Raymond A. Dionne

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.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Abstract There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Research design considerations for single-dose analgesic clinical trials in acute pain: IMMPACT recommendations

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

Medication Treatment Efficacy and Chronic Orofacial Pain.

Chronic pain in the orofacial region has always been a vexing problem for dentists to diagnose and treat effectively. For trigeminal neuropathic pain, there are 3 medications (gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) to use plus topical anesthetics that have therapeutic efficacy. For chronic daily headaches (often migraine in origin), 3 prophylactic medications have reasonable therapeutic efficacy (β-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and antiepileptic drugs). The 3 Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for fibromyalgia (pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are not robust, with poor efficacy. For osteroarthritis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have therapeutic efficacy and when gastritis contraindicates them, corticosteriod injections are helpful.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public–private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Why do we prescribe Vicodin

Paul A. Moore, DMD, PhD, MPH; Raymond A. Dionne, DDS, PhD; Stephen A. Cooper, DMD, PhD; Elliot V. Hersh, DMD, MS, PhD V icodin, a fixed-dose combination analgesic containing acetaminophen, or N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, (APAP) and hydrocodone, is the most frequently recommended opioid pain reliever prescribed by US oral surgeons after the extraction of third molars. It was first introduced to the US market in 1978, and today, APAP-hydrocodone combinations (for example, Vicodin, Norco, Lortab, and Zydone) have the dubious reputation of being our nation’s most frequently prescribed analgesics, as well as our nation’s most frequently abused prescription drugs. Surprisingly, we could find no references in the literature in which investigators found APAP-hydrocodone combinations, as currently prescribed and formulated, to be more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The analgesic efficacy of even the most common over-the-counter NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and naproxen sodium first became recognized in the 1980s. Unlike APAP, NSAIDs are potent inhibitors of prostaglandin synthesis and target the inflammatory pain encountered with acute infection,

Prescription of opioid analgesics for nontraumatic dental conditions in emergency departments

BACKGROUND Opioid analgesics prescribed for nontraumatic dental conditions (NTDCs) by emergency physicians continue to receive attention because of the associated potential for misuse, abuse and addiction. This study examined rates of prescription of opioid analgesics and types of opioid analgesics prescribed for NTDC visits in U.S. emergency departments. METHODS Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2007 to 2010 were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were performed and adjusted for the survey design. RESULTS NTDCs made up 1.7% of all ED visits from 2007 to 2010. The prescription of opioid analgesics was 50.3% for NTDC and 14.8% for non-NTDC visits. The overall rate of opioid analgesics prescribed for NTDCs remained fairly stable from 2007 through 2010. Prescription of opioids was highest among patients aged 19-33 years (56.8%), self-paying (57.1%), and non-Hispanic Whites (53.2%). The probability of being prescribed hydrocodone was highest among uninsured patients (68.7%) and for oxycodone, it was highest among private insurance patients (33.6%). Compared to 34-52 year olds, children 0-4 years were significantly more likely to be prescribed codeine and less likely to be prescribed oxycodone. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks had significantly higher odds of been prescribed codeine and somewhat lower odds of been prescribed oxycodone, but it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS There was no significant change in the rates of opioid analgesics prescribed over time for NTDC visits to EDs. Age, payer type and race/ethnicity were significant predictors for the prescription of different opioid analgesics by emergency physicians for NTDC visits.

Measures that identify prescription medication misuse, abuse, and related events in clinical trials: ACTTION critique and recommended considerations

Accurate assessment of inappropriate medication use events (ie, misuse, abuse, and related events) occurring in clinical trials is an important component in evaluating a medications abuse potential. A meeting was convened to review all instruments measuring such events in clinical trials according to previously published standardized terminology and definitions. Only 2 approaches have been reported that are specifically designed to identify and classify misuse, abuse, and related events occurring in clinical trials, rather than to measure an individuals risk of using a medication inappropriately: the Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion (SR-MAD) instrument and the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS). The conceptual basis, strengths, and limitations of these methods are discussed. To our knowledge, MADDERS is the only system available to comprehensively evaluate inappropriate medication use events prospectively to determine the underlying intent. MADDERS can also be applied retrospectively to completed trial data. SR-MAD can be used prospectively; additional development may be required to standardize its implementation and fully appraise the intent of inappropriate use events. Additional research is needed to further demonstrate the validity and utility of MADDERS as well as SR-MAD. PERSPECTIVE Identifying a medications abuse potential requires assessing inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials on the basis of a standardized event classification system. The strengths and limitations of the 2 published methods designed to evaluate inappropriate medication use events are reviewed, with recommended considerations for further development and current implementation.