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).

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.

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 review of the use of the number needed to treat to evaluate the efficacy of analgesics.

UNLABELLED: Standardized measures of efficacy are needed to compare analgesic efficacy across trials. The number needed to treat (NNT) is considered a statistically robust and readily interpretable measure to rank the efficacy of treatments, including analgesics. The NNT has become widely utilized to compare the efficacy of chronic pain treatments, helping physicians make treatment decisions and informing decisions for market access, reimbursement, and treatment guidelines. However, the NNT is associated with specific weaknesses in calculation and interpretation not associated with other methods for integrating trial data. These weaknesses include distortions in calculation as placebo effects approach treatment effects, with the possibility of infinite values; difficulties in estimating the NNT's confidence interval; and difficulties in interpretation. The NNT also requires selecting cutoffs of the original variable for dichotomization, with the NNT often changing depending on the cutoff. The NNT also suffers from problems common to other placebo-adjusted endpoints, including being sensitive to study-related and external factors (eg, year of publication). Therefore, clinicians and other stakeholders need to be aware of these issues to correctly calculate, use, and interpret the NNT. Nevertheless, efficacy, as measured by any variable, is only one aspect of a treatment to be considered in determining its place in therapy. PERSPECTIVE: The NNT has become widely utilized to compare the efficacy of chronic pain treatments. This article reviews the uses of the NNT and the potential problems associated with its calculation, use, and interpretation. Clinicians should be aware of these issues when interpreting clinical trial data based on the NNT.