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.

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.

When Is Osteonecrosis Not Osteonecrosis?: Adjudication of Reported Serious Adverse Joint Events in the Tanezumab Clinical Development Program.

OBJECTIVE: Tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor, has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain in osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain. Unexpected adverse events (AEs) described as osteonecrosis (ON) occurred during tanezumab development, leading the US Food and Drug Administration to impose a partial clinical hold for all indications except cancer pain. A blinded Adjudication Committee (AC) including orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists, and an orthopedic pathologist reviewed and adjudicated joint-related AEs in the tanezumab clinical program. METHODS: The AC adjudicated all reported cases of ON as well as cases of total joint replacements (TJRs) not reported as ON for which radiographs obtained within 9 months of the surgery were available. The AC prespecified categories for joint safety events including primary ON, worsening OA (rapid progression of OA [RPOA], normal progression of OA, insufficient information to distinguish between rapid and normal progression of OA), other, or insufficient information to distinguish between primary ON and worsening OA or another diagnosis. RESULTS: The AC reviewed events in 249 of 386 patients with an investigator-reported AE of ON and/or a TJR. Two events were adjudicated as primary ON, 200 events were adjudicated as worsening OA (68 of which were classified as RPOA), 29 events had another diagnosis, 11 had insufficient information to distinguish primary ON from worsening OA, and 7 did not have committee member consensus. CONCLUSION: Despite initial reports, tanezumab treatment was not associated with an increase in ON but was associated with an increase in RPOA. Higher doses of tanezumab, tanezumab administered with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and preexisting subchondral insufficiency fractures were risk factors for RPOA in this cohort.