Robert H. Dworkin

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

Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: evidence-based recommendations.

Abstract Patients with neuropathic pain (NP) are challenging to manage and evidence‐based clinical recommendations for pharmacologic management are needed. Systematic literature reviews, randomized clinical trials, and existing guidelines were evaluated at a consensus meeting. Medications were considered for recommendation if their efficacy was supported by at least one methodologically‐sound, randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrating superiority to placebo or a relevant comparison treatment. Recommendations were based on the amount and consistency of evidence, degree of efficacy, safety, and clinical experience of the authors. Available RCTs typically evaluated chronic NP of moderate to severe intensity. Recommended first‐line treatments include certain antidepressants (i.e., tricyclic antidepressants and dual reuptake inhibitors of both serotonin and norepinephrine), calcium channel α2‐δ ligands (i.e., gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine. Opioid analgesics and tramadol are recommended as generally second‐line treatments that can be considered for first‐line use in select clinical circumstances. Other medications that would generally be used as third‐line treatments but that could also be used as second‐line treatments in some circumstances include certain antiepileptic and antidepressant medications, mexiletine, N‐methyl‐d‐aspartate receptor antagonists, and topical capsaicin. Medication selection should be individualized, considering side effects, potential beneficial or deleterious effects on comorbidities, and whether prompt onset of pain relief is necessary. To date, no medications have demonstrated efficacy in lumbosacral radiculopathy, which is probably the most common type of NP. Long‐term studies, head‐to‐head comparisons between medications, studies involving combinations of medications, and RCTs examining treatment of central NP are lacking and should be a priority for future research.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. FINDINGS 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. INTERPRETATION Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. FUNDING NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Neuropathic Pain: An Overview and Literature Update

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain recently sponsored the development of evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, dual reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (ie, gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine were recommended as first-line treatment options on the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in certain clinical circumstances. Results of several recent clinical trials have become available since the development of these guidelines. These studies have examined botulinum toxin, high-concentration capsaicin patch, lacosamide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and combination therapies in various neuropathic pain conditions. The increasing number of negative clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain and ambiguities in the interpretation of these negative trials must also be considered in developing treatment guidelines. The objectives of the current article are to review the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and to provide a brief overview of these recent studies.

Pregabalin for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Methods: The authors conducted a multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week, randomized clinical trial in PHN, defined as pain for 3 or more months following herpes zoster rash healing. Patients (n = 173) were randomized to treatment with pregabalin or placebo. Patients randomized to pregabalin received either 600 mg/day (creatinine clearance > 60 mL/min) or 300 mg/day (creatinine clearance 30 to 60 mL/min). The primary efficacy measure was the mean of the last seven daily pain ratings. Secondary endpoints included additional pain ratings, sleep interference, quality of life, mood, and patient and clinician ratings of global improvement. Results: Pregabalin-treated patients had greater decreases in pain than patients treated with placebo (endpoint mean scores 3.60 vs 5.29, p = 0.0001). Pain was significantly reduced in the pregabalin-treated patients after the first full day of treatment and throughout the study, and significant improvement on the McGill Pain Questionnaire total, sensory, and affective pain scores was also found. The proportions of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% decreases in mean pain scores were greater in the pregabalin than in the placebo group (63% vs 25% and 50% vs 20%, p = 0.001). Sleep also improved in patients treated with pregabalin compared to placebo (p = 0.0001). Both patients and clinicians were more likely to report global improvement with pregabalin than placebo (p = 0.001). Given the maximal dosage studied, pregabalin had acceptable tolerability compared to placebo despite a greater incidence of side effects, which were generally mild to moderate in intensity. Conclusions: Treatment of PHN with pregabalin is safe, efficacious in relieving pain and sleep interference, and associated with greater global improvement than treatment with placebo.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. FINDINGS 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. INTERPRETATION Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. FUNDING NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

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.

The prevalence of chronic pain in United States adults: results of an Internet-based survey.

UNLABELLED A cross-sectional, Internet-based survey was conducted in a nationally representative sample of United States (US) adults to estimate the point prevalence of chronic pain and to describe sociodemographic correlates and characteristics of chronic pain. The survey was distributed to 35,718 members (aged 18 years and older) of a Web-enabled panel that is representative of the US population, and 27,035 individuals responded. Crude and weighted prevalence estimates were calculated and stratified by age, sex, and type of chronic pain. The weighted point-prevalence of chronic pain (defined as chronic, recurrent, or long-lasting pain lasting for at least 6 months) was 30.7% (95% CI, 29.8-31.7). Prevalence was higher for females (34.3%) than males (26.7%) and increased with age. The weighted prevalence of primary chronic lower back pain was 8.1% and primary osteoarthritis pain was 3.9%. Half of respondents with chronic pain experienced daily pain, and average (past 3 months) pain intensity was severe (≥ 7 on a scale ranging from 0 to 10) for 32%. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified low household income and unemployment as significant socioeconomic correlates of chronic pain. Chronic pain is prevalent among US adults and is related to indicators of poorer socioeconomic status. PERSPECTIVE The results of this cross-sectional Internet-based survey suggest a considerable burden of chronic pain in US adults. Chronic pain, experienced by about a third of the population, was correlated with indicators of poorer socioeconomic status. Primary chronic pain was most commonly attributed to lower back pain, followed by osteoarthritis pain.

Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: An Overview of Recent Guidelines

A number of different treatments for neuropathic pain have been studied, but the literature is sizable, rapidly evolving, and lacks important information about practical aspects of patient management. Under the auspices of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG), a consensus process was used to develop evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain that take into account clinical efficacy, adverse effects, impact on health-related quality of life, convenience, and costs. On the basis of randomized clinical trials, medications recommended as first-line treatments for neuropathic pain included certain antidepressants (i.e., tricyclic antidepressants and dual reuptake inhibitors of both serotonin and norepinephrine), calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (i.e., gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in selected clinical circumstances. Other medications that generally would be used as third-line treatments include certain other antidepressant and antiepileptic medications, topical capsaicin, mexiletine, and N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists. Two other national and international associations recently published pharmacologic treatment guidelines for neuropathic pain, which are summarized and contrasted with the NeuPSIG recommendations. Recent guidelines for the use of neurostimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain also are summarized. For all treatments for neuropathic pain, long-term studies, head-to-head comparisons, and studies of treatment combinations are a priority for future research.

Core outcome domains and measures for pediatric acute and chronic/recurrent pain clinical trials: PedIMMPACT recommendations

UNLABELLED Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 26 professionals from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a 2-stage Delphi poll and a consensus meeting that identified core outcome domains and measures that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for acute and chronic pain in children and adolescents. Consensus was refined by consultation with the international pediatric pain community through announcement of our recommendations on the Pediatric Pain List and inviting and incorporating comments from external sources. There was consensus that investigators conducting pediatric acute pain clinical trials should consider assessing outcomes in pain intensity; global judgment of satisfaction with treatment; symptoms and adverse events; physical recovery; emotional response; and economic factors. There was also agreement that investigators conducting pediatric clinical trials in chronic and recurrent pain should consider assessing outcomes in pain intensity; physical functioning; emotional functioning; role functioning; symptoms and adverse events; global judgment of satisfaction with treatment; sleep; and economic factors. Specific measures or measurement strategies were recommended for different age groups for each domain. PERSPECTIVE Based on systematic review and consensus of experts, core domains and measures for clinical trials to treat pain in children and adolescents were defined. This will assist in comparison and pooling of data and promote evidence-based treatment, encourage complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the review of proposals and manuscripts, and facilitate clinicians making informed decisions regarding treatment.