Search

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.)

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.

Persistent pain after lumbar surgery (failed back surgery syndrome [FBSS]) remains a leading indication for chronic analgesia. However, no analgesics have proven efficacious for this condition. Although trials have evaluated gabapentinoids for chronic low back pain, none of these trials focused solely on FBSS. This randomized, double-blind cross-over trial evaluated the efficacy of gabapentin (1800 mg/day) for FBSS. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of FBBS, an average daily pain score of at least 4 of 10, a neuropathic pain component (indicated by the PainDetect), and reported at least half of their pain radiating in their lower extremity. Participants were randomized to 2, 7-week study periods separated by a 10-day washout. The primary outcome measure was a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS) of average pain. Secondary measures included the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Patient Global Impression of Change. The treatment effect was analyzed using a mixed effect analysis of covariance with fixed effects for treatment, period, and baseline 7-day mean NRS pain score and a random effect for the participant. The outcome of the model was the mean 7-day NRS score for the last 7 days of each treatment period. Thirty-two participants were randomized and included in the primary analysis; 25 completed both study periods. No difference was detected between treatments on any outcome measure, including the primary (least square mean difference in NRS: -0.01 confidence interval: [-0.22 to 0.20]). Given the escalating rate of complex lumbar surgery, future research to develop novel therapies for this prevalent syndrome is needed.

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.

Objectives: This analysis compared the therapeutic response of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) who had been previously treated with gabapentin to the therapeutic response in patients who had not received gabapentin previously., Methods: Data were pooled from 18 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin in patients with NeP. Pregabalin-mediated changes in pain and pain-related sleep interference scores, patient global impression of change scores at endpoint, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between patients who had received gabapentin previously (+GBN) and patients who had not received gabapentin previously (-GBN)., Results: There were no significant differences between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts with regard to the extent of pain relief and relief of pain-related sleep interference for any dose of pregabalin (150, 300, 600, or 150 to 600 mg/day) at any time point (6, 8, or 12 weeks). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the distribution of patient global impression of change scores at study endpoint, or the occurrence of adverse events, between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts., Discussion: The findings presented here support the idea that pregabalin may be used successfully to treat patients with NeP who may be refractory, respond inadequately, or are intolerant to gabapentin. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring treatment of NeP based on individual patient response to different treatments, including the trial of multiple agents within the same mechanistic class., (© 2016 World Institute of Pain.)

Barriers to clinical trial recruitment can delay study completion, potentially resulting in increased costs and an unrepresentative sample. In the current study of 150 participants with chronic pain, we used a computerized adaptive choice-based conjoint survey that included 8 characteristics that may affect enrollment in pharmacologic pain treatment trials (ie, treatment allocation, frequency of pain ratings, treatment administration method, current medications, number of study visits, availability of evening and weekend visits, invasiveness of laboratory procedures, payment). These data were analyzed using Sawtooth Software ver. 8.4.8 (Sawtooth Software, Inc, Orem, UT), which identifies the characteristics that dominate participants' decisions across multiple sets of potential trials. Three characteristics had the largest relative importance in participants' trial preferences: 1) invasiveness of required laboratory procedures (ie, 22%), with no procedures or blood tests preferred over ice-water sensory testing or skin biopsy; 2) ability to continue current pain medications (21%); and 3) payment for study participation (21%), with higher payment preferred. The fourth most important characteristic was number of study visits (13%), with participants preferring fewer in-person visits and more phone contacts. Understanding the preferences of potential participants is an important step toward enhancing enrollment in pain treatment trials., Perspective: This article presents the preferences of individuals with chronic pain conditions regarding modifiable pain treatment trial characteristics (eg, number of study visits, payment, treatment allocation). These findings may help to improve enrollment into analgesic clinical trials and in turn accelerate the development of new pain treatments., (Copyright © 2016 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for "precision medicine" or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Objectives: To test the effects of pregabalin on the induction of neurogenic claudication., Methods: This study was a randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled, 2-period, crossover trial. Twenty-nine subjects were randomized to receive pregabalin followed by active placebo (i.e., diphenhydramine) or active placebo followed by pregabalin. Each treatment period lasted 10 days, including a 2-step titration. Periods were separated by a 10-day washout period, including a 3-day taper phase after the first period. The primary outcome variable was the time to first moderate pain symptom (Numeric Rating Scale score ≥4) during a 15-minute treadmill test (Tfirst). Secondary outcome measures included pain intensity at rest, pain intensity at the end of the treadmill test, distance walked, and validated self-report measures of pain and functional limitation including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, Oswestry Disability Index, and Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire., Results: No significant difference was found between pregabalin and active placebo for the time to first moderate pain symptom (difference in median Tfirst = -1.08 [95% confidence interval -2.25 to 0.08], p = 0.61). In addition, none of the secondary outcome measures of pain or functional limitation were significantly improved by pregabalin compared with active placebo., Conclusions: Pregabalin was not more effective than active placebo in reducing painful symptoms or functional limitations in patients with neurogenic claudication associated with lumbar spinal stenosis., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with neurogenic claudication, compared with diphenhydramine, pregabalin does not increase the time to moderate pain during a treadmill test., (© 2014 American Academy of Neurology.)

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., (Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.)