Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Efficacy and safety of the seven-day buprenorphine transdermal system in opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain: an enriched, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

CONTEXT

This article presents the results of a pivotal Phase 3 study that assesses a new treatment for the management of chronic low back pain: a transdermal patch containing the opioid buprenorphine. In this randomized, placebo-controlled study with an enriched enrollment design, the buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) was found to be efficacious and generally well tolerated.

OBJECTIVES

This enriched, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of BTDS in opioid-naïve patients who had moderate to severe chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Patients who tolerated and responded to BTDS (10 or 20 mcg/hour) during an open-label run-in period were randomized to continue BTDS 10 or 20 mcg/hour or receive matching placebo. The primary outcome was "average pain over the last 24 hours" at the end of the 12-week double-blind phase, collected on an 11-point scale (0=no pain, 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Sleep disturbance (Medical Outcomes Study subscale) and total number of supplemental analgesic tablets used were secondary efficacy variables.

RESULTS

Fifty-three percent of patients receiving open-label BTDS (541 of 1024) were randomized to receive BTDS (n=257) or placebo (n=284). Patients receiving BTDS reported statistically significantly lower pain scores at Week 12 compared with placebo (least square mean treatment difference: -0.58, P=0.010). Sensitivity analyses of the primary efficacy variable and results of the analysis of secondary efficacy variables supported the efficacy of BTDS relative to placebo. During the double-blind phase, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 55% for the BTDS treatment group and 52% for the placebo treatment group. Laboratory, vital sign, and electrocardiogram evaluations did not reveal unanticipated safety findings.

CONCLUSION

BTDS was efficacious in the treatment of opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. Most treatment-emergent adverse events observed were consistent with those associated with the use of opioid agonists and transdermal patches.

Q2 dependence of the neutron spin structure function g2(n) at low Q2

We present the first measurement of the Q2 dependence of the neutron spin structure function g2(n) at five kinematic points covering 0.57 (GeV/c)2 < or = Q2 < or = 1.34 (GeV/c)2 at x approximately = 0.2. Though the naive quark-parton model predicts g2 = 0, nonzero values occur in more realistic models of the nucleon which include quark-gluon correlations, finite quark masses, or orbital angular momentum. When scattering from a noninteracting quark, g2(n) can be predicted using next-to-leading order fits to world data for g1(n). Deviations from this prediction provide an opportunity to examine QCD dynamics in nucleon structure. Our results show a positive deviation from this prediction at lower Q2, indicating that contributions such as quark-gluon interactions may be important. Precision data obtained for g1(n) are consistent with next-to-leading order fits to world data.

Precision measurement of the neutron spin asymmetryA(n)(1) and spin-flavor decomposition in the valence quark region

We have measured the neutron spin asymmetry A(n)(1) with high precision at three kinematics in the deep inelastic region at x=0.33, 0.47, and 0.60, and Q(2)=2.7, 3.5, and 4.8 (GeV/c)(2), respectively. Our results unambiguously show, for the first time, that A(n)(1) crosses zero around x=0.47 and becomes significantly positive at x=0.60. Combined with the world proton data, polarized quark distributions were extracted. Our results, in general, agree with relativistic constituent quark models and with perturbative quantum chromodynamics (PQCD) analyses based on the earlier data. However they deviate from PQCD predictions based on hadron helicity conservation.

Overnight use of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for relief of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate of the efficacy and safety of 8 hours of continuous, low-level heatwrap therapy administered during sleep.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

SETTING

Two community-based research facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-six patients, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following treatments: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=33; oral placebo, n=34) or blinding (unheated wrap, n=5; oral ibuprofen, n=4). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive nights with 2 days of follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: morning pain relief (hour 0) on days 2 through 4 (0-5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: mean daytime pain relief score (days 2-4, hours 0-8), mean extended pain relief score (day 4, hour 0; day 5, hour 0), muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Heatwrap therapy was significantly better than placebo at hour 0 on days 2 through 4 for mean pain relief (P=.00005); at hours 0 through 8 on days 2 through 4 for pain relief (P<.001); at hour 0 on day 4 and at hour 0 on day 5 for mean pain relief (P<.001); on day 4 in reduction of morning muscle stiffness (P<.001); for increased lateral trunk flexibility on day 4 (P<.002); and for decreased low back disability on day 4 (P=.005). Adverse events were mild and infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Overnight use of heatwrap therapy provided effective pain relief throughout the next day, reduced muscle stiffness and disability, and improved trunk flexibility. Positive effects were sustained more than 48 hours after treatments were completed.

Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for treating acute nonspecific low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of 8 hours of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for the treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

SETTING

Five community-based research facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Two-hundred nineteen subjects, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute nonspecific LBP.

INTERVENTION

Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following groups: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=95; oral placebo, n=96) and blinding (oral ibuprofen, n=12; unheated back, wrap n=16). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive days with 2 days of follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: day 1 mean pain relief (0- to 5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: muscle stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), lateral trunk flexibility (fingertip-floor distance), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

Heatwrap therapy was shown to provide significant therapeutic benefits when compared with placebo during both the treatment and follow-up period. On day 1, the heatwrap group had greater pain relief (1.76+/-.10 vs 1.05+/-.11, P <.001), less muscle stiffness (43.1+/-1.21 vs 47.6+/-1.21, P=.008), and increased flexibility (18.6+/-.44 cm vs 16.5+/-.45 cm, P=.001) compared with placebo. Disability was also reduced in the heatwrap group (5.3 vs 7.4, P=.0002). Adverse events were mild and infrequent.

CONCLUSION

Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy was shown to be effective for the treatment of acute, nonspecific LBP.

Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy provides more efficacy than Ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, single (investigator) blind, comparative efficacy trial was conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy (40 C, 8 hours/day) with that of ibuprofen (1200 mg/day) and acetaminophen (4000 mg/day) in subjects with acute nonspecific low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The efficacy of topical heat methods, as compared with oral analgesic treatment of low back pain, has not been established.

METHODS

Subjects (n = 371) were randomly assigned to heat wrap (n = 113), acetaminophen (n = 113), or ibuprofen (n = 106) for efficacy evaluation, or to oral placebo (n = 20) or unheated back wrap (n = 19) for blinding. Outcome measures included pain relief, muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability. Efficacy was measured over two treatment days and two follow-up days.

RESULTS

Day 1 pain relief for the heat wrap (mean, 2) was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.51; P = 0.0007) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.32; P = 0.0001). Extended mean pain relief (Days 3 to 4) for the heat wrap (mean, 2.61) also was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.68; P = 0.0001) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.95; P = 0.0009). Lateral trunk flexibility was improved with the heat wrap (mean change, 4.28 cm) during treatment (P </= 0.009 vs acetaminophen [mean change, 2.93 cm], P </= 0.001 vs ibuprofen [mean change, 2.51 cm]). The results were similar on Day 4. Day 1 reduction in muscle stiffness with the heat wrap (mean, 16.3) was greater than with acetaminophen (mean, 10.5; P = 0.001). Disability was reduced with the heat wrap (mean, 4.9), as compared with ibuprofen (mean, 2.7; P = 0.01) and acetaminophen (mean, 2.9; P = 0.0007), on Day 4. None of the adverse events were serious. The highest rate (10.4%) was reported in the ibuprofen group.

CONCLUSION

Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was superior to both acetaminophen and ibuprofen for treating low back pain.