31843583 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2019] [Revised: 10/30/2019] [Accepted: 12/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts; Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Amy A Kirkwood
- CR UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
| | | | - John D Markman
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | | | | | | | - Daniel B Carr
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Philip G Conaghan
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, & NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK
| | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, California
| | | | | | - Scott R Evans
- George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - John T Farrar
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Roy Freeman
- Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ian Gilron
- Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dean Juge
- Horizon Pharma, Lake Forest, Illinois
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Richard Rauck
- Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
| | | | | | | | | | - Neil Singla
- Lotus Clinical Research, Pasadena, California
| | | | | | | | - Ajay D Wasan
- University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - James Witter
- National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lanier RK, Henningfield JE, Gudin J, Rauck R, Elder H, Erpelding N, Treister R, Gimbel J, Tagliaferri M, Doberstein SK, Di Fonzo CJ, Lu L, Siddhanti S, Katz NP. Assessment of potentially abuse-related events in two phase 3 studies of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, using the MADDERS® system (Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System). Curr Med Res Opin 2019; 35:1513-1522. [PMID: 30932719 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1594744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Objective: To prospectively evaluate the abuse potential of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, in two phase 3 clinical trials using a newly developed reporting system: the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS®).Methods: SUMMIT-07 was an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study that examined the safety and efficacy of NKTR-181 across 12 weeks in opioid-naïve subjects with chronic low back pain. SUMMIT-LTS was a 52 week open-label study in opioid-naïve and experienced subjects with chronic low back pain or noncancer pain rolled over from SUMMIT-07 or enrolled de novo. System evaluations were triggered by adverse events of interest and drug accountability discrepancies signaling potentially abuse-related events. Each event was assigned a primary classification and supplementary classification(s) by investigators and by a blinded, independent committee of substance abuse experts (adjudicators). At the final study visit, investigators administered a survey to subjects to identify overlooked events of interest.Results: Seventy-nine (6.6%) of 1189 subjects were associated with 86 events in SUMMIT-07 and 51 (8.0%) of 638 subjects were associated with 59 events in SUMMIT-LTS. Most events were attributed to "Withdrawal" and, primarily in SUMMIT-07, "Therapeutic Error" (unintentional overuse) or "Misuse" (intentional overuse for a therapeutic purpose) of study medication. Adjudicators identified five possible "Abuse" events (three NKTR-181, two placebo) in SUMMIT-07 and four possible "Abuse" events (all NKTR-181) in SUMMIT-LTS.Conclusions: The MADDERS® system discerns potentially abuse-related events and identified low rates of withdrawal and a low risk of abuse potential, diversion or addiction associated with NKTR-181 in phase 3 trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jack E Henningfield
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Pinney Associates, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jeffrey Gudin
- Pain Management Center, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, NJ, USA
| | - Richard Rauck
- Center for Clinical Research, Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Roi Treister
- Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
| | | | | | | | | | - Lin Lu
- Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Wayland, MA, USA
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Gewandter JS, McDermott MP, He H, Gao S, Cai X, Farrar JT, Katz NP, Markman JD, Senn S, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Demonstrating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects Among Patients: An Overlooked but Important Step Toward Precision Medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019; 106:204-210. [PMID: 30661240 DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2018] [Accepted: 01/06/2019] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Although heterogeneity in the observed outcomes in clinical trials is often assumed to reflect a true heterogeneous response, it could actually be due to random variability. This retrospective analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiperiod (i.e., episode) crossover trials of fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain illustrates the use of multiperiod crossover trials to examine heterogeneity of treatment response. A mixed-effects model, including fixed effects for treatment and episode and random effects for patient and treatment-by-patient interaction, was used to assess the heterogeneity in patients' responses to treatment during each episode. A significant treatment-by-patient interaction was found for three of four trials (P < 0.05), suggesting heterogeneity of the effect of fentanyl among different patients in each trial. Similar analyses in other therapeutic areas could identify conditions and therapies that should be investigated further for predictors of treatment response in efforts to maximize the efficiency of developing precision medicine strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer S Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Michael P McDermott
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Hua He
- Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Shan Gao
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Xueya Cai
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - John T Farrar
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts, USA.,Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - John D Markman
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Stephen Senn
- Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg
| | - Dennis C Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gewandter JS, Brell J, Cavaletti G, Dougherty PM, Evans S, Howie L, McDermott MP, O'Mara A, Smith AG, Dastros-Pitei D, Gauthier LR, Haroutounian S, Jarpe M, Katz NP, Loprinzi C, Richardson P, Lavoie-Smith EM, Wen PY, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Freeman R. Trial designs for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy prevention: ACTTION recommendations. Neurology 2018; 91:403-413. [PMID: 30054438 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000006083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2018] [Accepted: 05/24/2018] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and potentially dose-limiting side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapies. No therapies are available to prevent CIPN. The small number of positive randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating preventive therapies for CIPN provide little guidance to inform the design of future trials. Moreover, the lack of consensus regarding major design features in this area poses challenges to development of new therapies. An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION)-Consortium on Clinical Endpoints and Procedures for Peripheral Neuropathy Trials (CONCEPPT) meeting attended by neurologists, oncologists, pharmacists, clinical trialists, statisticians, and regulatory experts was convened to discuss design considerations and provide recommendations for CIPN prevention trials. This article outlines considerations related to design of RCTs that evaluate preventive therapies for CIPN including (1) selection of eligibility criteria (e.g., cancer types, chemotherapy types, inclusion of preexisting neuropathy); (2) selection of outcome measures and endpoints, including those that incorporate alterations in chemotherapy dosing, which may affect the rate of CIPN development and its severity; (3) potential effects of the investigational therapy on the efficacy of chemotherapy; and (4) sample size estimation. Our hope is that attention to the design considerations and recommendations outlined in this article will improve the quality and assay sensitivity of CIPN prevention trials and thereby accelerate the identification of efficacious therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer S Gewandter
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle.
| | - Joanna Brell
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Guido Cavaletti
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Patrick M Dougherty
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Scott Evans
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Lynn Howie
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Michael P McDermott
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Ann O'Mara
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - A Gordon Smith
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Daniela Dastros-Pitei
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Lynn R Gauthier
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Simon Haroutounian
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Matthew Jarpe
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Charles Loprinzi
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Paul Richardson
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Ellen M Lavoie-Smith
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Patrick Y Wen
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Dennis C Turk
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| | - Roy Freeman
- From the University of Rochester (J.S.G., M.P.M., R.H.D.), NY; MetroHealth Medical Center (J.B.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; University of Milano-Bicocca (G.C.), Monza, Italy; MD Anderson Cancer Center (P.M.D.), Houston, TX; Milkin Institute School of Public Health (S.E.), George Washington University, Washington, DC; Division of Oncology Products (L.H.), US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring; National Institutes of Health (A.O.), Bethesda, MD; Virginia Commonwealth University (A.G.S.), Richmond; Mundipharma R&D Limited (D.D.-P.), Cambridge, UK; Université Laval (L.R.G.), Québec, Canada; Washington University (S.H.), St. Louis, MO; Regenacy Pharmaceuticals (M.J.), Boston; Analgesic Solutions (N.P.K.), Natick; Tufts University (N.P.K.), Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic (C.L.), Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center (P.R., P.Y.W.) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (R.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; University of Michigan (E.M.L.S.), Ann Arbor; and University of Washington (D.C.T.), Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Treister R, Lawal OD, Shecter JD, Khurana N, Bothmer J, Field M, Harte SE, Kruger GH, Katz NP. Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0197844. [PMID: 29795665 PMCID: PMC5993117 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2017] [Accepted: 04/25/2018] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Analgesic trials frequently fail to demonstrate efficacy of drugs known to be efficacious. Poor pain reporting accuracy is a possible source for this low essay-sensitivity. We report the effects of Accurate-Pain-Reporting-Training (APRT) on the placebo response in a trial of Pregabalin for painful-diabetic-neuropathy. The study was a two-stage randomized, double-blind trial: In Stage-1 (Training) subjects were randomized to APRT or No-Training. The APRT participants received feedback on the accuracy of their pain reports in response to mechanical stimuli, measured by R-square score. In Stage-2 (Evaluation) all subjects entered a placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. Primary (24-h average pain intensity) and secondary (current, 24-h worst, and 24-h walking pain intensity) outcome measures were reported. Fifty-one participants completed the study. APRT patients (n = 28) demonstrated significant (p = 0.036) increases in R-square scores. The APRT group demonstrated significantly (p = 0.018) lower placebo response (0.29 ± 1.21 vs. 1.48 ± 2.21, mean difference ± SD = -1.19±1.73). No relationships were found between the R-square scores and changes in pain intensity in the treatment arm. In summary, our training successfully increased pain reporting accuracy and resulted in a diminished placebo response. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roi Treister
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | | | | | - Nevil Khurana
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | | | | | - Steven E. Harte
- Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Grant H. Kruger
- Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Nathaniel P. Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Conaghan PG, Hunter DJ, Cohen SB, Kraus VB, Berenbaum F, Lieberman JR, Jones DG, Spitzer AI, Jevsevar DS, Katz NP, Burgess DJ, Lufkin J, Johnson JR, Bodick N. Effects of a Single Intra-Articular Injection of a Microsphere Formulation of Triamcinolone Acetonide on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multinational Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100:666-677. [PMID: 29664853 PMCID: PMC5916484 DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.17.00154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 102] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intra-articular corticosteroids relieve osteoarthritis pain, but rapid systemic absorption limits efficacy. FX006, a novel, microsphere-based, extended-release triamcinolone acetonide (TA) formulation, prolongs TA joint residence and reduces systemic exposure compared with standard TA crystalline suspension (TAcs). We assessed symptomatic benefits and safety of FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo and TAcs. METHODS In this Phase-3, multicenter, double-blinded, 24-week study, adults ≥40 years of age with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3) and average-daily-pain (ADP)-intensity scores of ≥5 and ≤9 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale) were centrally randomized (1:1:1) to a single intra-articular injection of FX006 (32 mg), saline-solution placebo, or TAcs (40 mg). The primary end point was change from baseline to week 12 in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo. Secondary end points were area-under-effect (AUE) curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo, AUE curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with TAcs, change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with TAcs, and AUE curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 24 for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo. Exploratory end points included week-12 changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life (KOOS-QOL) subscale scores for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo and TAcs. Adverse events were elicited at each inpatient visit. RESULTS The primary end point was met. Among 484 treated patients (n = 161 for FX006, n = 162 for saline-solution placebo, and n = 161 for TAcs), FX006 provided significant week-12 improvement in ADP intensity compared with that observed for saline-solution placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline: -3.12 versus -2.14; p < 0.0001) indicating ∼50% improvement. FX006 afforded improvements over saline-solution placebo for all secondary and exploratory end points (p < 0.05). Improvements in osteoarthritis pain were not significant for FX006 compared with TAcs using the ADP-based secondary measures. Exploratory analyses of WOMAC-A, B, and C and KOOS-QOL subscales favored FX006 (p ≤ 0.05). Adverse events were generally mild, occurring at similar frequencies across treatments. CONCLUSIONS FX006 provided significant, clinically meaningful pain reduction compared with saline-solution placebo at week 12 (primary end point). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip G. Conaghan
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
- NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - David J. Hunter
- Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Kolling Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stanley B. Cohen
- Department of Rheumatology, Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Virginia B. Kraus
- Department of Rheumatology and Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Francis Berenbaum
- Department of Rheumatology, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, AP-HP hôpital Saint-Antoine, DHU i2B, Paris, France
| | - Jay R. Lieberman
- Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Deryk G. Jones
- Ochsner Sports Medicine Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana
| | - Andrew I. Spitzer
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Orthopaedic Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - David S. Jevsevar
- Department of Orthopaedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Nathaniel P. Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts
- Department of Anesthesia, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Diane J. Burgess
- School of Pharmacy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
| | - Joelle Lufkin
- Clinical Operations (J.L.) and Clinical Research and Medical Affairs (N.B.), Flexion Therapeutics, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts
| | | | - Neil Bodick
- Clinical Operations (J.L.) and Clinical Research and Medical Affairs (N.B.), Flexion Therapeutics, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Smith SM, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Baron R, Polydefkis M, Tracey I, Borsook D, Edwards RR, Harris RE, Wager TD, Arendt-Nielsen L, Burke LB, Carr DB, Chappell A, Farrar JT, Freeman R, Gilron I, Goli V, Haeussler J, Jensen T, Katz NP, Kent J, Kopecky EA, Lee DA, Maixner W, Markman JD, McArthur JC, McDermott MP, Parvathenani L, Raja SN, Rappaport BA, Rice ASC, Rowbotham MC, Tobias JK, Wasan AD, Witter J. The Potential Role of Sensory Testing, Skin Biopsy, and Functional Brain Imaging as Biomarkers in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials: IMMPACT Considerations. J Pain 2017; 18:757-777. [PMID: 28254585 PMCID: PMC5484729 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.02.429] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2016] [Revised: 01/19/2017] [Accepted: 02/16/2017] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Valid and reliable biomarkers can play an important role in clinical trials as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or as a signal of treatment response. Currently, there are no biomarkers for pain qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for use in clinical trials. This article summarizes an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting in which 3 potential biomarkers were discussed for use in the development of analgesic treatments: 1) sensory testing, 2) skin punch biopsy, and 3) brain imaging. The empirical evidence supporting the use of these tests is described within the context of the 4 categories of biomarkers: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) predictive, and 4) pharmacodynamic. Although sensory testing, skin punch biopsy, and brain imaging are promising tools for pain in clinical trials, additional evidence is needed to further support and standardize these tests for use as biomarkers in pain clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE The applicability of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and brain imaging as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers for use in analgesic treatment trials is considered. Evidence in support of their use and outlining problems is presented, as well as a call for further standardization and demonstrations of validity and reliability.
Collapse
|
19
|
Treister R, Eaton TA, Trudeau JJ, Elder H, Katz NP. Development and preliminary validation of the focused analgesia selection test to identify accurate pain reporters. J Pain Res 2017; 10:319-326. [PMID: 28243138 PMCID: PMC5315353 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s121455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical trials of analgesics have been plagued with poor assay sensitivity due, in part, to variability in subjects' pain reporting. Herein, we develop and evaluate the focused analgesia selection test (FAST), a method to measure patients' pain reporting skills. Subjects with osteoarthritis of the hip, knee, and/or ankle with pain intensity of ≥3/10 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale were enrolled. Subjects underwent the FAST procedure, which consists of recording subjects' pain reports in response to repeated administration of thermal noxious stimuli of various intensities applied on the arm with the Medoc® Thermal Sensory Analyzer II. Subjects also rated non-noxious stimuli consisting of visual contrast rating. After performing an exercise task, subjects also rated clinical pain and were asked to report whether their pain had increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Overall, 88 subjects were enrolled, and 83 were included in the analyses. FAST's outcomes including the R2, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CoV) indicated that subjects' pain reporting skills were widely distributed. Higher FAST ICC significantly predicted greater changes in clinical pain following exercise (p=0.017), whereas the visual contrast test did not predict postexercise pain. FAST is the first method that measures subjects' pain reporting skills. Using FAST to enrich clinical trials with "good" pain reporters (with high FAST ICC) could increase assay sensitivity. Further evaluation of FAST is ongoing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roi Treister
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA
| | - Thomas A Eaton
- Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs
| | | | | | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA; Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
It is the current policy of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to convene expert Advisory Committees to provide input on key regulatory decisions regarding opioid products, including approval and labeling of opioid abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs). Advisory Committee meetings on ADF opioids consider whether the laboratory and clinical data submitted by the sponsor are sufficient to support marketing approval and labeling of the product with properties expected to deter abuse by specific routes of abuse (ie, oral, intranasal, intravenous). The FDA has typically followed the approval and labeling recommendations for ADFs reviewed by its Advisory Committees, highlighting the importance of these meetings in the regulatory approval process. This review describes common issues considered by Advisory Committees for ADF opioids as well as insights on how to prepare for these meetings based on recent relevant experience and regulatory decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Richard C Dart
- Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, Colorado
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts; Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lynn R Webster
- Vice President of Scientific Affairs, PRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Katz NP, Gajria KL, Shillington AC, Stephenson JJ, Harshaw Q. Impact of breakthrough pain on community-dwelling cancer patients: results from the National Breakthrough Pain Study. Postgrad Med 2016; 129:32-39. [DOI: 10.1080/00325481.2017.1261606] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Nathaniel P. Katz
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Treister R, Trudeau JJ, Van Inwegen R, Jones JK, Katz NP. Development and feasibility of the misuse, abuse, and diversion drug event reporting system (MADDERS®). Am J Addict 2016; 25:641-651. [PMID: 28051840 DOI: 10.1111/ajad.12459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2016] [Revised: 09/14/2016] [Accepted: 10/02/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Inappropriate use of analgesic drugs has become increasingly pervasive over the past decade. Currently, drug abuse potential is primarily assessed post-marketing; no validated tools are available to assess this potential in phase II and III clinical trials. This paper describes the development and feasibility testing of a Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS), which aims to identify potentially abuse-related events and classify them according to a recently developed classification scheme, allowing the quantification of these events in clinical trials. METHODS The system was initially conceived and designed with input from experts and patients, followed by field-testing to assess its feasibility and content validity in both completed and ongoing clinical trials. RESULTS The results suggest that MADDERS is a feasible system with initial validity. It showed higher rates of the triggering events in subjects taking medications with known abuse potential than in patients taking medications without abuse potential. Additionally, experts agreed on the classification of most abuse-related events in MADDERS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS MADDERS is a new systematic approach to collect information on potentially abuse-related events in clinical trials and classify them. The system has demonstrated feasibility for implementation. Additional research is ongoing to further evaluate its validity. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE Currently, there are no validated tools to assess drug abuse potential during clinical trials. Because of its ease of implementation, its systematic approach, and its preliminary validation results, MADDERS could provide such a tool for clinical trials. (Am J Addict 2016;25:641-651).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roi Treister
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.,Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts
| | | | | | - Judith K Jones
- The Degge Group, Fairfax, Virginia.,Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia.,University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts.,Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Vosburg SK, Eaton TA, Sokolowska M, Osgood ED, Ashworth JB, Trudeau JJ, Muffett-Lipinski M, Katz NP. Prescription Opioid Abuse, Prescription Opioid Addiction, and Heroin Abuse Among Adolescents in a Recovery High School: A Pilot Study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 2015. [DOI: 10.1080/1067828x.2014.918005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
24
|
Abstract
UNLABELLED Overdoses (ODs) of prescription opioids (RxOs) have become a major public health issue in the United States. OBJECTIVE To determine the root causes of accidental prescription opioid overdoses (RxO-OD). DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTION The authors conducted a root cause analysis using the Antecedent Target-Measurement method, interviewing three types of key informants: survivors of RxO-ODs, family members, and clinical experts. RESULTS Ten survivors, five family members, and three experts were interviewed. Proximal causes of RxO-ODs described by survivors and family members were recent RxO dose escalation (n = 9), polysubstance use (n = 5), and polypharmacy use (n = 3). Proximal causes were elicited by the following six antecedent causes: wanting to feel good/high (n = 9), perceived tolerance to RxO (n = 6), didn't know/believe it was dangerous (n = 5), wanting to reduce psychosocial pain (n = 5), wanting to reduce physical pain (n = 4), and wanting to avoid discomfort due to withdrawal symptoms (n = 4). RxOs involved in the OD were either prescribed by a doctor (n = 7), purchased from a dealer (n = 6), given/purchased from family/friends (n = 3), or stolen from family (n = 1). Psychosocial stressors (n = 9), chronic recurrent depression (n = 3), and chronic substance abuse/addiction (n = 4) were also distal and proximal causes of OD. Experts cited similar causes but added prescriberrelated causes (eg, inadequate training) and healthcare system and culture. CONCLUSIONS Patients at risk for OD can be identified and ODs potentially prevented. Opportunities for intervention include routine screening of patients using RxOs for psychosocial distress and coping, flagging of high-risk patients, care pathways for high-risk patients, clinician and patient training on OD prevention, and developing abuse-deterrent formulations of RxOs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly M Wawrzyniak
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts currently at Boston PainCare, Waltham, Massachusetts
| | - Alex Sabo
- Berkshire Medical Center, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
| | - Ann McDonald
- Berkshire Medical Center, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
| | | | - Mon Poulose
- Berkshire Medical Center, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
| | - Mary Brown
- Department of Pharmacy Practice & Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
| | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Smith SM, Paillard F, McKeown A, Burke LB, Edwards RR, Katz NP, Papadopoulos EJ, Rappaport BA, Slagle A, Strain EC, Wasan AD, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Instruments to Identify Prescription Medication Misuse, Abuse, and Related Events in Clinical Trials: An ACTTION Systematic Review. J Pain 2015; 16:389-411. [PMID: 25660826 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2014] [Revised: 01/07/2015] [Accepted: 01/08/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Measurement of inappropriate medication use events (eg, abuse or misuse) in clinical trials is important in characterizing a medication's abuse potential. However, no gold standard assessment of inappropriate use events in clinical trials has been identified. In this systematic review, we examine the measurement properties (ie, content validity, cross-sectional reliability and construct validity, longitudinal construct validity, ability to detect change, and responder definitions) of instruments assessing inappropriate use of opioid and nonopioid prescription medications to identify any that meet U.S. and European regulatory agencies' rigorous standards for outcome measures in clinical trials. Sixteen published instruments were identified, most of which were not designed for the selected concept of interest and context of use. For this reason, many instruments were found to lack adequate content validity (or documentation of content validity) to evaluate current inappropriate medication use events; for example, evaluating inappropriate use across the life span rather than current use, including items that did not directly assess inappropriate use (eg, questions about anger), or failing to capture information pertinent to inappropriate use events (eg, intention and route of administration). In addition, the psychometric data across all instruments were generally limited in scope. A further limitation is the heterogeneous, nonstandardized use of inappropriate medication use terminology. These observations suggest that available instruments are not well suited for assessing current inappropriate medication use within the specific context of clinical trials. Further effort is needed to develop reliable and valid instruments to measure current inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties of inappropriate medication use (eg, abuse or misuse) instruments to determine whether any meet regulatory standards for clinical trial outcome measures to assess abuse potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon M Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York.
| | | | - Andrew McKeown
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | | | - Robert R Edwards
- Department of Anesthesiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Department of Anesthesia, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts; Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts
| | | | - Bob A Rappaport
- United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
| | - Ashley Slagle
- United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
| | - Eric C Strain
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ajay D Wasan
- Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Dennis C Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurology, and Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E. Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res 2015; 10:24. [PMID: 25645576 PMCID: PMC4327973 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0144-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 231] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2014] [Accepted: 12/18/2014] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
The overarching goals of treatments for orthopedic conditions are generally to improve or restore function and alleviate pain. Results of clinical trials are generally used to determine whether a treatment is efficacious; however, a statistically significant improvement may not actually be clinically important, i.e., meaningful to the patient. To determine whether an intervention has produced clinically important benefits requires a two-step process: first, determining the magnitude of change considered clinically important for a particular measure in the relevant population and, second, applying this yardstick to a patient's data to determine whether s/he has benefited from treatment. Several metrics have been devised to quantify clinically important differences, including the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and clinically important difference (CID). Herein, we review the methods to generate the MCID and other metrics and their use and interpretation in clinical trials and practice. We particularly highlight the many pitfalls associated with the generation and utilization of these metrics that can impair their correct use. These pitfalls include the fact that different pain measures yield different MCIDs, that efficacy in clinical trials is impacted by various factors (population characteristics, trial design), that the MCID value is impacted by the method used to calculate it (anchor, distribution), by the type of anchor chosen and by the definition (threshold) of improvement. The MCID is also dependent on the population characteristics such as disease type and severity, sex, age, etc. For appropriate use, the MCID should be applied to changes in individual subjects, not to group changes. The MCID and CID are useful tools to define general guidelines to determine whether a treatment produces clinically meaningful effects. However, the many pitfalls associated with these metrics require a detailed understanding of the methods to calculate them and their context of use. Orthopedic surgeons that will use these metrics need to carefully understand them and be aware of their pitfalls.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, 232 Pond Street, Natick, MA, 01760, USA.
- Tufts University School of Medicine, 274 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
| | | | - Evan Ekman
- Tufts University School of Medicine, 274 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
- Appalachian Regional Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Center, Appalachian State University Department of Athletics, 870 State Farm Road, Suite 100, Boone, NC, 28607, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Trudeau JJ, Benson C, Biondi DM, Katz NP, Kim M. Validation of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in acute low back pain. J Pain 2015; 16:357-66. [PMID: 25640290 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2013] [Revised: 12/23/2014] [Accepted: 01/15/2015] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED The Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) assesses the major symptoms of both neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain and can be used in studies of epidemiology, natural history, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and treatment response. Previous research has demonstrated its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in diverse samples of patients with chronic pain. However, the SF-MPQ-2 has not been evaluated for use in patients with acute pain. Data were examined from a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of immediate-release tapentadol versus immediate-release oxycodone in patients with acute low back and associated radicular leg pain (N = 666). Analyses of internal consistency, convergent validity, and confirmatory factor structure were conducted using baseline data, and analyses of responsiveness were conducted using baseline and endpoint data. The SF-MPQ-2 total score and its 4 subscale scores (continuous pain, intermittent pain, predominantly neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors) generally showed good psychometric properties and 1) were internally consistent, 2) displayed good convergent validity, 3) fit the a priori factor structure, and 4) were highly responsive to analgesic treatment. These data extend previous evidence of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the SF-MPQ-2 in patients with chronic pain to those with acute low back and associated radicular leg pain. PERSPECTIVE Considered together with the results of other recent studies, the data suggest that the SF-MPQ-2 can provide a valid, responsive, and efficient assessment of both neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain qualities for clinical trials and other clinical research examining patients with various acute and chronic pain conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Department of Neurology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York.
| | - Dennis C Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | | | | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts; Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Myoung Kim
- Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, New Jersey
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
McKeown A, Gewandter JS, McDermott MP, Pawlowski JR, Poli JJ, Rothstein D, Farrar JT, Gilron I, Katz NP, Lin AH, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Smith SM. Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review. J Pain 2014; 16:199-206.e1-7. [PMID: 25481494 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2014] [Revised: 11/10/2014] [Accepted: 11/13/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions. PERSPECTIVE In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew McKeown
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - Jennifer S Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - Michael P McDermott
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Department of Neurology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Department of Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - Joseph R Pawlowski
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - Joseph J Poli
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - Daniel Rothstein
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - John T Farrar
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ian Gilron
- Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nathaniel P Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts; Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Allison H Lin
- Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
| | - Bob A Rappaport
- Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
| | | | - Dennis C Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Department of Neurology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Department of Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
| | - Shannon M Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, He H, McDermott MP, Hochberg MC, Jordan JM, Katz NP, Lin AH, Neogi T, Rappaport BA, Simon LS, Strand V. Meta-Analysis of Assay Sensitivity and Study Features in Clinical Trials of Pharmacologic Treatments for Osteoarthritis Pain. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014; 66:3327-36. [DOI: 10.1002/art.38869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2013] [Accepted: 08/28/2014] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Hua He
- University of Rochester; Rochester New York
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Tuhina Neogi
- Boston University School of Medicine; Boston Massachusetts
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Gewandter JS, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Baron R, Gastonguay MR, Gilron I, Katz NP, Mehta C, Raja SN, Senn S, Taylor C, Cowan P, Desjardins P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Hewitt DJ, Iyengar S, Jay GW, Kalso E, Kerns RD, Leff R, Leong M, Petersen KL, Ravina BM, Rauschkolb C, Rice ASC, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Sindrup SH, Stauffer JW, Steigerwald I, Stewart J, Tobias J, Treede RD, Wallace M, White RE. Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2014; 155:1683-1695. [PMID: 24865794 PMCID: PMC4500524 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2014] [Revised: 05/15/2014] [Accepted: 05/21/2014] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Ian Gilron
- Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nathaniel P. Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, and Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA
| | - Paul Desjardins
- Desjardins Associates and Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Gary W. Jay
- Virtuous Pharma, Inc., Raleigh-Durham, NC, USA
| | - Eija Kalso
- University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Mark Wallace
- University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
O'Connor AB, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Katz NP, Colucci R, Haythornthwaite JA, Klein M, O'Brien C, Posner K, Rappaport BA, Reisfield G, Adams EH, Balster RL, Bigelow GE, Burke LB, Comer SD, Cone E, Cowan P, Denisco RA, Farrar JT, Foltin RW, Haddox DJ, Hertz S, Jay GW, Junor R, Kopecky EA, Leiderman DB, McDermott MP, Palmer PP, Raja SN, Rauschkolb C, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Setnik B, Smith SM, Sokolowska M, Stauffer JW, Walsh SL, Zacny JP. Abuse liability measures for use in analgesic clinical trials in patients with pain: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2014; 154:2324-2334. [PMID: 24148704 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.06.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2013] [Revised: 06/10/2013] [Accepted: 06/19/2013] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Assessing and mitigating the abuse liability (AL) of analgesics is an urgent clinical and societal problem. Analgesics have traditionally been assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy relative to placebo or an active comparator. In these trials, rigorous, prospectively designed assessment for AL is generally not performed. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) convened a consensus meeting to review the available evidence and discuss methods for improving the assessment of the AL of analgesics in clinical trials in patients with pain. Recommendations for improved assessment include: (1) performing trials that include individuals with diverse risks of abuse; (2) improving the assessment of AL in clinical trials (eg, training study personnel in the principles of abuse and addiction behaviors, designing the trial to assess AL outcomes as primary or secondary outcome measures depending on the trial objectives); (3) performing standardized assessment of outcomes, including targeted observations by study personnel and using structured adverse events query forms that ask all subjects specifically for certain symptoms (such as euphoria and craving); and (4) collecting detailed information about events of potential concern (eg, unexpected urine drug testing results, loss of study medication, and dropping out of the trial). The authors also propose a research agenda for improving the assessment of AL in future trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alec B O'Connor
- Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA Colucci & Associates LLC, Newtown, CT, USA Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Suicide Risk Assessment, New York State Psychiatric Institute/College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA Covance, Princeton, NJ, USA Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, USA Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Purdue Pharma LP, Stamford, CT, USA Department of Public Health & Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA Pfizer Inc, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Eisai Limited, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc, Chadds Ford, PA, USA CNS Drug Consulting LLC, McLean, VA, USA Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA AcelRx Pharmaceuticals Inc, Redwood City, CA, USA Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore School of Medicine, MD, USA Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Laboratory, Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal King Pharmaceuticals Inc, Cary, NC, USA Grünenthal USA Inc, Bedminster, NJ, USA Durect Corporation, Cupertino, CA, USA Department of Behavioral Science, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, KY, USA Department of Anesthesia & Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Farrar JT, Troxel AB, Haynes K, Gilron I, Kerns RD, Katz NP, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC, Tierney AM, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Effect of variability in the 7-day baseline pain diary on the assay sensitivity of neuropathic pain randomized clinical trials: an ACTTION study. Pain 2014; 155:1622-1631. [PMID: 24831421 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2013] [Revised: 04/21/2014] [Accepted: 05/05/2014] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
The degree of variability in the patient baseline 7-day diary of pain ratings has been hypothesized to have a potential effect on the assay sensitivity of randomized clinical trials of pain therapies. To address this issue, we obtained clinical trial data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership, and harmonized patient level data from 12 clinical trials (4 gabapentin and 8 pregabalin) in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Models were developed using exploratory logistic regression to examine the interaction between available baseline factors and treatment (placebo vs active medication) in predicting patient response to therapy (ie, >30% improvement). Our analysis demonstrated an increased likelihood of response in the placebo-treated group for patients with a higher standard deviation in the baseline 7-day diary without affecting the likelihood of a response in the active medication-treated group, confirming our hypothesis. In addition, there was a small but significant age-by-treatment interaction in the PHN model, and small weight-by-treatment interaction in the DPN model. The patient's sex, baseline pain level, and the study protocol had an effect only on the likelihood of response overall. Our results suggest the possibility that, at least in some disease processes, excluding patients with a highly variable baseline 7-day diary has the potential to improve the assay sensitivity of these analgesic clinical trials, although reductions of external validity must be considered when increasing the homogeneity of the investigated sample.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John T Farrar
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Anesthesiology, and Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada Pain Research Informatics, Multimorbidities and Education Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare, New Haven, CT, USA Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Trudeau J, Van Inwegen R, Eaton T, Bhat G, Paillard F, Ng D, Tan K, Katz NP. Assessment of pain and activity using an electronic pain diary and actigraphy device in a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of celecoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee. Pain Pract 2014; 15:247-55. [PMID: 24494935 DOI: 10.1111/papr.12167] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2013] [Accepted: 11/27/2013] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The primary goal was to determine whether a composite measure of pain and activity is a more responsive assessment of analgesic effect than pain alone or activity alone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, crossover study of celecoxib vs. placebo in subjects with chronic pain due to knee OA. Patients with knee OA and baseline pain intensity score ≥4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) before each period were randomized. Pain endpoints included in-clinic pain score (24-hour and 1-week recall), daily paper diary pain score, current pain on an electronic pain diary (each on NRS), and WOMAC pain subscale. Activity measures included WOMAC function subscale and actigraphy using a device. Three composite pain-activity measures were prespecified. RESULTS Sixty-three patients were randomized and 47 completed the study. The WOMAC pain subscale was the most responsive of all five pain measures. Pain-activity composites resulted in a statistically significant difference between celecoxib and placebo but were not more responsive than pain measures alone. However, a composite responder defined as having 20% improvement in pain or 10% improvement in activity yielded much larger differences between celecoxib and placebo than with pain scores alone. Actigraphy was more responsive than the WOMAC function scale, possibly due to lower placebo responsiveness. CONCLUSION We have identified composite pain-activity measures that are similarly or more responsive than pain-alone measures in patients with OA. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal method for computing these composites.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremiah Trudeau
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, Massachusetts, U.S.A; Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts, U.S.A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Gewandter JS, Smith SM, McKeown A, Burke LB, Hertz SH, Hunsinger M, Katz NP, Lin AH, McDermott MP, Rappaport BA, Williams MR, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Reporting of primary analyses and multiplicity adjustment in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations. Pain 2013; 155:461-466. [PMID: 24275257 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.11.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2013] [Accepted: 11/15/2013] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Performing multiple analyses in clinical trials can inflate the probability of a type I error, or the chance of falsely concluding a significant effect of the treatment. Strategies to minimize type I error probability include prespecification of primary analyses and statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons, when applicable. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of primary analysis reporting and frequency of multiplicity adjustment in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®). A total of 161 randomized controlled trials investigating noninvasive pharmacological treatments or interventional treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Only 52% of trials identified a primary analysis, and only 10% of trials reported prespecification of that analysis. Among the 33 articles that identified a primary analysis with multiple testing, 15 (45%) adjusted for multiplicity; of those 15, only 2 (13%) reported prespecification of the adjustment methodology. Trials in clinical pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials identified a primary analysis more often than trials in experimental pain models and non-industry-sponsored trials, respectively. The results of this systematic review demonstrate deficiencies in the reporting and possibly the execution of primary analyses in published analgesic trials. These deficiencies can be rectified by changes in, or better enforcement of, journal policies pertaining to requirements for the reporting of analyses of clinical trial data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer S Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA School of Professional Psychology, Pacific University, Hillsboro, OR, USA Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Smith SM, Dart RC, Katz NP, Paillard F, Adams EH, Comer SD, Degroot A, Edwards RR, Haddox JD, Jaffe JH, Jones CM, Kleber HD, Kopecky EA, Markman JD, Montoya ID, O’Brien C, Roland CL, Stanton M, Strain EC, Vorsanger G, Wasan AD, Weiss RD, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Classification and definition of misuse, abuse, and related events in clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations. Pain 2013; 154:2287-2296. [PMID: 23792283 PMCID: PMC5460151 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2013] [Revised: 04/29/2013] [Accepted: 05/17/2013] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
As the nontherapeutic use of prescription medications escalates, serious associated consequences have also increased. This makes it essential to estimate misuse, abuse, and related events (MAREs) in the development and postmarketing adverse event surveillance and monitoring of prescription drugs accurately. However, classifications and definitions to describe prescription drug MAREs differ depending on the purpose of the classification system, may apply to single events or ongoing patterns of inappropriate use, and are not standardized or systematically employed, thereby complicating the ability to assess MARE occurrence adequately. In a systematic review of existing prescription drug MARE terminology and definitions from consensus efforts, review articles, and major institutions and agencies, MARE terms were often defined inconsistently or idiosyncratically, or had definitions that overlapped with other MARE terms. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trials, Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership convened an expert panel to develop mutually exclusive and exhaustive consensus classifications and definitions of MAREs occurring in clinical trials of analgesic medications to increase accuracy and consistency in characterizing their occurrence and prevalence in clinical trials. The proposed ACTTION classifications and definitions are designed as a first step in a system to adjudicate MAREs that occur in analgesic clinical trials and postmarketing adverse event surveillance and monitoring, which can be used in conjunction with other methods of assessing a treatment's abuse potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon M. Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Richard C. Dart
- University of Colorado School of Medicine and Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center, Denver Health, Denver, CO
| | - Nathaniel P. Katz
- Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, and Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | - Sandra D. Comer
- Columbia University; New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | - J. David Haddox
- Purdue Pharma L.P., Stamford, CT, and Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jerome H. Jaffe
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Herbert D. Kleber
- Columbia University; New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - John D. Markman
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Eric C. Strain
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | | | - Roger D. Weiss
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA and Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA
| | - Dennis C. Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Robert H. Dworkin
- Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurology and Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, He H, McDermott MP, Farrar JT, Katz NP, Lin AH, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC. Assay sensitivity and study features in neuropathic pain trials: an ACTTION meta-analysis. Neurology 2013; 81:67-75. [PMID: 23700332 PMCID: PMC3770199 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0b013e318297ee69] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2012] [Accepted: 03/13/2013] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Our objective was to identify patient, study, and site factors associated with assay sensitivity in placebo-controlled neuropathic pain trials. METHODS We examined the associations between study characteristics and standardized effect size (SES) in a database of 200 publicly available randomized clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments for neuropathic pain. RESULTS There was considerable heterogeneity in the SESs among the examined trials. Univariate meta-regression analyses indicated that larger SESs were significantly associated with trials that had 1) greater minimum baseline pain inclusion criteria, 2) greater mean subject age, 3) a larger percentage of Caucasian subjects, and 4) a smaller total number of subjects. In a multiple meta-regression analysis, the associations between SES and minimum baseline pain inclusion criterion and age remained significant. CONCLUSIONS Our analyses have examined potentially modifiable correlates of study SES and shown that a minimum pain inclusion criterion of 40 or above on a 0 to 100 scale is associated with a larger SES. These data provide a foundation for investigating strategies to improve assay sensitivity and thereby decrease the likelihood of falsely negative outcomes in clinical trials of efficacious treatments for neuropathic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Smith SM, Wang AT, Katz NP, McDermott MP, Burke LB, Coplan P, Gilron I, Hertz SH, Lin AH, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Sweeney M, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Adverse event assessment, analysis, and reporting in recent published analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations. Pain 2013; 154:997-1008. [PMID: 23602344 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2013] [Revised: 02/28/2013] [Accepted: 03/01/2013] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
The development of valid and informative treatment risk-benefit profiles requires consistent and thorough information about adverse event (AE) assessment and participants' AEs during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a 2004 extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommending the specific AE information that investigators should report, there is little evidence that analgesic RCTs adequately adhere to these recommendations. This systematic review builds on prior recommendations by describing a comprehensive checklist for AE reporting developed to capture clinically important AE information. Using this checklist, we coded AE assessment methods and reporting in all 80 double-blind RCTs of noninvasive pharmacologic treatments published in the European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN® from 2006 to 2011. Across all trials, reports of AEs were frequently incomplete, inconsistent across trials, and, in some cases, missing. For example, >40% of trials failed to report any information on serious adverse events. Trials of participants with acute or chronic pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials typically provided more and better-quality AE data than trials involving pain-free volunteers or trials that were not industry sponsored. The results of this review suggest that improved AE reporting is needed in analgesic RCTs. We developed an ACTTION (Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks) AE reporting checklist that is intended to assist investigators in thoroughly and consistently capturing and reporting these critically important data in publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon M Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Katz NP, Birnbaum H, Brennan MJ, Freedman JD, Gilmore GP, Jay D, Kenna GA, Madras BK, McElhaney L, Weiss RD, White AG. Prescription opioid abuse: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am J Manag Care 2013; 19:295-302. [PMID: 23725361 PMCID: PMC3680126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Prescription opioid abuse and addiction are serious problems with growing societal and medical costs, resulting in billions of dollars of excess costs to private and governmental health insurers annually. Although difficult to accurately assess, prescription opioid abuse also leads to increased insurance costs in the form of property and liability claims, and costs to state and local governments for judicial, emergency, and social services. This manuscript's objective is to provide payers with strategies to control these costs, while supporting safe use of prescription opioid medications for patients with chronic pain. METHOD A Tufts Health Care Institute Program on Opioid Risk Management meeting was convened in June 2010 with private and public payer representatives, public health and law enforcement officials, pain specialists, and other stakeholders to present research and develop recommendations on solutions that payers might implement to combat this problem. RESULTS While protecting access to prescription opioids for patients with pain, private and public payers can implement strategies to mitigate financial risks associated with opioid abuse, using internal strategies such as formulary controls, claims data surveillance, and claims matching; and external policies and procedures that support and educate physicians on reducing opioid risks among patients with chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS Reimbursement policies, incentives, and health technology systems that encourage physicians to use universal precautions, to consult prescription monitoring program (PMP) data, and to implement Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment protocols have a high potential to reduce insurer risks while addressing a serious public health problem.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathaniel P. Katz
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Health Care Institute Program on Opioid Risk Management, Boston, MA,
| | | | | | | | - Gary P. Gilmore
- MassHealth and University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston, MA,
| | - Dennis Jay
- Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, Washington, DC,
| | - George A. Kenna
- Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI,
| | - Bertha K. Madras
- Harvard Medical School, NEPRC, Southborough, MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA,
| | - Lisa McElhaney
- National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators, Lutherville, MD,
| | - Roger D. Weiss
- Harvard Medical School, NEPRC, Southborough, MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA,
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Smith SM, Chang DR, Pereira A, Shah N, Gilron I, Katz NP, Lin AH, McDermott MP, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Adherence to CONSORT harms-reporting recommendations in publications of recent analgesic clinical trials: An ACTTION systematic review. Pain 2012; 153:2415-2421. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2012] [Revised: 08/09/2012] [Accepted: 08/15/2012] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
40
|
Comer SD, Zacny JP, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Bigelow GE, Foltin RW, Jasinski DR, Sellers EM, Adams EH, Balster R, Burke LB, Cerny I, Colucci RD, Cone E, Cowan P, Farrar JT, Haddox DJ, Haythornthwaite JA, Hertz S, Jay GW, Johanson CE, Junor R, Katz NP, Klein M, Kopecky EA, Leiderman DB, McDermott MP, O'Brien C, O'Connor AB, Palmer PP, Raja SN, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Setnik B, Sokolowska M, Stauffer JW, Walsh SL. Core outcome measures for opioid abuse liability laboratory assessment studies in humans: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2012; 153:2315-2324. [PMID: 22998781 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.07.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2012] [Revised: 07/19/2012] [Accepted: 07/31/2012] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
A critical component in development of opioid analgesics is assessment of their abuse liability (AL). Standardization of approaches and measures used in assessing AL have the potential to facilitate comparisons across studies, research laboratories, and drugs. The goal of this report is to provide consensus recommendations regarding core outcome measures for assessing the abuse potential of opioid medications in humans in a controlled laboratory setting. Although many of the recommended measures are appropriate for assessing the AL of medications from other drug classes, the focus here is on opioid medications because they present unique risks from both physiological (e.g., respiratory depression, physical dependence) and public health (e.g., individuals in pain) perspectives. A brief historical perspective on AL testing is provided, and those measures that can be considered primary and secondary outcomes and possible additional outcomes in AL assessment are then discussed. These outcome measures include the following: subjective effects (some of which comprise the primary outcome measures, including drug liking; physiological responses; drug self-administration behavior; and cognitive and psychomotor performance. Before presenting recommendations for standardized approaches and measures to be used in AL assessments, the appropriateness of using these measures in clinical trials with patients in pain is discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra D Comer
- Division on Substance Abuse, New York State Psychiatric Institute/College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Kendle Early Phase Toronto, Formerly Decision Line Clinical Research Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Covance, Princeton, NJ, USA Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA Colucci and Associates LLC, Newtown, CT, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Purdue Pharma L.P., Stamford, CT, USA Pfizer Inc., New London, CT, USA Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA Eisai Limited, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA Analgesic Research, Needham, MA, USA Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Chadds Ford, PA, USA CNS Drug Consulting LLC, McLean, VA, USA Department of Biostatistics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA AcelRx Pharmaceuticals Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA Research Institute, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Laboratory, Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal King Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cary, NC, USA Grünenthal USA Inc., Bedminster, NJ, USA Durect Corporation, Cupertino, CA, USA Department of Behavioral Science, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, KY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Turk DC, O'Connor AB, Dworkin RH, Chaudhry A, Katz NP, Adams EH, Brownstein JS, Comer SD, Dart R, Dasgupta N, Denisco RA, Klein M, Leiderman DB, Lubran R, Rappaport BA, Zacny JP, Ahdieh H, Burke LB, Cowan P, Jacobs P, Malamut R, Markman J, Michna E, Palmer P, Peirce-Sandner S, Potter JS, Raja SN, Rauschkolb C, Roland CL, Webster LR, Weiss RD, Wolf K. Research design considerations for clinical studies of abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2012; 153:1997-2008. [PMID: 22770841 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.05.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2011] [Revised: 04/02/2012] [Accepted: 05/24/2012] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Opioids are essential to the management of pain in many patients, but they also are associated with potential risks for abuse, overdose, and diversion. A number of efforts have been devoted to the development of abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids to reduce these risks. This article summarizes a consensus meeting that was organized to propose recommendations for the types of clinical studies that can be used to assess the abuse deterrence of different opioid formulations. Because of the many types of individuals who may be exposed to opioids, an opioid formulation will need to be studied in several populations using various study designs to determine its abuse-deterrent capabilities. It is recommended that the research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dennis C Turk
- University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Analgesic Solutions and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Covance, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Columbia University, New York, USA Denver Health Authority and Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver, Colorado, USA University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Maryland, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA CNS Drug Consulting, McLean, Virginia, USA University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, California, USA AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, Delaware, USA Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Redwood City, California, USA University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, Titusville, New Jersey, USA Pfizer, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA Clinical Research and Pain Clinic, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA NAMA Recovery, Cedar Park, Texas, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Katz NP. The measurement of symptoms and side effects in clinical trials of chronic pain. Contemp Clin Trials 2012; 33:903-11. [PMID: 22561389 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2012] [Revised: 03/29/2012] [Accepted: 04/13/2012] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Clinical trials in chronic pain have used various methods to assess the effect of medications. In addition to measuring symptom relief, researchers must also address adverse events (AEs) associated with the medication to evaluate overall therapeutic results. This paper reviews methods of measuring symptoms and AEs, including passive capture, scripted prompting, prospective assessments of side effects of interest, and prospective comprehensive symptom checklists. Methods of measuring therapeutic results have advantages and disadvantages. Although passive AE capture (unscripted, open-ended questions about symptoms) is not constrained by preconceptions of potential AEs, it sometimes fails to capture clinically significant AEs. Scripted prompting (prespecified, scripted, open-ended questions about symptoms) is likely to address the latter problem but preclude consistency across trials. Prospective assessments (prespecified symptom inventories) can offer greater sensitivity and consistency in detecting side effects of specific treatments. Comprehensive symptom distress inventories can be more sensitive measures of overall treatment benefit, which may be important when efficacy, passive AE capture, and comprehensive quality of life (QOL) batteries fail to differentiate between treatments. In cancer populations these inventories have been statistically correlated with survival and other important clinical outcomes, even after controlling for disease status, global QOL, psychological state, and performance status. Other important considerations are patient perceptions of the importance of symptoms, the correlations between QOL and symptom distress, and the usefulness of global ratings, in which patients integrate any perceived benefits of the medication with tolerability and other factors, such as convenience and cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathaniel P Katz
- Program on Opioid Risk Management, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, Burke LB, Farrar JT, Gilron I, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Raja SN, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC, Backonja MM, Baron R, Bellamy N, Bhagwagar Z, Costello A, Cowan P, Fang WC, Hertz S, Jay GW, Junor R, Kerns RD, Kerwin R, Kopecky EA, Lissin D, Malamut R, Markman JD, McDermott MP, Munera C, Porter L, Rauschkolb C, Rice ASC, Sampaio C, Skljarevski V, Sommerville K, Stacey BR, Steigerwald I, Tobias J, Trentacosti AM, Wasan AD, Wells GA, Williams J, Witter J, Ziegler D. Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2012; 153:1148-1158. [PMID: 22494920 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 213] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2011] [Revised: 02/23/2012] [Accepted: 03/05/2012] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo ("assay sensitivity"). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert H Dworkin
- Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurology and Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, USA University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA, USA Pfizer, New London, CT, USA Eisai Limited, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, UK Department of Veterans Affairs, West Haven, CT, USA Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA Nuvo Research, West Chester, PA, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Chadds Ford, PA, USA Durect Corporation, Cupertino, CA, USA AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA Purdue Pharma, Stamford, CT, USA National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, USA Imperial College, London, UK Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, IN, USA King Pharmaceuticals (currently Pfizer), Cary, NC, USA Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Grünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany NeurogesX, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada Smith & Nephew, Durham, NC, USA German Diabetes Center, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Osgood ED, Eaton TA, Trudeau JJ, Katz NP. A Brief Survey to Characterize Oxycodone Abuse Patterns in Adolescents Enrolled in Two Substance Abuse Recovery High Schools. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2012; 38:166-70. [DOI: 10.3109/00952990.2011.643994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eric D. Osgood
- Department of Psychometrics and Outcomes, Analgesic Solutions,
Natick, MA, USA
| | - Thomas A. Eaton
- Department of Psychometrics and Outcomes, Analgesic Solutions,
Natick, MA, USA
- Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT, USA
| | - Jeremiah J. Trudeau
- Department of Psychometrics and Outcomes, Analgesic Solutions,
Natick, MA, USA
| | - Nathaniel P. Katz
- Department of Psychometrics and Outcomes, Analgesic Solutions,
Natick, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Eaton TA, Comer SD, Revicki DA, Trudeau JJ, van Inwegen RG, Stauffer JW, Katz NP. Determining the clinically important difference in visual analog scale scores in abuse liability studies evaluating novel opioid formulations. Qual Life Res 2011; 21:975-81. [PMID: 21964915 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0012-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/05/2011] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study determined how the magnitude of change in positive subjective responses predicts clinical outcome in a treatment setting. Specifically, we attempted to define what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID) in subjective responses. METHODS A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) measured subjective ratings of drug "high," calculated via an anchor-based method with published data from participants receiving sustained-release naltrexone (NTX) and heroin in a laboratory setting. The data were then compared to clinical outcomes in a treatment trial with sustained-release naltrexone. A distribution-based method subsequently analyzed data from participants who received ALO-01 (extended-release morphine with sequestered NTX) to predict its abuse liability. RESULTS Differences in ratings of drug high of approximately 10 mm on a 100-mm line were clinically significant. By extrapolation, CIDs were also found between crushed or intact ALO-01 and immediate-release morphine sulfate (IRMS). No CIDs were found between intact and crushed ALO-01. CONCLUSIONS From laboratory and treatment trial data involving naltrexone, calculation of CIDs in subjective ratings of high is possible. Consequently, crushing/swallowing or injecting ALO-01 produces clinically significantly less drug high than oral or intravenous morphine alone, suggesting that ALO-01 has lower abuse liability by those routes than morphine formulations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas A Eaton
- Analgesic Solutions, Inc, 232 Pond St, Natick, MA 01760, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Dworkin RH, Peirce-Sandner S, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Gibofsky A, Simon LS, Farrar JT, Katz NP. Outcome measures in placebo-controlled trials of osteoarthritis: responsiveness to treatment effects in the REPORT database. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19:483-92. [PMID: 21396467 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.02.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2010] [Revised: 02/11/2011] [Accepted: 02/14/2011] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Treatment response in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of osteoarthritis (OA) has been assessed by multiple primary and secondary outcomes, including pain, function, patient and clinician global measures of status and response to treatment, and various composite and responder measures. Identifying outcome measures with greater responsiveness to treatment is important to increase the assay sensitivity of RCTs. OBJECTIVE To assess and compare the responsiveness of different outcome measures used in placebo-controlled RCTs of OA. SEARCH STRATEGY The Resource for Evaluating Procedures and Outcomes of Randomized Trials database includes placebo-controlled clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments (oral, topical, or transdermal) for OA identified from a systematic literature search of RCTs published or publicly available before August 5, 2009, which was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration, publicly-available websites, and reference lists of retrieved publications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data collected included: (1) pain assessed with single-item ratings and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale; (2) patient and clinician global measures of status, improvement, and treatment response; (3) function assessed by the WOMAC function subscale; (4) stiffness assessed by the WOMAC stiffness subscale; and (5) the WOMAC and Lequesne Algofunctional Index composite outcomes. Measures were grouped according to the total number of response categories (i.e., <10 categories or ≥10 categories). The treatment effect (difference in mean change from baseline between the placebo and active therapy arms) and standardized effect size (SES) were estimated for each measure in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. RESULTS There were 125 RCTs with data to compute the treatment effect for at least one measure; the majority evaluated non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), followed by opioids, glucosamine and/or chondroitin, and acetaminophen. In general, the patient-reported pain outcome measures had comparable responsiveness to treatment as shown by the estimates of treatment effects and SES. Treatment effects and SESs were generally higher for patient-reported global measures compared with clinician-rated global measures but generally similar for the WOMAC and Lequesne composite measures. CONCLUSIONS Comparing different outcome measures using meta-analysis and selecting those that have the greatest ability to identify efficacious treatments may increase the efficiency of clinical trials of treatments for OA. Improvements in the quality of the reporting of clinical trial results are needed to facilitate meta-analyses to evaluate the responsiveness of outcome measures and to also address other issues related to assay sensitivity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Hersh EV, Kane WT, O'Neil MG, Kenna GA, Katz NP, Golubic S, Moore PA. Prescribing recommendations for the treatment of acute pain in dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2011; 32:22-32. [PMID: 21560740] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
Effective acute pain management is an essential but sometimes challenging component of dental practice. Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of various analgesic agents in dental postoperative models. This article combines an evaluation of the available evidence with current prescribing patterns to provide dental practitioners prescribing recommendations for acute pain, based on the anticipated severity of post-procedural pain. An important consideration when prescribing analgesics is to determine for whom opioid analgesics are necessary and appropriate, and if so, the dose and quantity that should be prescribed. This is partly because of the prevalence of substance and alcohol abuse that can be expected to be encountered within the dental patient population, and because substance abusers in the community frequently obtain prescription drugs from friends and family for misuse.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elliot V Hersh
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Pharmacology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Katz NP, Rowbotham MC, Peirce-Sandner S, Cerny I, Clingman CS, Eloff BC, Farrar JT, Kamp C, McDermott MP, Rappaport BA, Sanhai WR. Evidence-based clinical trial design for chronic pain pharmacotherapy: a blueprint for ACTION. Pain 2010; 152:S107-S115. [PMID: 21145657 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2010] [Revised: 11/08/2010] [Accepted: 11/09/2010] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Neurology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA United States Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, MD, USA Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
ABSTRACT To understand the magnitude of prescription opioid abuse in the United States, it is critical to determine how many dosage units of prescription opioids are ingested nonmedically per year. Using several public and private databases, the authors estimated that in 2002-2003, among the 10.89 million individuals projected to have used prescription opioids nonmedically, a minimum of 430.61 million doses were used nonmedically per year (assuming only one dose consumed per nonmedical use per day per individual). This represented about 1/25 of all prescription opioid doses dispensed. This estimate provides a perspective on the magnitude of prescription opioids abuse and should help policy makers enact policies that reduce prescription opioid abuse and diversion without preventing legitimate access to opioid therapy.
Collapse
|
50
|
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, Baron R, Bellamy N, Burke LB, Chappell A, Chartier K, Cleeland CS, Costello A, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Ellenberg S, Farrar JT, French JA, Gilron I, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Jay GW, Kalliomäki J, Katz NP, Kerns RD, Manning DC, McDermott MP, McGrath PJ, Narayana A, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Reeve BB, Rhodes T, Sampaio C, Simpson DM, Stauffer JW, Stucki G, Tobias J, White RE, Witter J. Research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2010; 149:177-193. [PMID: 20207481 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 280] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2009] [Revised: 02/05/2010] [Accepted: 02/10/2010] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert H Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, IN, USA United BioSource Corporation, Newtown, PA, USA M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA, USA New York University, New York, NY, USA Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Schwarz Biosciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA AstraZeneca, Södertälje, Sweden Analgesic Research, Needham, MA, USA Department of Veterans Affairs, West Haven, CT, USA Celgene Corporation, Warren, NJ, USA University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA IWK Health Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Cephalon, Inc., Frazer, PA, USA National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA qd consulting, LLC, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA Merck & Company, Blue Bell, PA, USA Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Alpharma, Piscataway, NJ, USA University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research, Lucerne, Switzerland NeurogesX, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Chadds Ford, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|