Gary W. Jay

Research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

&NA; There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain.

Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo (“assay sensitivity”). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence‐based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

Abstract The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

Assessment of the pharmacology and tolerability of PF-04457845, an irreversible inhibitor of fatty acid amide hydrolase-1, in healthy subjects.

UNLABELLED AIMS To evaluate the pharmacology and tolerability of PF-04457845, an orally available fatty acid amide hydrolase-1 (FAAH1) inhibitor, in healthy subjects. METHODS Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled single and multiple rising dose studies and an open-label, randomized, food effect study were conducted. Plasma and urine PF-04457845 concentrations, plasma fatty acid amide concentrations and FAAH1 activity in human leucocytes were measured. Tolerability, including effects on cognitive function, were assessed. RESULTS PF-04457845 was rapidly absorbed (median t(max) 0.5-1.2 h). Exposure increased supraproportionally to dose from 0.1 to 10 mg and proportionally between 10 and 40 mg single doses. The pharmacokinetics appeared dose proportional following 14 days once daily dosing between 0.5 and 8 mg. Steady-state was achieved by day 7. Less than 0.1% of the dose was excreted in urine. Food had no effect on PF-04457845 pharmacokinetics. FAAH1 activity was almost completely inhibited (>97%) following doses of at least 0.3 mg (single dose) and 0.5 mg once daily (multiple dose) PF-04457845. Mean fatty acid amide concentrations increased (3.5- to 10-fold) to a plateau and then were maintained following PF-04457845. FAAH1 activity and fatty acid amide concentrations returned to baseline within 2 weeks following cessation of dosing at doses up to 4 mg. There was no evidence of effects of PF-04457845 on cognitive function. PF-04457845, at doses up to 40 mg single dose and 8 mg once daily for 14 days, was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS PF-04457845 was well tolerated at doses exceeding those required for maximal inhibition of FAAH1 activity and elevation of fatty acid amides.

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations. Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.

Abstract The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Summary This article presents general considerations discussed at an IMMPACT consensus meeting regarding proof‐of‐concept (POC) clinical trials and major POC trial designs as well as their advantages and limitations when used to evaluate chronic pain treatments. ABSTRACT Proof‐of‐concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no‐go decision in a cost‐effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia, with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single‐dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade‐off between parallel‐group and crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N‐of‐1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and sequential parallel comparison designs, are summarized, and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.

Abuse liability measures for use in analgesic clinical trials in patients with pain: IMMPACT recommendations

Summary Assessing and mitigating the abuse liability (AL) of analgesics is an urgent clinical and societal problem. Recommendations for improved assessment include: (1) performing trials that include individuals with diverse risks of abuse; (2) improving the assessment of AL in clinical trials (eg, training study personnel in the principles of abuse and addiction behaviors, designing the trial to assess AL outcomes as primary or secondary outcome measures depending on the trial objectives); (3) performing standardized assessment of outcomes, including targeted observations by study personnel and using structured adverse events query forms that ask all subjects specifically for certain symptoms (such as euphoria and craving); and (4) collecting detailed information about events of potential concern (eg, unexpected urine drug testing results, loss of study medication, and dropping out the trial). Abstract Assessing and mitigating the abuse liability (AL) of analgesics is an urgent clinical and societal problem. Analgesics have traditionally been assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy relative to placebo or an active comparator. In these trials, rigorous, prospectively designed assessment for AL is generally not performed. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) convened a consensus meeting to review the available evidence and discuss methods for improving the assessment of the AL of analgesics in clinical trials in patients with pain. Recommendations for improved assessment include: (1) performing trials that include individuals with diverse risks of abuse; (2) improving the assessment of AL in clinical trials (eg, training study personnel in the principles of abuse and addiction behaviors, designing the trial to assess AL outcomes as primary or secondary outcome measures depending on the trial objectives); (3) performing standardized assessment of outcomes, including targeted observations by study personnel and using structured adverse events query forms that ask all subjects specifically for certain symptoms (such as euphoria and craving); and (4) collecting detailed information about events of potential concern (eg, unexpected urine drug testing results, loss of study medication, and dropping out of the trial). The authors also propose a research agenda for improving the assessment of AL in future trials.

Core outcome measures for opioid abuse liability laboratory assessment studies in humans: IMMPACT recommendations.

A critical component in development of opioid analgesics is assessment of their abuse liability (AL). Standardization of approaches and measures used in assessing AL have the potential to facilitate comparisons across studies, research laboratories, and drugs. The goal of this report is to provide consensus recommendations regarding core outcome measures for assessing the abuse potential of opioid medications in humans in a controlled laboratory setting. Although many of the recommended measures are appropriate for assessing the AL of medications from other drug classes, the focus here is on opioid medications because they present unique risks from both physiological (e.g., respiratory depression, physical dependence) and public health (e.g., individuals in pain) perspectives. A brief historical perspective on AL testing is provided, and those measures that can be considered primary and secondary outcomes and possible additional outcomes in AL assessment are then discussed. These outcome measures include the following: subjective effects (some of which comprise the primary outcome measures, including drug liking; physiological responses; drug self-administration behavior; and cognitive and psychomotor performance. Before presenting recommendations for standardized approaches and measures to be used in AL assessments, the appropriateness of using these measures in clinical trials with patients in pain is discussed.

Research design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Abstract Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Painless electrodiagnostic current perception threshold and pain tolerance threshold values in CRPS subjects and healthy controls: a multicenter study.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to evaluate both painless and painful sensory transmission in patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) using the automated electrodiagnostic sensory Nerve Conduction Threshold (sNCT) test. This test generates reliable, painless Current Perception Threshold (CPT) and atraumatic Pain Tolerance Threshold (PTT) measures. Standardized CPT and PTT measures using constant alternating current sinusoid waveform stimulus at 3 different frequencies 5 Hz, 250 Hz, and 2 kHz (Neurometer® CPT/C Neurotron, Inc. Baltimore, MD) were obtained from CRPS subjects at a distal phalange of the affected extremity and at an ipsilateral asymptomatic control site. Matched sites were tested on healthy subjects. Detection sensitivities for an abnormal PTT and CPT test were calculated based on specificity of 90% as determined from data obtained from healthy controls. A Spearman rank correlation was used to test for a significant association between presence of allodynia and an abnormal PTT or CPT at any frequency tested. Thirty‐six CRPS subjects and 57 healthy controls were tested. The highest detection sensitivity of the PTT test from symptomatic test sites was 63% for the finger and 71% for the toe. PTT abnormalities were also detected, to a lesser degree, at the asymptomatic control site (41% finger control site, 16% toe control site). The highest CPT detection sensitivity at the symptomatic site was 37% for the finger site and 53% for the toe site. CPT abnormalities were also detected at the asymptomatic control site (29% finger control site, 37% toe control site). Eighty‐six percent of the CRPS subjects had either a PTT or CPT abnormality at any frequency at the symptomatic site. There was a significant correlation between presence of allodynia and presence of an abnormal CPT and PTT, respectively (P < .01). The correlation coefficient was lower for CPT than for PTT, ie, 0.34 versus 0.6 for the finger and 0.48 versus 0.67 for the toe, respectively. In studied CRPS patients an abnormal PTT was detected with higher sensitivity than an abnormal CPT. Assessing PTT may become a useful electrodiagnostic quantitative sensory test for diagnosing and following the course of neuropathic pain conditions.