Search

Abstract: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

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.

Despite significant efforts, the opioid crisis remains a pressing health concern affecting adolescents. The primary aim of this study was to describe recent sociodemographic shifts in the opioid epidemic. We examined whether rates of opioid use, including opioid misuse and opioid use disorder among 12 to 17 year olds in the United States, differ according to sociodemographic factors, physical and mental health, and substance use characteristics using data from the 2015 and 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. We also examined motivations for opioid misuse. The study included 27,857 participants. Black, non-Hispanic adolescents were more likely to both use and misuse opioids as compared to white, non-Hispanic adolescents, a clear difference from previous studies. The main motivation for misuse by adolescents was relief of physical pain (50%, 95% confidence interval 46%-54%). Adolescents who reported pain relief as the major reason for misuse had increased odds of substance use as compared to adolescents who did not report any opioid misuse. However, odds for substance use was greatest among adolescents who reported reasons other than pain relief for opioid misuse. National Survey on Drug Use and Health self-report data suggest recent shifts in opioid misuse with minority adolescents appearing to be at increased risk of opioid misuse compared with white adolescents. Relief of physical pain is the most common motivation for opioid misuse.

Integrating information on physical function and pain intensity into a composite measure may provide a useful method for assessing treatment efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain. Accordingly, we evaluated composite outcomes in trials of duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. Data on 2287 patients in 9 trials for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and 1513 patients in 6 trials for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) were analyzed. All trials assessed pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale and physical function with the 10-item subscale of the Short Form-36, ranging 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating better function. Correlation between change in pain intensity from baseline to posttreatment and change in physical function was small in DPN (ρ = -0.22; P < 0.001) and nonsignificant in PHN (ρ = -0.05; P = 0.08). Assay sensitivities of 10 composite outcomes were examined in a random subsample of patients enrolled in pregabalin trials for DPN and PHN. Of these, a responder outcome of ≥50% improvement in pain intensity, or a ≥20% improvement in pain intensity and ≥30% improvement in physical function was not only significantly associated with pregabalin vs placebo in the development cohorts for both pain conditions but also in the validation cohorts. Furthermore, this composite outcome was cross-validated in trials of gabapentin for PHN and duloxetine for DPN, and had slightly lower number needed to treat than a standard responder outcome of ≥50% reduction in pain intensity. In summary, this study identified a composite outcome of pain intensity and physical function that may improve the assay sensitivity of future neuropathic pain trials.

This study aimed to characterize the prevalence of various pain qualities in older adults with chronic nonmalignant pain and determine the association of pain quality to other pain characteristics namely: severity, interference, distribution, and pain-associated conditions. In the population-based MOBILIZE Boston Study, 560 participants aged ≥70 years reported chronic pain in the baseline assessment, which included a home interview and clinic exam. Pain quality was assessed using a modified version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) consisting of 20 descriptors from which 3 categories were derived: cognitive/affective, sensory, and neuropathic. Presence of ≥2 pain-associated conditions was significantly associated with 18 of the 20 pain quality descriptors. Sensory descriptors were endorsed by nearly all older adults with chronic pain (93%), followed by cognitive/affective (83.4%) and neuropathic descriptors (68.6%). Neuropathic descriptors were associated with the greatest number of pain-associated conditions including osteoarthritis of the hand and knee. More than half of participants (59%) endorsed descriptors in all 3 categories and had more severe pain and interference, and multisite or widespread pain than those endorsing 1 or 2 categories. Strong associations were observed between pain quality and measures of pain severity, interference, and distribution (P < 0.0001). Findings from this study indicate that older adults have multiple pain-associated conditions that likely reflect multiple physiological mechanisms for pain. Linking pain qualities with other associated pain characteristics serve to develop a multidimensional approach to geriatric pain assessment. Future research is needed to investigate the physiological mechanisms responsible for the variability in pain qualities endorsed by older adults.

Although pain reduction is commonly the primary outcome in chronic pain clinical trials, physical functioning is also important. A challenge in designing chronic pain trials to determine efficacy and effectiveness of therapies is obtaining appropriate information about the impact of an intervention on physical function. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a meeting to consider assessment of physical functioning and participation in research on chronic pain. The primary purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence on the scope of physical functioning to inform work on refining physical function outcome measurement. We address issues in assessing this broad construct and provide examples of frequently used measures of relevant concepts. Investigators can assess physical functioning using patient-reported outcome (PRO), performance-based, and objective measures of activity. This article aims to provide support for the use of these measures, covering broad aspects of functioning, including work participation, social participation, and caregiver burden, which researchers should consider when designing chronic pain clinical trials. Investigators should consider the inclusion of both PROs and performance-based measures as they provide different but also important complementary information. The development and use of reliable and valid PROs and performance-based measures of physical functioning may expedite development of treatments, and standardization of these measures has the potential to facilitate comparison across studies. We provide recommendations regarding important domains to stimulate research to develop tools that are more robust, address consistency and standardization, and engage patients early in tool development.

Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.

This study sought to determine the prevalence and impact of pain in a nationally representative sample of older adults in the United States. Data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study were analyzed. In-person interviews were conducted in 7601 adults ages ≥65 years. The response rate was 71.0% and all analyses were weighted to account for the sampling design. The overall prevalence of bothersome pain in the last month was 52.9%, afflicting 18.7 million older adults in the United States. Pain did not vary across age groups (P = 0.21), and this pattern remained unchanged when accounting for cognitive performance, dementia, proxy responses, and residential care living status. Pain prevalence was higher in women and in older adults with obesity, musculoskeletal conditions, and depressive symptoms (P < 0.001). The majority (74.9%) of older adults with pain endorsed multiple sites of pain. Several measures of physical capacity, including grip strength and lower-extremity physical performance, were associated with pain and multisite pain. For example, self-reported inability to walk 3 blocks was 72% higher in participants with than without pain (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.72 [95% confidence interval 1.56-1.90]). Participants with 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 sites of pain had gait speeds that were 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, and 0.08 meters per second slower, respectively, than older adults without pain, adjusting for disease burden and other potential confounders (P < 0.001). In summary, bothersome pain in the last month was reported by half of the older adult population of the United States in 2011 and was strongly associated with decreased physical function., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)