Richard Malamut

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.

The Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ): validation of a novel symptom assessment scale

BackgroundThere is no widely accepted validated scale to assess the comprehensive symptom burden and severity of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH). The Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ) was developed, with two components: the six-item symptoms assessment scale and a four-item daily activity scale to assess the burden of symptoms. Validation analyses were then performed on the two scales and a composite score of the OHQ.MethodsThe validation analyses of the OHQ were performed using data from patients with NOH participating in a phase IV, double blind, randomized, cross over, placebo-controlled trial of the alpha agonist midodrine. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating OHQ scores with clinician global impression scores of severity as well as with generic health questionnaire scores. Test–retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients at baseline and crossover in a subgroup of patients who reported no change in symptoms across visits on a patient global impression scores of change. Responsiveness was examined by determining whether worsening or improvement in the patients’ underlying disease status produced an appropriate change in OHQ scores.ResultsBaseline data were collected in 137 enrolled patients, follow-up data were collected in 104 patients randomized to treatment arm. Analyses were conducted using all available data. The floor and ceiling effects were minimal. OHQ scores were highly correlated with other patient reported outcome measures, indicating excellent convergent validity. Test–retest reliability was good. OHQ scores could distinguish between patients with severe and patients with less severe symptoms and responded appropriately to midodrine, a pressor agent commonly used to treat NOH.ConclusionThese findings provide empirical evidence that the OHQ can accurately evaluate the severity of symptoms and the functional impact of NOH as well as assess the efficacy of treatment.

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.

Assessment of physical function and participation in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT/OMERACT recommendations.

Abstract Although pain reduction is commonly the primary outcome in chronic pain clinical trials, physical functioning is also important. A challenge in designing chronic pain trials to determine efficacy and effectiveness of therapies is obtaining appropriate information about the impact of an intervention on physical function. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a meeting to consider assessment of physical functioning and participation in research on chronic pain. The primary purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence on the scope of physical functioning to inform work on refining physical function outcome measurement. We address issues in assessing this broad construct and provide examples of frequently used measures of relevant concepts. Investigators can assess physical functioning using patient-reported outcome (PRO), performance-based, and objective measures of activity. This article aims to provide support for the use of these measures, covering broad aspects of functioning, including work participation, social participation, and caregiver burden, which researchers should consider when designing chronic pain clinical trials. Investigators should consider the inclusion of both PROs and performance-based measures as they provide different but also important complementary information. The development and use of reliable and valid PROs and performance-based measures of physical functioning may expedite development of treatments, and standardization of these measures has the potential to facilitate comparison across studies. We provide recommendations regarding important domains to stimulate research to develop tools that are more robust, address consistency and standardization, and engage patients early in tool development.

Routes of abuse of prescription opioid analgesics: a review and assessment of the potential impact of abuse-deterrent formulations

Abstract Prescription opioid analgesics are an important treatment option for patients with chronic pain; however, misuse, abuse and diversion of these medications are a major global public health concern. Prescription opioid analgesics can be abused via intended and non-intended routes of administration, both intact or after manipulation of the original formulation to alter the drug-delivery characteristics. Available data indicate that ingestion (with or without manipulation of the prescribed formulation) is the most prevalent route of abuse, followed by inhalation (snorting, smoking and vaping) and injection. However, reported routes of abuse vary considerably between different formulations. A number of factors have been identified that appear to be associated with non-oral routes of abuse, including a longer duration of abuse, younger age, male sex and a rural or socially deprived location. The development of abuse-deterrent formulations of prescription opioid analgesics is an important step toward reducing abuse of these medications. Available abuse-deterrent formulations aim to hinder extraction of the active ingredient, prevent administration through alternative routes and/or make abuse of the manipulated product less attractive, less rewarding or even aversive. There are currently five opioid analgesics with a Food and Drug Administration abuse-deterrent label, and a number of other products are under review. A growing body of evidence suggests that introduction of abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics in the USA has been associated with decreased rates of abuse of these formulations. The availability of abuse-deterrent formulations therefore appears to represent an important step toward curbing the epidemic of abuse of prescription opioid analgesics, while ensuring the availability of effective pain medications for patients with legitimate medical need.

Research design considerations for clinical studies of abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics: IMMPACT recommendations

TOC summary Research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies. ABSTRACT Opioids are essential to the management of pain in many patients, but they also are associated with potential risks for abuse, overdose, and diversion. A number of efforts have been devoted to the development of abuse‐deterrent formulations of opioids to reduce these risks. This article summarizes a consensus meeting that was organized to propose recommendations for the types of clinical studies that can be used to assess the abuse deterrence of different opioid formulations. Because of the many types of individuals who may be exposed to opioids, an opioid formulation will need to be studied in several populations using various study designs to determine its abuse‐deterrent capabilities. It is recommended that the research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies.

Understanding chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain.

This meeting report highlights the main topics presented at the conference “Chronic Inflammatory and Neuropathic Pain,” convened jointly by the New York Academy of Sciences, MedImmune, and Grünenthal GmbH, on June 2–3, 2011, with the goal of providing a conducive environment for lively, informed, and synergistic conversation among participants from academia, industry, clinical practice, and government to explore new frontiers in our understanding and treatment of chronic and neuropathic pain. The program included leading and emerging investigators studying the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying neuropathic and chronic pain, and experts in the clinical development of pain therapies. Discussion included novel issues, current challenges, and future directions of basic research in pain and preclinical and clinical development of new therapies for chronic pain.

Abuse-deterrent formulations of prescription opioid analgesics in the management of chronic noncancer pain

Misuse, abuse and diversion of prescription opioid analgesics represent a global public health concern. The development of abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) of prescription opioid analgesics is an important step toward reducing abuse and diversion of these medications, as well as potentially limiting medical consequences when misused or administered in error. ADFs aim to hinder extraction of the active ingredient, prevent administration through alternative routes and/or make abuse of the manipulated product less attractive, less rewarding or aversive. However, opioid ADFs may still be abused via the intended route of administration by increasing the dose and/or dosing frequency. The science of abuse deterrence and the regulatory landscape are still relatively new and evolving. This paper reviews the current status of opioid ADFs, with particular focus on different approaches that can be used to deter abuse, regulatory considerations and implications for clinical management.

A standard database format for clinical trials of pain treatments: An ACTTION–CDISC initiative

A standard database format for clinical trials of pain treatments: An ACTTION–CDISC initiative Robert H. Dworkin a,⇑, Robert Allen , Stephen Kopko , Yun Lu , Dennis C. Turk , Laurie B. Burke , Paul Desjardins , Mila Etropolski , David J. Hewitt , Shyamalie Jayawardena , Allison H. Lin , Richard Malamut , Denis Michel , James Ottinger , Paul Peloso , Frank Pucino , Bob A. Rappaport , Vladimir Skljarevski , David St. Peter , Susan Timinski , Christine R. West , Hilary D. Wilson e

Evaluation of the Relative Intranasal Abuse Potential of a Hydrocodone Extended-Release Tablet Formulated with Abuse-Deterrence Technology in Nondependent, Recreational Opioid Users

Abstract Objective To assess the intranasal abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablets developed with CIMA Abuse-Deterrence Technology compared with hydrocodone powder and hydrocodone bitartrate ER capsules (Zohydro ER, original formulation [HYD-OF]). Design Single-dose, randomized, double-blind, quadruple-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover study. Setting One US site. Subjects Healthy, adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods Subjects able to tolerate intranasal hydrocodone and discriminate hydrocodone from placebo were eligible for study enrollment. Eligible participants randomly received intranasal hydrocodone ER, intranasal hydrocodone powder, intranasal HYD-OF, intact oral hydrocodone ER, and placebo. Coprimary pharmacodynamic end points were a maximum effect on “at the moment” Drug Liking visual analog scale and Overall Drug Liking visual analog scale. Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed. Results Mean maximum effect for “at the moment” Drug Liking was significantly (P < 0.01) lower for intranasal hydrocodone ER (72.8) compared with hydrocodone powder (80.2) and HYD-OF (83.2). Similar results were observed for Overall Drug Liking maximum effect (68.5 vs 77.1 and 79.8, respectively; P < 0.01). Secondary end points, including balance of effects and positive, sedative, and other effects, were consistent with these results. Intranasal treatments showed significantly greater effects vs placebo, while intact oral hydrocodone ER was similar to placebo. For each treatment, plasma concentration-time profiles paralleled “at the moment” Drug Liking over time. Incidences of adverse events for intranasal treatments were 52% for hydrocodone ER, 53% for hydrocodone powder, and 61% for HYD-OF. Conclusions The statistically significant differences between hydrocodone ER vs hydrocodone powder and HYD-OF for the primary drug liking end points indicate a lower intranasal abuse potential with hydrocodone ER in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users.