Sharon Hertz

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.

Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT An essential component of the interpretation of results of randomized clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain involves the determination of their clinical importance or meaningfulness. This involves two distinct processes—interpreting the clinical importance of individual patient improvements and the clinical importance of group differences—which are frequently misunderstood. In this article, we first describe the essential differences between the interpretation of the clinical importance of patient improvements and of group differences. We then discuss the factors to consider when evaluating the clinical importance of group differences, which include the results of responder analyses of the primary outcome measure, the treatment effect size compared to available therapies, analyses of secondary efficacy endpoints, the safety and tolerability of treatment, the rapidity of onset and durability of the treatment benefit, convenience, cost, limitations of existing treatments, and other factors. The clinical importance of individual patient improvements can be determined by assessing what patients themselves consider meaningful improvement using well‐described methods. In contrast, the clinical meaningfulness of group differences must be determined by a multi‐factorial evaluation of the benefits and risks of the treatment and of other available treatments for the condition in light of the primary goals of therapy. Such determinations must be conducted on a case‐by‐case basis, and are ideally informed by patients and their significant others, clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and representatives of society at large.

Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: An IMMPACT survey of people with pain

&NA; This two‐phase study was conducted to identify relevant domains of patient‐reported outcomes from the perspective of people who experience chronic pain. In Phase 1, focus groups were conducted to generate a pool of patient outcome‐related domains and their components. The results of the focus groups identified 19 aspects of their lives that were significantly impacted by the presence of their symptoms and for which improvements were important criteria they would use in evaluating the effectiveness of any treatment. Phase 2 was conducted to examine the importance and relevance of domains identified from a much larger and diverse sample of people with chronic pain. A survey was developed and posted on the American Chronic Pain Association website. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each item or domain identified by the focus groups on a scale of 0 to10 (i.e., 0 = “not at all important” and 10 = “extremely important”). The survey was completed by 959 individuals. The results indicate that all 19 aspects of daily life derived from the focus groups were considered important with a majority of respondents indicating a score of 8 or greater. In addition to pain reduction, the most important aspects were enjoyment of life, emotional well‐being, fatigue, weakness, and sleep‐related problems. Chronic pain clearly impacts health‐related quality of life. The results of the two phases of the study indicate that people with chronic pain consider functioning and well‐being as important areas affected by the presence of symptoms and as appropriate targets of treatment. These multiple outcomes should be considered when evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments.

Development and initial validation of an expanded and revised version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2).

ABSTRACT The objective of the present research was to develop a single measure of the major symptoms of both neuropathic and non‐neuropathic pain that can be used in studies of epidemiology, natural history, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and treatment response. We expanded and revised the Short‐form McGill Pain Questionnaire1 (SF‐MPQ) pain descriptors by adding symptoms relevant to neuropathic pain and by modifying the response format to a 0–10 numerical rating scale to provide increased responsiveness in longitudinal studies and clinical trials. The reliability, validity, and subscale structure of the revised SF‐MPQ (SF‐MPQ‐21) were examined in responses from 882 individuals with diverse chronic pain syndromes and in 226 patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy who participated in a randomized clinical trial. The data suggest that the SF‐MPQ‐2 has excellent reliability and validity, and the results of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provided support for four readily interpretable subscales—continuous pain, intermittent pain, predominantly neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors. These results provide a basis for use of the SF‐MPQ‐2 in future clinical research, including clinical trials of treatments for neuropathic and non‐neuropathic pain conditions.

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

Anesthetic Neurotoxicity — Clinical Implications of Animal Models

Some anesthetics and sedatives have been shown to cause neurotoxic effects in laboratory animals. The FDA collaboration SmartTots recommends undertaking large-scale clinical studies and avoiding nonurgent surgical procedures requiring anesthesia in children younger than 3 years of age.

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.