Estimands and missing data in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: advances in design and analysis

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

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

Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback Efficacy on Fatigue and Energy Levels in Fibromyalgia: A Secondary Analysis of RCT NCT0412183

Background: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMs) is a chronic condition characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and a range of complex symptoms, with chronic fatigue being a central feature significantly impacting daily life. The aim of this study was to analyze the secondary outcomes, specifically those related to perceived energy and fatigue symptoms in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the efficacy of heart rate variability biofeedback (HRV-BF) as an adjunctive treatment for FMs. Methods: Sixty-four FMs patients were randomly assigned to either receive 10 HRV-BF training sessions alongside standard pharmacological therapy (experimental group) or standard therapy alone for 10 weeks (control group). For this secondary analysis, potential improvements in specific items were evaluated regarding perceived energy (Item 10 of the Short-Form Health Survey), the ability to walk and climb stairs (Item 7 and Item 11 of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, respectively), and the impact of pain on movement ability (Item 17 of the Bodily and Emotional Perception of Pain). Results: The experimental group demonstrated an improvement in the perception of energy, the ability to walk, and the impact of pain on movement ability. However, the same improvement was not observed in the ability to climb stairs. Conclusions: Fatigue assessment has emerged as a crucial factor for evaluating treatment efficacy in FMs and related conditions linked to altered energy levels, such as bipolar depression, and can offer valuable insights for precisely guiding HRV-BF treatments. ClinicalTrials.gov with code: NCT04121832.

Five-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up of Restorative Neurostimulation Shows Durability of Effectiveness in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Associated With Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Adults with refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscle have few treatment options that provide long-term clinical benefit. This study hypothesized that restorative neurostimulation, a rehabilitative treatment that activates the lumbar multifidus muscles to overcome underlying dysfunction, is safe and provides relevant and durable clinical benefit to patients with this specific etiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective five-year longitudinal follow-up of the ReActiv8-B pivotal trial, participants (N = 204) had activity-limiting, moderate-to-severe, refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain, a positive prone instability test result indicating impaired multifidus muscle control, and no indications for spine surgery. Low back pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol's "EQ-5D-5L" index) were compared with baseline and following the intent-to-treat principle, with a supporting mixed-effects model for repeated measures that accounted for missing data.

RESULTS

At five years (n = 126), low back pain VAS had improved from 7.3 to 2.4 cm (-4.9; 95% CI, -5.3 to -4.5 cm; p < 0.0001), and 71.8% of participants had a reduction of ≥50%. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 39.1 to 16.5 (-22.7; 95% CI, -25.4 to -20.8; p < 0.0001), and 61.1% of participants had reduction of ≥20 points. The EQ-5D-5L index improved from 0.585 to 0.807 (0.231; 95% CI, 0.195-0.267; p < 0.0001). Although the mixed-effects model attenuated completed-case results, conclusions and statistical significance were maintained. Of 52 subjects who were on opioids at baseline and had a five-year visit, 46% discontinued, and 23% decreased intake. The safety profile compared favorably with neurostimulator treatments for other types of back pain. No lead migrations were observed.

CONCLUSION

Over a five-year period, restorative neurostimulation provided clinically substantial and durable benefits with a favorable safety profile in patients with refractory chronic low back pain associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354; registration date: October 15, 2016; principal investigator: Christopher Gilligan, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. The study was conducted in Australia (Broadmeadow, New South Wales; Noosa Heads, Queensland; Welland, South Australia; Clayton, Victoria), Belgium (Sint-Niklaas; Wilrijk), The Netherlands (Rotterdam), UK (Leeds, London, Middlesbrough), and USA (La Jolla, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Aurora, CO; Carmel, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Royal Oak, MI; Durham, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Cleveland, OH; Providence, RI; Spartanburg, SC; Spokane, WA; Charleston, WV).

The efficacy of heart rate variability biofeedback training on sleep disorders and impact of fibromyalgia: Results of a phase II randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMs) is a chronic, musculoskeletal pain disorder characterized by sleep disturbances, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction. Heart rate variability biofeedback (HRV-BF) aiming to improve self-regulation and strengthen the parasympathetic nervous system has been shown to be effective in several pain syndromes, but its efficacy in FMs has not been adequately investigated. This Phase II trial aimed to assess the feasibility and preliminary measurement of the improvement induced by HRV-BF in FMs.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with FMs were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (EG) or the control group (CG). The EG received 10 HRV-BF training sessions in addition to pharmacological standard therapy. The CG received standard therapies for 10 weeks. The FMs impact on daily life, sleep regularity, sense of coherence, depression symptoms and pain has been assessed as primary outcomes, quality of life as secondary.

RESULT

23 (71.9%) of EG patients completed the intervention and 20 (62.5%) of the CG were re-evaluated at time T1. No side effects were reported. It was not found any statistical differences between groups over time in primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The HRV-BF intervention did not demonstrate efficacy in both primary and secondary outcomes. However, it is quite feasible in terms of drop-out rate and side effects. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine its actual efficacy.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov with code: NCT04121832.

The STAR care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective intervention found to improve pain outcomes over one year for people with chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). We followed up STAR trial participants to evaluate the longer-term clinical- and cost-effectiveness of this care pathway.

METHODS

Participants who remained enrolled on the trial at one year were contacted by post at a median of four years after randomisation and invited to complete a questionnaire comprising the same outcomes collected during the trial. We captured pain (co-primary outcome using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales; scored 0-10, best to worst), function, neuropathic characteristics, emotional aspects of pain, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction. Electronic hospital informatics data on hospital resource use for the period of one to four years post-randomisation were collected from participating hospital sites. The economic evaluation took an National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective, with a four-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Overall, 226/337 (67%) of participants returned completed follow-up questionnaires, yielding adjusted between-group differences in BPI means of -0.42 (95% confidence interval, CI (-1.07, 0.23); p = 0.20) for pain severity and - 0.64 (95% CI -1.41, 0.12); p = 0.10) for pain interference. Analysis using a multiple imputed data set (n = 337) showed an incremental net monetary benefit in favour of the STAR care pathway of £3,525 (95% CI -£990 to £8,039) at a £20,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, leading to a probability that the intervention was cost-effective of 0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of the longer-term benefits of the STAR care pathway are uncertain due to attrition of trial participants; however, there is a suggestion of some degree of sustained clinical benefit at four years. The care pathway remained cost-effective at four years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 92,545,361.

Risk of bias assessment tool for systematic review and meta-analysis of the gut microbiome

Risk of bias assessment is a critical step of any meta-analysis or systematic review. Given the low sample count of many microbiome studies, especially observational or cohort studies involving human subjects, many microbiome studies have low power. This increases the importance of performing meta-analysis and systematic review for microbiome research in order to enhance the relevance and applicability of microbiome results. This work proposes a method based on the ROBINS-I tool to systematically consider sources of bias in microbiome research seeking to perform meta-analysis or systematic review for microbiome studies.

Tolerability and efficacy of duloxetine for the prevention of persistent musculoskeletal pain after trauma and injury: a pilot three-group randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the tolerability and preliminary efficacy of duloxetine as an alternative nonopioid therapeutic option for the prevention of persistent musculoskeletal pain (MSP) among adults presenting to the emergency department with acute MSP after trauma or injury. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible participants (n = 78) were randomized to 2 weeks of a daily dose of one of the following: placebo (n = 27), 30 mg duloxetine (n = 24), or 60 mg duloxetine (n = 27). Tolerability, the primary outcome, was measured by dropout rate and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes assessed drug efficacy as measured by (1) the proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at 6 weeks (pain persistence); and (2) average pain by group over the six-week study period. We also explored treatment effects by type of trauma (motor vehicle collision [MVC] vs non-MVC). In both intervention groups, duloxetine was well tolerated and there were no serious adverse events. There was a statistically significant difference in pain over time for the 60 mg vs placebo group ( P = 0.03) but not for the 30 mg vs placebo group ( P = 0.51). In both types of analyses, the size of the effect of duloxetine was larger in MVC vs non-MVC injury. Consistent with the role of stress systems in the development of chronic pain after traumatic stress, our data indicate duloxetine may be a treatment option for reducing the transition from acute to persistent MSP. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these promising results.

Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain

INTRODUCTION

The most prominent outcome measurement in the field of neuromodulation is pain relief. Nevertheless, the number of studies that rely on composite outcomes has increased. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to evaluate which measures are important to include in a composite outcome and (2) to develop this new composite outcome to evaluate the degree of being a clinical holistic responder with a corresponding minimal clinical important difference (MCID).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation (HD-SCS) were used. Pain intensity for low back and leg pain, disability, health-related quality of life, medication use, and patient satisfaction were measured at baseline and after 12 months of HD-SCS. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to evaluate which measures should be included in the composite outcome. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the MCID of the newly developed outcome measurement.

RESULTS

A three-factor model was the most appropriate for this data set, in which leg pain intensity, EQ5D VAS, and disability had the largest loading on these factors. A clinical holistic outcome was created with a total score ranging from 0 (=better [no pain, no disability, and perfect health status]) to 300 (=worse [maximal pain, maximal disability, and worst health status]). The MCID value based on an absolute change score from baseline up to 12 months of HD-SCS was 87.97. When calculating with percentage changes, a MCID value of 48.4% was revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

This new composite outcome evaluating the degree of deviation from being a holistic responder is a step toward a meaningful, overall outcome assessment for patients who are treated with SCS. Further studies to evaluate the psychometric properties and the generalizability toward other patient populations still need to be performed.

Clinical Trials in Pancreatitis: Opportunities and Challenges in the Design and Conduct of Patient-Focused Clinical Trials in Recurrent Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop

ABSTRACT

Recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis represent high morbidity diseases, which are frequently associated with chronic abdominal pain, pancreatic insufficiencies, and reduced quality of life. Currently, there are no therapies to reverse or delay disease progression, and clinical trials are needed to investigate potential interventions that would address this important gap. This conference report provides details regarding information shared during a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases-sponsored workshop on Clinical Trials in Pancreatitis that sought to clearly delineate the current gaps and opportunities related to the design and conduct of patient-focused trials in recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis. Key stakeholders including representatives from patient advocacy organizations, physician investigators (including clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health convened to discuss challenges and opportunities with particular emphasis on lessons learned from trials in participants with other painful conditions, as well as the value of incorporating the patient perspective throughout all stages of trials.

Strategies to manage auxiliary pain medications in chronic pain trials: a topical review

Chronic pain trials commonly allow auxiliary pain medications such as rescue and concomitant analgesics in addition to the randomized treatment. Changes in auxiliary pain medications after randomization represent intercurrent events that may affect either the interpretation or the existence of the measurements associated with the clinical question of interest, complicating the assessment of treatment efficacy. In chronic pain trials, pain intensity typically varies and patients may take the auxiliary medications 1 day but not the next or increase and decrease the dosages temporarily while continuing their randomized study medication. This distinctive feature of auxiliary pain medications as an intercurrent event has received little attention in the literature. Further clarifications on how to manage these issues are therefore pressing. Here we provide perspectives on issues related to auxiliary pain medication-related intercurrent events in randomized controlled chronic pain trials considering the strategies suggested in the E9(R1) addendum to the ICH guideline on statistical principles for clinical trials.

A first step towards best practice recommendations for the design and statistical analyses of pragmatic clinical trials: a modified Delphi approach

AIM

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are randomised trials implemented through routine clinical practice, where design parameters of traditional randomised controlled trials are modified to increase generalizability. However, this may introduce statistical challenges. We aimed to identify these challenges and discuss possible solutions leading to best practice recommendations for the design and analysis of PCTs.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus among a panel of 11 experts in clinical trials and statistics. Statistical issues were identified in a focused literature review and aggregated with insights and possible solutions from expert collected through a series of survey iterations. Issues were ranked according to their importance.

RESULTS

27 articles were included and combined with experts' insight to generate a list of issues categorized into: participants; recruiting sites; randomisation, blinding and intervention; outcome (selection and measurement); and data analysis. Consensus was reached about the most important issues: risk of participants' attrition; heterogeneity of "usual care" across sites; absence of blinding; use of a subjective endpoint; and data analysis aligned with the trial estimand. Potential issues should be anticipated and preferably be addressed in the trial protocol. The experts provided solutions regarding data collection and data analysis, which were considered of equal importance.

DISCUSSION

A set of important statistical issues in PCTs was identified and approaches were suggested to anticipate and/or minimize these through data analysis. Any impact of choosing a pragmatic design feature should be gauged in the light of the trial estimand.

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.

If the doors of perception were cleansed, would chronic pain be relieved? Evaluating the benefits and risks of psychedelics

Psychedelic substances have played important roles in diverse cultures, and ingesting various plant preparations to evoke altered states of consciousness has been described throughout recorded history. Accounts of the subjective effects of psychedelics typically focus on spiritual and mystical-type experiences, including feelings of unity, sacredness, and transcendence. Over the past two decades, there has been increasing interest in psychedelics as treatments for various medical disorders, including chronic pain. Although concerns about adverse medical and psychological effects contributed to their controlled status, contemporary knowledge of psychedelics suggests that risks are relatively rare when patients are carefully screened, prepared, and supervised. Clinical trial results have provided support for the effectiveness of psychedelics in different psychiatric conditions. However, there are only a small number of generally uncontrolled studies of psychedelics in patients with chronic pain (e.g., cancer pain, phantom limb pain, migraine, and cluster headache). Challenges in evaluating psychedelics as treatments for chronic pain include identifying neurobiologic and psychosocial mechanisms of action and determining which pain conditions to investigate. Truly informative proof-of-concept and confirmatory randomized clinical trials will require careful selection of control groups, efforts to minimize bias from unblinding, and attention to the roles of patient mental set and treatment setting. Perspective: There is considerable promise for the use of psychedelic therapy for pain, but evidence-based recommendations for the design of future studies are needed to ensure that the results of this research are truly informative.

Glial-modulating agents for the treatment of pain: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence suggests a role for Central nervous system glia in pain transmission and in augmenting maladaptive opioid effects. Identification of drugs that modulate glia has guided the evaluation of glial suppression as a pain management strategy. This planned systematic review will describe evidence of the efficacy and adverse effects of glial-modulating drugs in pain management.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A detailed search will be conducted on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase from their inception until the date the final searches are run to identify relevant randomised controlled trials. The reference lists of retrieved studies, as well as online trial registries, will also be searched. English language, randomised, double-blind trials comparing various glial-modulating drugs with placebo and/or other comparators, with participant-reported pain assessment, will be included. Two reviewers will independently evaluate studies for eligibility, extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Risk of bias will be assessed using criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. Primary outcomes for this review will include any validated measure of pain intensity and/or pain relief. Dichotomous data will be used to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat or harm. The quality of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review does not require formal ethics approval. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021262074.

The Influence of Missing Data on Disabilities in Patients Treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Tipping Point Sensitivity Analysis

New waveforms have changed the field of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) to optimize therapy outcomes, among which is High-Dose SCS (HD-SCS). Missing observations are often encountered when conducting clinical trials in this field. In this study, different approaches with varying assumptions were constructed to evaluate how conclusions may be influenced by these assumptions. The aim is to perform a tipping point sensitivity analysis to evaluate the influence of missing data on the overall conclusion regarding the effectiveness of HD-SCS on disability. Data from the Discover study were used, in which 185 patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome were included. Disability was evaluated before SCS and after 1, 3 and 12 months of HD-SCS. During the second, third and fourth visit, data from 130, 114 and 90 patients were available, respectively. HD-SCS resulted in a significant decrease in disability scores based on the analysis of observed data and with multiple imputations. The tipping point sensitivity analysis revealed that the shift parameter was 17. Thus, the conclusion concerning the time effect under a "missing at random" mechanism is robust when the shift parameter for the disability score is 17. From a clinical point of view, a shift of 17 points on disability is not very plausible. Therefore we tend to consider the conclusions drawn under "missing at random" as being robust.

Effects of Wearable Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition characterized by widespread pain and interference with daily activities. The aim of this study is to assess the benefit of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for persons diagnosed with fibromyalgia.

Patients and Methods

Adults meeting diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia were randomized in a double-blind trial to receive either an active (n=62) or sham (n=57) wearable TENS device for 3-months. Subjects were classified as having lower or higher pain sensitivity by Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST). Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC, primary outcome) and secondary efficacy measures including Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) were assessed at baseline, 6-weeks and 3-months. Treatment effects were determined by a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (N=119). A pre-specified subgroup analysis of pain sensitivity was conducted using an interaction term in the model.

Results

No differences were found between active and sham treatment on PGIC scores at 3-months (0.34, 95% CI [−0.37, 1.04], p=0.351) in the ITT population. However, in subjects with higher pain sensitivity (n=60), PGIC was significantly greater for active treatment compared to sham (1.19, 95% CI [0.24, 2.13], p=0.014). FIQR total score (−7.47, 95% CI [−12.46, −2.48], p=0.003), FIQR pain item (−0.62, 95% CI [−1.17, −0.06], p=0.029), BPI Interference (−0.70, 95% CI [−1.30, −0.11], p=0.021) and PDQ (−1.69, 95% CI [−3.20, −0.18], p=0.028) exhibited significant improvements for active treatment compared to sham in the ITT population. Analgesics use was stable and comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated modest treatment effects of reduced disease impact, pain and functional impairment from wearable TENS in individuals with fibromyalgia. Subjects with higher pain sensitivity exhibited larger treatment effects than those with lower pain sensitivity. Wearable TENS may be a safe treatment option for people with fibromyalgia.

Clinicaltrials.gov Registration

NCT03714425.

Factors associated with orthodontic pain

Background

Pain experienced at teeth during orthodontic treatment varies largely over time, with the reasons for its interindividual variability being largely unknown: age, sex, clinical activations, psychosocial factors and genetic polymorphisms of candidate genes are putative factors that may account to explain this variability. We aimed to investigate the effect of clinical, demographic, psychological and genetic factors on pain levels experienced during fixed orthodontic treatment.

Methods

A convenience sample of 183 patients undergoing full‐fixed orthodontic treatment were recruited. Participant's pain levels were assessed seven times over a three‐day period via a smartphone app. Clinical, demographic and psychological data were collected via questionnaires. This included the Pain Catastrophising Scale (Child version), the Corah Dental Anxiety Scale and the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory. Participants provided a DNA sample either in the form of blood or saliva, which were used for genotyping COMT gene rs6269, rs4680, rs4646310, NR3C1 gene rs2963155 and the HTR2A gene rs9316233.

Results

Bond ups had the greatest influence on perceived levels of pain experienced on teeth during orthodontic treatment, accounting for over 20% of total variance in pain response. High‐pain responders had higher scores on pain catastrophising (magnification subscale). Self‐reported pain during fixed orthodontic treatment was not influenced by sex, age, time into treatment, anxiety, nor by polymorphisms of COMT, HTR2A or NR3C1 genes.

Conclusions

Pain on teeth resulting from orthodontic fixed appliances is stronger during bonds‐up and in patients with high catastrophising scores. Demographics, type of clinical activations and the genetic polymorphisms investigated in this research had little or no impact on perceived pain levels.

We investigated putative factors influencing orthodontic pain using ecological momentary assessment in 183 study participants. The findings suggest that bond ups had the greatest influence on perceived levels of pain experienced on teeth during orthodontic treatment, accounting for over 20% of total variance in pain response. High‐pain responders had higher scores on pain catastrophising (magnification subscale). Self‐reported pain during fixed orthodontic treatment was not influenced by sex, age, time into treatment, anxiety, nor by polymorphisms of COMT, HTR2A or NR3C1genes.

International Association for the Study of Pain Presidential Task Force on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia: research agenda on the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management

ABSTRACT

The President of the International Association for the Study of Pain established a task force on cannabis and cannabinoid analgesia to systematically examine the evidence on (1) analgesic pharmacology of cannabinoids and preclinical evidence on their efficacy in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain; (2) the clinical efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines for pain; (3) harms related to long-term use of cannabinoids; as well as (4) societal issues and policy implications related to the use of these compounds for pain management. Here, we summarize key knowledge gaps identified in the task force outputs and propose a research agenda for generating high-quality evidence on the topic. The systematic assessment of preclinical and clinical literature identified gaps in rigor of study design and reporting across the translational spectrum. We provide recommendations to improve the quality, rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of preclinical and clinical research on cannabis and cannabinoids for pain, as well as for the conduct of systematic reviews on the topic. Gaps related to comprehensive understanding of the endocannabinoid system and cannabinoid pharmacology, including pharmacokinetics and drug formulation aspects, are discussed. We outline key areas where high-quality clinical trials with cannabinoids are needed. Remaining important questions about long-term and short-term safety of cannabis and cannabinoids are emphasized. Finally, regulatory, societal, and policy challenges associated with medicinal and nonmedicinal use of cannabis are highlighted, with recommendations for improving patient safety and reducing societal harms in the context of pain management.

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.

The Safety of Medications used to Treat Peripheral Neuropathic Pain, Part 2 (Opioids, Cannabinoids and Other Drugs): review of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral neuropathic pain is a disabling condition for patients and a challenge for physicians. Although many drugs have been assessed in scientific studies, few have demonstrated clear clinical efficacy against neuropathic pain. Moreover, the paucity of data regarding their safety raises the question of the benefit-risk ratio when used in patients experiencing peripheral neuropathies.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a review of double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials to assess the safety of medications used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. This second review was focused on opioids, cannabinoids, and other medications. The aim was to provide an overview of the treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (≥10%) and the serious adverse effects described in clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Opioids and cannabinoids had significantly more TEAEs than placebos. Locally administered analgesics, such as capsaicin, lidocaine, botulinum toxin A seemed to have the most acceptable safety with only local adverse effects. The results for NMDA antagonists were inconclusive since no safety report was available. Less than half of the studies included presented a good description of TEAEs that included a statistical comparison versus a placebo group. Major methodological improvements must be made to ameliorate the assessment of medication safety in future clinical trials.

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.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.