Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of the seven-day buprenorphine transdermal system in opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain: an enriched, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

CONTEXT: This article presents the results of a pivotal Phase 3 study that assesses a new treatment for the management of chronic low back pain: a transdermal patch containing the opioid buprenorphine. In this randomized, placebo-controlled study with an enriched enrollment design, the buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) was found to be efficacious and generally well tolerated. OBJECTIVES: This enriched, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of BTDS in opioid-naïve patients who had moderate to severe chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients who tolerated and responded to BTDS (10 or 20 mcg/hour) during an open-label run-in period were randomized to continue BTDS 10 or 20 mcg/hour or receive matching placebo. The primary outcome was "average pain over the last 24 hours" at the end of the 12-week double-blind phase, collected on an 11-point scale (0=no pain, 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Sleep disturbance (Medical Outcomes Study subscale) and total number of supplemental analgesic tablets used were secondary efficacy variables. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of patients receiving open-label BTDS (541 of 1024) were randomized to receive BTDS (n=257) or placebo (n=284). Patients receiving BTDS reported statistically significantly lower pain scores at Week 12 compared with placebo (least square mean treatment difference: -0.58, P=0.010). Sensitivity analyses of the primary efficacy variable and results of the analysis of secondary efficacy variables supported the efficacy of BTDS relative to placebo. During the double-blind phase, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 55% for the BTDS treatment group and 52% for the placebo treatment group. Laboratory, vital sign, and electrocardiogram evaluations did not reveal unanticipated safety findings. CONCLUSION: BTDS was efficacious in the treatment of opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. Most treatment-emergent adverse events observed were consistent with those associated with the use of opioid agonists and transdermal patches.

Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for treating acute nonspecific low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 8 hours of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for the treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. SETTING: Five community-based research facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred nineteen subjects, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute nonspecific LBP. INTERVENTION: Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following groups: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=95; oral placebo, n=96) and blinding (oral ibuprofen, n=12; unheated back, wrap n=16). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive days with 2 days of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: day 1 mean pain relief (0- to 5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: muscle stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), lateral trunk flexibility (fingertip-floor distance), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Heatwrap therapy was shown to provide significant therapeutic benefits when compared with placebo during both the treatment and follow-up period. On day 1, the heatwrap group had greater pain relief (1.76+/-.10 vs 1.05+/-.11, P <.001), less muscle stiffness (43.1+/-1.21 vs 47.6+/-1.21, P=.008), and increased flexibility (18.6+/-.44 cm vs 16.5+/-.45 cm, P=.001) compared with placebo. Disability was also reduced in the heatwrap group (5.3 vs 7.4, P=.0002). Adverse events were mild and infrequent. CONCLUSION: Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy was shown to be effective for the treatment of acute, nonspecific LBP.

Overnight use of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for relief of low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate of the efficacy and safety of 8 hours of continuous, low-level heatwrap therapy administered during sleep. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. SETTING: Two community-based research facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-six patients, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute, nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following treatments: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=33; oral placebo, n=34) or blinding (unheated wrap, n=5; oral ibuprofen, n=4). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive nights with 2 days of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: morning pain relief (hour 0) on days 2 through 4 (0-5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: mean daytime pain relief score (days 2-4, hours 0-8), mean extended pain relief score (day 4, hour 0; day 5, hour 0), muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). RESULTS: Heatwrap therapy was significantly better than placebo at hour 0 on days 2 through 4 for mean pain relief (P=.00005); at hours 0 through 8 on days 2 through 4 for pain relief (P<.001); at hour 0 on day 4 and at hour 0 on day 5 for mean pain relief (P<.001); on day 4 in reduction of morning muscle stiffness (P<.001); for increased lateral trunk flexibility on day 4 (P<.002); and for decreased low back disability on day 4 (P=.005). Adverse events were mild and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Overnight use of heatwrap therapy provided effective pain relief throughout the next day, reduced muscle stiffness and disability, and improved trunk flexibility. Positive effects were sustained more than 48 hours after treatments were completed.

Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy provides more efficacy than Ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single (investigator) blind, comparative efficacy trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy (40 C, 8 hours/day) with that of ibuprofen (1200 mg/day) and acetaminophen (4000 mg/day) in subjects with acute nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of topical heat methods, as compared with oral analgesic treatment of low back pain, has not been established. METHODS: Subjects (n = 371) were randomly assigned to heat wrap (n = 113), acetaminophen (n = 113), or ibuprofen (n = 106) for efficacy evaluation, or to oral placebo (n = 20) or unheated back wrap (n = 19) for blinding. Outcome measures included pain relief, muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability. Efficacy was measured over two treatment days and two follow-up days. RESULTS: Day 1 pain relief for the heat wrap (mean, 2) was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.51; P = 0.0007) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.32; P = 0.0001). Extended mean pain relief (Days 3 to 4) for the heat wrap (mean, 2.61) also was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.68; P = 0.0001) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.95; P = 0.0009). Lateral trunk flexibility was improved with the heat wrap (mean change, 4.28 cm) during treatment (P