Perspectives on the opioid crisis from pain medicine clinicians.

Patients experiencing a terminal drug related event reflect a sentinel event. If this pharmacotherapy is a widely used agent, it may be viewed as a catastrophic problem. If patients are dying from illegal drug use when the medical establishment fails them by withdrawing or minimizing their medically prescribed medication, then the burden rests with their health care providers, legislation, and insurance carriers to actively participate in a collegial fashion to achieve parity. Causing a decay in functionality in previously functional patients, may occur with appropriately prescribed opioid medications addressing non-cancer pain when withdrawing or diminishing either with or without patient consent. The members of the medical profession have diminished their prescribing of opioids for their patients out of apparent fear of reprisal, state or federal government sanctions, and other concerned groups. Diminishing former dosages or deleting the opioid medication, preferably in concert with the patient, often results in inequitable patient care. Enforcing sanctioned decreases or ceasing to prescribe from their former required/established opioid medications precipitate patient discord. In absence of opioid misuse, abuse, diversion or addiction based upon medical "guidelines" and with a poor foundation of Evidence Based Medicine the CDC guidelines, it may be masked as a true guideline reflecting a decrement of clinical judgment, wisdom, and compassion. This article also discusses the role of pharmacy chains, insurance carriers, and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) contribution to this multidimensional problem. There may be a potential solution, identified in this paper, if all the associated political, medical and insurance groups work cohesively to improve patient care. This article and the CDC guidelines are not focused at hospice, palliative, end of life care pain management.

Core outcome measures for opioid abuse liability laboratory assessment studies in humans: IMMPACT recommendations.

A critical component in development of opioid analgesics is assessment of their abuse liability (AL). Standardization of approaches and measures used in assessing AL have the potential to facilitate comparisons across studies, research laboratories, and drugs. The goal of this report is to provide consensus recommendations regarding core outcome measures for assessing the abuse potential of opioid medications in humans in a controlled laboratory setting. Although many of the recommended measures are appropriate for assessing the AL of medications from other drug classes, the focus here is on opioid medications because they present unique risks from both physiological (e.g., respiratory depression, physical dependence) and public health (e.g., individuals in pain) perspectives. A brief historical perspective on AL testing is provided, and those measures that can be considered primary and secondary outcomes and possible additional outcomes in AL assessment are then discussed. These outcome measures include the following: subjective effects (some of which comprise the primary outcome measures, including drug liking; physiological responses; drug self-administration behavior; and cognitive and psychomotor performance. Before presenting recommendations for standardized approaches and measures to be used in AL assessments, the appropriateness of using these measures in clinical trials with patients in pain is discussed.

Assessment of the pharmacology and tolerability of PF-04457845, an irreversible inhibitor of fatty acid amide hydrolase-1, in healthy subjects.

UNLABELLED: AIMS To evaluate the pharmacology and tolerability of PF-04457845, an orally available fatty acid amide hydrolase-1 (FAAH1) inhibitor, in healthy subjects. METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled single and multiple rising dose studies and an open-label, randomized, food effect study were conducted. Plasma and urine PF-04457845 concentrations, plasma fatty acid amide concentrations and FAAH1 activity in human leucocytes were measured. Tolerability, including effects on cognitive function, were assessed. RESULTS: PF-04457845 was rapidly absorbed (median t(max) 0.5-1.2 h). Exposure increased supraproportionally to dose from 0.1 to 10 mg and proportionally between 10 and 40 mg single doses. The pharmacokinetics appeared dose proportional following 14 days once daily dosing between 0.5 and 8 mg. Steady-state was achieved by day 7. Less than 0.1% of the dose was excreted in urine. Food had no effect on PF-04457845 pharmacokinetics. FAAH1 activity was almost completely inhibited (>97%) following doses of at least 0.3 mg (single dose) and 0.5 mg once daily (multiple dose) PF-04457845. Mean fatty acid amide concentrations increased (3.5- to 10-fold) to a plateau and then were maintained following PF-04457845. FAAH1 activity and fatty acid amide concentrations returned to baseline within 2 weeks following cessation of dosing at doses up to 4 mg. There was no evidence of effects of PF-04457845 on cognitive function. PF-04457845, at doses up to 40 mg single dose and 8 mg once daily for 14 days, was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: PF-04457845 was well tolerated at doses exceeding those required for maximal inhibition of FAAH1 activity and elevation of fatty acid amides.

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations. Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.