Responsiveness of efficacy endpoints in clinical trials with over the counter analgesics for headache

Correlation of effectiveness and tolerability assessments from a pharmacy-based observational study investigating the fixed-dose combination of 400 mg ibuprofen plus 100 mg caffeine for the treatment of acute headache

Introduction

Observational studies are valuable for investigating correlations between patient-reported treatment outcomes. In this study, we report a secondary analysis of a published pharmacy-based observational (patient-centered "real-world" outcomes) study on experiences reported by patients who treated their headache with an over-the-counter analgesic.

Methods

A pharmacy-based exploratory survey was conducted in German community pharmacies. Patients buying a fixed-dose analgesic combination product (400 mg ibuprofen + 100 mg caffeine; IbuCaff) to treat their headache were offered a questionnaire that contained-among others-questions about time to onset of pain relief (OPR), assessment of time to onset of pain relief (AOPR), assessment of efficacy and tolerability, and pain intensity 2 h after intake. A correlation analysis of the data was performed. Moreover, perceived treatment effects compared to other acute headache medications used in the past were collected.

Results

The correlation between OPR and AOPR was high (Spearman rank correlation r = 0.594, p < 0.0001). Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesic action within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". The other readouts were correlated as well [assessment of efficacy and % pain intensity difference (%PID) at 2 h: r = 0.487; OPR/AOPR and %PID at 2 h: r = 0.295/0.318; OPR/AOPR and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.206/0.397; OPR/AOPR and assessment of efficacy: r = 0.406/0.594; assessment of efficacy and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.608; p < 0.0001 for all correlations]. Compared to previous treatments, most patients (>89%) assessed the speed of analgesic action, efficacy, and tolerability of IbuCaff as equal to or better than for the previous treatment.

Discussion

Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesia within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". Efficacy assessments for acute headache medication appear to be highly correlated.

Acupuncture for menstruation-related migraine prophylaxis: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture, an alternative medicine therapy, as a preventive treatment for menstruation-related migraine (MRM).

Patients and methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, double-dummy, participant-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in China between 1 April 2013, and 30 April 2014. The participants were enrolled from four study centers and randomized to into either the acupuncture group, which received 24 sessions of acupuncture at traditional acupoints plus placebo, or the medication group, which received sham acupuncture plus naproxen. The primary endpoint was change from the baseline average number of migraine days per perimenstrual period over cycles 1−3. The secondary endpoints included changes from the baseline average number of migraine days outside the perimenstrual period, mean number of migraine hours during and outside the perimenstrual period, mean visual analog scale score during and outside the perimenstrual period, ≥50% migraine responder rate, and the proportion of participants who used acute pain medication over cycles 1−3 and 4−6.

Results

A total of 172 women with MRM were enrolled; 170 in the intention-to-treat analyses. Our primary outcome reported a significant between-group difference that favored the acupuncture group (95% CI, 0.17–0.50; P < 0.001), with the average reduction of migraine days per perimenstrual period from the baseline was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.82–1.07) in the acupuncture group and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50–0.71) in the medication group over cycles 1−3.

Conclusion

This study showed that compared to medication, acupuncture reduces the number of migraine days experienced by patients with MRM. For patients who received the acupuncture treatment over three cycles, the preventive effect of the therapy was sustained for six cycles.

Clinical trial registration

[https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN57133712], identifier [ISRCTN15663606].

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain

BACKGROUND

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies. However, there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain, which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions.

METHODS

We identified and systematically reviewed empirical studies of MCID in acute pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, and included prospective studies determining MCID using a patient-reported anchor and a one-dimensional pain scale (e.g. 100 mm visual analogue scale). We summarised results and explored reasons for heterogeneity applying meta-regression, subgroup analyses and individual patient data meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 37 studies (8479 patients). Thirty-five studies used a mean change approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the mean difference in pain score among patients who reported a minimum degree of improvement, while seven studies used a threshold approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the threshold in pain reduction associated with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for identifying improved patients. Meta-analyses found considerable heterogeneity between studies (absolute MCID: I² = 93%, relative MCID: I² = 75%) and results were therefore presented qualitatively, while analyses focused on exploring reasons for heterogeneity. The reported absolute MCID values ranged widely from 8 to 40 mm (standardised to a 100 mm scale) and the relative MCID values from 13% to 85%. From analyses of individual patient data (seven studies, 918 patients), we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief. Subgroup analyses showed that the definition of improved patients (one or several categories improvement or meaningful change) and the design of studies (single or multiple measurements) also influenced MCID values.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain, definitions of improved patients and study design. MCID is context-specific and potentially misguiding if determined, applied or interpreted inappropriately. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of a reference value are required when using MCID to classify research results as clinically important or trivial.