Search

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.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., 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.

Background and ObjectiveCurrent studies of end-of-life care in Parkinson disease (PD) do not focus on diverse patient samples or provide national views of end-of-life resource utilization. We determined sociodemographic and geographic differences in end-of-life inpatient care intensity among persons with PD in the United States (US).MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included Medicare Part A and Part B beneficiaries 65 years and older with a qualifying PD diagnosis who died between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and those with atypical or secondary parkinsonism were excluded. Primary outcomes included rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital death, and hospice discharge in the last 6 months of life. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression models compared differences in end-of-life resource utilization and treatment intensity. Adjusted models included demographic and geographic variables, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and Social Deprivation Index score. The national distribution of primary outcomes was mapped and compared by hospital referral region using Moran I.ResultsOf 400,791 Medicare beneficiaries with PD in 2017, 53,279 (13.3%) died. Of decedents, 33,107 (62.1%) were hospitalized in the last 6 months of life. In covariate-adjusted regression models using White male decedents as the reference category, odds of hospitalization was greater for Asian (AOR 1.38; CI 1.11–1.71) and Black (AOR 1.23; CI 1.08–1.39) male decedents and lower for White female decedents (AOR 0.80; CI 0.76–0.83). ICU admissions were less likely in female decedents and more likely in Asian, Black, and Hispanic decedents. Odds of in-hospital death was greater among Asian (AOR 2.49, CI 2.10–2.96), Black (AOR 1.11, CI 1.00–1.24), Hispanic (AOR 1.59; CI 1.33–1.91), and Native American (AOR 1.49; CI 1.05–2.10) decedents. Asian and Hispanic male decedents were less likely to be discharged to hospice. In geographical analyses, rural-dwelling decedents had lower odds of ICU admission (AOR 0.77; CI 0.73–0.81) and hospice discharge (AOR 0.69; CI 0.65–0.73) than urban-dwelling decedents. Nonrandom clusters of primary outcomes were observed across the US, with highest rates of hospitalization in the South and Midwest (Moran I = 0.134;p< 0.001).DiscussionMost persons with PD in the US are hospitalized in the last 6 months of life, and treatment intensity varies by sex, race, ethnicity, and geographic location. These group differences emphasize the importance of exploring end-of-life care preferences, service availability, and care quality among diverse populations with PD and may inform new approaches to advance care planning.

Purpose To assess the association of severity of ocular discomfort with measures of quality of life among patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED). Methods This is a prospective, observational, cohort study within a randomized clinical trial. Patients (N = 535) in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management study with moderate to severe DED completed the Ocular Surface Disease Index on DED symptoms, the SF-36 on quality of life, and the Brief Ocular Discomfort Inventory questionnaire and had a comprehensive ophthalmic assessment by a study-certified clinician. The ocular discomfort on average over the past week was scored on an 11-point scale (0 for no discomfort and 10 for discomfort as bad as you can imagine). Results The average ocular discomfort scores for patients ranged from 0 to 10, with a mean of 4.28. Discomfort scores did not vary with demographic characteristics, signs of DED, self-reported depression, or self-reported nonocular pain conditions. Ocular discomfort scores did correlate moderately to strongly with total Ocular Surface Disease Index scores (Spearman correlation coefficient, rs, 0.47-0.67) and with measures of interference with activities of daily living [general activity level, mood, walking ability, ability for normal work, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life (rs = 0.39-0.65)]. Conclusions Among patients in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management study, worse ocular discomfort was associated with worse overall DED symptoms and interfered to a greater degree with activities of daily living. Ocular discomfort is an important part of the assessment of patients with DED.

Experimental pain sensitivity was assessed in individuals with urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome (UCPPS) as part of the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network. A series of computer-controlled pressure stimuli were delivered to the thumbnail bed, an asymptomatic site distant from the area of UCPPS pain that is considered to be indicative of overall body pain threshold. Stimuli were rated according to a standardized magnitude estimation protocol. Pain sensitivity in participants with UCPPS was compared with healthy controls and a mixed pain group composed of individuals with other chronic overlapping pain conditions, including fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and irritable bowel syndromes. Data from 6 participating MAPP testing sites were pooled for analysis. Participants with UCPPS (n = 153) exhibited an intermediate pain sensitivity phenotype: they were less sensitive relative to the mixed pain group (n = 35) but significantly more sensitive than healthy controls (n = 100). Increased pain sensitivity in patients with UCPPS was associated with both higher levels of clinical pain severity and more painful body areas outside the pelvic region. Exploratory analyses in participants with UCPPS revealed that pain sensitivity increased during periods of urologic symptom flare and that less pressure pain sensitivity at baseline was associated with a greater likelihood of subsequent genitourinary pain improvement 1 year later. The finding that individuals with UCPPS demonstrate nonpelvic pain hypersensitivity that is related to clinical symptoms suggests that central nervous system mechanisms of pain amplification contribute to UCPPS.

A workshop was sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to focus on research gaps and opportunities on drug development for pancreatitis. This conference was held on July 25, 2018, and structured into 3 working groups (WG): acute pancreatitis (AP) WG, recurrent AP WG, and chronic pancreatitis WG. This article reports the outcome of the work accomplished by the AP WG to provide the natural history, epidemiology, and current management of AP; inform about the role of preclinical models in therapy selection; and discuss clinical trial designs with clinical and patient-reported outcomes to test new therapies.

The lack of effective therapeutic agents specifically tailored for chronic pancreatitis has hampered clinical care and negatively impacted patients’ lives. New mechanistic insights now point to novel therapies, which involve both recently developed and/or repurposed agents. This working group focused on two main outcomes for chronic pancreatitis: pain and progression of disease. The goal is to frame the essential aspects of trial design including patient-centered outcomes, proposed methods to measure the outcomes of pain and progression, and study design considerations for future trials to facilitate rapid drug development for patients with chronic pancreatitis.

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.

We characterized the location and spatial distribution of whole body pain in patients with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome using a body map. We also compared the severity of urinary symptoms, pelvic pain, nonpelvic pain and psychosocial health among patients with different pain patterns.A total of 233 women and 191 men with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome enrolled in a multicenter, 1-year observational study completed a battery of baseline measures, including a body map describing the location of pain during the last week. Participants were categorized with pelvic pain if they reported pain in the abdomen and pelvis only. Participants who reported pain beyond the pelvis were further divided into 2 subgroups based on the number of broader body regions affected by pain, including an intermediate group with 1 or 2 additional regions outside the pelvis and a widespread pain group with 3 to 7 additional regions.Of the 424 enrolled patients 25% reported pelvic pain only and 75% reported pain beyond the pelvis, of whom 38% reported widespread pain. Participants with a greater number of pain locations had greater nonpelvic pain severity (p0.0001), sleep disturbance (p = 0.035), depression (p = 0.005), anxiety (p = 0.011), psychological stress (p = 0.005) and negative affect scores (p = 0.0004), and worse quality of life (p ≤0.021). No difference in pelvic pain and urinary symptom severity was observed according to increasing pain distribution.Three-quarters of the men and women with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome reported pain outside the pelvis. Widespread pain was associated with greater severity of nonpelvic pain symptoms, poorer psychosocial health and worse quality of life but not with worse pelvic pain or urinary symptoms.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:To advance precision medicine approaches in UCPPS, homogeneous, reproducible subgroups of patients need to be identified. We performed consensus clustering (CC) using mul...

Objectives: To determine whether patients with neurogenic claudication associated with lumbar spinal stenosis would prefer a treatment that makes it possible for them to walk farther or walk with less pain; to examine associations between this treatment preference and patient-reported and in-clinic treadmill testing measures of walking ability and walking-associated pain. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 269 patients with neurogenic claudication were asked to report their pain intensity when walking, complete the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, rank their outcome preferences for treatment, and undergo standardized treadmill testing, including measures of final pain rating and time to first pain of moderate intensity (T first ). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient preferences for treatment outcome. Associations between self-report questionnaires and standardized treadmill testing outcomes were evaluated using Spearman correlations. Results: Seventy-nine percent of patients expressed a preference for treatment that allowed them to walk with less pain. Preference for reduced pain was associated with higher pain during daily walking, along with a shorter T first and higher final pain severity on treadmill testing. In contrast, patient preference for treatment outcome was not associated with self-reported measures of daily walking capacity or walking distance on the treadmill. Conclusions: A majority of patients with neurogenic claudication prioritized walking with reduced pain over walking farther. Reduction in pain while walking may therefore constitute a sufficient patient-focused treatment outcome for the majority of these patients. These results have implications for clinical trial design and assessment of treatment efficacy in neurogenic claudication.

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.

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.

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.

The objective of the present research was to develop a single measure of the major symptoms of both neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain that can be used in studies of epidemiology, natural history, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and treatment response. We expanded and revised the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) pain descriptors by adding symptoms relevant to neuropathic pain and by modifying the response format to a 0-10 numerical rating scale to provide increased responsiveness in longitudinal studies and clinical trials. The reliability, validity, and subscale structure of the revised SF-MPQ (SF-MPQ-2) were examined in responses from 882 individuals with diverse chronic pain syndromes and in 226 patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy who participated in a randomized clinical trial. The data suggest that the SF-MPQ-2 has excellent reliability and validity, and the results of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provided support for four readily interpretable subscales-continuous pain, intermittent pain, predominantly neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors. These results provide a basis for use of the SF-MPQ-2 in future clinical research, including clinical trials of treatments for neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions.

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

This two-phase study was conducted to identify relevant domains of patient-reported outcomes from the perspective of people who experience chronic pain. In Phase 1, focus groups were conducted to generate a pool of patient outcome-related domains and their components. The results of the focus groups identified 19 aspects of their lives that were significantly impacted by the presence of their symptoms and for which improvements were important criteria they would use in evaluating the effectiveness of any treatment. Phase 2 was conducted to examine the importance and relevance of domains identified from a much larger and diverse sample of people with chronic pain. A survey was developed and posted on the American Chronic Pain Association website. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each item or domain identified by the focus groups on a scale of 0 to10 (i.e., 0="not at all important" and 10="extremely important"). The survey was completed by 959 individuals. The results indicate that all 19 aspects of daily life derived from the focus groups were considered important with a majority of respondents indicating a score of 8 or greater. In addition to pain reduction, the most important aspects were enjoyment of life, emotional well-being, fatigue, weakness, and sleep-related problems. Chronic pain clearly impacts health-related quality of life. The results of the two phases of the study indicate that people with chronic pain consider functioning and well-being as important areas affected by the presence of symptoms and as appropriate targets of treatment. These multiple outcomes should be considered when evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments.

a University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA b University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA c United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA d Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA e Johnson and Johnson, Raritan, NY, USA f AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA g University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA h Merck and Company, Blue Bell, PA, USA i University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, USA j American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA k Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA, USA l National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Bethesda, MD, USA m University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA n Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA o University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada p Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, USA q VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA r Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA s Celgene Corporation, Warren, NJ, USA t Pfizer Global Research and Development, Ann Arbor, MI, USA u Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada v London Regional Cancer Centre, London, Ont., Canada

Children are often excluded from making decisions related to their medical treatment, and parents' proxy reports are often used. This approach fails to consider that parents and children may differ in their perception of the child's health. In this study, we assessed children's decision-making processes related to postoperative pain management. Forty-five children who underwent an anterior cruciate ligament repair or Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum repair were studied. A standard gamble technique was used to assess children's perceptions of the utility of a hypothetical treatment that would provide them with perfect pain control, with respect to different rates of risk for vomiting during the postoperative period. The maximum risk of vomiting that the overall study population was willing to accept to decrease the pain level to zero was 32% +/- 24%. Girls were willing to take a significantly higher risk (41% +/- 24%) compared to boys (25% +/- 22%) (P = 0.02). Children who actually experienced vomiting before they were questioned were willing to take a higher risk (46% +/- 26%) compared to those who did not (23% +/- 17%) (P = 0.035). Children can express opinions about preferred postoperative outcomes and provide useful input about their care. Girls, more than boys, seem to perceive vomiting as less important than improved pain control in the postoperative period.

To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment.Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain.There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.

Pain intensity is frequently measured on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain. However, it is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of changes from baseline on this scale (such as a 1- or 2-point change). To date, there are no data driven estimates for clinically important differences in pain intensity scales used for chronic pain studies. We have estimated a clinically important difference on this scale by relating it to global assessments of change in multiple studies of chronic pain. Data on 2724 subjects from 10 recently completed placebo-controlled clinical trials of pregabalin in diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were used. The studies had similar designs and measurement instruments, including the PI-NRS, collected in a daily diary, and the standard seven-point patient global impression of change (PGIC), collected at the endpoint. The changes in the PI-NRS from baseline to the endpoint were compared to the PGIC for each subject. Categories of "much improved" and "very much improved" were used as determinants of a clinically important difference and the relationship to the PI-NRS was explored using graphs, box plots, and sensitivity/specificity analyses. A consistent relationship between the change in PI-NRS and the PGIC was demonstrated regardless of study, disease type, age, sex, study result, or treatment group. On average, a reduction of approximately two points or a reduction of approximately 30% in the PI-NRS represented a clinically important difference. The relationship between percent change and the PGIC was also consistent regardless of baseline pain, while higher baseline scores required larger raw changes to represent a clinically important difference. The application of these results to future studies may provide a standard definition of clinically important improvement in clinical trials of chronic pain therapies. Use of a standard outcome across chronic pain studies would greatly enhance the comparability, validity, and clinical applicability of these studies.

The goal of this analysis is a better understanding of the issues involved in establishing the amount of change in pain that must be reported by subjects, participating in clinical trials and using standard pain scales, to indicate a clinically important difference.A review of the literature and a discussion of relevant concepts are presented. The focus is on outcome measures of pain commonly used in the studies described, including pain intensity, pain relief, global assessment of the medication effect, and requirement for an extra dose of rescue medication to treat a pain episode. The standard analysis statistics used to summarize the data are the central tendency of the groups being compared (i.e., mean, median, or mode), and the proportion of subjects that achieve one or more specific levels of benefit.The analysis of the proportion of responders in the groups being compared allows for a more easily understandable clinical importance of the results.An analysis of the proportion of responders is a clinically relevant analysis for many pain clinical trials and should be presented for one or more levels of response as appropriate. This will allow the readers to more easily interpret the results and apply them to clinical practice.

Purpose: Chronic abacterial prostatitis is a syndrome characterized by pelvic pain and voiding symptoms, which is poorly defined, poorly understood, poorly treated and bothersome. Research and clinical efforts to help men with this syndrome have been hampered by the absence of a widely accepted, reliable and valid instrument to measure symptoms and quality of life impact. We developed a psychometrically valid index of symptoms and quality of life impact for men with chronic prostatitis.Materials and Methods: We conducted a structured literature review of previous work to provide a foundation for the new instrument. We then conducted a series of focus groups comprising chronic prostatitis patients at 4 centers in North America, in which we identified the most important symptoms and effects of the condition. The results were used to create an initial draft of 55 questions that were used for formal cognitive testing on chronic prostatitis patients at the same centers. After expert panel review formal...

The science of conducting randomized clinical trials to investigate treatments for pain began with landmark studies in the 1950s and 1960s by Henry Beecher, Raymond Houde, Louis Lasagna, Abraham Sunshine, and Stanley Wallenstein. These studies focused on acute pain, and not until the 1980s did the attention of the field turn to treatments for chronic pain. The end of the field’s infancy was marked by the publication in 1991 of “The design of analgesic clinical trials ,” a volume that comprehensively reviewed methods for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic medications for treatment of different types of acute and chronic pain.1 Although clearly related, acute and chronic pain are distinct phenomena. Chronic pain has been defined as pain that persists beyond the normal time of healing,2 but pain can also …