Search

Self-reported pain intensity, frequently used as an outcome in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain, is often highly variable and could be associated with multiple baseline factors. Thus, the assay sensitivity of pain trials (ie, the ability of the trial to detect a true treatment effect) could be improved by including prespecified baseline factors in the primary statistical model. The objective of this focus article was to characterize the baseline factors included in statistical analyses of chronic pain RCTs. Seventy-three RCTs published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were included. The majority of trials identified a single primary analysis (72.6%; n = 53). Of these, 60.4% (n = 32) included one or more covariates in the primary statistical model, most commonly baseline value of the primary outcome, study site, sex, and age. Only one of the trials reported information regarding associations between covariates and outcomes (ie, information that could inform prioritization of covariates for prespecification in future analyses). These findings demonstrate inconsistent use of covariates in the statistical models in chronic pain clinical trials. Prespecified adjustments for baseline covariates that could increase precision and assay sensitivity should be considered in future clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. PERSPECTIVE: This review demonstrates inconsistent inclusion and potential underutilization of covariate adjustment in analyses of chronic pain RCTs. This article highlights areas for possible improvement in design and reporting related to covariate adjustment to improve efficiency in future RCTs., (Copyright © 2023 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Identifying methods to improve assay sensitivity in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may facilitate the discovery of efficacious pain treatments. RCTs evaluating pain treatments typically use average pain intensity (API) or worst pain intensity (WPI) as the primary efficacy outcome. However, little evidence is available comparing the assay sensitivity of these 2 measures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively reviewed all low back pain, osteoarthritis pain, fibromyalgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain, and postherpetic neuralgia RCTs that used a parallel group design. Eligibility required: 1) primary RCT report published between 1980 and 2016, 2) comparing 1 or more active, efficacious pharmacologic pain treatment(s) with placebo, and 3) providing data on the standardized effect size (SES) for API as well as WPI for all treatment arms. Twenty-seven active versus placebo comparisons were identified in 23 eligible articles. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, API SES and WPI SES did not differ significantly (difference = -.021, 95% confidence interval = -.047 to .004, P = .12). The findings indicate that, depending on the objectives of the study, either API or WPI could be used as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials for the chronic pain conditions included in this analysis., Perspective: Understanding the comparative assay sensitivity of API and WPI may advance pain treatment research. A meta-analysis of trials of efficacious pharmacologic treatments in 5 pain conditions did not show a statistically significant difference between the assay sensitivity of API and WPI., (Copyright © 2018 The American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Thorough assessment and reporting of adverse events (AEs) facilitates a detailed understanding of a treatment's risk-benefit profile. Although the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2004 statement provides recommendations regarding AE reporting, adherence to these standards is often inadequate. We investigated AE reporting in clinical trials of intravenous and invasive pain treatments published in 6 major anesthesiology and pain journals between 2000 to 2003 and 2006 to 2012. We examined whether AE reporting improved after publication of the 2004 CONSORT recommendations and also comprehensively reviewed AE assessment using the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) AE reporting recommendations. No improvement was found overall in CONSORT harms reporting scores from pre- to postpublication of the CONSORT recommendations, with only 5 of 10 fulfilled on average. AE reporting assessed using the ACTTION coding manual was generally inadequate, and 8% of articles failed to report any AE information at all. Anesthesiology and pain journals were similar in AE reporting quality, although industry-sponsored trials reported more AE information than nonindustry sponsored trials. Improvement is needed in AE reporting in analgesic clinical trials. The CONSORT checklist and ACTTION AE recommendations can assist investigators and editors in improving clinical trial transparency and quality., Perspective: This systematic review of AE reporting in intravenous and invasive pain treatment trials shows that little improvement has been made since the 2004 CONSORT harms reporting guidelines. Better assessment and reporting of treatment AEs is necessary to understand the full clinical effect of intravenous and invasive treatments., (Copyright © 2016 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity., Perspective: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults., Perspective: This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Peer-reviewed publications of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the primary means of disseminating research findings. "Spin" in RCT publications is misrepresentation of statistically nonsignificant research findings to suggest treatment benefit. Spin can influence the way readers interpret clinical trials and use the information to make decisions about treatments and medical policies. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which 4 types of spin were used in publications of analgesic RCTs with nonsignificant primary analyses in 6 major pain journals. In the 76 articles included in our sample, 28% of the abstracts and 29% of the main texts emphasized secondary analyses with P values <.05; 22% of abstracts and 29% of texts emphasized treatment benefit based on nonsignificant primary results; 14% of abstracts and 18% of texts emphasized within-group improvements over time, rather than primary between-group comparisons; and 13% of abstracts and 10% of texts interpreted a nonsignificant difference between groups in a superiority study as comparable effectiveness. When considering the article conclusion sections, 21% did not mention the nonsignificant primary result, 22% were presented with no uncertainty or qualification, 30% did not acknowledge that future research was required, and 8% recommended the intervention for clinical use., Perspective: This article identifies relatively frequent "spin" in analgesic RCTs. These findings highlight a need for authors, reviewers, and editors to be more cognizant of how analgesic RCT results are presented and attempt to minimize spin in future clinical trial publications., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed., Perspective: Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.

Unlabelled: The results of previous studies using retrospective methods or small samples have suggested that there may be psychosocial risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). We conducted a prospective study in which 110 patients with herpes zoster were assessed within the first month after rash onset with measures of acute pain and five broad domains of psychosocial functioning-physical, role, social, and emotional functioning, and stress and social support. Twenty of the 102 patients with follow-up data were diagnosed with PHN, defined as pain that had persisted for 4 months after rash onset. Measures of role functioning, personality disorder symptoms, and disease conviction during herpes zoster each made independent contributions to predicting either presence or intensity of PHN in logistic and linear regression analyses that controlled for relevant demographic and clinical variables, including age and acute pain intensity. These findings indicate that psychosocial variables are risk factors for the development of PHN., Perspective: The results of this prospective study of patients with herpes zoster suggest that future research on the mechanisms and prevention of PHN should consider psychosocial as well as neurobiologic processes.