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.

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.

Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

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.

Preclinical target validation for non-addictive therapeutics development for pain.

INTRODUCTION: The Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative supports a wide range of programs to develop new or improved prevention and opioid addiction treatment strategies. An essential component of this effort is to accelerate development of non-opioid pain therapeutics. In all fields of medicine, therapeutics development is an arduous process and late-stage translational efforts such as clinical trials to validate targets are particularly complex and costly. While there are plentiful novel targets for pain treatment, successful clinical validation is rare. It is therefore crucial to develop processes whereby therapeutic targets can be reasonably 'de-risked' prior to substantial late-stage validation efforts. Such rigorous validation of novel therapeutic targets in the preclinical space will give potential private sector partners the confidence to pursue clinical validation of promising therapeutic concepts and compounds. AREAS COVERED: In 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) held the Target Validation for Non-Addictive Therapeutics Development for Pain workshop to gather insights from key opinion leaders in academia, industry, and venture-financing. EXPERT OPINION: The result was a roadmap for pain target validation focusing on three modalities: 1) human evidence; 2) assay development in vitro; 3) assay development in vivo.

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 design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Critical NIH Resources to Advance Therapies for Pain: Preclinical Screening Program and Phase II Human Clinical Trial Network.

Opioid-related death and overdose have now reached epidemic proportions. In response to this public health crisis, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Helping to End Addiction Long-term InitiativeSM, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM, an aggressive, trans-agency effort to speed scientific solutions to stem the national opioid public health crisis. Herein, we describe two NIH HEAL Initiative programs to accelerate development of non-opioid, non-addictive pain treatments: The Preclinical Screening Platform for Pain (PSPP) and Early Phase Pain Investigation Clinical Network (EPPIC-Net). These resources are provided at no cost to investigators, whether in academia or industry and whether within the USA or internationally. Both programs consider small molecules, biologics, devices, and natural products for acute and chronic pain, including repurposed and combination drugs. Importantly, confidentiality and intellectual property are protected. The PSPP provides a rigorous platform to identify and profile non-opioid, non-addictive therapeutics for pain. Accepted assets are evaluated in in vitro functional assays to rule out opioid receptor activity and to assess abuse liability. In vivo pharmacokinetic studies measure plasma and brain exposure to guide the dose range and pretreatment times for the side effect profile, efficacy, and abuse liability. Studies are conducted in accordance with published rigor criteria. EPPIC-Net provides academic and industry investigators with expert infrastructure for phase II testing of pain therapeutics across populations and the lifespan. For assets accepted after a rigorous, objective scientific review process, EPPIC-Net provides clinical trial design, management, implementation, and analysis.

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.

Discovery and validation of biomarkers to aid the development of safe and effective pain therapeutics: challenges and opportunities.

Pain medication plays an important role in the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, but some drugs, opioids in particular, have been overprescribed or prescribed without adequate safeguards, leading to an alarming rise in medication-related overdose deaths. The NIH Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative is a trans-agency effort to provide scientific solutions to stem the opioid crisis. One component of the initiative is to support biomarker discovery and rigorous validation in collaboration with industry leaders to accelerate high-quality clinical research into neurotherapeutics and pain. The use of objective biomarkers and clinical trial end points throughout the drug discovery and development process is crucial to help define pathophysiological subsets of pain, evaluate target engagement of new drugs and predict the analgesic efficacy of new drugs. In 2018, the NIH-led Discovery and Validation of Biomarkers to Develop Non-Addictive Therapeutics for Pain workshop convened scientific leaders from academia, industry, government and patient advocacy groups to discuss progress, challenges, gaps and ideas to facilitate the development of biomarkers and end points for pain. The outcomes of this workshop are outlined in this Consensus Statement.

CGRP and the Trigeminal System in Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of migraine pathophysiology, with an emphasis on the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) within the context of the trigeminovascular system. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a prevalent and disabling neurological disease that is characterized in part by intense, throbbing, and unilateral headaches. Despite recent advances in understanding its pathophysiology, migraine still represents an unmet medical need, as it is often underrecognized and undertreated. Although CGRP has been known to play a pivotal role in migraine for the last 2 decades, this has now received more interest spurred by the early clinical successes of drugs that block CGRP signaling in the trigeminovascular system. DESIGN: This narrative review presents an update on the role of CGRP within the trigeminovascular system. PubMed searches were used to find recent (ie, 2016 to November 2018) published articles presenting new study results. Review articles are also included not as primary references but to bring these to the attention of the reader. Original research is referenced in describing the core of the narrative, and review articles are used to support ancillary points. RESULTS: The trigeminal ganglion neurons provide the connection between the periphery, stemming from the interface between the primary afferent fibers of the trigeminal ganglion and the meningeal vasculature and the central terminals in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis. The neuropeptide CGRP is abundant in trigeminal ganglion neurons, and is released from the peripheral nerve and central nerve terminals as well as being secreted within the trigeminal ganglion. Release of CGRP from the peripheral terminals initiates a cascade of events that include increased synthesis of nitric oxide and sensitization of the trigeminal nerves. Secreted CGRP in the trigeminal ganglion interacts with adjacent neurons and satellite glial cells to perpetuate peripheral sensitization, and can drive central sensitization of the second-order neurons. A shift in central sensitization from activity-dependent to activity-independent central sensitization may indicate a mechanism driving the progression of episodic migraine to chronic migraine. The pathophysiology of cluster headache is much more obscure than that of migraine, but emerging evidence suggests that it may also involve hypersensitivity of the trigeminovascular system. Ongoing clinical studies with therapies targeted at CGRP will provide additional, valuable insights into the pathophysiology of this disorder. CONCLUSIONS: CGRP plays an essential role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Treatments that interfere with the functioning of CGRP in the peripheral trigeminal system are effective against migraine. Blocking sensitization of the trigeminal nerve by attenuating CGRP activity in the periphery may be sufficient to block a migraine attack. Additionally, the potential exists that this therapeutic strategy may also alleviate cluster headache as well.

The role of calcitonin gene-related peptide in peripheral and central pain mechanisms including migraine.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a 37-amino acid peptide found primarily in the C and Aδ sensory fibers arising from the dorsal root and trigeminal ganglia, as well as the central nervous system. Calcitonin gene-related peptide was found to play important roles in cardiovascular, digestive, and sensory functions. Although the vasodilatory properties of CGRP are well documented, its somatosensory function regarding modulation of neuronal sensitization and of enhanced pain has received considerable attention recently. Growing evidence indicates that CGRP plays a key role in the development of peripheral sensitization and the associated enhanced pain. Calcitonin gene-related peptide is implicated in the development of neurogenic inflammation and it is upregulated in conditions of inflammatory and neuropathic pain. It is most likely that CGRP facilitates nociceptive transmission and contributes to the development and maintenance of a sensitized, hyperresponsive state not only of the primary afferent sensory neurons but also of the second-order pain transmission neurons within the central nervous system, thus contributing to central sensitization as well. The maintenance of a sensitized neuronal condition is believed to be an important factor underlying migraine. Recent successful clinical studies have shown that blocking the function of CGRP can alleviate migraine. However, the mechanisms through which CGRP may contribute to migraine are still not fully understood. We reviewed the role of CGRP in primary afferents, the dorsal root ganglion, and in the trigeminal system as well as its role in peripheral and central sensitization and its potential contribution to pain processing and to migraine.

Impact of Testosterone Solution 2% on Ejaculatory Dysfunction in Hypogonadal Men.

INTRODUCTION: Hypogonadism is defined as decreased testosterone levels in men. Hypogonadism can be accompanied by erectile, orgasmic, and ejaculatory dysfunction. AIMS: To evaluate whether treatment with testosterone solution 2% (testosterone) could improve ejaculatory function in a cohort of hypogonadal men. METHODS: Sexually active, hypogonadal men at least 18 years old (total testosterone < 300 ng/dL) were randomized to receive testosterone or placebo for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effects of testosterone on primary outcomes were evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the Men's Sexual Health Questionnaire, Ejaculatory Dysfunction, Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) questionnaires. Treatment differences were calculated using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: In total, 715 men (mean age = 55 years) were randomized to placebo (n = 357) or testosterone (n = 358). Most sexually active men who reported IIEF scores had some degree of erectile dysfunction (IIEF erectile function score < 26). Although ejaculatory function score (MSHQ-EjD-SF) improved in the testosterone group compared with placebo (P < .001), improvement on the "bother" item did not reach statistical significance. Treatment-related adverse events in the testosterone group affecting at least 1% of patients were increased hematocrit, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, burning sensation, fatigue, increased prostate-specific antigen, erythema, and cough. Few patients in either treatment group developed at least one adverse event leading to discontinuation (testosterone = 1.98% vs placebo = 3.09%; P = .475). CONCLUSION: Hypogonadal men receiving testosterone solution 2% therapy experience significantly greater improvement in ejaculatory function, compared with placebo, as assessed by the MSHQ-EjD-SF. However, improvement in "bother" was not statistically different between the two groups. Testosterone therapy was generally well tolerated.

Research design considerations for single-dose analgesic clinical trials in acute pain: IMMPACT recommendations.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations.

There is growing concern about lack of scientific rigor and transparent reporting across many preclinical fields of biological research. Poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting can result in conscious or unconscious experimental bias, producing results that are not replicable. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a consensus meeting of the Preclinical Pain Research Consortium for Investigating Safety and Efficacy (PPRECISE) Working Group. International participants from universities, funding agencies, government agencies, industry, and a patient advocacy organization attended. Reduction of publication bias, increasing the ability of others to faithfully repeat experimental methods, and increased transparency of data reporting were specifically discussed. Parameters deemed essential to increase confidence in the published literature were clear, specific reporting of an a priori hypothesis and definition of primary outcome measure. Power calculations and whether measurement of minimal meaningful effect size to determine these should be a core component of the preclinical research effort provoked considerable discussion, with many but not all agreeing. Greater transparency of reporting should be driven by scientists, journal editors, reviewers, and grant funders. The conduct of high-quality science that is fully reported should not preclude novelty and innovation in preclinical pain research, and indeed, any efforts that curtail such innovation would be misguided. We believe that to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

Research design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no-go decision in a cost-effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia, with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single-dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade-off between parallel-group and crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N-of-1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and sequential parallel comparison designs, are summarized, and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.

Results from clinical trials of a selective ionotropic glutamate receptor 5 (iGluR5) antagonist, LY5454694 tosylate, in 2 chronic pain conditions.

This article reports results of 2 studies investigating LY545694 in pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Study I randomized patients to either of 2 doses of LY545694 or to placebo, and study II randomized patients to either of 3 doses of LY545694, to pregabalin, or to placebo. No significant differences between LY545694 groups and placebo were observed on the primary (average pain severity) or secondary efficacy measures in either study. Notably, study I lacked an active control, and, in study II, pregabalin, did not separate from placebo. Treatment-emergent nausea, vomiting, and dizziness were significantly more frequent in the LY545694 groups in both trials (P⩽.05), and significantly more LY545694-treated patients discontinued because of adverse events (P<.001). Steady-state concentrations of LY545694 were comparable in patients in both studies but were lower than exposures required for efficacy in animal models of pain behavior. Because the active control did not separate from placebo in the DPNP study, the study was potentially failed, rather than negative. Without an active control, it is unknown whether the OA study was negative or failed. Consequently, efficacy of selective ionotropic glutamate receptor antagonism in chronic pain conditions may warrant further investigation. Future trials should consider different pain conditions, contain a positive control with larger patient numbers per arm, and be conducted within a single region.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and effects on human experimental pain of the selective ionotropic glutamate receptor 5 (iGluR5) antagonist LY545694 in healthy volunteers.

The objective of this study was to establish in healthy volunteers the maximally tolerated multiple dose (MTMD) of the ionotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonist LY545694 (part A), and to investigate whether that dose had analgesic or antihyperalgesic effects in the brief thermal stimulation (BTS) pain model (Part B). Part A was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 3 groups of 10 healthy men. To simulate an extended-release formulation, study drug was administered orally over 6hours (12 equally divided aliquots at 30-minute intervals). Part B was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, 3-way crossover study in 27 healthy men. At each of the 3 study periods, subjects received either LY545694 (MTMD; as determined during part A) as a simulated, twice daily extended-release formulation for 4 doses over 3days, gabapentin (600mg 8hours apart; 6 doses over 3days; positive control), or matching placebo. The BTS model was induced twice with a 1-hour interval on each of the 2 study days, before drug administration and at the time of expected peak analgesia of LY545694. Plasma exposure for LY545694 was approximately linear over the 25- to 75-mg dose range. The MTMD of LY545694 was 25mg twice daily. Areas of secondary hyperalgesia were significantly smaller after administration of LY545694 and gabapentin compared with placebo (P<.0001 and P=.0004, respectively), but there was no difference between areas after administration of gabapentin and LY545694 (P=.400). Neither gabapentin nor LY545694 reduced the painfulness of skin heating during BTS model induction. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was dizziness. The results of this study suggest that LY545694 should be explored further as a potential treatment for chronic pain involving neuronal sensitization.