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.

Lessons from randomized phase III studies with active cancer immunotherapies--outcomes from the 2006 meeting of the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC).

After years of effort to develop active cancer immunotherapies, seven candidate products achieved promising results in phase I/II studies that triggered phase III randomized studies. One candidate to date has received an approvable letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), defining a clear path to licensure for sipuleucel-T (Provenge, Dendreon) within the next couple of years. The other phase III studies failed to achieve statistical criteria for some or all of the critical endpoints. Yet, there is widespread recognition that using a patient's own immune system to target and destroy cancer cells may offer an effective biological therapy with less toxicity than presently available anti-cancer therapies, and several candidates are still being evaluated in clinical studies. This review summarizes the lessons learned from these case studies, evaluates scientific, study design, and business factors that can affect study outcomes, identifies common challenges faced by sponsors developing these innovative therapies, and provides considerations for future study designs that may increase the likelihood of success.