Adverse event assessment, analysis, and reporting in recent published analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Opioid consumption and non-opioid multimodal analgesic treatment in pain management trials after hip and knee arthroplasties: A meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

The leading principle in peri-operative pain management is multimodal analgesia, which reduces opioid requirements and associated adverse effects. Pragmatic pain trials should optimally test interventions in addition to multimodal non-opioid analgesics and interventions to ensure clinical relevance and baseline levels of opioid consumption that reflect clinical settings. We aimed to investigate opioid consumption and use of non-opioid analgesics administered adjunct to interventions in post-operative pain trials after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted 7 January 2020 in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, and EMBASE. Trials investigating analgesic interventions for post-operative pain in adults undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The primary outcome was the aggregated median 0-24 h post-operative opioid consumption. Further, we assessed the use of paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, high-dose glucocorticoids, local infiltration analgesia and nerve blocks administered as co-interventions equally to all participants. We assessed trends over time for all outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 14,200 records, 570 trials were included. Median 0-24 h opioid consumption was 21 and 22 mg iv morphine equivalents in hip and knee arthroplasty trials, respectively. Meta-regression showed no overall linear correlation between opioid consumption and publication year. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia increased over time, though only 48% of trials published from 2010 to 2020 administered two or more non-opioid analgesics. Applying more non-opioid analgesics was associated with lower opioid consumption in intervention groups.

CONCLUSION

Post-operative 0-24 h morphine consumption was median 21-22 mg. The demonstrated differences in non-opioid multimodal analgesic regimens between research and clinical settings, can potentially diminish the demonstrated opioid-sparing effects of trial interventions when such are implemented in a clinical context.

Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives

Probiotics are used for both generally healthy consumers and in clinical settings. However, theoretical and proven adverse events from probiotic consumption exist. New probiotic strains and products, as well as expanding use of probiotics into vulnerable populations, warrants concise, and actionable recommendations on how to work toward their safe and effective use. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics convened a meeting to discuss and produce evidence-based recommendations on potential acute and long-term risks, risks to vulnerable populations, the importance for probiotic product quality to match the needs of vulnerable populations, and the need for adverse event reporting related to probiotic use. The importance of whole genome sequencing, which enables determination of virulence, toxin, and antibiotic resistance genes, as well as clear assignment of species and strain identity, is emphasized. We present recommendations to guide the scientific and medical community on judging probiotic safety.

An analysis of harms reporting in systematic reviews regarding ketorolac for management of perioperative pain

BACKGROUND

Owing to the frequent perioperative use of ketorolac tromethamine and its ability to minimise postoperative opioid requirements, it is important to continually reassess harms associated with its use. Our primary objective was to investigate the extent of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on ketorolac for perioperative pain.

METHODS

In May 2022, we conducted a search of major databases, MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs on ketorolac for perioperative pain. Screening and data extraction were performed in masked, duplicate fashion. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to appraise the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to determine overlap of primary studies between SR dyads.

RESULTS

A total of 28 SRs evaluating 630 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven SRs (7/28, 25%) reported no harms and 17 SRs (17/28, 60.7%) reported ≤50% of harms items. A significant association was found between completeness of harms reporting and whether harms were specified as a primary outcome (P<0.001). No other associations were statistically significant. Regarding methodological quality, 22 SRs were appraised as 'critically low' (22/28, 78.6%), 5 as 'low' (5/28, 17.9%), and 1 as 'high' (1/28, 3.6%). One SR dyad had a CCA >50% but neither reported harms.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of harms reporting in systematic reviews was inadequate. Given the importance that systematic reviews have on guiding perioperative decision-making, it is essential to improve the completeness of harms reporting.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

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.

The Adverse Event Unit (AEU): A novel metric to measure the burden of treatment adverse events

Objective

To design a physician and patient derived tool, the Adverse Event Unit (AEU), akin to currency (e.g. U.S. Dollar), to improve AE burden measurement independent of any particular disease or medication class.

Patients/Methods

A Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) online survey was administered to United States physicians with board certification or board eligibility in general neurology, subspecialty neurology, primary care internal medicine or family medicine, subspecialty internal medicine, general pediatrics, and subspecialty pediatrics. Physicians assigned value to 73 AE categories chosen from the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE) relevant to neurologic disorder treatments. An online forced choice survey was administered to non-physician, potential patients, through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurK) to weight the severity of the same AE categories. Physician and non-physician data was combined to assign value to the AEU. Surveys completed between 1/2017 and 3/2019.

Results

363 physicians rated the 73 AE categories derived from CTCAE. 660 non-physicians completed forced choice experiments comparing AEs. The AEU provides 0–10, weighted values for the AE categories studied that differ from the ordinal 1–4 CTCAE scale. For example, CTCAE severe diabetes (category 4) is assigned an AEU score of 9. Although non-physician input changed physician assigned AEU values, there was general agreement among physicians and non-physicians about severity of AEs.

Conclusion

The AEU has promise to be a useful, practical tool to add precision to AE burden measurement in the clinic and in comparative efficacy research with neurology patients. AEU utility will be assessed in planned comparative efficacy clinical trials.

Study protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III trial examining the add-on efficacy, cost-utility and neurobiological effects of low-dose naltrexone (LDN) in patients with fibromyalgia (INNOVA study)

INTRODUCTION

There is evidence that low-dose naltrexone (LDN; <5.0 mg/day) reduces pain and improves the quality of life of people with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). However, no randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-ups have been carried out. The INNOVA study will evaluate the add-on efficacy, safety, cost-utility and neurobiological effects of LDN for reducing pain in patients with FMS, with a 1-year follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A single-site, prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel design phase III trial will be performed. Eligibility criteria include being adult, having a diagnosis of FMS and experiencing pain of 4 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants will be randomised to a LDN intervention group (4.5 mg/day) or to a placebo control group. Clinical assessments will be performed at baseline (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2) and 12 months (T3). The primary endpoint will be pain intensity. A sample size of 60 patients per study arm (120 in total), as calculated prior to recruitment for sufficient power, will be monitored between January 2022 and August 2024. Assessment will also include daily ecological momentary evaluations of FMS-related symptoms (eg, pain intensity, fatigue and sleep disturbance), and side effects via ecological momentary assessment through the Pain Monitor app during the first 3 months. Costs and quality-adjusted life years will be also calculated. Half of the participants in each arm will be scanned with MRI at T0 and T1 for changes in brain metabolites related to neuroinflammation and central sensitisation. Inflammatory biomarkers in serum will also be measured.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Fundació Sant Joan de Déu. The results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, social media and community engagement activities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04739995.

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations

ABSTRACT

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine for pain management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

ABSTRACT

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of <7 and >7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis <7 days (risk difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.46; 2 trials, 231 patients, very low-quality evidence) and nabiximols >7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.

Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Chronic Pain after Surgery in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic postsurgical pain can severely impair patient health and quality of life. This systematic review update evaluated the effectiveness of systemic drugs to prevent chronic postsurgical pain.

METHODS

The authors included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials including adults that evaluated perioperative systemic drugs. Studies that evaluated same drug(s) administered similarly were pooled. The primary outcome was the proportion reporting any pain at 3 or more months postsurgery.

RESULTS

The authors identified 70 new studies and 40 from 2013. Most evaluated ketamine, pregabalin, gabapentin, IV lidocaine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids. Some meta-analyses showed statistically significant-but of unclear clinical relevance-reductions in chronic postsurgical pain prevalence after treatment with pregabalin, IV lidocaine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meta-analyses with more than three studies and more than 500 participants showed no effect of ketamine on prevalence of any pain at 6 months when administered for 24 h or less (risk ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.07]; prevalence, 0 to 88% ketamine; 0 to 94% placebo) or more than 24 h (risk ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.12]; 6 to 71% ketamine; 5 to 78% placebo), no effect of pregabalin on prevalence of any pain at 3 months (risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10]; 4 to 88% pregabalin; 3 to 80% placebo) or 6 months (risk ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.28]; 6 to 68% pregabalin; 4 to 69% placebo) when administered more than 24 h, and an effect of pregabalin on prevalence of moderate/severe pain at 3 months when administered more than 24 h (risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.68]; 0 to 20% pregabalin; 4 to 34% placebo). However, the results should be interpreted with caution given small study sizes, variable surgical types, dosages, timing and method of outcome measurements in relation to the acute pain trajectory in question, and preoperative pain status.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite agreement that chronic postsurgical pain is an important topic, extremely little progress has been made since 2013, likely due to study designs being insufficient to address the complexities of this multifactorial problem.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Clinical outcome assessment in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) measure outcomes that are meaningful to patients in clinical trials and are critical for determining whether a treatment is effective. The objectives of this study are to (1) describe the different types of COAs and provide an overview of key considerations for evaluating COAs, (2) review COAs and other outcome measures for chronic pain treatments that are recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) or other expert groups, and (3) review advances in understanding pain-related COAs that are relevant to clinical trials. The authors reviewed relevant articles, chapters, and guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency and U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since the original core set of outcome measures were recommended by IMMPACT 14 years ago, several new advancements and publications relevant to the measurement or interpretation of COAs for chronic pain trials have emerged, presenting new research opportunities. Despite progress in the quality of measurement of several outcome domains for clinical trials of chronic pain, there remain some measurement challenges that require further methodological investigation.

Essential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments

This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations

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.

Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry

OBJECTIVES

To gain a better understanding of current adverse event (AE) analysis practices and the reasons for the lack of use of sophisticated statistical methods for AE data analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with the aim of identifying priorities and solutions to improve practice.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional, online survey of statisticians working in clinical trials, followed up with a workshop of senior statisticians working across the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

We aimed to recruit into the survey a minimum of one statistician from each of the 51 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trial units (CTUs) and industry statisticians from both pharmaceuticals and clinical research organisations.

OUTCOMES

To gain a better understanding of current AE analysis practices, measure awareness of specialist methods for AE analysis and explore priorities, concerns and barriers when analysing AEs.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (38/51; 75%) CTUs, 5 (5/7; 71%) industry and 21 attendees at the 2019 Promoting Statistical Insights Conference participated in the survey. Of the 64 participants that took part, 46 participants were classified as public sector participants and 18 as industry participants. Participants indicated that they predominantly (80%) rely on subjective comparisons when comparing AEs between treatment groups. Thirty-eight per cent were aware of specialist methods for AE analysis, but only 13% had undertaken such analyses. All participants believed guidance on appropriate AE analysis and 97% thought training specifically for AE analysis is needed. These were both endorsed as solutions by workshop participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This research supports our earlier work that identified suboptimal AE analysis practices in RCTs and confirms the underuse of more sophisticated AE analysis approaches. Improvements are needed, and further research in this area is required to identify appropriate statistical methods. This research provides a unanimous call for the development of guidance, as well as training on suitable methods for AE analysis to support change.

A systematic review of pain outcomes reported by randomised trials of hip and knee arthroplasty

It is difficult to pool results from randomised clinical trials that report different outcomes. We want to develop a core set of pain-related outcomes after total hip or knee arthroplasty, the first stage of which is to systematically review published outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for relevant trials to January 2020. We identified 165 outcomes from 565 trials with 50,668 participants, which we categorised into six domains: pain; analgesic consumption; quality of care; adverse events; mobility; and patient-reported outcome measures. The outcome in each domain reported by most trials was: visual analogue score for pain, 401 (71%); morphine consumption, 212 (38%); length of hospital stay, 166 (29%); nausea or vomiting, 425 (75%); range of motion, 173 (31%); and patient satisfaction score, 181 (32%). A primary outcome was reported in 281 (50%) trials: 101 (18%) trials reported consumption of rescue analgesics and 95 (17%) trials reported pain. We plan to publish a consensus on outcomes that should be reported in postoperative pain trials after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Current Status and Future Directions of Pain-Related Outcome Measures for Post-Surgical Pain Trials

Background: Clinical trials remain vital in order to: A) develop new treatment interventions, and also, B) to guide optimal use of current interventions for the treatment and prevention of acute and chronic postsurgical pain. Measures of pain (e.g. intensity and relief) and opioid use have been validated for the settings of postsurgical pain and continue to effectively guide research in this field..

Methods: This narrative review considers needs for innovation in postsurgical pain trial outcomes assessment.

Results: Future improvements are needed and include: A) more widespread measurement of movement-evoked pain with validation of various procedure-relevant movemen-tevoked pain maneuvers; B) new validated analytical approaches to integrate early postoperative pain scores with opioid use; and, C) closer attention to the measurement of postoperative opioid use after hospital discharge. In addition to these traditional measures, consideration is being given to the use of new pain-relevant outcome domains that include: 1) other symptoms (e.g. nausea and vomiting), 2) recovery of physiological function (e.g. respiratory, gastrointestinal, genitourinary and musculoskeletal), 3) emotional function (e.g. depression, anxiety) and, 4) development of chronic postsurgical pain. Also, there is a need to develop pain-related domains and measures for evaluating both acute and chronic post-operative pain. Finally, evidence suggests that further needs for improvements in safety assessment and reporting in postsurgical pain trials is needed, e.g. by using an agreed upon, standardized collection of outcomes that will be reported as a minimum in all postsurgical pain trials.

Conclusions: These proposed advances in outcome measurement methodology are expected to improve the success by which postsurgical pain trials guide improvements in clinical care and patient outcomes.

Checklist for the preparation and review of pain clinical trial publications: a pain-specific supplement to CONSORT

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard when assessing the efficacy of interventions because randomization of treatment assignment minimizes bias in treatment effect estimates. However, if RCTs are not performed with methodological rigor, many opportunities for bias in treatment effect estimates remain. Clear and transparent reporting of RCTs is essential to allow the reader to consider the opportunities for bias when critically evaluating the results. To promote such transparent reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group has published a series of recommendations starting in 1996. However, a decade after the publication of the first CONSORT guidelines, systematic reviews of clinical trials in the pain field identified a number of common deficiencies in reporting (e.g., failure to identify primary outcome measures and analyses, indicate clearly the numbers of participants who completed the trial and were included in the analyses, or report harms adequately).

METHODS

Qualitative review of a diverse set of published recommendations and systematic reviews that addressed the reporting of clinical trials, including those related to all therapeutic indications (e.g., CONSORT) and those specific to pain clinical trials.

RESULTS

A checklist designed to supplement the content covered in the CONSORT checklist with added details relating to challenges specific to pain trials or found to be poorly reported in recent pain trials was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors and reviewers of analgesic RCTs should consult the CONSORT guidelines and this checklist to ensure that the issues most pertinent to pain RCTs are reported with transparency.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

BACKGROUND

There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses.

METHODS

Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs.

RESULTS

These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome.

DESIGN

A review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016.

METHODS

A prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data.

RESULTS

We identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.

Adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Guidelines for Reporting Safety Outcomes in Trials of Cannabinoids for Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Background

Chronic pain affects a significant proportion of the population and presents a major challenge to clinicians and pain specialists. Despite the availability of pharmacologic treatment options such as opioids, many patients continue to experience persistent pain. Cannabinoids present an alternative option with some data on efficacy; however, to date, a systematic review of adverse events (AEs) assessment and reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving cannabinoids has not been performed. As a result, it is unclear whether a clear profile of cannabinoid-associated AEs has been accurately detailed in the literature. As cannabinoids are likely to become readily available for patients in the near future, it is important to study how well AEs have been reported in trials so that the safety profile of cannabinoids can be better understood.

Objective

With a potentially enormous shift toward cannabinoid use for managing chronic pain and spasticity, this study aims to reveal the adequacy of AE reporting and cannabinoid-specific AEs in this setting. Spasticity is a major contributor to chronic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), with a comorbidity of 75%. Many cannabinoid studies have been performed in MS-related painful spasticity with relevant pain outcomes, and these studies will be included in this review for comprehensiveness. The primary outcome will be the quality of AE assessment and reporting by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Secondary outcomes will include the type of AE, method of AE reporting, severity of AE, frequency of AEs, patient withdrawals, and reasons for withdrawals.

Methods

We will perform a systematic review by searching for primary reports of double-blind, randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo and any active comparator treatments for chronic pain, with a primary outcome directly related to pain (eg, pain intensity, pain relief, and pain-related interference). We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO. RevMan software will be used for meta-analysis.

Results

The protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018100401). The project was funded in 2018 and screening has been completed. Data extraction is under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in January or February 2019.

Conclusions

This review will better elucidate the safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity through identifying gaps in the literature for AE reporting. Like in any new therapy, it is essential that accurate information surrounding the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids be clearly outlined and identified to balance the benefit and harm described for patients.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42018100401; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=100401

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/11637

Design and Reporting Characteristics of Clinical Trials of Select Chronic and Recurrent Pediatric Pain Conditions: An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks Systematic Review

Fewer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are conducted for chronic or recurrent pain in pediatric populations compared with adult populations; thus, data to support treatment efficacy in children are limited. This article evaluates the design features and reporting practices of RCTs for chronic and recurrent pain that are likely unique to, or particularly important in, a pediatric population to promote improvements in the evidence base for pediatric pain treatments. Areas covered include outcome measure selection and reporting and reporting of adverse events and challenges to recruitment and retention. A search of PubMed and EMBASE identified primary publications describing RCTs of treatments for select chronic and recurrent pain conditions in children or adolescents published between 2000 and 2017. Only 49% of articles identified a primary outcome measure. The primary outcome measure assessed pain intensity in 38% of the trials, specifically measure by verbal rating scale (13%), faces pain scale (11%), visual analogue scale (9%), or numeric rating scale (5%). All of the CONSORT harms reporting recommendations were fulfilled by <50% of the articles. Discussions of recruitment challenges occurred in 64% of articles that enrolled <90% of their target sample. However, discussions regarding retention challenges only occurred in 14% of trials in which withdrawal rates were >10%. The goal of this article is to promote comprehensive reporting of pediatric pain RCTs to improve the design of future trials, facilitate conduction of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and better inform clinical practice. PERSPECTIVE: This review of chronic and recurrent pediatric pain trials demonstrates inadequacies in the reporting quality of key features specifically important to pediatric populations. It provides recommendations that address these shortcomings to promote continued efforts toward improving the quality of the design and publication of future pediatric clinical pain trials.

Current methods and challenges for acute pain clinical trials

This article reviews current methods and challenges and provides recommendations for future design and conduct of clinical trials of interventions to treat acute pain.

Introduction:

The clinical setting of acute pain has provided some of the first approaches for the development of analgesic clinical trial methods.

Objectives:

This article reviews current methods and challenges and provides recommendations for future design and conduct of clinical trials of interventions to treat acute pain.

Conclusion:

Growing knowledge about important diverse patient factors as well as varying pain responses to different acute pain conditions and surgical procedures has highlighted several emerging needs for acute pain trials. These include development of early-phase trial designs that minimize variability and thereby enhance assay sensitivity, minimization of bias through blinding and randomization to treatment allocation, and measurement of clinically relevant outcomes such as movement-evoked pain. However, further improvements are needed, in particular for the development of trial methods that focus on treating complex patients at high risk of severe acute pain.

Clinical trial designs and models for analgesic medications for acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents: ACTTION recommendations

Clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of analgesics across all pediatric age cohorts are needed to avoid inappropriate extrapolation of adult data to children. However, the selection of acute pain models and trial design attributes to maximize assay sensitivity, by pediatric age cohort, remains problematic. Acute pain models used for drug treatment trials in adults are not directly applicable to the pediatric age cohorts-neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents. Developmental maturation of metabolic enzymes in infants and children must be taken into consideration when designing trials to test analgesic treatments for acute pain. Assessment tools based on the levels of cognitive maturation and behavioral repertoire must be selected as outcome measures. Models and designs of clinical trials of analgesic medications used in the treatment of acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents were reviewed and discussed at an Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) Pediatric Pain Research Consortium consensus meeting. Based on extensive reviews and continuing discussions, the authors recommend a number of acute pain clinical trial models and design attributes that have the potential to improve the study of analgesic medications in pediatric populations. Recommendations are also provided regarding additional research needed to support the use of other acute pain models across pediatric age cohorts.

Post-marketing withdrawal of analgesic medications because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Many analgesics have been withdrawn from the market because of adverse drug reactions. Controversy still surrounds the use of some approved analgesics for pain management. However, the trends and reasons for withdrawal of analgesics when harms are attributed to their use have not been systematically assessed. .

AREAS COVERED

We conducted searches in PubMed; Embase; Google Scholar; clinicaltrials.gov; WHO databases of withdrawn products; websites of the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs; Stephens' Detection of New Adverse Drug Reactions; the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Encyclopedia; and the Merck Index. We included licensed analgesics that were withdrawn after marketing because of adverse reactions between 1950 and March 2017. We excluded herbal products, non-human medicines, and non-prescription medicines. We used the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria to document the levels of evidence, and chi-squared tests to compare withdrawal patterns across geographical regions.

EXPERT OPINION

Pharmacovigilance systems in low-resource settings should be strengthened. Greater co-ordination across regulatory authorities in assessing and interpreting the benefit-harm balance of new analgesics should be encouraged. Future reporting of harms in clinical trials of analgesics should follow standardized guidelines.

Reporting of adverse events and statistical details of efficacy estimates in randomized clinical trials of pain in temporomandibular disorders: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review

BACKGROUND

Statistical methods and adverse events (that is, harms) data affect the accuracy of conclusions about the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). The authors reviewed the quality of reporting in TMD clinical trials to highlight practices that are in need of improvement.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included articles published between 1969 and May 31, 2013, in which the investigators reported randomized clinical trials of TMD treatments with pain as a principal outcome variable. Investigators in trials of nonpharmacologic and noninvasive treatments were required to at least mask the participants and assessors; all others were required to be double masked.

RESULTS

Ninety articles qualified for this review: 39 published between 1971 and 2005 (older articles) and 51 published between 2006 and 2013 (newer articles). Specification of primary outcome analyses, methods to accommodate missing data, and adverse event collection methods and rates were generally poor. In some cases, there was apparent improvement from the older to the newer cohort; however, reporting of these methodological details remained inadequate even in the newer articles.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This review is designed to alert authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of TMD clinical trials to these issues and improve reporting quality in the future.

Hyaluronic acid injection therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: concordant efficacy and conflicting serious adverse events in two systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA)/degenerative joint disease (DJD) is increasing in the USA. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections report conflicting evidence about the balance of benefits and harms. We review evidence on efficacy and AEs of intraarticular viscosupplementation with HA in older individuals with knee osteoarthritis and account for differences in these conclusions from another systematic review.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and eight other databases and gray literature sources from 1990 to December 12, 2014. Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional outcomes or quality-of-life; RCTs and observational studies on delay/avoidance of arthroplasty; RCTs, case reports, and large cohort studies and case series assessing safety; and systematic reviews reporting on knee pain were considered for inclusion. A standardized, pre-defined protocol was applied by two independent reviewers to screen titles and abstracts, review full text, and extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality. We compared our results with those of a prior systematic review and found them to be discrepant; our analysis of why this discrepancy occurred is the focus of this manuscript.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs reported functional outcomes: pooled analysis of ten placebo-controlled, blinded trials showed a standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to -0.01) favoring HA at 6 months. Studies reported few serious adverse events (SAEs) and no significant differences in non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) (relative risk (RR) [95 % CI] 1.03 [0.93-1.15] or SAEs (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [0.78-2.47]). A recent prior systematic review reported similar functional outcomes, but significant SAE risk. Differences in SAE inclusion and synthesis accounted for the disparate conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials show a small but significant effect of HA on function on which recent systematic reviews agree, but lack of AE synthesis standardization leads to opposite conclusions about the balance of benefits and harms. A limitation of the re-analysis of the prior systematic review is that it required imputation of missing data.

Acupuncture for the treatment of phantom limb syndrome in lower limb amputees: a randomised controlled feasibility study

Background

Post amputation, the complication of phantom limb pain (PLP) is prevalent and difficult to manage. This study aimed to determine whether it was feasible and acceptable to undertake a definitive multicentred randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating lower limb amputees with PLP.

Methods

A mixed-methods embedded design, including a randomised controlled trial and semistructured interviews, was undertaken. A total of 15 participants with PLP were randomly assigned to receive either eight pragmatic Traditional Chinese Medicine acupuncture treatments and usual care or usual care alone over 4 weeks. Outcome measures were completed at baseline, weekly throughout the study and at 1 month post completion of the study and included: a numerical pain-rating scale, the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2, the EQ-5D-5 L, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Perceived Stress Scale 10-item, the Insomnia Severity Index, and the Patient Global Impression of Change. Post completion of the trial, participants in the acupuncture group were interviewed about their experience. Feasibility-specific data were also collected.

Results

Of 24 amputees meeting the study inclusion criteria, 15 agreed to participate (recruitment rate 62.50 %). Qualitatively, acupuncture was perceived to be beneficial and effective. Quantitatively, acupuncture demonstrated clinically meaningful change in average pain intensity (raw change = 2.69) and worst pain intensity (raw change = 4.00). Feasibility-specific data identified that before undertaking a definitive trial, recruitment, practitioner adherence to the acupuncture protocol, completion of outcome measures at 1 month follow-up and blinding should be addressed. Appropriate outcome measures were identified for use in a definitive trial. Data were generated for future sample size calculations (effect size 0.64). Allowing for a 20 % dropout rate, a sample size of 85 participants per group would be needed in a future definitive trial.

Conclusions

A future definitive trial may be possible if the areas identified in this study are addressed. As acupuncture may be effective at treating PLP, and as this feasibility study suggests that a definitive trial may be possible, a multicentred trial with adequate sample size and blinding is now needed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02126436, registered on 4 September 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1639-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, safety, tolerability, and efficacy study of Xtampza ER in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain

Opioid analgesics are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP); however, abuse potential is a major concern. This study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment randomized-withdrawal study design to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and analgesic efficacy of an abuse-deterrent formulation of extended-release oxycodone, Xtampza ER, in opioid-naive and opioid-experienced adults with moderate-to-severe CLBP. Patients entered an open-label titration phase (N = 740); those who were successfully titrated on Xtampza ER (≥40 to ≤160 mg oxycodone hydrochloride equivalent per day) were randomized to active drug (N = 193) or placebo (N = 196) for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy results showed a statistically significant difference in average pain intensity from randomization baseline to treatment week 12 between the Xtampza ER and placebo groups (mean [±SE], -1.56 [0.267]; P < 0.0001). All sensitivity analyses results supported the primary result of the study. Secondary efficacy outcomes indicated that Xtampza ER vs placebo had more patients with improvement in patient global impression of change (26.4% vs 14.3%; P < 0.0001), longer time-to-exit from the study (58 vs 35 days; P = 0.0102), and a greater proportion of patients with ≥30% (49.2% vs 33.2%; P = 0.0013) and ≥50% (38.3% vs 24.5%; P = 0.0032) improvement in pain intensity. There was less rescue medication (acetaminophen) use in the Xtampza ER treatment group than in the placebo group. Xtampza ER had an adverse event profile consistent with other opioids and was well tolerated; no new safety concerns were identified. In conclusion, Xtampza ER resulted in clinically and statistically significant efficacy in patients with CLBP.

Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of Intravenous and Invasive Pain Treatments: An ACTTION Systematic Review

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.

Adverse event assessment and reporting in trials of newer treatments for post-operative pain

BACKGROUND

Assessment and reporting of adverse events (AEs) in studies of perioperative interventions is critical given the potential for unintended and preventable iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. This focused review evaluated the quality of AE assessment and reporting in acute post-operative pain treatment trials. Since older analgesics (e.g., opioids, NSAIDs) already have a well-characterized safety profile, we concentrated on trials of pregabalin and gabapentin as a representative sample of studies where the perioperative safety profile was relatively unknown.

METHODS

We reviewed primary reports of trials of pregabalin and gabapentin for treatment of acute post-operative pain for: (1) adherence to the 10 recommendations from the 'CONSORT Extension for Harms,' (2) AE assessment method, (3) timing of AE assessment and reporting, and (4) assessment and reporting of AE severity.

RESULTS

We identified 31 trials of pregabalin and 59 of gabapentin. The median number of CONSORT harms recommendations that were satisfied was 7 of 10. The most common (41%) method of AE assessment was direct questioning about specific AEs by investigators. However, AE assessment method was not described in 18% of trials. AE assessments were reported for specified perioperative time points in only 24% of trials. Of greatest concern, no AE data were reported whatsoever in 8 of the included publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable widespread improvements are needed in AE reporting for post-operative pain treatment trials. In addition to heightened awareness among clinical investigators, mandatory journal editorial policies may further facilitate improvements in safety assessment and reporting.

Self-reports of medication side effects and pain-related activity interference in patients with chronic pain: a longitudinal cohort study

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the association between self-reports of medication side effects and pain-related activity interference in patients with chronic pain. The potential moderators of the association between reports of side effects and pain-related activity interference were also examined. A total of 111 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain were asked to provide, once a month for a period of 6 months, self-reports of medication use and the presence of any perceived side effects (eg, nausea, dizziness, headaches) associated with their medications. At each of these time points, patients were also asked to provide self-reports of pain intensity, negative affect, and pain-related activity interference. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed that month-to-month increases in perceived medication side effects were associated with heightened pain-related activity interference (P < 0.05). Importantly, multilevel models revealed that perceived medication side effects were associated with heightened pain-related activity interference even after controlling for the influence of patient demographics, pain intensity, and negative affect. This study provides preliminary evidence that reports of medication side effects are associated with heightened pain-related activity interference in patients with chronic pain beyond the influence of other pain-relevant variables. The implications of our findings for clinical practice and the management of patients with chronic pain conditions are discussed.

Adverse events associated with single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events, with efficacy dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the adverse events associated with individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of adverse event rates associated with single-dose oral analgesics, compared with placebo, for acute postoperative pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group. We extracted information related to participants experiencing any adverse event, and reports of serious adverse events, and deaths from the individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

Information was available from 39 Cochrane reviews for 41 different analgesics or analgesic combinations (51 drug/dose/formulations) tested in single oral doses in participants with moderate or severe postoperative pain. This involved around 350 unique studies involving about 35,000 participants. Most studies involved younger participants with pain following removal of molar teeth.For most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and combinations not containing opioids, there were few examples where participants experienced significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo. For aspirin 1000 mg and diflunisal 1000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants typically experienced significantly more adverse events than with placebo. Studies of combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol reported significantly fewer adverse events.Serious adverse events were rare, occurring a rate of about 1 in 3200 participants.Most reviews did not report specific adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite ongoing problems with the measurement, recording, and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and in systematic reviews, the large amount of information available for single oral doses of analgesics provides evidence that adverse events rates are generally similar with active drug and placebo in these circumstances, except at higher doses of some drugs, and in combinations including opioids.

Comparison of tolerability and adverse symptoms in oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and neuralgiform headaches using the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (AEP)

Background

Adverse effects of drugs are poorly reported in the literature . The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of the adverse events of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in particular carbamazepine (CBZ) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) in patients with neuralgiform pain using the psychometrically tested Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (AEP) and provide clinicians with guidance as to when to change management.

Methods

The study was conducted as a clinical prospective observational exploratory survey of 161 patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia and its variants of whom 79 were on montherapy who attended a specialist clinic in a London teaching hospital over a period of 2 years. At each consultation they completed the AEP questionnaire which provides scores of 19–76 with toxic levels being considered as scores >45.

Results

The most common significant side effects were: tiredness 31.3 %, sleepiness 18.2 %, memory problems 22.7 %, disturbed sleep 14.1 %, difficulty concentrating and unsteadiness 11.6 %. Females reported significantly more side effects than males. Potential toxic dose for females is approximately 1200 mg of OXC and 800 mg of CBZ and1800mg of OXC and 1200 mg of CBZ for males.

Conclusions

CBZ and OXC are associated with cognitive impairment. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences are likely to be the reason for gender differences in reporting side effects. Potentially, females need to be prescribed lower dosages in view of their tendency to reach toxic levels at lower dosages.

Side effects associated with AED could be a major reason for changing drugs or to consider a referral for surgical management.

Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with diabetes mellitus frequently experience erectile dysfunction. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to find efficacy and tolerability of phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors in patients with diabetes mellitus experiencing erectile dysfunction.

METHODOLOGY

Electronic searches were carried out to identify English language peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which reported clinical efficacy of any PDE5 inhibitor in patients with diabetes mellitus having erectile dysfunction. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d, and I(2) -test was used to assess heterogeneity. Pooled mean effect sizes were computed using random-effects model. Number needed to treat (NNT), and the adverse event rates were computed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included a total of 17 studies yielding 25 comparisons. Three studies were open RCTs while others were double-blind RCTs. The pooled mean effect size of any PDE5 inhibitor over placebo was 0.926 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.864-0.987; I(2) =26.3). The pooled mean effect size for sildenafil was 1.198 (CI: 1.039-1.357; I(2) =0), for tadalafil was 0.910 (CI: 0.838-0.981; I(2) =33.6), and for vardenafil was 0.678 (CI: 0.627-0.729; I(2) =0). In pooled analysis, the NNT for sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil and any PDE5 inhibitor was 2.4, 2.6, 4.1 and 3.0 respectively. The most common side effects were headache, flushing, and nasal congestion.

CONCLUSIONS

PDE5 inhibitors are effective and safe medications for the treatment of sexual dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus experiencing erectile dysfunction.

Antidepressant drugs for prevention of acute and chronic postsurgical pain: early evidence and recommended future directions

BACKGROUND

This review evaluates trials of antidepressants for acute and chronic postsurgical pain.

METHODS

Trials were systematically identified using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data included the following: pain at rest and with movement, adverse effects, and other outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (985 participants) of early postoperative pain evaluated amitriptyline (three trials), bicifadine (two trials), desipramine (three trials), duloxetine (one trial), fluoxetine (one trial), fluradoline (one trial), tryptophan (four trials), and venlafaxine (one trial). Three studies (565 participants) of chronic postoperative pain prevention evaluated duloxetine (one trial), escitalopram (one trial), and venlafaxine (one trial). Heterogeneity because of differences in drug, dosing regimen, outcomes, and/or surgical procedure precluded any meta-analyses. Superiority to placebo was reported in 8 of 15 trials for early pain reduction and 1 of 3 trials for chronic pain reduction. The majority of positive trials did not report sufficient data to estimate treatment effect sizes. Many studies had inadequate size, safety evaluation/reporting, procedure specificity, and movement-evoked pain assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the clinical use of antidepressants-beyond controlled investigations-for treatment of acute, or prevention of chronic, postoperative pain. Multiple positive trials suggest the therapeutic potential of antidepressants, which need to be replicated. Other nontrial evidence suggests potential safety concerns of perioperative antidepressant use. Future studies are needed to better define the risk-benefit ratio of antidepressants in postoperative pain management. Higher-quality trials should optimize dosing, timing and duration of antidepressant treatment, trial size, patient selection, safety evaluation and reporting, procedure specificity, and assessment of movement-evoked pain relevant to postoperative functional recovery.

Safety of medicines used for ADHD in children: a review of published prospective clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

A bibliographic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for prospective studies evaluating the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in children and adolescents treated for ADHD.

RESULTS

A total of six prospective studies that monitored drug safety during therapy for at least 12 weeks were retrieved. The drugs studied were atomoxetine (two studies, 802 patients), osmotic-controlled released oral methylphenidate formulation (two studies, 512 patients), extended release formulation of mixed amphetamine salts (one study, 568 patients) and transdermal methylphenidate (one study, 326 patients). Heterogeneity was found in the duration of follow-up (ranging between 1 and 4 years) and in the way data were reported. The rate of treatment-related AEs ranged from 58% to 78%, and the rate of discontinuation due to AEs ranged from 8% to 25% of the children. Decreased appetite, insomnia, headache and abdominal pain were the most common AEs observed. Most AEs and cases of discontinuation occurred during the first few months of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies evaluated the long-term safety of drugs for ADHD. Heterogeneity in follow-up duration and in data reporting made comparing different studies and drugs difficult. A systematic monitoring of long-term safety is needed.

New opioids

Despite the skilled use of opioid analgesics, which is crucial to the relief of cancer pain, there is a lack of evidence to support many aspects of current clinical practice. Therefore, there is a significant need for more effective treatment options. New opioids have been marketed in the past years, including hydrocodone and oxymorphone. Moreover, mixed opioids with combined mechanisms of action have been developed; one such agent, tapentadol, is a centrally acting oral analgesic that possesses a combined mechanism of action: μ-opioid receptor activation with norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. Drug development strategies involving naloxone have been initiated to reduce peripheral opioid-related adverse effects. The rationale is based on the local antagonist activity of naloxone in intestinal opioid receptors and the negligible oral bioavailability of naloxone, particularly in a prolonged-release formulation. New delivery systems have been developed to provide rapid analgesia with potent opioid drugs such as fentanyl. Despite the upcoming availability of these new drugs and technologies that will add to existing types of opioid medication, their benefits and liabilities will ultimately need to be determined by the individual physician and individual patient experiencing pain.

Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey

OBJECTIVE

To gather information about current practices and implementation of publication guidelines among publication professionals working in or for the pharmaceutical industry.

DESIGN/SETTING

Web-based survey publicised via email and social media to members of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organisations from November 2012 to February 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

469 individuals involved in publishing industry-sponsored research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly working in pharmaceutical or device companies ('industry', n=144), communication agencies ('agency', n=238), contract research organisations (CRO, n=15) or as freelancers (n=34). Most respondents (78%) had worked on medical publications for ≥5 years and 62% had a PhD/MD.

RESULTS

Over 90% of industry, agency and CRO respondents routinely refer to Good Publication Practice (GPP2) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements. Most respondents (78% industry, 79% agency) received mandatory training on ethical publication practices. Over 90% of respondents' companies had publication guidelines or policies and required medical writing support to be acknowledged in publications (96% industry, 99% agency). Many industry respondents used publication management tools to monitor compliance with company guidelines and about half (46%) stated that their company had formal publication audits. Fewer agencies audited adherence to guidelines but 20% of agency respondents reported audits of employees and 6% audits of freelancers. Of concern, 37% of agency respondents reported requests from authors or sponsors that they believed were unethical, although 93% of these requests were withdrawn after respondents explained the need for compliance with guidelines. Most respondents' departments (63% industry, 58% agency, 60% CRO) had been involved in publishing studies with negative or inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this sample, most publication professionals working in or for industry were aware of, and applying, major publication guidelines. However, the survey also identified specific areas where education and promotion of guidelines are needed to ensure ethical publication practices.