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.

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.

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.

Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.

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.

Placebo Response Reduction and Accurate Pain Reporting Training Reduces Placebo Responses in a Clinical Trial on Chronic Low Back Pain: Results From a Comparison to the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: A literature review was conducted to compare placebo responses in a recent trial-which implemented an accurate pain reporting (APR) and placebo response reduction (PRR) training program-with placebo responses in similar previous trials in chronic lower back pain (CLBP) that did not use such training. METHODS: A literature search was performed to find parallel design, randomized, controlled trials of pharmacological treatments administered orally or through intravenous injection for CLBP. Studies were assessed for the proportion of placebo responders, defined as the proportion of patients in the placebo group with ≥30% reduction in pain intensity. A χ analysis was performed on the proportion of responders from the SPRINT trial and from other similar studies. RESULTS: Of 844 studies identified in the initial screening process, 16 studies were included for comparison. The percentage of placebo responders was statistically significantly lower in the SPRINT study (19.1%) compared with other CLBP trials (38.0%) (P=0.003). Our results show that the placebo response was lower in the SPRINT trial than other comparable studies on CLBP. DISCUSSION: These findings are consistent with results from other studies showing that neutralizing subject and study staff expectations of therapeutic benefit can decrease the placebo response in clinical trials. The results of this study suggest training participants and staff to improve pain reporting accuracy, neutralize expectations, and decrease external cues that may bias participants' pain ratings in clinical trials may effectively decrease the placebo response leading to increased assay sensitivity.

A Real-World Study Using Claims Data to Evaluate Possible Failure of Opioid Treatment Regimens Among Patients with Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis in the US.

BACKGROUND: Although opioids may be used in the management of pain in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), there is a dearth of real-world data characterizing opioid regimen failure in these patients. OBJECTIVE: Using claims data, this study explored measures that may be potentially indicative of opioid treatment failure and the association of such potential failure with health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a national employer-sponsored insurance claims database covering the years 2011-2016, this retrospective longitudinal study identified adults with hip/knee osteoarthritis who filled ≥1 opioid prescription (index event) and had continuous health plan enrollment 6 months pre- and ≥12 months post-index. Index opioid regimen intensity was defined in the 3-month post-index period by frequency, average daily dose, and duration of action. Possible index opioid regimen failure was defined as an increase in opioid regimen intensity, addition of a non-opioid pain medication, joint surgery, or opioid-abuse-related events. One-year follow-up HRU and costs were compared between those with possible treatment failure and those without. RESULTS: Among 271,512 OA patients (61.5% knee; 11.1% hip; 27.4% both), 34.9% met the definition of possible index opioid regimen failure within a year: increased regimen intensity (16.1%), joint surgery (14.0%), addition of non-opioid pain medication (11.4%), and opioid-abuse-related events (1.9%). Rates of possible failure generally increased with higher index regimen intensity. Compared with those who did not fail, those who potentially failed their index treatment regimen had significantly higher HRU (P<0.001), and all-cause ($36,699 vs $15,114) and osteoarthritis-related costs ($17,298 vs $1,967) (both P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among OA patients treated with opioids, approximately one-third may fail their index opioid regimen within a year and incur significantly higher HRU and costs than those without. Further research is needed to validate these findings with clinical outcomes.

Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

Assessment of potentially abuse-related events in two phase 3 studies of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, using the MADDERS® system (Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System).

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the abuse potential of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, in two phase 3 clinical trials using a newly developed reporting system: the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS®).Methods: SUMMIT-07 was an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study that examined the safety and efficacy of NKTR-181 across 12 weeks in opioid-naïve subjects with chronic low back pain. SUMMIT-LTS was a 52 week open-label study in opioid-naïve and experienced subjects with chronic low back pain or noncancer pain rolled over from SUMMIT-07 or enrolled de novo. System evaluations were triggered by adverse events of interest and drug accountability discrepancies signaling potentially abuse-related events. Each event was assigned a primary classification and supplementary classification(s) by investigators and by a blinded, independent committee of substance abuse experts (adjudicators). At the final study visit, investigators administered a survey to subjects to identify overlooked events of interest.Results: Seventy-nine (6.6%) of 1189 subjects were associated with 86 events in SUMMIT-07 and 51 (8.0%) of 638 subjects were associated with 59 events in SUMMIT-LTS. Most events were attributed to "Withdrawal" and, primarily in SUMMIT-07, "Therapeutic Error" (unintentional overuse) or "Misuse" (intentional overuse for a therapeutic purpose) of study medication. Adjudicators identified five possible "Abuse" events (three NKTR-181, two placebo) in SUMMIT-07 and four possible "Abuse" events (all NKTR-181) in SUMMIT-LTS.Conclusions: The MADDERS® system discerns potentially abuse-related events and identified low rates of withdrawal and a low risk of abuse potential, diversion or addiction associated with NKTR-181 in phase 3 trials.

A deeper look at pain variability and its relationship with the placebo response: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of naproxen in osteoarthritis of the knee.

Previous studies have shown a robust correlation between variability of clinical pain scores and responsiveness to placebo (but not active drug) in pain studies, but explanations for these relationships are lacking. We investigated this further by assessing relationship between the Focused Analgesia Selection Test (FAST), a psychophysical method that quantifies pain reporting variability in response to experimental stimuli, variability of daily clinical pain scores as captured using diary, and response to treatment in the context of a randomized controlled crossover trial of naproxen vs placebo in knee osteoarthritis. Evoked pain using the Staircase-Evoked Pain Procedure served as the primary efficacy endpoint. Variability of daily pain scores and the FAST were assessed at baseline. Fifty-five subjects completed the study and were included in the analyses. Our results indicated a statistically significant, moderate linear relationship between variability of clinical and experimental pain reports (r = -0.416, P = 0.004). Both correlated with the placebo response (r = 0.393, P = 0.004; r =-0.371, P = 0.009; respectively), but only the FAST predicted the treatment difference between naproxen and placebo, as demonstrated both in a regression model (P = 0.002, Beta = 0.456, t = 3.342) and in a receiver operating characteristic curve (0.721) analysis. Our results extend previous findings to include a correlation between experimental pain variability and the placebo response and suggest that experimental pain variability is a better predictor of patients who respond preferentially to drug over placebo. A theoretical model unifying these observations is proposed, and practical implications are discussed.

Demonstrating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects Among Patients: An Overlooked but Important Step Toward Precision Medicine.

Although heterogeneity in the observed outcomes in clinical trials is often assumed to reflect a true heterogeneous response, it could actually be due to random variability. This retrospective analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiperiod (i.e., episode) crossover trials of fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain illustrates the use of multiperiod crossover trials to examine heterogeneity of treatment response. A mixed-effects model, including fixed effects for treatment and episode and random effects for patient and treatment-by-patient interaction, was used to assess the heterogeneity in patients' responses to treatment during each episode. A significant treatment-by-patient interaction was found for three of four trials (P < 0.05), suggesting heterogeneity of the effect of fentanyl among different patients in each trial. Similar analyses in other therapeutic areas could identify conditions and therapies that should be investigated further for predictors of treatment response in efforts to maximize the efficiency of developing precision medicine strategies.

Staircase-evoked Pain May be More Sensitive Than Traditional Pain Assessments in Discriminating Analgesic Effects: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Naproxen in Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

OBJECTIVES: Analgesic trials often fail to show a significant effect even when medications with known efficacy are tested. This could be attributed to insufficient assay sensitivity of analgesic trials, which may be due, in part, to the insensitivity of pain-related outcome measures. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the responsiveness of evoked pain generated by the staircase procedure compared with other commonly used pain outcomes in knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial of 1-week treatment of naproxen versus placebo. Participants were assigned to one of the 2 treatment sequences (naproxen-placebo or placebo-naproxen). Pain-at-rest, evoked pain using the Staircase-Evoked Pain Procedure (StEPP), pain diary, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) data were collected before and at the end of each treatment sequence. RESULTS: A total of 55 osteoarthritis patients (30 M, 25 F) completed the study. Among all pain assessments, evoked pain was the most sensitive outcome to detect treatment effects, with Standardized Effect Size (SES) of 0.47 followed by the WOMAC and pain-at-rest with SES of 0.43 and 0.36, respectively. Sample size calculations demonstrated that compared with spontaneous pain, the evoked pain model reduces required number of subjects by 40%. DISCUSSION: Study results support our hypothesis that evoked pain using the StEPP may demonstrate greater responsiveness to treatment effects compared with traditional pain-related outcome measures. Accordingly, these results may facilitate development and validation of other chronic pain-related evoked pain models, which could contribute to future research and development of new analgesics.

Evaluation of composite responder outcomes of pain intensity and physical function in neuropathic pain clinical trials: an ACTTION individual patient data analysis.

Integrating information on physical function and pain intensity into a composite measure may provide a useful method for assessing treatment efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain. Accordingly, we evaluated composite outcomes in trials of duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. Data on 2287 patients in 9 trials for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and 1513 patients in 6 trials for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) were analyzed. All trials assessed pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale and physical function with the 10-item subscale of the Short Form-36, ranging 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating better function. Correlation between change in pain intensity from baseline to posttreatment and change in physical function was small in DPN (ρ = -0.22; P < 0.001) and nonsignificant in PHN (ρ = -0.05; P = 0.08). Assay sensitivities of 10 composite outcomes were examined in a random subsample of patients enrolled in pregabalin trials for DPN and PHN. Of these, a responder outcome of ≥50% improvement in pain intensity, or a ≥20% improvement in pain intensity and ≥30% improvement in physical function was not only significantly associated with pregabalin vs placebo in the development cohorts for both pain conditions but also in the validation cohorts. Furthermore, this composite outcome was cross-validated in trials of gabapentin for PHN and duloxetine for DPN, and had slightly lower number needed to treat than a standard responder outcome of ≥50% reduction in pain intensity. In summary, this study identified a composite outcome of pain intensity and physical function that may improve the assay sensitivity of future neuropathic pain trials.

Trial designs for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy prevention: ACTTION recommendations.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and potentially dose-limiting side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapies. No therapies are available to prevent CIPN. The small number of positive randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating preventive therapies for CIPN provide little guidance to inform the design of future trials. Moreover, the lack of consensus regarding major design features in this area poses challenges to development of new therapies. An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION)-Consortium on Clinical Endpoints and Procedures for Peripheral Neuropathy Trials (CONCEPPT) meeting attended by neurologists, oncologists, pharmacists, clinical trialists, statisticians, and regulatory experts was convened to discuss design considerations and provide recommendations for CIPN prevention trials. This article outlines considerations related to design of RCTs that evaluate preventive therapies for CIPN including (1) selection of eligibility criteria (e.g., cancer types, chemotherapy types, inclusion of preexisting neuropathy); (2) selection of outcome measures and endpoints, including those that incorporate alterations in chemotherapy dosing, which may affect the rate of CIPN development and its severity; (3) potential effects of the investigational therapy on the efficacy of chemotherapy; and (4) sample size estimation. Our hope is that attention to the design considerations and recommendations outlined in this article will improve the quality and assay sensitivity of CIPN prevention trials and thereby accelerate the identification of efficacious therapies.

Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

Analgesic trials frequently fail to demonstrate efficacy of drugs known to be efficacious. Poor pain reporting accuracy is a possible source for this low essay-sensitivity. We report the effects of Accurate-Pain-Reporting-Training (APRT) on the placebo response in a trial of Pregabalin for painful-diabetic-neuropathy. The study was a two-stage randomized, double-blind trial: In Stage-1 (Training) subjects were randomized to APRT or No-Training. The APRT participants received feedback on the accuracy of their pain reports in response to mechanical stimuli, measured by R-square score. In Stage-2 (Evaluation) all subjects entered a placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. Primary (24-h average pain intensity) and secondary (current, 24-h worst, and 24-h walking pain intensity) outcome measures were reported. Fifty-one participants completed the study. APRT patients (n = 28) demonstrated significant (p = 0.036) increases in R-square scores. The APRT group demonstrated significantly (p = 0.018) lower placebo response (0.29 ± 1.21 vs. 1.48 ± 2.21, mean difference ± SD = -1.19±1.73). No relationships were found between the R-square scores and changes in pain intensity in the treatment arm. In summary, our training successfully increased pain reporting accuracy and resulted in a diminished placebo response. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.