The relation between the placebo response, observed treatment effect, and failure to meet primary endpoint: A systematic review of clinical trials of preventative pharmacological migraine treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the degree of response to placebo in migraine studies and the observed difference between drug and placebo across studies of preventative treatments for migraine. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from January 1988 to June 2019. Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials on oral or injection preventative treatments for migraine were included. Single- and multi-variable linear regression analyses were performed on the placebo-subtracted response rate (i.e. placebo responders subtracted from active responders), and the proportion of placebo responders. Fisher's exact tests were performed on the level of placebo response and the success in meeting the study's primary endpoint. RESULTS: After adjusting for route of administration and number of randomized subjects, there was a statistically significant association between the proportion of patients who were placebo responders and the placebo-subtracted response rate (b = -0.27, p = 0.02). There was a statistically significant difference in trial success rate (60%) between studies with ≤20% placebo responders and studies with > 30% placebo responders (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Considering the detrimental impact that high placebo response can have on clinical trials, it is imperative to find effective solutions to decrease the placebo response and increase assay sensitivity.

Short-acting and Long-acting Opioids Utilization among Women Diagnosed with Endometriosis in the United States: A Population-based Claims Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and pattern of opioid use in endometriosis and the characteristics of patients prescribed an opioid using medical insurance claims data. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial database for the period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2016. SETTING: The Truven database includes inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims covering more than 115 million unique individuals and over 36 million inpatient hospital discharges across multiple payer types and all 50 states. PATIENTS: Women with endometriosis were defined as those with 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient codes for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: No interventions were assigned. Women who filled an opioid prescription within 12 months of diagnosis were placed in the opioid cohort and women who did not fill an opioid prescription were placed in the nonopioid cohort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were evaluated 12 months preindex (date of the first diagnosis) and opioid use was assessed for 12 months after the index date. The dataset included 58 472 women with endometriosis. Of these, 61.7% filled an opioid prescription during the study period. More than 95% filled prescriptions for short-acting opioids (SAOs) only, 4.1% filled prescriptions for both SAOs and extended-release/long-acting opioids (LAOs), and 0.6% filled prescriptions for LAOs only. Patients who filled an opioid prescription had higher baseline comorbidities (especially gynecologic and chronic pain comorbidities) and endometriosis-related medication use compared with patients who did not fill an opioid prescription during the study period. Patients who filled both LAO and SAO prescriptions had the highest total days' supply of opioids, the proportion of days covered by prescriptions, and morphine equivalent daily dose. These patients also had the highest proportions of opioid switching and dose augmentation. Statistical trends in data were not substantially altered when analyses excluded patients with chronic pain comorbidities or surgical opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Although opioids are not a recommended treatment for endometriosis, more than half of our cohort filled an opioid prescription within 1 year after a first recorded diagnosis of endometriosis. Patients who filled an opioid prescription tended to use more endometriosis-related medications and have a higher comorbidity burden. Additional research is necessary to better understand the reasons and outcomes associated with opioid utilization in endometriosis and to determine if there is a more effective pain management treatment plan for patients taking opioids.

Long-term Safety and Tolerability of NKTR-181 in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain or Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Phase 3 Multicenter, Open-Label, 52-Week Study (SUMMIT-08 LTS).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety of NKTR-181, a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that may have reduced human abuse potential, in patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain (CLBP) or other chronic noncancer pain (CNP). DESIGN: Uncontrolled, multicenter, open-label, long-term study of NKTR-181 comprised of three periods: screening (≤21 days), treatment (52 weeks), and safety follow-up (∼14 days after the last dose of NKTR-181). SETTING: Multicenter, long-term clinical research study. METHODS: NKTR-181 administered at doses of 100-600 mg twice daily (BID) was evaluated in opioid-naïve and opioid-experienced patients. Patients were enrolled de novo or following completion of the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 efficacy study (SUMMIT-07). Safety assessments included adverse event documentation, measurements of opioid withdrawal, and clinical laboratory tests. Effectiveness was assessed using the modified Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (mBPI-SF). RESULTS: The study enrolled 638 patients. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were constipation (26%) and nausea (12%). Serious TEAEs, reported in 5% of patients, were deemed by investigators to be unrelated to NKTR-181. There were no deaths or reported cases of respiratory depression. A sustained reduction in mBPI-SF pain intensity and pain interference from baseline to study termination was observed throughout treatment. Only 2% of patients discontinued NKTR-181 due to lack of efficacy, and 11% discontinued due to treatment-related AEs. NKTR-181 doses of up to 600 mg BID were generally well tolerated, and patients experienced low rates of opioid-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support the premise that NKTR-181 is a safe and effective option for patients with moderate to severe CLBP or CNP.

Measuring Opioid Withdrawal in a Phase 3 Study of a New Analgesic, NKTR-181 (Oxycodegol), in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the SUMMIT-07 trial opioid withdrawal results of NKTR-181 (oxycodegol), a new molecular entity mu-opioid receptor agonist. DESIGN: Phase 3, enriched-enrollment, double-blind, randomized-withdrawal study in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SETTING: Conducted in the United States at multiple sites. METHODS: SUMMIT-07 was comprised of five periods: screening; NKTR-181 open-label titration (100 to 400 mg twice daily); 12-week randomized, double-blind study drug (NKTR-181 or placebo); one-week study drug taper; and two-week safety follow-up. Permitted rescue medication included hydrocodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 300 mg (two tablets daily) for two weeks after randomization, then acetaminophen 1.0 gm daily for the remainder of the trial. Signs and symptoms of drug withdrawal were evaluated using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS); Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS); Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS); and withdrawal-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1,190 patients entering titration, one patient had moderate withdrawal (COWS score 13/48 maximum) three days after discontinuing NKTR-181. Of 610 patients randomized (N = 309, NKTR-181; N = 301, placebo), no COWS scores indicating withdrawal at a moderate level or greater (i.e., score ≥13) were observed at any time point. At day 8 after randomization, week 12, and the end of tapering, COWS scores indicating mild withdrawal (<13) were observed in seven (2.4%), one (0.4%), and one (0.5%) placebo patients, respectively, and three (1.0%), one (0.4%), and five (2.3%) NKTR-181 patients, respectively. Mean SOWS scores in both arms were ≤2.8 of 64 possible points at all time points. During the randomized period, of 35 events identified by MADDERS, adjudicators identified 20 possible "withdrawal" events (9 [2.9%] NKTR-181 and 11 [3.7%] placebo). CONCLUSIONS: NKTR-181 exhibited a low rate and severity of opioid withdrawal in SUMMIT-07 patients with CLBP.

Capsaicin 8% patch repeat treatment plus standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a randomised, 52-week, open-label, safety study.

BACKGROUND: This 52-week study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of capsaicin 8% w/w (179 mg) patch repeat treatment plus standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN). METHODS: Phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomised, controlled, 52-week safety study, conducted in Europe. Patients were randomised to capsaicin 8% patch repeat treatment (30 or 60 min; 1-7 treatments with ≥ 8-week intervals) to painful areas of the feet plus SOC, or SOC alone. The primary objective was the safety of capsaicin 8% patch repeat treatment (30 min and 60 min applications) plus SOC versus SOC alone over 52 weeks, assessed by changes in Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (QOL-DN) total score from baseline to end of study (EOS). Secondary safety endpoints included Utah Early Neuropathy Scale (UENS) assessments and standardised testing of sensory perception and reflex function. RESULTS: Overall, 468 patients were randomised (30 min plus SOC, n = 156; 60 min plus SOC, n = 157; SOC alone, n = 155). By EoS, mean changes in Norfolk QOL-DN total score from baseline [estimated mean difference versus SOC alone; 90% CI for difference] were: 30 min plus SOC, -27.6% [-20.9; -31.7, -10.1]; 60 min plus SOC, -32.8% [-26.1; -36.8, -15.4]; SOC alone, -6.7%. Mean changes [difference versus SOC alone] in UENS total score by EoS versus baseline were: 30 min plus SOC, -2.1 [-0.9; -1.8, 0.1]; 60 min plus SOC, -3.0 [-1.7; -2.7, -0.8]; SOC alone, -1.2. No detrimental deterioration was observed in any of the Norfolk or UENS subscales by EoS with capsaicin. Also, no worsening in sensory perception testing of sharp, warm, cold and vibration stimuli was found with capsaicin by EoS. Capsaicin treatment was well tolerated and the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were application site pain (30 min, 28.2%; 60 min, 29.3%), burning sensation (30 min, 9.0%; 60 min, 9.6%) and application site erythema (30 min, 7.7%; 60 min, 8.9%). CONCLUSION: In patients with PDPN, capsaicin 8% patch repeat treatment plus SOC over 52 weeks was well tolerated with no negative functional or neurological effects compared with SOC alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01478607 . Date of registration November 21, 2011; retrospectively registered.

Development and feasibility of the misuse, abuse, and diversion drug event reporting system (MADDERS®).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate use of analgesic drugs has become increasingly pervasive over the past decade. Currently, drug abuse potential is primarily assessed post-marketing; no validated tools are available to assess this potential in phase II and III clinical trials. This paper describes the development and feasibility testing of a Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS), which aims to identify potentially abuse-related events and classify them according to a recently developed classification scheme, allowing the quantification of these events in clinical trials. METHODS: The system was initially conceived and designed with input from experts and patients, followed by field-testing to assess its feasibility and content validity in both completed and ongoing clinical trials. RESULTS: The results suggest that MADDERS is a feasible system with initial validity. It showed higher rates of the triggering events in subjects taking medications with known abuse potential than in patients taking medications without abuse potential. Additionally, experts agreed on the classification of most abuse-related events in MADDERS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: MADDERS is a new systematic approach to collect information on potentially abuse-related events in clinical trials and classify them. The system has demonstrated feasibility for implementation. Additional research is ongoing to further evaluate its validity. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Currently, there are no validated tools to assess drug abuse potential during clinical trials. Because of its ease of implementation, its systematic approach, and its preliminary validation results, MADDERS could provide such a tool for clinical trials. (Am J Addict 2016;25:641-651).

Review of the performance of quantitative sensory testing methods to detect hyperalgesia in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced hyperalgesia is a clinical syndrome whereby patients on long-term opioids become more sensitive to pain while taking opioids. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia is characterized by increased pain intensity over time, spreading of pain to other locations, and increased pain sensation to external stimuli. To characterize opioid-induced hyperalgesia, laboratory methods to measure hyperalgesia have been developed. To determine the performance of these methods, the authors conducted a systematic review of clinical studies that incorporate measures of hyperalgesia in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched (terms: opioid induced hyperalgesia, study or trial, and long-term or chronic). Studies published in English were selected if they were conducted in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids and incorporated measures of hyperalgesia; acute/single-dose studies and/or conducted in healthy volunteers were excluded. RESULTS: Fourteen articles made the final selection (11 were selected from the search and 3 others were found from additional sources); there was one randomized controlled trial, one prospective controlled study, three prospective uncontrolled studies, and nine cross-sectional observation studies. Hyperalgesia measurement paradigms used included cold pain, heat pain, pressure pain, electrical pain, ischemic pain, and injection pain. Although none of the stimuli were capable of detecting patients' hyperalgesia, heat pain sensitivity showed some promising results. CONCLUSIONS: None of the measures reviewed herein met the criteria of a definitive standard for the measurement of hyperalgesia. Additional studies that use improved study design should be conducted.

Development of a bedside pain assessment kit for the classification of patients with osteoarthritis.

There are no standardized bedside assessments for subtyping patients with osteoarthritis (OA) based on pain mechanisms. Thus, we developed a bedside sensory testing kit (BSTK) to classify OA patients based on sensory profiles potentially indicative of pain mechanism. After usability and informal reliability testing (n = 22), the kit was tested in a formal reliability study (n = 20). Patients completed questionnaires and sensory testing: pressure algometry to detect hyperalgesia; repeat algometry after heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation to measure diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC); light touch using Von Frey filaments; and cold allodynia using a brass rod. The procedure was brief and well tolerated. Algometry and filament testing were highly reliable [intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) 0.71-0.91]; DNIC was acceptably reliable (ICCs 0.53-0.91); brass rod reliability was inconclusive. Patients were classified empirically into four groups: "All abnormal findings" (primary and secondary hyperalgesia and dysfunctional DNIC); "all normal findings"; and two intermediate groups. The "all abnormal findings" group had more neuropathic pain symptoms, and lower WOMAC total, stiffness, and activity scores than the "all normal findings" group. Simple BSTK procedures, consolidated in a kit, reliably classified OA patients into subgroups based on sensory profile, suggesting that OA patients differ in underlying pain mechanisms. Further research is needed to confirm these subgroups and determine their validity in predicting response to treatment.

Assessment of pain and activity using an electronic pain diary and actigraphy device in a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of celecoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to determine whether a composite measure of pain and activity is a more responsive assessment of analgesic effect than pain alone or activity alone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, crossover study of celecoxib vs. placebo in subjects with chronic pain due to knee OA. Patients with knee OA and baseline pain intensity score ≥4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) before each period were randomized. Pain endpoints included in-clinic pain score (24-hour and 1-week recall), daily paper diary pain score, current pain on an electronic pain diary (each on NRS), and WOMAC pain subscale. Activity measures included WOMAC function subscale and actigraphy using a device. Three composite pain-activity measures were prespecified. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were randomized and 47 completed the study. The WOMAC pain subscale was the most responsive of all five pain measures. Pain-activity composites resulted in a statistically significant difference between celecoxib and placebo but were not more responsive than pain measures alone. However, a composite responder defined as having 20% improvement in pain or 10% improvement in activity yielded much larger differences between celecoxib and placebo than with pain scores alone. Actigraphy was more responsive than the WOMAC function scale, possibly due to lower placebo responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We have identified composite pain-activity measures that are similarly or more responsive than pain-alone measures in patients with OA. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal method for computing these composites.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of long-acting dexamethasone viscous gel delivered by transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161.

Expectations for Improvement: A Neglected but Potentially Important Covariate or Moderator for Chronic Pain Clinical Trials.

Variability in pain-related outcomes can hamper assay sensitivity of chronic pain clinical trials. Expectations of outcome in such trials may account for some of this variability, and thereby impede development of novel pain treatments. Measurement of participants' expectations prior to initiating study treatment (active or placebo) is infrequent, variable, and often unvalidated. Efforts to optimize and standardize measurement, analysis, and management of expectations are needed. In this Focus Article, we provide an overview of research findings on the relationship between baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in clinical trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatments. We highlight the potential benefit of adjusting for participants' expectations in clinical trial analyses and draw on findings from patient interviews to discuss critical issues related to measurement of expectations. We conclude with suggestions regarding future studies focused on better understanding the utility of incorporating these measures into clinical trial analyses. PERSPECTIVE: This focus article provides an overview of the relationship between participants' baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in the setting of clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Systematic research focused on the measurement of expectations and the impact of adjusting for expectations in clinical trial analyses may improve assay sensitivity.

Determining the clinically important difference in visual analog scale scores in abuse liability studies evaluating novel opioid formulations.

PURPOSE: This study determined how the magnitude of change in positive subjective responses predicts clinical outcome in a treatment setting. Specifically, we attempted to define what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID) in subjective responses. METHODS: A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) measured subjective ratings of drug "high," calculated via an anchor-based method with published data from participants receiving sustained-release naltrexone (NTX) and heroin in a laboratory setting. The data were then compared to clinical outcomes in a treatment trial with sustained-release naltrexone. A distribution-based method subsequently analyzed data from participants who received ALO-01 (extended-release morphine with sequestered NTX) to predict its abuse liability. RESULTS: Differences in ratings of drug high of approximately 10 mm on a 100-mm line were clinically significant. By extrapolation, CIDs were also found between crushed or intact ALO-01 and immediate-release morphine sulfate (IRMS). No CIDs were found between intact and crushed ALO-01. CONCLUSIONS: From laboratory and treatment trial data involving naltrexone, calculation of CIDs in subjective ratings of high is possible. Consequently, crushing/swallowing or injecting ALO-01 produces clinically significantly less drug high than oral or intravenous morphine alone, suggesting that ALO-01 has lower abuse liability by those routes than morphine formulations.

A brief survey to characterize oxycodone abuse patterns in adolescents enrolled in two substance abuse recovery high schools.

BACKGROUND: Although oxycodone is one of the most widely available and abused opioids, little published information exists on the abuse of immediate-release oxycodone. OBJECTIVE: To obtain information on abuse of oxycodone and the effectiveness of abuse-deterrent strategies, especially for immediate-release oxycodone, we surveyed oxycodone abuse patterns in a population of experienced opioid abusers. METHODS: Students or recent graduates of two substance abuse recovery high schools in Massachusetts were surveyed on abuse behaviors with short-acting single-entity oxycodone (e.g., Roxicodone), short-acting combination oxycodone (e.g., Percocet), and extended-release oxycodone. RESULTS: Twenty-four students completed surveys. Mean age was 17.7 years (range 16-19), and mean age at first abuse of oxycodone was 15 (range 13-18). Overall, 56% of students reported oxycodone as their favorite prescription opioid to abuse. The primary preferred method of abuse of all oxycodone formulations was intranasal administration: 83% of single-entity oxycodone abusers preferred intranasal administration compared with 67% of combination oxycodone abusers and 69% of extended-release oxycodone abusers. Approximately half of our respondents preferred to ingest oxycodone orally, 25-38% of respondents swallowed the pill intact, and another 13-17% chewed the pill before swallowing. Maximum dose ever abused at one time ranged from 15 to 400 mg. Most respondents had abused ≥60 mg of oxycodone at a time. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, adolescent oxycodone abusers use high quantities of oxycodone at a time, alter routes of administration for not only extended-release but also immediate-release products, and commonly abuse single-entity oxycodone products. Abuse-deterrent formulations may be one strategy for addressing such behaviors.

Evaluating the stability of opioid efficacy over 12 months in patients with chronic noncancer pain who initially demonstrate benefit from extended release oxycodone or hydrocodone: harmonization of Food and Drug Administration patient-level drug safety study data.

ABSTRACT: Opioids relieve acute pain, but there is little evidence to support the stability of the benefit over long-term treatment of chronic noncancer pain. Previous systematic reviews consider only group level published data which did not provide adequate detail. Our goal was to use patient-level data to explore the stability of pain, opioid dose, and either physical function or pain interference in patients treated for 12 months with abuse deterrent formulations of oxycodone and hydrocodone. All available studies in the Food and Drug Administration Document Archiving, Reporting, and Regulatory Tracking System were included. Patient-level demographics, baseline data, exposure, and outcomes were harmonized. Individual patient slopes were calculated from a linear model of pain, physical function, and pain interference to determine response over time. Opioid dose was summarized by change between baseline and the final month of observation. Patients with stable or less pain, stable or lower opioid dose, and stable or better physical function (where available) met our prespecified criteria for maintaining long-term benefit from chronic opioids. Of the complete data set of 3192 patients, 1422 (44.5%) maintained their pain level and opioid dose. In a secondary analysis of 985 patients with a measured physical function, 338 (34.3%) maintained their physical function in addition to pain and opioid dose. Of 2040 patients with pain interference measured, 788 (38.6%) met criteria in addition. In a carefully controlled environment, about one-third of patients successfully titrated on opioids to treat chronic noncancer pain demonstrated continued benefit for up to 12 months.

Improved Treatment Effect of Triamcinolone Acetonide Extended-Release in Patients with Concordant Baseline Pain Scores on the Average Daily Pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Pain Scales.

INTRODUCTION: A phase 3 randomized controlled study comparing triamcinolone acetonide extended-release (TA-ER) to conventional TA crystalline suspension (TAcs) reported variable efficacy results. Enrollment criteria may have contributed to this discrepancy, as moderate-to-severe average daily pain (ADP) was required at baseline, whereas no limitations were placed on Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC-A) pain severity. We conducted a post hoc sensitivity analysis to compare treatment effects in patients reporting moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) pain on both scales. METHODS: Participants > 40 years old with symptomatic knee OA were randomly assigned to a single intra-articular injection of TA-ER 32 mg, TAcs 40 mg, or saline-placebo and followed for 24 weeks. Patient-reported ADP, WOMAC-A, rescue medication usage, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Participants who reported moderate-to-severe OA pain at baseline using both instruments (ADP ≥ 5 to ≤ 9, maximum 10 and WOMAC-A ≥ 2, maximum 4) were categorized as "concordant" pain reporters; patients with baseline moderate-to-severe OA on ADP only were termed "discordant" pain reporters. RESULTS: Two-hundred-ninety-two concordant pain reporters of 484 total subjects received TA-ER 32 mg (n = 95), TAcs 40 mg (n = 100), or saline-placebo (n = 97). Baseline characteristics and AE profiles of the concordant and discordant pain responders were consistent with the full analysis population. Among concordant pain reporters, TA-ER significantly (p < 0.05) improved ADP scores vs. TAcs (weeks 5-19; area-under-the-effect [AUE]weeks1-12; AUEweeks1-24) and saline-placebo (weeks 1-20; AUEweeks1-12; AUEweeks1-24). At week 12, a higher proportion reported no knee pain (ADP = 0) with TA-ER (~ 28%) vs. TAcs (~ 8%). TA-ER significantly improved WOMAC-A vs. TAcs at weeks 4, 8, and 12, with significant reduction in rescue medication usage observed with TA-ER from weeks 2 to 20 vs. TAcs. CONCLUSIONS: In patients reporting moderate-to-severe knee OA pain at baseline based on concordant ADP and WOMAC-A scores, TA-ER provided statistically significant pain relief for ≥ 12 weeks compared with conventional TAcs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02357459.

Osteoarthritis is a chronic condition that greatly impacts patients. Pain is the most common symptom of osteoarthritis. Clinical trials evaluating the effects of new drugs to treat osteoarthritis pain frequently use scales to rate overall pain following treatment. Patients may rate their pain using a number that best describes their pain, with the lowest number typically meaning "no pain," and the highest number typically meaning "pain as bad as you can imagine." Other rating scales may be used to rate pain in situations commonly associated with osteoarthritis.Results from a large clinical trial demonstrated that injection of an extended-release steroid significantly reduced pain compared with a conventional steroid injection on only one of the two pain-reporting scales used in the trial. A closer look found that some patients reported their pain differently on the two rating scales at the start of the trial, with some reporting moderate-to-severe pain using one questionnaire and mild pain using the other. Here, we focused on those patients who reported having moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis knee pain on both pain scales at the start and found that the pain relief benefit associated with the extended-release steroid injection was greatly improved compared with the conventional steroid injection with both measures. Patients receiving the extended-release steroid injection also decreased their use of rescue medication for pain relief.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Tampering with prescription opioids: nature and extent of the problem, health consequences, and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Transdermal and solid oral prescription opioid (PO) formulations can be abused by ingesting (with or without tampering), snorting, or injection (both requiring tampering). OBJECTIVE: To determine the patterns of tampering with POs for abuse. METHODS: Information was collected from published studies and databases. RESULTS: Tampering with POs for abuse is common practice. Ingestion is the most prevalent method of abuse, followed by snorting and injection. From 1992 to 2002, injecting POs has decreased in favor of ingesting and snorting. Methods of abuse vary widely by product. Abuse methods with the highest morbidity are injection and inhalation. CONCLUSIONS: The seriousness of health outcomes associated with tampering with POs warrants the development of PO formulations that prevent or deter tampering.

Prescribing recommendations for the treatment of acute pain in dentistry.

Effective acute pain management is an essential but sometimes challenging component of dental practice. Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of various analgesic agents in dental postoperative models. This article combines an evaluation of the available evidence with current prescribing patterns to provide dental practitioners prescribing recommendations for acute pain, based on the anticipated severity of post-procedural pain. An important consideration when prescribing analgesics is to determine for whom opioid analgesics are necessary and appropriate, and if so, the dose and quantity that should be prescribed. This is partly because of the prevalence of substance and alcohol abuse that can be expected to be encountered within the dental patient population, and because substance abusers in the community frequently obtain prescription drugs from friends and family for misuse.

Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

The purpose of this article is to provide readers with a basis for understanding the emerging science of clinical trials and to provide a set of practical, evidence-based suggestions for designing and executing confirmatory clinical trials in a manner that minimizes measurement error. The most important step in creating a mindset of quality clinical research is to abandon the antiquated concept that clinical trials are a method for capturing data from clinical practice and shifting to a concept of the clinical trial as a measurement system, consisting of an interconnected set of processes, each of which must be in calibration for the trial to generate an accurate and reliable estimate of the efficacy (and safety) of a given treatment. The status quo of inaccurate, unreliable, and protracted clinical trials is unacceptable and unsustainable. This article gathers aspects of study design and conduct under a single broad umbrella of techniques available to improve the accuracy and reliability of confirmatory clinical trials across traditional domain boundaries.

What can be done to control the placebo response in clinical trials? A narrative review.

The desire to reduce high placebo response rates in clinical trials is a popular concept. However, few studies have rigorously examined the effectiveness of methods to control for placebo responses that are relevant to randomized controlled trials. The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effect of experimental placebo manipulations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We critically reviewed studies designed to manipulate placebo responses including positive expectations regarding the effectiveness of the placebo treatment, manipulating the time spent with subjects, and training study staff and subjects to accurately report symptom severity. These efforts have generally resulted in reduced placebo response and improved discrimination between drug and placebo. Interventions that neutralize staff and subject expectations and improve the ability of subjects to accurately report symptom severity have shown the most promise. Reduction of the placebo response has the potential to accelerate the development of new therapeutics.