Joseph W. Stauffer

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

AbstractObjective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of d

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials

&NA; Objective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. Methods. Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. Conclusions. There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.

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.

Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials : IMMPACT recommendations

a University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA b University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA c United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA d Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA e Johnson and Johnson, Raritan, NY, USA f AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA g University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA h Merck and Company, Blue Bell, PA, USA i University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, USA j American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA k Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA, USA l National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Bethesda, MD, USA m University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA n Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA o University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada p Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, USA q VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA r Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA s Celgene Corporation, Warren, NJ, USA t Pfizer Global Research and Development, Ann Arbor, MI, USA u Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada v London Regional Cancer Centre, London, Ont., Canada

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.

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.

ALO-01 (Morphine Sulfate and Naltrexone Hydrochloride) Extended-Release Capsules in the Treatment of Chronic Pain of Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee: Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Safety

UNLABELLED ALO-01 (EMBEDA [morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride] extended-release capsules [King Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Bridgewater, NJ]), indicated for chronic moderate-to-severe pain, is designed to release naltrexone upon tampering (eg, by crushing), reducing morphine-induced subjective effects. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover study assessed pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of ALO-01 and compared them with extended-release morphine sulfate (ERMS, KADIAN [morphine sulfate extended-release] capsules [Actavis US, Morristown, NJ]) in adults (N = 113) with osteoarthritis pain. Study periods included washout until pain flare (intensity > or =5, 0 to 10; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain); dose titration with ERMS (20 to 160mg BID); and randomization to 2 (crossover) 14-day treatment periods with ERMS or ALO-01, separated by 7 days of open-label ERMS. Assessments included pharmacokinetics (morphine, naltrexone), pain scores (0 to 10), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index; Patient Global Assessment of Medication (1 to 5; poor to excellent). Mean score at pain flare was 7.1. Morphine exposure from both formulations at steady state was similar. Plasma naltrexone concentrations were below limit-of-quantification for most patients and, when present, did not impact pain scores. During treatment, mean pain intensity (day 14: ERMS, 2.4; ALO-01, 2.3, P = .31), WOMAC change-from-baseline (mean pain, physical function, composite scores), and adverse event frequency were similar. ALO-01 and ERMS provided similar relief of osteoarthritis pain. PERSPECTIVE We present data demonstrating that ALO-01 has steady-state morphine exposure, efficacy, and safety similar to marketed ERMS capsules. Results highlight the potential for morphine in ALO-01 to manage moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain, while the sequestered naltrexone does not interfere with efficacy.

Subjective effects and safety of whole and tampered morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride (ALO-01) extended-release capsules versus morphine solution and placebo in experienced non-dependent opioid users: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.

Background and Objective: Given the dual public health challenges of under-treated pain and opioid abuse, there is a need to reduce attractiveness of opioid analgesics to drug abusers. ALO-01 (morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride) extended-release capsules, indicated for treatment of chronic, moderate to severe pain, contain polymer-coated pellets of morphine, each with a core of sequestered naltrexone intended for release only upon tampering (crushing). The purpose of this study was to assess the pharmacodynamic effects (including drug-liking and euphoria) of whole and crushed ALO-01 versus morphine sulfate solution (MSS) and placebo. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, triple-dummy, four-way crossover study carried out at a clinical research centre. Participants were experienced non-dependent opioid users. Subjects were given either two ALO-01 60 mg capsules, crushed pellets from two ALO-01 60mg capsules, MSS 120mg or placebo; there was a 14- to 21-day washout between treatments. The primary endpoints were drug-liking visual analogue scale score, scores on items from the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) and Cole/ARCI scales characterizing abuse potential and euphoria, and pupil diameter as measured by pupillometry. Results: Morphine plasma concentrations were similar after ALO-01 crushed and MSS, with a median time to reach maximum plasma concentration (t max ) of 1.1 and 1.2 hours, respectively; the plasma naltrexone median t max was 1.1 hours after ALO-01 crushed. By comparison, the median t max for morphine with ALO-01 whole was 8.1 hours. The maximum effect (E max ) of MSS was significantly greater than placebo on pupillometry and the subjective measures (all p < 0.001). ALO-01 whole and crushed produced lower E max values and flatter effect-time profiles for subjective measures and caused less pupillary constriction than MSS. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated that ALO-01, whether taken orally whole as intended or tampered with by crushing and taken orally, had reduced desirability compared with MSS.

Subjective Effects and Safety of Whole and Tampered Morphine Sulfate and Naltrexone Hydrochloride (ALO-01) Extended-Release Capsules versus Morphine Solution and Placebo in Experienced Non-Dependent Opioid Users

AbstractBackground and Objective: Given the dual public health challenges of under-treated pain and opioid abuse, there is a need to reduce attractiveness of opioid analgesics to drug abusers. ALO-01 (morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride) extended-release capsules, indicated for treatment of chronic, moderate to severe pain, contain polymer-coated pellets of morphine, each with a core of sequestered naltrexone intended for release only upon tampering (crushing). The purpose of this study was to assess the pharmacodynamic effects (including drug-liking and euphoria) of whole and crushed ALO-01 versus morphine sulfate solution (MSS) and placebo. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, triple-dummy, four-way crossover study carried out at a clinical research centre. Participants were experienced non-dependent opioid users. Subjects were given either two ALO-01 60 mg capsules, crushed pellets from two ALO-01 60 mg capsules, MSS 120 mg or placebo; there was a 14- to 21-day washout between treatments. The primary endpoints were drug-liking visual analogue scale score, scores on items from the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) and Cole/ARCI scales characterizing abuse potential and euphoria, and pupil diameter as measured by pupillometry. Results: Morphine plasma concentrations were similar after ALO-01 crushed and MSS, with a median time to reach maximum plasma concentration (tmax) of 1.1 and 1.2 hours, respectively; the plasma naltrexone median tmax was 1.1 hours after ALO-01 crushed. By comparison, the median tmax for morphine with ALO-01 whole was 8.1 hours. The maximum effect (Emax) of MSS was significantly greater than placebo on pupillometry and the subjective measures (all p < 0.001). ALO-01 whole and crushed produced lower Emax values and flatter effect-time profiles for subjective measures and caused less pupillary constriction than MSS. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated that ALO-01, whether taken orally whole as intended or tampered with by crushing and taken orally, had reduced desirability compared with MSS.

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.