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.

Effects of Food on Bioavailability of Analgesics; Resulting Dosage and Administration Recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate currently approved analgesics, that is, opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anticonvulsants, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) used as analgesics, for 1) differences in pharmacokinetic parameters under fed vs fasting conditions and 2) factors involved in dosage recommendations in relation to food. DESIGN: Systematic review. RESULTS: Food effect on the rate, extent of absorption, or shape of concentration-time profile can alter the onset of action, duration of action, or tolerability of a medication. Based on 79 analgesic products reviewed, food effect dosage recommendations depend on whether an analgesic will be dosed on a regular interval around-the-clock vs on an as-needed basis, the shape of concentration-time profile, steady-state concentrations, the type of meals used in the pharmacokinetic study, and drug administration with regard to food in clinical trials. Overall, most opioids do not have food restriction and are taken without regard to food, with the exception of OPANA products and XTAMPZA ER. For many NSAIDs, food does not affect absorption characteristics, with the exception of ZORVOLEX and CELEBREX. Although NSAIDs are commonly to be taken without regard to food, prescribers recommend administering them with food to reduce their propensity for gastrointestinal adverse events. A larger percentage of anticonvulsants and SNRIs used as analgesics are taken with food to improve their tolerability. Of all analgesic products, seven NSAIDs and six opioids lack food effect information, maybe due to their approval before Food and Drug Administration food effect guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, because food effects could alter the onset and/or duration of pain relief, analgesic medication should be used as per labeled recommendations for proper pain management.

Reporting of primary analyses and multiplicity adjustment in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

Performing multiple analyses in clinical trials can inflate the probability of a type I error, or the chance of falsely concluding a significant effect of the treatment. Strategies to minimize type I error probability include prespecification of primary analyses and statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons, when applicable. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of primary analysis reporting and frequency of multiplicity adjustment in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®). A total of 161 randomized controlled trials investigating noninvasive pharmacological treatments or interventional treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Only 52% of trials identified a primary analysis, and only 10% of trials reported prespecification of that analysis. Among the 33 articles that identified a primary analysis with multiple testing, 15 (45%) adjusted for multiplicity; of those 15, only 2 (13%) reported prespecification of the adjustment methodology. Trials in clinical pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials identified a primary analysis more often than trials in experimental pain models and non-industry-sponsored trials, respectively. The results of this systematic review demonstrate deficiencies in the reporting and possibly the execution of primary analyses in published analgesic trials. These deficiencies can be rectified by changes in, or better enforcement of, journal policies pertaining to requirements for the reporting of analyses of clinical trial data.

Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

The National Institutes of Health released the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000 to increase public reporting and clinical trial transparency. This systematic review examined whether registered primary outcome specifications (POS; ie, definitions, timing, and analytic plans) in analgesic treatment trials correspond with published POS. Trials with accompanying publications (n = 87) were selected from the Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials (RReACT) database of all postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of December 1, 2011. POS never matched precisely; discrepancies occurred in 79% of the registry-publication pairs (21% failed to register or publish primary outcomes [PO]). These percentages did not differ significantly between industry and non-industry-sponsored trials. Thirty percent of the trials contained unambiguous POS discrepancies (eg, omitting a registered PO from the publication, "demoting" a registered PO to a published secondary outcome), with a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-industry-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials containing unambiguous POS discrepancies. POS discrepancies due to ambiguous reporting included vaguely worded PO registration; or failing to report the timing of PO assessment, statistical analysis used for the PO, or method to address missing PO data. At best, POS discrepancies may be attributable to insufficient registry requirements, carelessness (eg, failing to report PO assessment timing), or difficulty uploading registry information. At worst, discrepancies could indicate investigator impropriety (eg, registering imprecise PO ["pain"], then publishing whichever pain assessment produced statistically significant results). Improvements in PO registration, as well as journal policies requiring consistency between registered and published PO descriptions, are needed.

Adverse event assessment, analysis, and reporting in recent published analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

The development of valid and informative treatment risk-benefit profiles requires consistent and thorough information about adverse event (AE) assessment and participants' AEs during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a 2004 extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommending the specific AE information that investigators should report, there is little evidence that analgesic RCTs adequately adhere to these recommendations. This systematic review builds on prior recommendations by describing a comprehensive checklist for AE reporting developed to capture clinically important AE information. Using this checklist, we coded AE assessment methods and reporting in all 80 double-blind RCTs of noninvasive pharmacologic treatments published in the European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN® from 2006 to 2011. Across all trials, reports of AEs were frequently incomplete, inconsistent across trials, and, in some cases, missing. For example, >40% of trials failed to report any information on serious adverse events. Trials of participants with acute or chronic pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials typically provided more and better-quality AE data than trials involving pain-free volunteers or trials that were not industry sponsored. The results of this review suggest that improved AE reporting is needed in analgesic RCTs. We developed an ACTTION (Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks) AE reporting checklist that is intended to assist investigators in thoroughly and consistently capturing and reporting these critically important data in publications.

Core outcome domains and measures for pediatric acute and chronic/recurrent pain clinical trials: PedIMMPACT recommendations.

UNLABELLED: Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 26 professionals from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a 2-stage Delphi poll and a consensus meeting that identified core outcome domains and measures that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for acute and chronic pain in children and adolescents. Consensus was refined by consultation with the international pediatric pain community through announcement of our recommendations on the Pediatric Pain List and inviting and incorporating comments from external sources. There was consensus that investigators conducting pediatric acute pain clinical trials should consider assessing outcomes in pain intensity; global judgment of satisfaction with treatment; symptoms and adverse events; physical recovery; emotional response; and economic factors. There was also agreement that investigators conducting pediatric clinical trials in chronic and recurrent pain should consider assessing outcomes in pain intensity; physical functioning; emotional functioning; role functioning; symptoms and adverse events; global judgment of satisfaction with treatment; sleep; and economic factors. Specific measures or measurement strategies were recommended for different age groups for each domain. PERSPECTIVE: Based on systematic review and consensus of experts, core domains and measures for clinical trials to treat pain in children and adolescents were defined. This will assist in comparison and pooling of data and promote evidence-based treatment, encourage complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the review of proposals and manuscripts, and facilitate clinicians making informed decisions regarding treatment.