Nicholas Bellamy

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.

Efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: results of a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background Strontium ranelate is currently used for osteoporosis. The international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled Strontium ranelate Efficacy in Knee OsteoarthrItis triAl evaluated its effect on radiological progression of knee osteoarthritis. Methods Patients with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or 3, and joint space width (JSW) 2.5–5 mm) were randomly allocated to strontium ranelate 1 g/day (n=558), 2 g/day (n=566) or placebo (n=559). The primary endpoint was radiographical change in JSW (medial tibiofemoral compartment) over 3 years versus placebo. Secondary endpoints included radiological progression, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and knee pain. The trial is registered (ISRCTN41323372). Results The intention-to-treat population included 1371 patients. Treatment with strontium ranelate was associated with smaller degradations in JSW than placebo (1 g/day: −0.23 (SD 0.56) mm; 2 g/day: −0.27 (SD 0.63) mm; placebo: −0.37 (SD 0.59) mm); treatment-placebo differences were 0.14 (SE 0.04), 95% CI 0.05 to 0.23, p<0.001 for 1 g/day and 0.10 (SE 0.04), 95% CI 0.02 to 0.19, p=0.018 for 2 g/day. Fewer radiological progressors were observed with strontium ranelate (p<0.001 and p=0.012 for 1 and 2 g/day). There were greater reductions in total WOMAC score (p=0.045), pain subscore (p=0.028), physical function subscore (p=0.099) and knee pain (p=0.065) with strontium ranelate 2 g/day. Strontium ranelate was well tolerated. Conclusions Treatment with strontium ranelate 1 and 2 g/day is associated with a significant effect on structure in patients with knee osteoarthritis, and a beneficial effect on symptoms for strontium ranelate 2 g/day.

Review and recommendationsResearch 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.

Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: Results from a prospective multinational study

To estimate the minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values for 4 generic outcomes in 5 rheumatic diseases and 7 countries.

Comparison of the responsiveness and relative effect size of the western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the short-form Medical Outcomes Study Survey in a randomized, clinical trial of osteoarthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE This study compares the responsiveness and relative effect sizes of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS Patients with OA of the knee or hip were randomized to receive either placebo or 2,400 mg/day of ibuprofen for 28 days. Patients completed the WOMAC and SF-36 at baseline and days 7, 14, and 28 of the trial. RESULTS Patients receiving ibuprofen showed significant improvement in WOMAC pain, physical functioning, and the total score, while improvement was detected only for bodily pain on the SF-36. The WOMAC detected significant differences between ibuprofen and placebo for pain and physical functioning, whereas the SF-36 detected differences for the bodily pain subscale. CONCLUSION These results suggest the WOMAC has greater power to detect treatment differences than the SF-36, with respect to pain and physical functioning, in OA clinical trials.

A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies novel variants associated with osteoarthritis of the hip

Objectives Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis with a clear genetic component. To identify novel loci associated with hip OA we performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on European subjects. Methods We performed a two-stage meta-analysis on more than 78 000 participants. In stage 1, we synthesised data from eight GWAS whereas data from 10 centres were used for ‘in silico’ or ‘de novo’ replication. Besides the main analysis, a stratified by sex analysis was performed to detect possible sex-specific signals. Meta-analysis was performed using inverse-variance fixed effects models. A random effects approach was also used. Results We accumulated 11 277 cases of radiographic and symptomatic hip OA. We prioritised eight single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) for follow-up in the discovery stage (4349 OA cases); five from the combined analysis, two male specific and one female specific. One locus, at 20q13, represented by rs6094710 (minor allele frequency (MAF) 4%) near the NCOA3 (nuclear receptor coactivator 3) gene, reached genome-wide significance level with p=7.9×10−9 and OR=1.28 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.39) in the combined analysis of discovery (p=5.6×10−8) and follow-up studies (p=7.3×10−4). We showed that this gene is expressed in articular cartilage and its expression was significantly reduced in OA-affected cartilage. Moreover, two loci remained suggestive associated; rs5009270 at 7q31 (MAF 30%, p=9.9×10−7, OR=1.10) and rs3757837 at 7p13 (MAF 6%, p=2.2×10−6, OR=1.27 in male specific analysis). Conclusions Novel genetic loci for hip OA were found in this meta-analysis of GWAS.