Editor's Highlight: Formulation and Toxicology Evaluation of the Intrathecal AYX1 DNA-Decoy in Sprague Dawley Rats.

The longevity of pain after surgery is debilitating and limits the recovery of patients. AYX1 is a double-stranded, unprotected, 23 base-pair oligonucleotide designed to reduce acute post-surgical pain and prevent its chronification with a single intrathecal perioperative dose. AYX1 mimics the DNA sequence normally bound by EGR1 on chromosomes, a transcription factor transiently induced in the dorsal root ganglia-spinal cord network following a noxious input. AYX1 binds to EGR1 and prevents it from launching waves of gene regulation that are necessary to maintain pain over time. A formulation suitable for an intrathecal injection of AYX1 was developed, including a specific ratio of AYX1 and calcium so the ionic homeostasis of the cerebrospinal fluid is maintained and no impact on neuromuscular control is produced upon injection. A GLP toxicology study in naïve Sprague Dawley rats was conducted using 3 dose levels up to the maximum feasible dose. Clinical observations, neurobehavioral observations, clinical pathology and histopathology of the nervous system and peripheral tissues were conducted. An additional nonGLP study was conducted in the spared nerve injury model of chronic neuropathic pain in which EGR1 is induced in the dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord. Similar testing was performed, including a modified Irwin test to assess a potential impact of AYX1 on autonomic nervous system responses, locomotion, activity, arousal, sensorimotor, and neuromuscular function. No AYX1-related adverse events were observed in any of the studies and the no-observed-adverse-effect-level was judged to be the maximum feasible dose.

Intrathecal administration of AYX2 DNA-decoy produces a long-term pain treatment in rat models of chronic pain by inhibiting the KLF6, KLF9 and KLF15 transcription factors.

Background: Nociception is maintained by genome-wide regulation of transcription in the dorsal root ganglia­spinal cord network. Hence, transcription factors constitute a promising class of targets for breakthrough pharmacological interventions to treat chronic pain. DNA decoys are oligonucleotides and specific inhibitors of transcription factor activities. A methodological series of in vivo­in vitro screening cycles was performed with decoy/transcription factor couples to identify targets capable of producing a robust and long-lasting inhibition of established chronic pain. Decoys were injected intrathecally and their efficacy was tested in the spared nerve injury and chronic constriction injury models of chronic pain in rats using repetitive von Frey testing. Results: Results demonstrated that a one-time administration of decoys binding to the Kruppel-like transcription factors (KLFs) 6, 9, and 15 produces a significant and weeks­month long reduction in mechanical hypersensitivity compared to controls. In the spared nerve injury model, decoy efficacy was correlated to its capacity to bind KLF15 and KLF9 at a specific ratio, while in the chronic constriction injury model, efficacy was correlated to the combined binding capacity to KLF6 and KLF9. AYX2, an 18-bp DNA decoy binding KLF6, KLF9, and KLF15, was optimized for clinical development, and it demonstrated significant efficacy in these models. Conclusions: These data highlight KLF6, KLF9, and KLF15 as transcription factors required for the maintenance of chronic pain and illustrate the potential therapeutic benefits of AYX2 for the treatment of chronic pain.

Pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism of the DNA-decoy AYX1 for the prevention of acute and chronic post-surgical pain.

Background AYX1 is an unmodified DNA-decoy designed to reduce acute post-surgical pain and its chronification with a single intrathecal dose at the time of surgery. AYX1 inhibits the transcription factor early growth response protein 1, which is transiently induced at the time of injury and triggers gene regulation in the dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord that leads to long-term sensitization and pain. This work characterizes the AYX1 dose-response profile in rats and the link to AYX1 pharmacokinetics and metabolism in the cerebrospinal fluid, dorsal root ganglia, and spinal cord. Results The effects of ascending dose-levels of AYX1 on mechanical hypersensitivity were measured in the spared nerve injury model of chronic pain and in a plantar incision model of acute post-surgical pain. AYX1 dose-response profile shows that efficacy rapidly increases from a minimum effective dose of ∼ 0.5 mg to a peak maximum effective dose of ∼ 1 mg. With further dose escalation, the efficacy paradoxically appears to decrease by ∼ 30% and then returns to full efficacy at the maximum feasible dose of ∼ 4 mg. The reduction of efficacy is associated to doses triggering a near-saturation of AYX1 metabolism by nucleases in the cerebrospinal fluid and a paradoxical reduction of AYX1 exposure during the period of early growth response protein 1 induction. This effect is overcome at higher doses that compensate for the effect of metabolism. Discussion AYX1 is a competitive antagonist of early growth response protein 1, which is consistent with the overall increased efficacy observed as dose-levels initially escalate. Chemically, AYX1 is unprotected against degradation by nucleases. The sensitivity to nucleases is reflected in a paradoxical reduction of efficacy in the dose-response curve. Conclusions These findings point to the importance of the nuclease environment of the cerebrospinal fluid to the research and development of AYX1 and other intrathecal nucleotide-based therapeutics.

A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Safety and Efficacy Study of Lenalidomide in Lumbar Radicular Pain with a Long-Term Open-Label Extension Phase.

Objective: This phase II study assessed lenalidomide efficacy and safety. Design: Three-phase core study: 14-day prerandomization, 12-week treatment, and 52-week open-label extension. Setting: Fourteen US centers from July 2005 to July 2007. Subjects: Chronic lumbar radicular pain patients without history of nerve injury or deficit. Methods: Subjects were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with lenalidomide 10 mg or placebo once daily for 12 weeks, followed by a 52-week open-label extension. A 12-week, single-center, randomized-withdrawal (1:2, lenalidomide:placebo), exploratory study with open-label extension was undertaken in 12 subjects from the core extension who were naïve to neuropathic medications and with at least a two-point decrease from baseline average daily Pain Intensity-Numerical Rating Scale score. Results: Of 180 subjects enrolled, 176 had at least one postbaseline measure; 132 completed the 12-week treatment phase. In the core study, no statistically significant difference in Pain Intensity-Numerical Rating Scale mean change (-0.02, P = 0.958) was observed at week 12 between lenalidomide and placebo; proportions achieving pain reduction at week 12 and other secondary measures were comparable between lenalidomide and placebo. In the exploratory study, week 12 mean changes in Pain Intensity-Numerical Rating Scale scores were -0.05 (lenalidomide: N = 3) and 2.11 (placebo: N = 8). Mean changes in Brief Pain Inventory-short form interference scores were -3.33 and 8.38, respectively; scores at six months were maintained or decreased in 10 of 12 subjects. Conclusions: While this study does not support lenalidomide use in an unselected lumbar radicular pain population, an immunomodulating agent may relieve pain in select subjects naïve to neuropathic pain medications.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00120120.

Lenalidomide for complex regional pain syndrome type 1: lack of efficacy in a phase II randomized study.

UNLABELLED: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a potentially debilitating chronic pain syndrome with a poorly understood but likely neuroimmune/multifactorial pathophysiology associated with axonal injury. Based on the potential contribution of proinflammatory cytokines to CRPS pathogenesis and prior research with thalidomide, we investigated lenalidomide, a thalidomide derivative, for CRPS treatment. We conducted a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of oral lenalidomide 10 mg once daily in consenting patients with unilateral or bilateral CRPS type 1. The study comprised 12 weeks of treatment followed by a long-term extension. The primary efficacy outcome was reduced pain in the index limb, defined as ≥30% improvement from baseline using an 11-point numeric rating scale. One hundred eighty-four subjects enrolled. The primary endpoint was not met because equal proportions of treated (16.1%) and control (16.1%) subjects achieved the outcome; however, lenalidomide was well tolerated, with no evidence of neuropathy or major adverse effects. This study is the largest controlled, blinded clinical trial in subjects with chronic CRPS using the Budapest research criteria. It demonstrates the feasibility of conducting high-quality clinical trials in CRPS type 1 and provides considerations for designing future trials. PERSPECTIVE: This article reports an adequately powered, controlled clinical trial in subjects with CRPS. Treatment and placebo were equally effective, but the study demonstrated that lenalidomide treatment is feasible in this population. The study provides examples to consider in designing future CRPS trials.

Single intrathecal administration of the transcription factor decoy AYX1 prevents acute and chronic pain after incisional, inflammatory, or neuropathic injury.

The persistence of pain after surgery increases the recovery interval from surgery to a normal quality of life. AYX1 is a DNA-decoy drug candidate designed to prevent post-surgical pain following a single intrathecal injection. Tissue injury causes a transient activation of the transcription factor EGR1 in the dorsal root ganglia-dorsal horn network, which then triggers changes in gene expression that induce neuronal hypersensitivity. AYX1 is a potent, specific inhibitor of EGR1 activity that mimics the genomic EGR1-binding sequence. Administered in the peri-operative period, AYX1 dose dependently prevents mechanical hypersensitivity in models of acute incisional (plantar), inflammatory (CFA), and chronic neuropathic pain (SNI) in rats. Furthermore, in a knee surgery model evaluating functional measures of postoperative pain, AYX1 improved weight-bearing incapacitance and spontaneous rearing compared to control. These data illustrate the potential clinical therapeutic benefits of AYX1 for preventing the transition of acute to chronic post-surgical pain.

ASCPRO recommendations for the assessment of fatigue as an outcome in clinical trials.

CONTEXT: Development of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) requires adequate measures of this symptom. A guidance document from the Food and Drug Administration offers criteria for the formulation and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials to support drug or device labeling claims. METHODS: An independent working group, ASCPRO (Assessing Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes), has begun developing recommendations for the measurement of symptoms in oncology clinical trials. The recommendations of the Fatigue Task Force for measurement of CRF are presented here. RESULTS: There was consensus that CRF could be measured effectively in clinical trials as the sensation of fatigue or tiredness, impact of fatigue/tiredness on usual functioning, or as both sensation and impact. The ASCPRO Fatigue Task Force constructed a definition and conceptual model to guide the measurement of CRF. ASCPRO recommendations do not endorse a specific fatigue measure but clarify how to evaluate and implement fatigue assessments in clinical studies. The selection of a CRF measure should be tailored to the goals of the research. Measurement issues related to various research environments were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There exist in the literature good measures of CRF for clinical trials, with strong evidence of clarity and comprehensibility to patients, content and construct validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change in conditions in which one would expect them to change (assay sensitivity), and sufficient evidence to establish guides for interpreting changes in scores. Direction for future research is discussed.

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

There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain.

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.

Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

UNLABELLED: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed. PERSPECTIVE: Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.

New and emerging pharmacological targets for neuropathic pain.

Increasing knowledge of the molecular consequences of nerve injury and the availability of genome databases has greatly increased the range of potential targets for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain. Controlling neuronal sensitization and the associated alterations in gene expression, protein modification, and neuronal excitability is the key to managing neuropathic pain. Control of neuronal sensitization can occur through inhibition of nerve injury-associated production of cytokines, activation of glial cells, modulation of potassium channel subtypes, mitogen-activated protein kinases, the ubiquitin-proteasome system, or the protection and amplification of spinal cord dorsal horn inhibitory systems. These new and already established targets promise unparalleled opportunities for the prevention, management, and resolution of persistent pain states following nerve injury.

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. METHODS: Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.