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

A proposal for using benefit-risk methods to improve the prominence of adverse event results when reporting trials

Adverse events suffer from poor reporting within randomised controlled trials, despite them being crucial to the evaluation of a treatment. A recent update to the CONSORT harms checklist aims to improve reporting by providing structure and consistency to the information presented. We propose an extension wherein harms would be reported in conjunction with effectiveness outcome(s) rather than in silo to provide a more complete picture of the evidence acquired within a trial. Benefit-risk methods are designed to simultaneously consider both benefits and risks, and therefore, we believe these methods could be implemented to improve the prominence of adverse events when reporting trials. The aim of this article is to use case studies to demonstrate the practical utility of benefit-risk methods to present adverse events results alongside effectiveness results. Two randomised controlled trials have been selected as case studies, the Option-DM trial and the SANAD II trial. Using a previous review, a shortlist of 17 benefit-risk methods which could potentially be used for reporting RCTs was created. From this shortlist, three benefit-risk methods are applied across the two case studies. We selected these methods for their usefulness to achieve the aim of this paper and which are commonly used in the literature. The methods selected were the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework, net clinical benefit (NCB), and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3 × 3 table. Results using the benefit-risk method added further context and detail to the clinical summaries made from the trials. In the case of the SANAD II trial, the clinicians concluded that despite the primary outcome being improved by the treatment, the increase in adverse events negated the improvement and the treatment was therefore not recommended. The benefit-risk methods applied to this case study outlined the data that this decision was based on in a clear and transparent way. Using benefit-risk methods to report the results of trials can increase the prominence of adverse event results by presenting them alongside the primary efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. This ensures that all the factors which would be used to determine whether a treatment would be recommended are transparent to the reader.

Evaluating the balance of benefits and harms in chronic pain clinical trials: prioritizing individual participants over individual outcomes

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) generally assess efficacy and safety separately, with the conclusion of whether a treatment is beneficial based solely on the efficacy endpoint. However, assessing and combining efficacy and safety domains, using a single composite outcome measure, can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall effect of a treatment. Furthermore, composite outcomes can incorporate information regarding the relationship between the individual outcomes. In fact, such outcomes have been suggested in the clinical trials literature for at least 15 years.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) identify whether recent primary publications of chronic pain RCTs from major pain journals included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms and (2) discuss the potential benefits of such outcomes in various stages of treatment development, including as outcome measures in RCTs, and to support decisions of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards and ordering of treatments in the context of treatment guidelines.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

RCTs published in 6 major pain journals published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were reviewed.

FINDINGS

Of 73 RCTs identified, only 2 included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms. Both of these articles compared 2 active treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite outcomes of benefits and harms are underutilized in chronic pain RCTs. The advantages and challenges of using such outcomes are discussed.

Naltrexone 6 mg once daily versus placebo in women with fibromyalgia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-dose naltrexone is used to treat fibromyalgia despite minimal evidence for its efficacy. This trial aimed to investigate whether 12-week treatment with 6 mg low-dose naltrexone was superior to placebo for reducing pain in women with fibromyalgia.

METHODS

We did a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Denmark. We enrolled women aged 18-64 years who were diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive low-dose naltrexone (6 mg) or an identical-appearing placebo, using a computerised algorithm with no stratifications applied. Participants, investigators, outcome assessors, and statistical analysts were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity on an 11-point numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in participants in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of their allocated intervention. This trial was registered with ClincalTrials.gov (NCT04270877) and EudraCT (2019-000702-30).

FINDINGS

We screened 158 participants for eligibility from Jan 6, 2021, to Dec 27, 2022, and 99 patients were randomly assigned to low-dose naltrexone (n=49) or placebo (n=50). The mean age was 50·6 years (SD 8·8), one (1%) of 99 participants was Arctic Asian and 98 (99%) were White. No participants were lost to follow-up. The mean change in pain intensity was -1·3 points (95% CI -1·7 to -0·8) in the low-dose naltrexone group and -0·9 (-1·4 to -0·5) in the placebo group, corresponding to a between-group difference of -0·34 (-0·95 to 0·27; p=0·27, Cohen's d 0·23). Discontinuations due to adverse events were four (8%) of 49 in the low-dose naltrexone group and three (6%) of 50 in the placebo group. 41 (84%) of 49 patients in the low-dose naltrexone group had an adverse event versus 43 (86%) of 50 in the placebo group. One serious adverse event occurred in the placebo group and no deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

This study did not show that treatment with low-dose naltrexone was superior to placebo in relieving pain. Our results indicate that low-dose naltrexone might improve memory problems associated with fibromyalgia, and we suggest that future trials investigate this further.

FUNDING

The Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen's Foundation, and the Oak Foundation.

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.