A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of long-acting dexamethasone viscous gel delivered by transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161.

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.

Use of patient-reported global assessment measures in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review and considerations.

ABSTRACT: Establishing clinically meaningful changes in pain experiences remains important for clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Regulatory guidance and pain measurement initiatives have recommended including patient-reported global assessment measures (eg, Patient-Global Impression of Change [PGIC]) to aid interpretation of within-patient differences in domain-specific clinical trial outcomes (eg, pain intensity). The objectives of this systematic review were to determine the frequency of global assessment measures inclusion, types of measures, domains assessed, number and types of response options, and how measures were analyzed. Of 4172 abstracts screened across 6 pain specialty journals, we reviewed 96 clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Fifty-two (54.2%) studies included a global assessment measure. The PGIC was most common (n = 28; 53.8%), with relatively infrequent use of other measures. The majority of studies that used a global assessment measure (n = 31; 59.6%) assessed change or improvement in an unspecified domain. Others assessed overall condition severity (n = 9; 17.3%), satisfaction (n = 8; 15.4%), or overall health status/recovery (n = 5; 9.6%). The number, range, and type of response options were variable and frequently not reported. Response options and reference periods even differed within the PGIC. Global assessment measures were most commonly analyzed as continuous variables (n = 24; 46.2%) or as dichotomous variables with positive categories combined to calculate the proportion of participants with a positive response to treatment (n = 18; 34.6%). This review highlights the substantial work necessary to clarify measurement and use of patient global assessment in chronic pain trials and provides short- and long-term considerations for measure selection, reporting and analysis, and measure development.

Virtual focus groups among individuals with use disorders: assessing feasibility and acceptability in an underserved clinical population.

Objective: There are substantial barriers to conducting research among individuals with stigmatized and complicated health conditions like substance use disorders. These barriers slow progress when developing, refining, and assessing interventions to better treat underserved populations. Virtual focus groups are an innovative method for collecting data from individuals via a discreet and accessible platform which can inform novel as well as existing treatment approaches. This article reports on the feasibility and acceptability of virtual focus groups as a mechanism to recruit and engage geographically and demographically diverse samples of participants with substance use disorders that are otherwise logistically difficult to assess. Method: Participants were assessed for eligibility for a virtual focus group study based on demographic features, drug use history, and psychiatric history via a remote, interview-based screening. Focus groups were completed anonymously without video or name-sharing. Discussion contributions, quantified with number of times speaking and total number of words spoken, were compared across gender, and treatment status. Participants provided quantitative and qualitative feedback on the focus group experience in a follow-up survey. Results: Focus groups (N=26) based in geographical areas throughout the United States were conducted with 88 individuals with opioid use disorder or stimulant use disorder. Discussion contributions were comparable between genders and among individuals in treatment versus those seeking treatment. A follow-up survey (n=50, 57% of focus group participants) reflected high levels of enjoyment, comfort, and honesty during focus group discussions. Discussion: Findings suggest virtual focus groups can be an effective and efficient tool for substance use research.

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.

Sedation Research in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients: Proposals for Future Study Design From the Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research IV Workshop.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation and analgesia for infants and children requiring mechanical ventilation in the PICU is uniquely challenging due to the wide spectrum of ages, developmental stages, and pathophysiological processes encountered. Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of sedative and analgesic management in pediatric patients have used heterogeneous methodologies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) IV hosted a series of multidisciplinary meetings to establish consensus statements for future clinical study design and implementation as a guide for investigators studying PICU sedation and analgesia. DESIGN: Twenty-five key elements framed as consensus statements were developed in five domains: study design, enrollment, protocol, outcomes and measurement instruments, and future directions. SETTING: A virtual meeting was held on March 2-3, 2022, followed by an in-person meeting in Washington, DC, on June 15-16, 2022. Subsequent iterative online meetings were held to achieve consensus. SUBJECTS: Fifty-one multidisciplinary, international participants from academia, industry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and family members of PICU patients attended the virtual and in-person meetings. Participants were invited based on their background and experience. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Common themes throughout the SCEPTER IV consensus statements included using coordinated multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams to ensure culturally appropriate study design and diverse patient enrollment, obtaining input from PICU survivors and their families, engaging community members, and using developmentally appropriate and validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, iatrogenic withdrawal, and ICU delirium. CONCLUSIONS: These SCEPTER IV consensus statements are comprehensive and may assist investigators in the design, enrollment, implementation, and dissemination of studies involving sedation and analgesia of PICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Implementation may strengthen the rigor and reproducibility of research studies on PICU sedation and analgesia and facilitate the synthesis of evidence across studies to improve the safety and quality of care for PICU patients.

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.

Meaningful within-patient change for clinical outcome assessments: model-based approach versus cumulative distribution functions.

OBJECTIVES: The FDA recommends the use of anchor-based methods and empirical cumulative distribution function (eCDF) curves to establish a meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) for a clinical outcome assessment (COA). In practice, the estimates obtained from model-based methods and eCDF curves may not closely align, although an anchor is used with both. To help interpret their results, we investigated and compared these approaches. METHODS: Both repeated measures model (RMM) and eCDF approaches were used to estimate an MWPC on a target COA. We used both real-life (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02697773) and simulated data sets that included 688 patients with up to six visits per patient, target COA (range 0 to 10), and an anchor measure on patient global assessment of osteoarthritis from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the MWPC were calculated by the bootstrap method. RESULTS: The distribution of the COA score changes affected the degree of concordance between RMM and eCDF estimates. The COA score changes from simulated normally distributed data led to greater concordance between the two approaches than did COA score changes from the actual clinical data. The confidence intervals of MWPC estimate based on eCDF methods were much wider than that by RMM methods, and the point estimate of eCDF methods varied noticeably across visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our data explored the differences of model-based methods over eCDF approaches, finding that the former integrates more information across a diverse range of COA and anchor scores and provides more precise estimates for the MWPC.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of histone deacetylase type 6 inhibition for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Introduction: Current treatments for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) are insufficiently effective for many individuals and do not treat nonpain signs and symptoms. The enzyme histone deacetylase type 6 (HDAC6) may play a role in the pathophysiology of painful DPN, and inhibition of HDAC6 has been proposed as a potential treatment. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of the novel HDAC6 inhibitor ricolinostat for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Methods: We conducted a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of the efficacy of ricolinostat, a novel selective HDAC6 inhibitor, in 282 individuals with painful DPN. The primary outcome was the change in the patient-reported pain using a daily diary, and a key secondary outcome was severity of nonpain neuropathic signs using the Utah Early Neuropathy Scale (UENS) score. Results: At the 12-week assessment, changes in average daily pain and UENS scores were not different between the ricolinostat and placebo groups. Conclusion: These results do not support the use of the HDAC6 inhibitor ricolinostat as a treatment for neuropathic pain in DPN for periods up to 12 weeks.

Functional imaging studies of acute administration of classic psychedelics, ketamine, and MDMA: Methodological limitations and convergent results.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is increasingly used to non-invasively study the acute impact of psychedelics on the human brain. While fMRI is a promising tool for measuring brain function in response to psychedelics, it also has known methodological challenges. We conducted a systematic review of fMRI studies examining acute responses to experimentally administered psychedelics in order to identify convergent findings and characterize heterogeneity in the literature. We reviewed 91 full-text papers; these studies were notable for substantial heterogeneity in design, task, dosage, drug timing, and statistical approach. Data recycling was common, with 51 unique samples across 91 studies. Fifty-seven studies (54%) did not meet contemporary standards for Type I error correction or control of motion artifact. Psilocybin and LSD were consistently reported to moderate the connectivity architecture of the sensorimotor-association cortical axis. Studies also consistently reported that ketamine administration increased activation in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. Moving forward, use of best practices such as pre-registration, standardized image processing and statistical testing, and data sharing will be important in this rapidly developing field.

Covariate Adjustment in Chronic Pain Trials: An Oft-Missed Opportunity.

Self-reported pain intensity, frequently used as an outcome in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain, is often highly variable and could be associated with multiple baseline factors. Thus, the assay sensitivity of pain trials (ie, the ability of the trial to detect a true treatment effect) could be improved by including prespecified baseline factors in the primary statistical model. The objective of this focus article was to characterize the baseline factors included in statistical analyses of chronic pain RCTs. Seventy-three RCTs published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were included. The majority of trials identified a single primary analysis (72.6%; n = 53). Of these, 60.4% (n = 32) included one or more covariates in the primary statistical model, most commonly baseline value of the primary outcome, study site, sex, and age. Only one of the trials reported information regarding associations between covariates and outcomes (ie, information that could inform prioritization of covariates for prespecification in future analyses). These findings demonstrate inconsistent use of covariates in the statistical models in chronic pain clinical trials. Prespecified adjustments for baseline covariates that could increase precision and assay sensitivity should be considered in future clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. PERSPECTIVE: This review demonstrates inconsistent inclusion and potential underutilization of covariate adjustment in analyses of chronic pain RCTs. This article highlights areas for possible improvement in design and reporting related to covariate adjustment to improve efficiency in future RCTs.

Efficacy and safety of vixotrigine in idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful small fibre neuropathy (CONVEY): a phase 2 placebo-controlled enriched-enrolment randomised withdrawal study.

Background: No pharmacological treatments are specifically indicated for painful small fibre neuropathy (SFN). CONVEY, a phase 2 enriched-enrolment study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine, a voltage- and use-dependent sodium channel blocker, in participants with idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful SFN. Methods: CONVEY was a phase 2, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind (DB), enriched-enrolment, randomised withdrawal study. The study was conducted at 68 sites in 13 countries (Europe and Canada) between May 17, 2018, and April 12, 2021. Following a 4-week open-label period in which 265 adults with painful SFN (a mixture of large and small fibre neuropathy was not exclusionary) received oral vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily (BID), 123 participants (with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in average daily pain [ADP] score during the open-label period) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive 200 mg BID, 350 mg BID or placebo for a 12-week double-blind (DB) period. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP and the proportion of Patient Global Impression of Pain (PGIC) responders at DB Week 12. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were monitored. Statistical significance was set at 0.10 (2-sided). The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03339336) and on ClinicalTrialsregister.eu (2017-000991-27). Findings: A statistically significant difference from placebo in least squares mean reduction in ADP score from baseline to DB Week 12 was observed with vixotrigine 200 mg BID (-0.85; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.71 to 0.00; p = 0.050) but not 350 mg BID (-0.17; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.68; p = 0.70). Numerically, but not statistically significantly, more participants who received vixotrigine vs placebo experienced a ≥30% ADP reduction from baseline (68.3-72.5% vs 52.5%), and only the 350 mg BID group had significantly more PGIC responders vs placebo (48.8% vs 30.0%; odds ratio = 2.60; 95% CI, 0.97-6.99; p = 0.058) at DB Week 12. AEs were mostly mild to moderate in the vixotrigine groups. The most common AEs (≥5% of vixotrigine-treated participants) in the DB 200 mg BID and 350 mg BID vixotrigine groups were falls, nasopharyngitis, muscle spasm, and urinary tract infection. Interpretation: In our study, vixotrigine 200 mg BID, but not 350 mg BID, met the primary endpoint; more vixotrigine-treated participants experienced a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Vixotrigine (at both dosages) was well tolerated in participants with SFN. Funding: Biogen, Inc.

Control Conditions in Randomized Trials of Psychedelics: An ACTTION Systematic Review.

Objective: To systematically review control conditions of all available randomized psychedelic trials.Data Sources: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for randomized trials of psychedelics in humans from 1940 through May 2020 with no language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed. (PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO-CRD42020205341.).Study Selection: All randomized trials of psychedelics in humans from 1940 through May 2020 were included.Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers performed extraction. Extracted data included study design, demographics, blinding type, whether and how blind integrity was assessed, psychedelic used and dose, drug control condition and dose, type of non-drug control condition, number of dosing sessions, and recruitment source. Outcome data were not collected.Results: In total, 126 articles were included, encompassing 86 unique studies. Of studies with a drug control condition (80), 49 (61.2%) used an inert placebo control, 16 (20.0%) used active comparators, 12 (15.0%) used both, and 3 (3.8%) used only different active psychedelic doses as a control. Only 3 of 21 therapeutic trials compared the use of psychological support to a minimally supportive condition. The majority (81/86; 94%) of studies were blinded, though only 14 (17.3%) included blind assessment; only 8 of these 14 studies assessed participants' blinding. Blinding success, assessed in highly varied ways, was generally poor.Conclusions: Randomized psychedelic trials underutilize elements that would improve quality or provide important information: blind assessment, active drug controls, and testing psychological support against minimal-support conditions. Several queried categories, including blind integrity assessment and details of non-drug control conditions, were insufficiently reported by many reviewed studies. Recommendations are provided to improve trial methods.

Are psychedelic medicines the reset for chronic pain? Preliminary findings and research needs.

Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability, reduced productivity, healthcare seeking behavior, and a contributor to opioid overdose in the United States. For many people, pain can be satisfactorily managed by existing medicines and comprehensive psychosocial treatments. For others, available treatments are either ineffective or not acceptable, due to side effects and concerns about risks. Preliminary evidence suggests that some psychedelics may be effective for certain types of pain and/or improved quality of life with increased functionality and reduced disability and distress in people whose pain may never be completely relieved. Efficacy in these quality-of-life related outcomes would be consistent with the 'reset in thinking' about chronic pain management being increasingly called for as a more realistic goal for some people as compared to complete elimination of pain. This commentary summarizes the rationale for conducting more basic research and clinical trials to further explore the potential for psychedelics in chronic pain management. Additionally, if shown to be effective, to then determine whether the effects of psychedelics are primarily due to direct antinociceptive or anti-inflammatory mechanisms, or via increased tolerability, acceptance, and sense of spirituality, that appear to at least partially mediate the therapeutic effects of psychedelics observed in psychiatric disorders such as major depression. This commentary represents a collaboration of clinical and more basic scientists examining these issues and developing recommendations for research ranging from neuropharmacology to the biopsychosocial treatment factors that appear to be as important in pain management as in depression and other disorders in which psychedelic medicines are under development. This article is part of the Special Issue on "National Institutes of Health Psilocybin Research Speaker Series".

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.

Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice.

The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies.

Examining the Relationships Among Treatment, Pain, and Physical Function in Patients With Osteoarthritis: A Mediation-Modeling Approach.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the relationships among treatment, pain, and physical function (PF). METHODS: Data were collected from 2 published randomized clinical trials of osteoarthritis patients who received tanezumab or a placebo. PF was measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) PF domain. Pain (WOMAC pain domain) was a mediator of the effect of treatment on PF. A set of mediation models were investigated. Variables were treatment (tanezumab vs placebo), WOMAC pain domain, and WOMAC PF domain. Cross-sectional mediation models were assessed separately at different weeks. Longitudinal mediation models used data from all weeks simultaneously. Results could identify a steady-state period. RESULTS: The cross-sectional and longitudinal mediation models showed a stable indirect effect of treatment through the pain on PF across time, indicating that a pseudo-steady-state model was appropriate. Therefore, the longitudinal steady-state mediation models were used with all available data assuming relationships among variables in the model being the same at all time points; results showed that the indirect effect of the treatment on PF was 77.8% in study 1 (NCT02697773) and 74.1% in study 2 (NCT02709486), both P <0.0001, whereas the direct effect was 22.2% for study 1 ( P = 0.0003) and 25.9% for study 2 ( P = 0.0019). DISCUSSION: At least 75% of the treatment effect of tanezumab on physical functioning can be explained by the improvements in pain. However, tanezumab had an additional effect on physical functioning (~25%) that, was independent of improvements in pain. Such independent effects are of considerable interest and require further research to determine their mechanisms.