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.

Cannabis Perceptions and Patterns of Use Among Older Adult Cancer Survivors.

Objectives: To descriptively assess cannabis perceptions and patterns of use among older adult cancer survivors in a state without a legal cannabis marketplace. Methods: This study used weighted prevalence estimates to cross-sectionally describe cannabis perceptions and patterns of use among older (65+) adults (N = 524) in a National Cancer Institute-designated center in a state without legal cannabis access. Results: Half (46%) had ever used cannabis (18% following diagnosis and 10% currently). Only 8% had discussed cannabis with their provider. For those using post-diagnosis, the most common reason was for pain (44%), followed by insomnia (43%), with smoking being the most common (40%) mode of use. Few (<3%) reported that cannabis had worsened any of their symptoms. Discussion: Even within a state without a legal cannabis marketplace, older cancer survivors might commonly use cannabis to alleviate health concerns but unlikely to discuss this with their providers.

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.

ASAM Clinical Considerations: Buprenorphine Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder for Individuals Using High-potency Synthetic Opioids.

ABSTRACT: Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine has evolved considerably in the last decade as the scale of the OUD epidemic has increased along with the emergence of high-potency synthetic opioids (HPSOs) and stimulants in the drug supply. These changes have outpaced the development of prospective research, so a clinical consideration document based on expert consensus is needed to address pressing clinical questions. This clinical considerations document is based on a narrative literature review and expert consensus and will specifically address considerations for changes to the clinical practice of treatment of OUD with buprenorphine for individuals using HPSO. An expert panel developed 6 key questions addressing buprenorphine initiation, stabilization, and long-term treatment for individuals with OUD exposed to HPSO in various treatment settings. Broadly, the clinical considerations suggest that individualized strategies for buprenorphine initiation may be needed. The experience of opioid withdrawal negatively impacts the success of buprenorphine treatment, and attention to its management before and during buprenorphine initiation should be proactively addressed. Buprenorphine dose and dosing frequency should be individualized based on patients' treatment needs, the possibility of novel components in the drug supply should be considered during OUD treatment, and all forms of opioid agonist treatment should be offered and considered for patients. Together, these clinical considerations attempt to be responsive to the challenges and opportunities experienced by frontline clinicians using buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in patients using HPSOs and highlight areas where prospective research is urgently needed.

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.

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.

Clinical Trial Design Challenges and Opportunities for Emerging Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder: A Review.

Importance: Novel treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) are needed to address both the ongoing opioid epidemic and long-standing barriers to existing OUD treatments that target the endogenous µ-opioid receptor (MOR) system. The goal of this review is to highlight unique clinical trial design considerations for the study of emerging treatments for OUD that address targets beyond the MOR system. In November 2019, the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration sponsored a meeting to discuss the current evidence regarding potential treatments for OUD, including cannabinoids, psychedelics, sedative-hypnotics, and immunotherapeutics, such as vaccines. Observations: Consensus recommendations are presented regarding the most critical elements of trial design for the evaluation of novel OUD treatments, such as: (1) stage of treatment that will be targeted (eg, seeking treatment, early abstinence/detoxification, long-term recovery); (2) role of treatment (adjunctive with or independent of existing OUD treatments); (3) primary outcomes informed by patient preferences that assess opioid use (including changes in patterns of use), treatment retention, and/or global functioning and quality of life; and (4) adverse events, including the potential for opioid-related relapse or overdose, especially if the patient is not simultaneously taking maintenance MOR agonist or antagonist medications. Conclusions and Relevance: Applying the recommendations provided here as well as considering input from people with lived experience in the design phase will accelerate the development, translation, and uptake of effective and safe therapeutics for individuals struggling with OUD.

Perspectives on Participation in Clinical Trials Among Individuals With Pain, Depression, and/or Anxiety: An ACTTION Scoping Review.

For individuals experiencing pain, the decision to engage in clinical trials may be influenced by a number of factors including current and past care, illness severity, physical functioning, financial stress, and caregiver support. Co-occurring depression and anxiety may add to these challenges. The aim of this scoping review was to describe perspectives about clinical trial participation, including recruitment and retention among individuals with pain and pain comorbidities, including depression and/or anxiety. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study features, sample demographics, perspectives, barriers and/or motivations were collected and described. A total of 35 assessments were included in this scoping review with 24 focused on individuals with pain (24/35, 68.6%), 9 on individuals with depression and/or anxiety (9/35, 25.7%), and 2 on individuals with pain and co-occurring depression/anxiety (2/35, 5.7%). Barriers among participants with pain and those with depression included: research team's communication of information, fear of interventional risks, distrust (only among respondents with pain), too many procedures, fear of inadequate treatment, disease-life stressors, and embarrassment with study procedures (more commonly reported in participants with depression). Facilitators in both groups included: altruism and supportive staff, better access to care, and the ability to have outcome feedback (more commonly among individuals with depression). Individuals with pain and depression experience challenges that affect trial recruitment and retention. Engaging individuals with pain within research planning may assist in addressing these barriers and the needs of individuals affected by pain and/or depression. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the need to address barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials, including the need for an assessment of perspectives from underserved or marginalized populations.

A comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in clinical trials of opioid use disorder: ACTTION review and recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prospective trial registration can increase research integrity. This Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) review was designed to compare the primary outcomes (PO) reported in registries with associated publications for opioid use disorder (OUD) clinical trials. DESIGN: The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was searched for completed trials (2010 through 2019). Associated publications were identified and paired with trial registry data based on the publication date. MEASUREMENTS: Reviewers independently rated the occurrence of discrepancies between the POs in the registry compared to the publication. An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration was also completed. FINDINGS: One-hundred and forty trials were identified in the search, and 43 registry-publication pairs evaluated. Only 34 of the 43 pairs could be examined for discrepancies because nine did not report a PO in registry and publication. Of the 34 pairs, only four met rigorous criteria for prospective trial registration and had an exact match of POs. In contrast, the majority of the 34 trials, or 80%, had inconsistent POs (e.g., registered secondary outcomes published as primary; the timing of PO not specified) and/or were retrospectively registered. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical trials focused on OUD have not met the standards of trial registration, such as consistent reporting of POs and prospective registration. Failure to properly register trial characteristics undermines the validity of research findings and can delay the development of life-saving treatments. Recommendations for improving prospective trial reporting practices are provided.

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.

Pragmatic trials of pain therapies: a systematic review of methods.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings-the purpose of pragmatic trials.

The prevalence of comorbid chronic pain conditions among patients with temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review was designed to evaluate the presence of comorbid conditions among patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors reviewed studies that reported the prevalence or incidence of chronic pain conditions or psychiatric disorders (anxiety, mood, personality disorders) among patients with any type of TMD. The authors calculated sample size-weighted prevalence estimates when data were reported in 2 or more studies for the same comorbid condition. RESULTS: A total of 9 prevalence studies and no incidence studies were eligible for review; 8 of the studies examined chronic pain comorbidities. Weighted estimates showed high prevalence of pain comorbidities across studies, including current chronic back pain (66%), myofascial syndrome (50%), chronic stomach pain (50%), chronic migraine headache (40%), irritable bowel syndrome (19%), and fibromyalgia (14%). A single study examined psychiatric disorders and found that current depression was the most prevalent disorder identified (17.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is a high prevalence of comorbid chronic pain conditions among patients with TMDs, with more than 50% of patients reporting chronic back pain, myofascial syndrome, and chronic stomach pain. Psychiatric disorders among patients with different types of TMDs were studied less commonly in this pain population. Knowledge of the distribution of these and other comorbid disease conditions among patients with different types of TMDs can help dentists and other health care providers to identify personalized treatment strategies, including the coordination of care across medical specialties.

Design and reporting characteristics of clinical trials investigating sedation practices in the paediatric intensive care unit: a scoping review by SCEPTER (Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education and Research).

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review of sedation clinical trials in the paediatric intensive care setting and summarise key methodological elements. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and grey references including ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to 3 August 2021. STUDY SELECTION: All human trials in the English language related to sedation in paediatric critically ill patients were included. After title and abstract screening, full-text review was performed. 29 trials were eligible for final analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: A coding manual was developed and pretested. Trial characteristics were double extracted. RESULTS: The majority of trials were single centre (22/29, 75.9%), parallel group superiority (17/29, 58.6%), double-blinded (18/29, 62.1%) and conducted in an academic setting (29/29, 100.0%). Trial enrolment (≥90% planned sample size) was achieved in 65.5% of trials (19/29), and retention (≥90% enrolled subjects) in 72.4% of trials (21/29). Protocol violations were reported in nine trials (31.0%). The most commonly studied cohorts were mechanically ventilated patients (28/29, 96.6%) and postsurgical patients (11/29, 37.9%) with inclusion criteria for age ranging from 0±0.5 to 15.0±7.3 years (median±IQR). The median age of enrolled patients was 1.7 years (IQR=4.4 years). Patients excluded from trials were those with neurological impairment (21/29, 72.4%), complex disease (20/29, 69.0%) or receipt of neuromuscular blockade (10/29, 34.5%). Trials evaluated drugs/protocols for sedation management (20/29, 69.0%), weaning (3/29, 10.3%), daily interruption (3/29, 10.3%) or protocolisation (3/29, 10.3%). Primary outcome measures were heterogeneous, as were assessment instruments and follow-up durations. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity in methodological approach in clinical trials evaluating sedation in critically ill paediatric patients. These results provide a basis for the design of future clinical trials to improve the quality of trial data and aid in the development of sedation-related clinical guidelines.

The Prevalence of Psychiatric and Chronic Pain Comorbidities in Fibromyalgia: an ACTTION systematic review.

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic widespread pain condition that overlaps with multiple comorbid health conditions and contributes to considerable patient distress. The aim of this review was to provide a systematic overview of psychiatric and chronic pain comorbidities among patients diagnosed with FM and to inform the development of recommendations for the design of clinical trials. Thirty-one, cross-sectional, clinical epidemiology studies that evaluated patients diagnosed with FM were included for review. None of the reviewed studies reported on the incidence of these comorbidities. Sample size-weighted prevalence estimates were calculated when prevalence data were reported in 2 or more studies for the same comorbid condition. The most prevalent comorbidity across all studies reviewed was depression/major depressive disorder (MDD) with over half of the patients included having this diagnosis in their lifetime (weighted prevalence up to 63%). In addition, nearly one-third of FM patients examined had current or lifetime bipolar disorder, panic disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Less common psychiatric disorders reported included generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and specific phobias (agoraphobia, social phobia). There were fewer studies that examined chronic pain comorbidities among FM patients, but when evaluated, prevalence was also high ranging from 39% to 76% (i.e., chronic tension-type or migraine headache, irritable bowel syndrome, myofascial pain syndrome, and temporomandibular disorders). The results of the review suggest that depression and chronic pain conditions involving head/jaw pain and IBS were elevated among FM patients compared to other conditions in the clinic-based studies. In contrast, anxiety-related disorders were much less common. Addressing the presence of these comorbid health conditions in clinical trials of treatments for FM would increase the generalizability and real-world applicability of FM research.

Craving and opioid use disorder: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The subjective experience of drug craving is a prominent and common clinical phenomenon for many individuals diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD), and could be a valuable clinical endpoint in medication development studies. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview and critical analysis of opioid craving assessments located in the published literature examining OUD. METHOD: Studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Embase, and PsychInfo databases and included for review if opioid craving was the focus and participants were diagnosed with or in treatment for OUD. RESULTS: Fifteen opioid craving assessment instruments were identified across the 87 studies included for review. The most common were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 41 studies), Desires for Drug Questionnaire (DDQ, 12 studies), Heroin Craving Questionnaire (HCQ, 10 studies), and Obsessive-Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS, 10 studies). Craving assessments varied considerably in their format, content, time frame, and underlying subscales, and only 6 of 15 had been psychometrically evaluated. DISCUSSION: This review identified a variety of opioid craving assessments, but few had been evaluated for their psychometric properties making it difficult to ascertain whether craving is being assessed optimally in studies of OUD. Thus, the development of a reliable and valid opioid craving assessment would be worthwhile and could be guided by recently published Food and Drug Administration Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) guidelines. Importantly, a COA focused on opioid craving could be a valuable addition to research studies designed to evaluate novel treatments for OUD.