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.

Impact of American Diabetes Association 2022 Guidelines on Prescribing Rates of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Ambulatory Care Organization Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Background: Recent clinical trials and guideline updates have highlighted the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and comorbidities including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Objective: This study assesses the rates of guideline-based prescribing of SGLT2i in patients with T2D and one or more of the following comorbidities: ASCVD, CKD, or HF, prior to and after the 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline publication within the Atrius Health clinical pharmacy, internal medicine, and specialty medicine departments. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of data from the electronic medical record. Patients with the aforementioned criteria were included if they were managed by either the clinical pharmacy department, internal medicine, or specialty medicine departments. Patients were excluded if they did not have any of the comorbidities listed or a form of diabetes other than T2D. Results: Of the 10,631 patients enrolled, 354 (3.3%) were initiated on an SGLT2i during the study. The average number of SGLT2i initiations prior to the 2022 ADA guideline publication was five prescription starts per week. After the guideline publication initiation increased to seven prescription starts per week. Secondary outcomes showed the majority of SGLT2i prescriptions were started in the internal medicine department, followed by cardiology and nephrology. Conclusion: Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i are low but increased after the 2022 ADA guidelines were published. These results suggest opportunities to optimize the use of SGLT2i in this patient population.

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.

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.

Perspectives on Participation in Clinical Trials Among Individuals With Pain, Depression, and/or Anxiety: An ACTTION Scoping Review.

For individuals experiencing pain, the decision to engage in clinical trials may be influenced by a number of factors including current and past care, illness severity, physical functioning, financial stress, and caregiver support. Co-occurring depression and anxiety may add to these challenges. The aim of this scoping review was to describe perspectives about clinical trial participation, including recruitment and retention among individuals with pain and pain comorbidities, including depression and/or anxiety. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study features, sample demographics, perspectives, barriers and/or motivations were collected and described. A total of 35 assessments were included in this scoping review with 24 focused on individuals with pain (24/35, 68.6%), 9 on individuals with depression and/or anxiety (9/35, 25.7%), and 2 on individuals with pain and co-occurring depression/anxiety (2/35, 5.7%). Barriers among participants with pain and those with depression included: research team's communication of information, fear of interventional risks, distrust (only among respondents with pain), too many procedures, fear of inadequate treatment, disease-life stressors, and embarrassment with study procedures (more commonly reported in participants with depression). Facilitators in both groups included: altruism and supportive staff, better access to care, and the ability to have outcome feedback (more commonly among individuals with depression). Individuals with pain and depression experience challenges that affect trial recruitment and retention. Engaging individuals with pain within research planning may assist in addressing these barriers and the needs of individuals affected by pain and/or depression. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the need to address barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials, including the need for an assessment of perspectives from underserved or marginalized populations.

A comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in clinical trials of opioid use disorder: ACTTION review and recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prospective trial registration can increase research integrity. This Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) review was designed to compare the primary outcomes (PO) reported in registries with associated publications for opioid use disorder (OUD) clinical trials. DESIGN: The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was searched for completed trials (2010 through 2019). Associated publications were identified and paired with trial registry data based on the publication date. MEASUREMENTS: Reviewers independently rated the occurrence of discrepancies between the POs in the registry compared to the publication. An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration was also completed. FINDINGS: One-hundred and forty trials were identified in the search, and 43 registry-publication pairs evaluated. Only 34 of the 43 pairs could be examined for discrepancies because nine did not report a PO in registry and publication. Of the 34 pairs, only four met rigorous criteria for prospective trial registration and had an exact match of POs. In contrast, the majority of the 34 trials, or 80%, had inconsistent POs (e.g., registered secondary outcomes published as primary; the timing of PO not specified) and/or were retrospectively registered. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical trials focused on OUD have not met the standards of trial registration, such as consistent reporting of POs and prospective registration. Failure to properly register trial characteristics undermines the validity of research findings and can delay the development of life-saving treatments. Recommendations for improving prospective trial reporting practices are provided.

Partnering with patients in clinical trials of pain treatments: a narrative review.

ABSTRACT: The interest and the rationale for meaningful engagement of patients as partners in clinical trials of pain treatments has been increasing. No specific guidance on patient engagement for pain research studies currently exists; thus, the goal of this narrative review was to provide a historical perspective and a current evaluation of the literature on engaging patients as partners in clinical studies in general and in pain-related studies more specifically. We described how regulatory and funding agencies have developed approaches to incorporate input from patients and patient partners in their decision-making processes. We provided an overview on key practices of patient recruitment and engagement as partners in clinical research and highlighted the perceived benefits and challenges of such partnerships. We summarized factors that can facilitate or hinder meaningful patient engagement in clinical trials of pain treatments and outlined gaps that future research should address to optimize patient-centered clinical research.

Pragmatic trials of pain therapies: a systematic review of methods.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings-the purpose of pragmatic trials.

Risk factors for persistent pain after breast and thoracic surgeries: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) is common after breast and thoracic surgeries. Understanding which risk factors consistently contribute to PPSP will allow clinicians to apply preventive strategies, as they emerge, to high-risk patients. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the literature on risk factors of PPSP after breast and thoracic surgeries. A systematic literature search using Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases was conducted. Study screening with inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment was performed independently by 2 authors. The data for each surgical group were analyzed separately and meta-analyzed where possible. The literature search yielded 5584 articles, and data from 126 breast surgery and 143 thoracic surgery articles were considered for meta-analysis. In breast surgery, younger age, higher body mass index, anxiety, depression, diabetes, smoking, preoperative pain, moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, reoperation, radiotherapy, and axillary lymph node dissection were the main factors associated with higher risk of PPSP. In thoracic surgery, younger age, female sex, hypertension, preoperative pain, moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, surgical approach, major procedure, and wound complications were associated with PPSP. This systematic review demonstrated certain consistent risk factors of PPSP after breast and thoracic surgeries, as well as identified research gaps. Understanding the factors that increase susceptibility to PPSP can help selectively allocate resources to optimize perioperative care in high-risk patients and help develop targeted, risk-stratified interventions for PPSP prevention.

The prevalence of comorbid chronic pain conditions among patients with temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review was designed to evaluate the presence of comorbid conditions among patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors reviewed studies that reported the prevalence or incidence of chronic pain conditions or psychiatric disorders (anxiety, mood, personality disorders) among patients with any type of TMD. The authors calculated sample size-weighted prevalence estimates when data were reported in 2 or more studies for the same comorbid condition. RESULTS: A total of 9 prevalence studies and no incidence studies were eligible for review; 8 of the studies examined chronic pain comorbidities. Weighted estimates showed high prevalence of pain comorbidities across studies, including current chronic back pain (66%), myofascial syndrome (50%), chronic stomach pain (50%), chronic migraine headache (40%), irritable bowel syndrome (19%), and fibromyalgia (14%). A single study examined psychiatric disorders and found that current depression was the most prevalent disorder identified (17.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is a high prevalence of comorbid chronic pain conditions among patients with TMDs, with more than 50% of patients reporting chronic back pain, myofascial syndrome, and chronic stomach pain. Psychiatric disorders among patients with different types of TMDs were studied less commonly in this pain population. Knowledge of the distribution of these and other comorbid disease conditions among patients with different types of TMDs can help dentists and other health care providers to identify personalized treatment strategies, including the coordination of care across medical specialties.

Single-dose intravenous ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous (IV) ibuprofen, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 10 June 2021. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a 4- and 6-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants reporting or experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and specific NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. We were not able to carry out any planned meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 201 total participants, mostly female (mean age 42 years), undergoing primary, unilateral, distal, first metatarsal bunionectomy (with osteotomy and internal fixation). Ibuprofen 300 mg, placebo or acetaminophen 1000 mg was administered intravenously to participants reporting moderate pain intensity the day after surgery. Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we did not perform any quantitative analyses. The study was at low risk of bias for most domains. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. Ibuprofen versus placebo Findings of the single study found that at both the 4-hour and 6-hour assessment period, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 32% (24/76) for those assigned to ibuprofen and 22% (11/50) for those assigned to placebo. These findings produced a risk ratio (RR) of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 2.66 versus placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over the 4-hour and 6-hour period (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 71 minutes for placebo (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study (1 study, 126 participants), 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 39/50 (78%) assigned to placebo reported or experienced any adverse event (AE), (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). No serious AEs (SAEs) were experienced (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus active comparators Ibuprofen (300 mg) was similar to the active comparator, IV acetaminophen (1000 mg) at 4 hours and 6 hours (1 study, 126 participants). For those assigned to active control (acetaminophen), the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 35% (26/75) at 4 hours and 31% (23/75) at 6 hours. At 4 hours, these findings produced a RR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). At 6 hours, these findings produced a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 125 minutes for the active comparator, acetaminophen (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study, 8/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 45/75 (60%) assigned to active control (acetaminophen) reported or experienced any AE, (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59; very low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were experienced (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that IV ibuprofen is effective and safe for acute postoperative pain in adults.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

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.

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain.

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.

The Prevalence of Psychiatric and Chronic Pain Comorbidities in Fibromyalgia: an ACTTION systematic review.

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic widespread pain condition that overlaps with multiple comorbid health conditions and contributes to considerable patient distress. The aim of this review was to provide a systematic overview of psychiatric and chronic pain comorbidities among patients diagnosed with FM and to inform the development of recommendations for the design of clinical trials. Thirty-one, cross-sectional, clinical epidemiology studies that evaluated patients diagnosed with FM were included for review. None of the reviewed studies reported on the incidence of these comorbidities. Sample size-weighted prevalence estimates were calculated when prevalence data were reported in 2 or more studies for the same comorbid condition. The most prevalent comorbidity across all studies reviewed was depression/major depressive disorder (MDD) with over half of the patients included having this diagnosis in their lifetime (weighted prevalence up to 63%). In addition, nearly one-third of FM patients examined had current or lifetime bipolar disorder, panic disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Less common psychiatric disorders reported included generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and specific phobias (agoraphobia, social phobia). There were fewer studies that examined chronic pain comorbidities among FM patients, but when evaluated, prevalence was also high ranging from 39% to 76% (i.e., chronic tension-type or migraine headache, irritable bowel syndrome, myofascial pain syndrome, and temporomandibular disorders). The results of the review suggest that depression and chronic pain conditions involving head/jaw pain and IBS were elevated among FM patients compared to other conditions in the clinic-based studies. In contrast, anxiety-related disorders were much less common. Addressing the presence of these comorbid health conditions in clinical trials of treatments for FM would increase the generalizability and real-world applicability of FM research.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Reporting the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized treatment for chronic pain. This systematic review aims to assess economic evaluations of SCS for the management of all chronic pain conditions, summarize key findings, and assess the quality of studies to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions and future research. METHODS: Economic evaluations were identified by searching general medical and economic databases complemented with screening of reference lists of identified studies. No restrictions on language or treatment comparators were applied. Relevant data were extracted. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were judged to be of acceptable quality. Economic evaluations assessed SCS for the management of refractory angina pectoris, failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and peripheral arterial disease. Model-based studies typically applied a 2-stage model, i.e. decision tree followed by Markov model. Time horizon varied from 1 year to lifetime. Cost-effectiveness ranged widely from dominant (SCS cost-saving and more effective) to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >£100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness appeared to depend on the time horizon, choice of comparator, and indication. Ten of the studies indicated SCS as cost-saving or cost-effective compared with the alternative strategies. CONCLUSION: The results consistently suggest that SCS is cost-effective when considering a long-term time horizon, particularly for the management of FBSS and CRPS. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCS for ischemic pain and DPN.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo/sham controlled randomised trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain.

The aims of this review were to systematically identify the current evidence base of placebo (or "sham") randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for neuropathic pain and to undertake a meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of SCS when compared with a placebo comparator arm. Electronic databases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. Searches identified 8 eligible placebo-controlled randomised trials of SCS for neuropathic pain. Meta-analysis shows a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity during the active stimulation treatment periods compared with the control treatment periods, pooled mean difference -1.15 (95% confidence interval -1.75 to -0.55, P = 0.001) on a 10-point scale. Exploratory study-level subgroup analysis suggests a larger treatment effect in RCTs using a placebo control (defined as studies where the device was inactive and at least one of the study procedures was different between the arms) than a sham control (defined as all study procedures being equal between arms including SCS device behaviour). Our findings demonstrate limited evidence that SCS is effective in reducing pain intensity when compared with a placebo intervention. Our analyses suggest that the magnitude of treatment effect varies across trials and, in part, depends on the quality of patient blinding and minimisation of carryover effects. Improved reporting and further methodological research is needed into placebo and blinding approaches in SCS trials. Furthermore, we introduce a differentiation between placebo and sham concepts that may be generalisable to trials evaluating surgical or medical procedures.

Randomized Placebo-/Sham-Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and high-frequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies. CONCLUSIONS: To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo-/sham-controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.