Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Shaped magnetic field pulses by multi-coil repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) differentially modulate anterior cingulate cortex responses and pain in volunteers and fibromyalgia patients.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown promise in the alleviation of acute and chronic pain by altering the activity of cortical areas involved in pain sensation. However, current single-coil rTMS technology only allows for effects in surface cortical structures. The ability to affect activity in certain deep brain structures may however, allow for a better efficacy, safety, and tolerability. This study used PET imaging to determine whether a novel multi-coil rTMS would allow for preferential targeting of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), an area always activated with pain, and to provide preliminary evidence as to whether this targeted approach would allow for efficacious, safe, and tolerable analgesia both in a volunteer/acute pain model as well as in fibromyalgia chronic pain patients. METHODS: Part 1: Different coil configurations were tested in a placebo-controlled crossover design in volunteers (N = 16). Tonic pain was induced using a capsaicin/thermal pain model and functional brain imaging was performed by means of H2(15)O positron emission tomography - computed tomography (PET/CT) scans. Differences in NRS pain ratings between TMS and sham treatment (NRS(TMS)-NRS(placebo)) which were recorded each minute during the 10 minute PET scans. Part 2: 16 fibromyalgia patients were subjected to 20 multi-coil rTMS treatments over 4 weeks and effects on standard pain scales (Brief Pain Inventory, item 5, i.e. average pain NRS over the last 24 hours) were recorded. RESULTS: A single 30 minute session using one of 3 tested rTMS coil configurations operated at 1 Hz consistently produced robust reduction (mean 70% on NRS scale) in evoked pain in volunteers. In fibromyalgia patients, the 20 rTMS sessions also produced a significant pain inhibition (43% reduction in NRS pain over last 24 hours), but only when operated at 10 Hz. This degree of pain control was maintained for at least 4 weeks after the final session. CONCLUSION: Multi-coil rTMS may be a safe and effective treatment option for acute as well as for chronic pain, such as that accompanying fibromyalgia. Further studies are necessary to optimize configurations and settings as well as to elucidate the mechanisms that lead to the long-lasting pain control produced by these treatments.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Neuropathic pain causes substantial morbidity and healthcare utilization. Monotherapy with antidepressants or anticonvulsants often fails to provide relief. Combining different drugs sometimes provides improved analgesia and/or tolerability. More than half of patients receive 2 or more analgesics, and combination trials continue to emerge. This review comprehensively searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for relevant trials. Included studies are double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of 2 or more drugs vs placebo or at least one monotherapy in adults with neuropathic pain. Outcomes included measures of efficacy and adverse effects. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses compared combination to monotherapy wherever 2 or more similar studies were available. Forty studies (4741 participants) were included. Studies were heterogenous with respect to various characteristics, including dose titration methods and administration (ie, simultaneous vs sequential) of the combination. Few combinations involved a nonsedating drug, and several methodological problems were identified. For opioid-antidepressant, opioid-gabapentinoid, and gabapentinoid-antidepressant combinations, meta-analyses failed to demonstrate superiority over both monotherapies. In general, adverse event profiles were not substantially different for combination therapy compared with monotherapy. Despite widespread use and a growing number of trials, convincing evidence has not yet emerged to suggest superiority of any combination over its respective monotherapies. Therefore, implementing combination therapy-as second- or third-line treatment-in situations where monotherapy is insufficient, should involve closely monitored individual dosing trials to confirm safety and overall added benefit. Further research is needed, including trials of combinations involving nonsedating agents, and to identify clinical settings and specific combinations that safely provide added benefit.

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.

Pitfalls and Rewards of Setting Up a Liquid Biopsy Approach for the Detection of Driver Mutations in Circulating Tumor DNAs: Our Institutional Experience.

We describe our institutional experience of developing a liquid biopsy approach using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis for personalized medicine in cancer patients, focusing on the hurdles encountered during the multistep process in order to benefit other investigators wishing to set up this type of study in their institution. Blood samples were collected at the time of cancer surgery from 209 patients with one of nine different cancer types. Extracted tumor DNA and circulating cell-free DNA were sequenced using cancer-specific panels and the Illumina MiSeq machine. Almost half of the pairs investigated were uninformative, mostly because there was no trackable pathogenic mutation detected in the original tumor. The pairs with interpretable data corresponded to 107 patients. Analysis of 48 gene sequences common to both panels was performed and revealed that about 40% of these pairs contained at least one driver mutation detected in the DNA extracted from plasma. Here, we describe the choice of our overall approach, the selection of the cancer panels, and the difficulties encountered during the multistep process, including the use of several tumor types and in the data analysis. We also describe some case reports using longitudinal samples, illustrating the potential advantages and rewards in performing ctDNA sequencing to monitor tumor burden or guide treatment for cancer patients.

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.

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.

Evolution of Analgesic Tolerance and Opioid-Induced Hyperalgesia Over 6 Months: Double-Blind Randomized Trial Incorporating Experimental Pain Models.

Contributors to the ongoing epidemic of prescription opioid abuse, addiction, and death include opioid tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, and possibly opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). Thirty stable chronic nonmalignant pain patients entered a 6-month long, randomized, double-blind, dose-response, 2-center trial of the potent opioid levorphanol, conducted over a decade ago during an era of permissive opioid prescribing. Eleven were taking no opioids at study entry and eleven were taking between 35 and 122 morphine equivalents. Five weeks titration preceded twenty weeks stable dosing. Tolerance and OIH were inferred individually based on chronic pain ratings, brief pain inventory scores, and results of the brief thermal sensitization model at 5 opioid dosing sessions. Seventeen patients completed. The average final daily opioid dose was 132; range 14 to 300; average addition 105 morphine equivalents. After observed dosing, the brief thermal sensitization area of hyperalgesia changed minimally but the painfulness of skin heating was reduced. Weekly 0 to 100 visual analog scale pain ratings (average 64 at study entry, 48 at end titration, 45 at end stable dosing) decreased a median 19%, but 8 completed with higher visual analog scale ratings. Three completers had evidence of both tolerance and hyperalgesia. A fully-powered trial similar to this feasibility study is ethically questionable. A large-scale pragmatic trial is more realistic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00275249 Evolution of Analgesic Tolerance With Opioids PERSPECTIVE: A double-blind, 6-month, high-dose opioid feasibility trial, completed years ago, provides critically important data for clinically defining analgesic tolerance and OIH. Overall benefit was small, and 18% of patients had evidence of both tolerance and OIH. Future work requires a different approach than a classic randomized controlled trial design.

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.

Naltrexone aversion and treatment efficacy are greatest in humans and rats that actively consume high levels of alcohol.

The opioid antagonist naltrexone is the standard pharmacotherapy for alcoholism, although compliance is often low. The mechanism by which naltrexone reduces drinking is yet unclear. Here we show that in active alcoholics the magnitude of naltrexone treatment efficacy is correlated with the level of naltrexone-induced aversive side effects. This correlation is not observed when subjects are sober, but emerges following alcohol administration, when subjects are intoxicated. In contrast, there is no correlation following placebo administration. To clarify these results, naltrexone was administered to ethanol-consuming rats prior to quantification of naltrexone aversion. Ethanol consumption preceding naltrexone treatment was again correlated with subsequent naltrexone-induced aversion, and this aversion correlated with subsequent decrease in ethanol consumption. In contrast, when naltrexone was given to ethanol-free rats, aversion was not predictive of ethanol consumption. We conclude that naltrexone treatment efficacy is greater during active ethanol consumption and may be partly due to aversive side effects.

Ethical considerations in the design, execution, and analysis of clinical trials of chronic pain treatments.

INTRODUCTION: In the field of pain research, clinical trials may randomize over 500 subjects and include more than 150 sites spanning over a dozen countries. METHODS: This review examines the ethical considerations affecting clinical trial design, execution, and analysis of trials for chronic pain. The Belmont Report has been the touchstone for human studies protection efforts since 1979. Commissioned by the U.S. government in response to ethical failures in medical research, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the report emphasizes 3 basic principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Trial design and sample size have important ethical implications. CONCLUSIONS: Measures to enhance trial transparency and combat publication and many other types of bias should be implemented.

The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic neuropathic pain.

The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.

Natural history of pain associated with melanoma surgery.

INTRODUCTION: After excision of a primary malignant melanoma (MM), treatment of stage IB or higher MM consists of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). If malignant cells are identified, a complete lymph node dissection (CLND) can be performed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the natural history of pain and sensory changes after MM surgery. METHODS: We prospectively followed 39 patients (29 SLNB-only, 2 CLND-only, and 8 CLND preceded by SLNB) from before inguinal or axillary surgery through 6 months after surgery on measures of pain intensity, sensory symptoms, allodynia, and questionnaires of anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing. RESULTS: No patient had pain preoperatively. Ten days after surgery, 35% had surgical site pain after SLNB-only compared with 90% after CLND (P < 0.003); clinically meaningful pain (Visual Analogue Scale ≥ 30 mm/100 mm) was reported by 3% of patients after SLNB-only compared with 40% after CLND (P < 0.001). At 6 months, all SLNB-only patients were pain-free. By contrast, 4 of 7 in the SLNB + CLND group still had pain (P < 0.002). At 6 months, symptoms of altered sensation or numbness were reported by 32% and 42% of SLNB-only patients, and by 67% and 67% of patients undergoing CLND surgery (both P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Acute pain is more common after CLND surgery. Undergoing SLNB followed by more invasive CLND surgery may increase the likelihood of pain at 6 months. Persistent sensory symptoms typical of those associated with nerve injury are more common after CLND. Surgery for MM is a good model for studying the natural history of postsurgical pain and sensory changes.

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.

Recommendations for the management of herpes zoster.

The objective of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with herpes zoster (HZ) that take into account clinical efficacy, adverse effects, impact on quality of life, and costs of treatment. Systematic literature reviews, published randomized clinical trials, existing guidelines, and the authors' clinical and research experience relevant to the management of patients with HZ were reviewed at a consensus meeting. The results of controlled trials and the clinical experience of the authors support the use of acyclovir, brivudin (where available), famciclovir, and valacyclovir as first-line antiviral therapy for the treatment of patients with HZ. Specific recommendations for the use of these medications are provided. In addition, suggestions are made for treatments that, when used in combination with antiviral therapy, may further reduce pain and other complications of HZ.

Oral opioid therapy for chronic peripheral and central neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: Although opioids are commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain, there are limited data to guide their use. Few controlled trials have been performed, and many types of neuropathic pain remain unstudied. METHODS: Adults with neuropathic pain that was refractory to treatment were randomly assigned to receive either high-strength (0.75-mg) or low-strength (0.15-mg) capsules of the potent mu-opioid agonist levorphanol for eight weeks under double-blind conditions. Intake was titrated by the patient to a maximum of 21 capsules of either strength per day. Outcome measures included the intensity of pain as recorded in a diary, the degree of pain relief, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, the number of capsules taken daily, and blood levorphanol levels. RESULTS: Among the 81 patients exposed to the study drug, high-strength levorphanol capsules reduced pain by 36 percent, as compared with a 21 percent reduction in pain in the low-strength group (P=0.02). On average, patients in the high-strength group took 11.9 capsules per day (8.9 mg per day) and patients in the low-strength group took close to the 21 allowed (18.3 capsules per day; 2.7 mg per day). Affective distress and interference with functioning were reduced, and sleep was improved, but there were no differences between the high-strength group and the low-strength group in terms of these variables. Noncompletion of the study was primarily due to side effects of the opioid. Patients with central pain after stroke were the least likely to report benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in the intensity of neuropathic pain was significantly greater during treatment with higher doses of opioids than with lower doses. Higher doses produced more side effects without significant additional benefit in terms of other outcome measures.

Duloxetine for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: evidence-based findings from post hoc analysis of three multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis was aimed to summarize the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine as represented by number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) to provide a clinically useful assessment of the position of duloxetine among current agents used to treat diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: Data were pooled from three 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in which patients received 60 mg duloxetine either QD or BID or placebo. NNT was calculated based on rates of response (defined as >or=30% and >or=50% reductions from baseline in the weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain severity scores); NNH was calculated based on rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD and 60 mg BID had NNTs (95% CI) of 5.2 (3.8-8.3) and 4.9 (3.6-7.6), respectively, based on last observation carried forward; NNTs of 5.3 (3.8-8.3) for 60 mg QD and 5.7 (4.1-9.7) for 60 mg BID were obtained based on baseline observations carried forward. The NNHs (95% CI) based on discontinuation due to AEs were 17.5 (10.2-58.8) in the duloxetine 60-mg QD group and 8.8 (6.3-14.7) in the 60-mg BID group. CONCLUSION: These post hoc results suggest that duloxetine was effective and well tolerated for the management of DPNP and further support the importance of duloxetine as a treatment option for clinicians and patients to assist with the management of DPNP.

Placebo-controlled comparison of a morphine/dextromethorphan combination with morphine on experimental pain and hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers.

UNLABELLED: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study we compared the analgesic effect of a single oral dose of 30-mg dextromethorphan and 30-mg morphine combination (MS/DM) to 30 mg morphine (MS) alone and either placebo or 30 mg dextromethorphan (DM) on cutaneous sensitization induced by heat/capsaicin (topical) sensitization on the forearm and the brief thermal sensitization model on the thigh in 22 healthy volunteers. Outcome measures were areas of secondary hyperalgesia to brush and von Frey hair stimulation in both sensitization models and the painfulness of acute thermal noxious stimulation on the upper arm. Compared with placebo, both MS/DM and morphine had some effect on the secondary hyperalgesia and reduced the painfulness of a noxious thermal stimulus. The analgesic effect of MS/DM was not superior to that of morphine on any outcome measure. These results differ from preclinical studies with animal experimental pain models in which DM markedly potentiated the analgesic effects of opioids, but they are in accordance with recent clinical trials for chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: Adding dextromethorphan to morphine (1:1 ratio) did not enhance analgesia on measures of experimental cutaneous sensitization and acute noxious thermal stimulation in healthy volunteers. The results differ from preclinical studies but agree with clinical trials. Human experimental models of pain and neuronal sensitization, which are responsive to oral opioids, allow efficient study of opioid combination analgesics and simplify the process for determining the optimal dose and/or dose ratio.