Leveraging the functionality of Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to enhance data collection and quality in the Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study.

BACKGROUND: The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study is a double-blind, prospective, clinical trial investigating analgesic effectiveness in the management of acute post-surgical pain after impacted third molar extraction across five clinical sites. Specifically, Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study examines a commonly prescribed opioid combination (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) against a non-opioid combination (ibuprofen/acetaminophen). The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study employs a novel, electronic infrastructure, leveraging the functionality of its data management system, Research Electronic Data Capture, to not only serve as its data reservoir but also provide the framework for its quality management program. METHODS: Within the Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study, Research Electronic Data Capture is expanded into a multi-function management tool, serving as the hub for its clinical data management, project management and credentialing, materials management, and quality management. Research Electronic Data Capture effectively captures data, displays/tracks study progress, triggers follow-up, and supports quality management processes. RESULTS: At 72% study completion, over 12,000 subject data forms have been executed in Research Electronic Data Capture with minimal missing (0.15%) or incomplete or erroneous forms (0.06%). Five hundred, twenty-three queries were initiated to request clarifications and/or address missing data and data discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Research Electronic Data Capture is an effective digital health technology that can be maximized to contribute to the success of a clinical trial. The Research Electronic Data Capture infrastructure and enhanced functionality used in Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study provides the framework and the logic that ensures complete, accurate, data while guiding an effective, efficient workflow that can be followed by team members across sites. This enhanced data reliability and comprehensive quality management processes allow for better preparedness and readiness for clinical monitoring and regulatory reporting.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study (OARS)-a comparison of opioid vs. non-opioid combination analgesics for management of post-surgical pain: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Everyday people die unnecessarily from opioid overdose-related addiction. Dentists are among the leading prescribers of opioid analgesics. Opioid-seeking behaviors have been linked to receipt of initial opioid prescriptions following the common dental procedure of third molar extraction. With each opioid prescription, a patient's risk for opioid misuse or abuse increases. With an estimated 56 million tablets of 5 mg hydrocodone annually prescribed after third molar extractions in the USA, 3.5 million young adults may be unnecessarily exposed to opioids by dentists who are inadvertently increasing their patient's risk for addiction. METHODS: A double-blind, stratified randomized, multi-center clinical trial has been designed to evaluate whether a combination of over-the-counter non-opioid-containing analgesics is not inferior to the most prescribed opioid analgesic. The impacted 3rd molar extraction model is being used due to the predictable severity of the post-operative pain and generalizability of results. Within each site/clinic and gender type (male/female), patients are randomized to receive either OPIOID (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/300 mg) or NON-OPIOID (ibuprofen/acetaminophen 400/500 mg). Outcome data include pain levels, adverse events, overall patient satisfaction, ability to sleep, and ability to perform daily functions. To develop clinical guidelines and a clinical decision-making tool, pain management, extraction difficulty, and the number of tablets taken are being collected, enabling an experimental decision-making tool to be developed. DISCUSSION: The proposed methods address the shortcomings of other analgesic studies. Although prior studies have tested short-term effects of single doses of pain medications, patients and their dentists are interested in managing pain for the entire post-operative period, not just the first 12 h. After surgery, patients expect to be able to perform normal daily functions without feeling nauseous or dizzy and they desire a restful sleep at night. Parents of young people are concerned with the risks of opioid use and misuse, related either to treatments received or to subsequent use of leftover pills. Upon successful completion of this clinical trial, dentists, patients, and their families will be better able to make informed decisions regarding post-operative pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04452344 . Registered on June 20, 2020.

Analgesic efficacy of naproxen sodium versus hydrocodone/acetaminophen in acute postsurgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid/acetaminophen combinations may be overly prescribed in many post-surgical situations where a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with equal or greater efficacy, fewer central nervous system side effects, and no risk for opioid abuse could be substituted. We compared a single, non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium 440 mg (NapS) against hydrocodone plus acetaminophen 10/650 mg (HYD+APAP) in post-impaction surgery pain. METHODS: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in moderate-severe pain after surgical removal of impacted third molars (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04307940). Patients (n = 212) received NapS, HYD+APAP, or placebo and were assessed over 12 hours. Primary endpoint: summed pain intensity difference from 0 to 12 hours (SPID0-12). Secondary endpoints: pain intensity, pain relief, time to rescue medication, duration of pain at least half gone. Others: onset of pain relief, global assessment of treatment, adverse events. RESULTS: All 221 randomized patients formed the safety population and were included in the intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis. Nine patients discontinued treatment or had protocol violations, and 212 patients were included in the per-protocol, primary efficacy population. Both active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo. NapS was significantly more effective than HYD+APAP regarding SPID0-12 (p = 0.01; primary endpoint), total pain relief (0-6 and 0-12 hours; p < 0.05), time to rescue medication (p < 0.001), and duration of pain at least half gone (p < 0.001). HYD+APAP was not statistically superior to NapS for any endpoint. More adverse events were reported with HYD+APAP (n = 63) than NapS (n = 2) and placebo (n = 20), including nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. CONCLUSION: In moderate-to-severe postsurgical dental pain, a single dose of NapS was at least as effective as HYD+APAP in the early hours, significantly more effective at reducing pain intensity and providing greater pain relief over 12 hours, and was better tolerated. When not contraindicated, NapS should be considered a preferred alternative to opioid combinations for acute pain. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04307940; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04307940).

Efficacy and Safety of Two Fixed-Dose Combinations of Tramadol Hydrochloride and Diclofenac Sodium in Postoperative Dental Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of tramadol hydrochloride/diclofenac sodium fixed-dose combination 25 mg/25 mg (FDC 25/25) and 50 mg/50 mg (FDC 50/50) vs tramadol 50 mg (T50) and diclofenac 50 mg (D50) monotherapies in acute postoperative dental pain. SETTING: Eight sites across Mexico. SUBJECTS: Adults (N = 829) with moderate to severe pain after third molar extraction. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, diclofenac- and tramadol-controlled, parallel-group, noninferiority, phase 3 trial. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to receive three doses (one every eight hours) of oral FDC 25/25, FDC 50/50, T50, or D50 over a 24-hour period. Pain intensity and pain relief were evaluated frequently over the 24 hours postdose. Secondary measures included peak pain relief, onset, and duration of effect. The primary objective was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of FDC 50/50 or analgesic noninferiority of FDC 25/25 vs D50 or T50. The primary efficacy end point was total pain relief over four hours after dose 1 (TOTPAR4). RESULTS: TOTPAR4 scores showed that FDC 25/25 was noninferior (P < 0.0001, delta = 1.5) and FDC 50/50 was superior (P < 0.0001) to the individual components. All secondary efficacy measures supported these results. The safety profile of FDC 25/25 and FDC 50/50 was consistent with the known safety profile of D50 and T50 monotherapies, with no unexpected safety findings observed. CONCLUSIONS: Tramadol/diclofenac FDC 25/25 and FDC 50/50 provide superior analgesia for acute pain after third molar extraction than either of the individual components. Minor adverse effects appeared to be related to the higher doses of tramadol.

Current methods and challenges for acute pain clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical setting of acute pain has provided some of the first approaches for the development of analgesic clinical trial methods. OBJECTIVES: This article reviews current methods and challenges and provides recommendations for future design and conduct of clinical trials of interventions to treat acute pain. CONCLUSION: Growing knowledge about important diverse patient factors as well as varying pain responses to different acute pain conditions and surgical procedures has highlighted several emerging needs for acute pain trials. These include development of early-phase trial designs that minimize variability and thereby enhance assay sensitivity, minimization of bias through blinding and randomization to treatment allocation, and measurement of clinically relevant outcomes such as movement-evoked pain. However, further improvements are needed, in particular for the development of trial methods that focus on treating complex patients at high risk of severe acute pain.

Longer analgesic effect with naproxen sodium than ibuprofen in post-surgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose trial.

Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as first-line medications in mild-to-moderate acute pain. However, comparative data regarding the duration of analgesia for commonly-used NSAIDs at non-prescription doses is lacking. This study evaluated the time to rescue medication following a single dose of naproxen sodium (NAPSO) vs ibuprofen (IBU) and placebo in subjects with moderate-to-severe post-surgical dental pain.Methods: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study included healthy subjects with moderate-to-severe baseline pain (Categorical Pain Intensity Scale) who also rated their pain ≥ 5 on a 0-10 pain intensity Numerical Rating Scale following extraction of two impacted mandibular third molars. A single oral dose of NAPSO (440 mg), IBU (400 mg), or placebo was administered. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to first rescue medication, while secondary endpoints included the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) and total pain relief (TOTPAR) over 24 h. ClinicalTrials.gov trial registration number: NCT03404206 (EudraCT 2017-005049-67).Results: In the per protocol population (n = 385; mean age = 19 years), the time to rescue medication was significantly (p < .001) longer with NAPSO than IBU and placebo. After treatment, the greatest separation of NAPSO from IBU occurred at 9-14 h and from placebo at 1-6 h. Fewer NAPSO subjects required rescue medication (58/166, 34.9%) compared with IBU (137/165, 83.0%) and placebo (44/54, 81.5%). SPID 0-24 h and TOTPAR 0-24 h were both greater with NAPSO than IBU or placebo.Conclusions: The duration of pain relief after a single dose of NAPSO was significantly longer than after IBU, and significantly fewer NAPSO-treated subjects required rescue medication over a 24-h period.

Clinical trial designs and models for analgesic medications for acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents: ACTTION recommendations.

Clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of analgesics across all pediatric age cohorts are needed to avoid inappropriate extrapolation of adult data to children. However, the selection of acute pain models and trial design attributes to maximize assay sensitivity, by pediatric age cohort, remains problematic. Acute pain models used for drug treatment trials in adults are not directly applicable to the pediatric age cohorts-neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents. Developmental maturation of metabolic enzymes in infants and children must be taken into consideration when designing trials to test analgesic treatments for acute pain. Assessment tools based on the levels of cognitive maturation and behavioral repertoire must be selected as outcome measures. Models and designs of clinical trials of analgesic medications used in the treatment of acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents were reviewed and discussed at an Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) Pediatric Pain Research Consortium consensus meeting. Based on extensive reviews and continuing discussions, the authors recommend a number of acute pain clinical trial models and design attributes that have the potential to improve the study of analgesic medications in pediatric populations. Recommendations are also provided regarding additional research needed to support the use of other acute pain models across pediatric age cohorts.

Exploring the Interplay between Rescue Drugs, Data Imputation, and Study Outcomes: Conceptual Review and Qualitative Analysis of an Acute Pain Data Set.

In placebo-controlled acute surgical pain studies, provisions must be made for study subjects to receive adequate analgesic therapy. As such, most protocols allow study subjects to receive a pre-specified regimen of open-label analgesic drugs (rescue drugs) as needed. The selection of an appropriate rescue regimen is a critical experimental design choice. We hypothesized that a rescue regimen that is too liberal could lead to all study arms receiving similar levels of pain relief (thereby confounding experimental results), while a regimen that is too stringent could lead to a high subject dropout rate (giving rise to a preponderance of missing data). Despite the importance of rescue regimen as a study design feature, there exist no published review articles or meta-analysis focusing on the impact of rescue therapy on experimental outcomes. Therefore, when selecting a rescue regimen, researchers must rely on clinical factors (what analgesics do patients usually receive in similar surgical scenarios) and/or anecdotal evidence. In the following article, we attempt to bridge this gap by reviewing and discussing the experimental impacts of rescue therapy on a common acute surgical pain population: first metatarsal bunionectomy. The function of this analysis is to (1) create a framework for discussion and future exploration of rescue as a methodological study design feature, (2) discuss the interplay between data imputation techniques and rescue drugs, and (3) inform the readership regarding the impact of data imputation techniques on the validity of study conclusions. Our findings indicate that liberal rescue may degrade assay sensitivity, while stringent rescue may lead to unacceptably high dropout rates.

The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) Multidimensional Approach to Classifying Acute Pain Conditions.

Objective: With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (e.g., pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain. Setting: Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). Methods: As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions. Perspective: The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Conclusions: Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) Multidimensional Approach to Classifying Acute Pain Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (eg, pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain. SETTING: Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). METHODS: As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions. PERSPECTIVE: The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

Pain intensity rating training: results from an exploratory study of the ACTTION PROTECCT system.

Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.

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.

Assay sensitivity of pain intensity versus pain relief in acute pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity. PERSPECTIVE: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.

Reporting of adverse events and statistical details of efficacy estimates in randomized clinical trials of pain in temporomandibular disorders: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Statistical methods and adverse events (that is, harms) data affect the accuracy of conclusions about the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). The authors reviewed the quality of reporting in TMD clinical trials to highlight practices that are in need of improvement. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included articles published between 1969 and May 31, 2013, in which the investigators reported randomized clinical trials of TMD treatments with pain as a principal outcome variable. Investigators in trials of nonpharmacologic and noninvasive treatments were required to at least mask the participants and assessors; all others were required to be double masked. RESULTS: Ninety articles qualified for this review: 39 published between 1971 and 2005 (older articles) and 51 published between 2006 and 2013 (newer articles). Specification of primary outcome analyses, methods to accommodate missing data, and adverse event collection methods and rates were generally poor. In some cases, there was apparent improvement from the older to the newer cohort; however, reporting of these methodological details remained inadequate even in the newer articles. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review is designed to alert authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of TMD clinical trials to these issues and improve reporting quality in the future.

Quality of pain intensity assessment reporting: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

UNLABELLED: Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting.

Delayed-onset muscle soreness: a pilot study to assess analgesic study design features.

Based on a thorough review of the available literature in the delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) model, we identified multiple study design characteristics that are considered to be normative in acute pain research but have not been followed in a majority of published DOMS experiments. We designed an analgesic investigation using the DOMS model that both complied with current scientifically accepted standards for the conduct of analgesic studies and demonstrated reasonable assay sensitivity. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled within-subject study compared the efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium 1% with a matching placebo in reducing pain associated with DOMS. After exercise, subjects reporting DOMS received topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% (DSG 1%) applied to one leg and placebo to the other every 6 hours for 48 hours. Pain intensity was assessed at rest, upon standing, and when walking in the 48 hours after initial drug application (T0). The primary end point was the reduction in pain intensity (SPID 24) on walking. Subjects receiving DSG 1% had less pain while walking compared with those receiving placebo at 24 hours (SPID 24 = 34.9 [22.9] and 23.6 [19.4], respectively; P = 0.032). This investigation used experimental techniques that have been vetted in the field of exercise physiology and superimposed techniques that are considered to be best practice in the field of analgesic research. Over time and with the help of colleagues in both fields of study, similar investigations will validate design features that impact the assay sensitivity of analgesic end points in DOMS models. In addition, the study confirmed the analgesic efficacy of topical DSG 1% over placebo in subjects experiencing DOMS.

Pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac.

PURPOSE: This study compared the pharmacokinetic properties and safety profile of low-dose (18- and 35-mg) diclofenac capsules manufactured using SoluMatrix Fine Particle Technology (Trademark of iCeutica Inc. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and the technology is licensed to Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) for exclusive use in NSAIDs), which produces submicron-sized drug particles with enhanced dissolution properties, to those of diclofenac potassium immediate-release (IR) 50-mg tablets. METHODS: This Phase 1, single-center, randomized, open-label, single-dose crossover study was conducted in 40 healthy volunteers. Subjects received, in randomized order, SoluMatrix diclofenac 18- or 35-mg capsules in the fasting condition, SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules under fed conditions, and diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets under fasting and fed conditions. Pharmacokinetic parameters (T(max), C(max), AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞)) were calculated from the concentrations of diclofenac in the plasma. Absorption, food effect, and dose proportionality were determined using a mixed-model ANOVA for C(max), AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞). Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events, physical examination findings, vital sign measurements: clinical laboratory test results. FINDINGS: Overall, 35 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 52 years completed the study. The mean age of the subjects was 33.4 years, and approximately half were men (47.5%). Median T(max) values were similar between the low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules and the diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets (both, ~1.0 hour). The mean maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) after the administration of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules was 26% lower than that with diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets under fasting conditions (868.72 vs 1194.21 ng/mL). The administration of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules was associated with a 23% lower overall systemic exposure compared with that of diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets under fasting conditions. Food decreased the rate but not the overall extent of absorption of SoluMatrix diclofenac. No serious AEs and no clinically significant abnormalities in physical examination findings, including vital sign measurements, or clinical laboratory test results, were noted during this study. IMPLICATIONS: The pharmacokinetic properties of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac capsules in the healthy volunteers in this study suggest rapid diclofenac absorption as measured by T(max). Low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac capsules represent a potential option for the management of acute and osteoarthritis-related pain.