Short-acting and Long-acting Opioids Utilization among Women Diagnosed with Endometriosis in the United States: A Population-based Claims Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and pattern of opioid use in endometriosis and the characteristics of patients prescribed an opioid using medical insurance claims data. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial database for the period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2016. SETTING: The Truven database includes inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims covering more than 115 million unique individuals and over 36 million inpatient hospital discharges across multiple payer types and all 50 states. PATIENTS: Women with endometriosis were defined as those with 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient codes for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: No interventions were assigned. Women who filled an opioid prescription within 12 months of diagnosis were placed in the opioid cohort and women who did not fill an opioid prescription were placed in the nonopioid cohort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were evaluated 12 months preindex (date of the first diagnosis) and opioid use was assessed for 12 months after the index date. The dataset included 58 472 women with endometriosis. Of these, 61.7% filled an opioid prescription during the study period. More than 95% filled prescriptions for short-acting opioids (SAOs) only, 4.1% filled prescriptions for both SAOs and extended-release/long-acting opioids (LAOs), and 0.6% filled prescriptions for LAOs only. Patients who filled an opioid prescription had higher baseline comorbidities (especially gynecologic and chronic pain comorbidities) and endometriosis-related medication use compared with patients who did not fill an opioid prescription during the study period. Patients who filled both LAO and SAO prescriptions had the highest total days' supply of opioids, the proportion of days covered by prescriptions, and morphine equivalent daily dose. These patients also had the highest proportions of opioid switching and dose augmentation. Statistical trends in data were not substantially altered when analyses excluded patients with chronic pain comorbidities or surgical opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Although opioids are not a recommended treatment for endometriosis, more than half of our cohort filled an opioid prescription within 1 year after a first recorded diagnosis of endometriosis. Patients who filled an opioid prescription tended to use more endometriosis-related medications and have a higher comorbidity burden. Additional research is necessary to better understand the reasons and outcomes associated with opioid utilization in endometriosis and to determine if there is a more effective pain management treatment plan for patients taking opioids.

Development and feasibility of the misuse, abuse, and diversion drug event reporting system (MADDERS®).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate use of analgesic drugs has become increasingly pervasive over the past decade. Currently, drug abuse potential is primarily assessed post-marketing; no validated tools are available to assess this potential in phase II and III clinical trials. This paper describes the development and feasibility testing of a Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS), which aims to identify potentially abuse-related events and classify them according to a recently developed classification scheme, allowing the quantification of these events in clinical trials. METHODS: The system was initially conceived and designed with input from experts and patients, followed by field-testing to assess its feasibility and content validity in both completed and ongoing clinical trials. RESULTS: The results suggest that MADDERS is a feasible system with initial validity. It showed higher rates of the triggering events in subjects taking medications with known abuse potential than in patients taking medications without abuse potential. Additionally, experts agreed on the classification of most abuse-related events in MADDERS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: MADDERS is a new systematic approach to collect information on potentially abuse-related events in clinical trials and classify them. The system has demonstrated feasibility for implementation. Additional research is ongoing to further evaluate its validity. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Currently, there are no validated tools to assess drug abuse potential during clinical trials. Because of its ease of implementation, its systematic approach, and its preliminary validation results, MADDERS could provide such a tool for clinical trials. (Am J Addict 2016;25:641-651).

Review of the performance of quantitative sensory testing methods to detect hyperalgesia in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced hyperalgesia is a clinical syndrome whereby patients on long-term opioids become more sensitive to pain while taking opioids. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia is characterized by increased pain intensity over time, spreading of pain to other locations, and increased pain sensation to external stimuli. To characterize opioid-induced hyperalgesia, laboratory methods to measure hyperalgesia have been developed. To determine the performance of these methods, the authors conducted a systematic review of clinical studies that incorporate measures of hyperalgesia in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched (terms: opioid induced hyperalgesia, study or trial, and long-term or chronic). Studies published in English were selected if they were conducted in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids and incorporated measures of hyperalgesia; acute/single-dose studies and/or conducted in healthy volunteers were excluded. RESULTS: Fourteen articles made the final selection (11 were selected from the search and 3 others were found from additional sources); there was one randomized controlled trial, one prospective controlled study, three prospective uncontrolled studies, and nine cross-sectional observation studies. Hyperalgesia measurement paradigms used included cold pain, heat pain, pressure pain, electrical pain, ischemic pain, and injection pain. Although none of the stimuli were capable of detecting patients' hyperalgesia, heat pain sensitivity showed some promising results. CONCLUSIONS: None of the measures reviewed herein met the criteria of a definitive standard for the measurement of hyperalgesia. Additional studies that use improved study design should be conducted.

Assessment of pain and activity using an electronic pain diary and actigraphy device in a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of celecoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to determine whether a composite measure of pain and activity is a more responsive assessment of analgesic effect than pain alone or activity alone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, crossover study of celecoxib vs. placebo in subjects with chronic pain due to knee OA. Patients with knee OA and baseline pain intensity score ≥4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) before each period were randomized. Pain endpoints included in-clinic pain score (24-hour and 1-week recall), daily paper diary pain score, current pain on an electronic pain diary (each on NRS), and WOMAC pain subscale. Activity measures included WOMAC function subscale and actigraphy using a device. Three composite pain-activity measures were prespecified. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were randomized and 47 completed the study. The WOMAC pain subscale was the most responsive of all five pain measures. Pain-activity composites resulted in a statistically significant difference between celecoxib and placebo but were not more responsive than pain measures alone. However, a composite responder defined as having 20% improvement in pain or 10% improvement in activity yielded much larger differences between celecoxib and placebo than with pain scores alone. Actigraphy was more responsive than the WOMAC function scale, possibly due to lower placebo responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We have identified composite pain-activity measures that are similarly or more responsive than pain-alone measures in patients with OA. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal method for computing these composites.

Expectations for Improvement: A Neglected but Potentially Important Covariate or Moderator for Chronic Pain Clinical Trials.

Variability in pain-related outcomes can hamper assay sensitivity of chronic pain clinical trials. Expectations of outcome in such trials may account for some of this variability, and thereby impede development of novel pain treatments. Measurement of participants' expectations prior to initiating study treatment (active or placebo) is infrequent, variable, and often unvalidated. Efforts to optimize and standardize measurement, analysis, and management of expectations are needed. In this Focus Article, we provide an overview of research findings on the relationship between baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in clinical trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatments. We highlight the potential benefit of adjusting for participants' expectations in clinical trial analyses and draw on findings from patient interviews to discuss critical issues related to measurement of expectations. We conclude with suggestions regarding future studies focused on better understanding the utility of incorporating these measures into clinical trial analyses. PERSPECTIVE: This focus article provides an overview of the relationship between participants' baseline expectations and pain-related outcomes in the setting of clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Systematic research focused on the measurement of expectations and the impact of adjusting for expectations in clinical trial analyses may improve assay sensitivity.

Determining the clinically important difference in visual analog scale scores in abuse liability studies evaluating novel opioid formulations.

PURPOSE: This study determined how the magnitude of change in positive subjective responses predicts clinical outcome in a treatment setting. Specifically, we attempted to define what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID) in subjective responses. METHODS: A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) measured subjective ratings of drug "high," calculated via an anchor-based method with published data from participants receiving sustained-release naltrexone (NTX) and heroin in a laboratory setting. The data were then compared to clinical outcomes in a treatment trial with sustained-release naltrexone. A distribution-based method subsequently analyzed data from participants who received ALO-01 (extended-release morphine with sequestered NTX) to predict its abuse liability. RESULTS: Differences in ratings of drug high of approximately 10 mm on a 100-mm line were clinically significant. By extrapolation, CIDs were also found between crushed or intact ALO-01 and immediate-release morphine sulfate (IRMS). No CIDs were found between intact and crushed ALO-01. CONCLUSIONS: From laboratory and treatment trial data involving naltrexone, calculation of CIDs in subjective ratings of high is possible. Consequently, crushing/swallowing or injecting ALO-01 produces clinically significantly less drug high than oral or intravenous morphine alone, suggesting that ALO-01 has lower abuse liability by those routes than morphine formulations.

A brief survey to characterize oxycodone abuse patterns in adolescents enrolled in two substance abuse recovery high schools.

BACKGROUND: Although oxycodone is one of the most widely available and abused opioids, little published information exists on the abuse of immediate-release oxycodone. OBJECTIVE: To obtain information on abuse of oxycodone and the effectiveness of abuse-deterrent strategies, especially for immediate-release oxycodone, we surveyed oxycodone abuse patterns in a population of experienced opioid abusers. METHODS: Students or recent graduates of two substance abuse recovery high schools in Massachusetts were surveyed on abuse behaviors with short-acting single-entity oxycodone (e.g., Roxicodone), short-acting combination oxycodone (e.g., Percocet), and extended-release oxycodone. RESULTS: Twenty-four students completed surveys. Mean age was 17.7 years (range 16-19), and mean age at first abuse of oxycodone was 15 (range 13-18). Overall, 56% of students reported oxycodone as their favorite prescription opioid to abuse. The primary preferred method of abuse of all oxycodone formulations was intranasal administration: 83% of single-entity oxycodone abusers preferred intranasal administration compared with 67% of combination oxycodone abusers and 69% of extended-release oxycodone abusers. Approximately half of our respondents preferred to ingest oxycodone orally, 25-38% of respondents swallowed the pill intact, and another 13-17% chewed the pill before swallowing. Maximum dose ever abused at one time ranged from 15 to 400 mg. Most respondents had abused ≥60 mg of oxycodone at a time. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, adolescent oxycodone abusers use high quantities of oxycodone at a time, alter routes of administration for not only extended-release but also immediate-release products, and commonly abuse single-entity oxycodone products. Abuse-deterrent formulations may be one strategy for addressing such behaviors.

Evaluating the stability of opioid efficacy over 12 months in patients with chronic noncancer pain who initially demonstrate benefit from extended release oxycodone or hydrocodone: harmonization of Food and Drug Administration patient-level drug safety study data.

ABSTRACT: Opioids relieve acute pain, but there is little evidence to support the stability of the benefit over long-term treatment of chronic noncancer pain. Previous systematic reviews consider only group level published data which did not provide adequate detail. Our goal was to use patient-level data to explore the stability of pain, opioid dose, and either physical function or pain interference in patients treated for 12 months with abuse deterrent formulations of oxycodone and hydrocodone. All available studies in the Food and Drug Administration Document Archiving, Reporting, and Regulatory Tracking System were included. Patient-level demographics, baseline data, exposure, and outcomes were harmonized. Individual patient slopes were calculated from a linear model of pain, physical function, and pain interference to determine response over time. Opioid dose was summarized by change between baseline and the final month of observation. Patients with stable or less pain, stable or lower opioid dose, and stable or better physical function (where available) met our prespecified criteria for maintaining long-term benefit from chronic opioids. Of the complete data set of 3192 patients, 1422 (44.5%) maintained their pain level and opioid dose. In a secondary analysis of 985 patients with a measured physical function, 338 (34.3%) maintained their physical function in addition to pain and opioid dose. Of 2040 patients with pain interference measured, 788 (38.6%) met criteria in addition. In a carefully controlled environment, about one-third of patients successfully titrated on opioids to treat chronic noncancer pain demonstrated continued benefit for up to 12 months.

Improved Treatment Effect of Triamcinolone Acetonide Extended-Release in Patients with Concordant Baseline Pain Scores on the Average Daily Pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Pain Scales.

INTRODUCTION: A phase 3 randomized controlled study comparing triamcinolone acetonide extended-release (TA-ER) to conventional TA crystalline suspension (TAcs) reported variable efficacy results. Enrollment criteria may have contributed to this discrepancy, as moderate-to-severe average daily pain (ADP) was required at baseline, whereas no limitations were placed on Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC-A) pain severity. We conducted a post hoc sensitivity analysis to compare treatment effects in patients reporting moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) pain on both scales. METHODS: Participants > 40 years old with symptomatic knee OA were randomly assigned to a single intra-articular injection of TA-ER 32 mg, TAcs 40 mg, or saline-placebo and followed for 24 weeks. Patient-reported ADP, WOMAC-A, rescue medication usage, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Participants who reported moderate-to-severe OA pain at baseline using both instruments (ADP ≥ 5 to ≤ 9, maximum 10 and WOMAC-A ≥ 2, maximum 4) were categorized as "concordant" pain reporters; patients with baseline moderate-to-severe OA on ADP only were termed "discordant" pain reporters. RESULTS: Two-hundred-ninety-two concordant pain reporters of 484 total subjects received TA-ER 32 mg (n = 95), TAcs 40 mg (n = 100), or saline-placebo (n = 97). Baseline characteristics and AE profiles of the concordant and discordant pain responders were consistent with the full analysis population. Among concordant pain reporters, TA-ER significantly (p < 0.05) improved ADP scores vs. TAcs (weeks 5-19; area-under-the-effect [AUE]weeks1-12; AUEweeks1-24) and saline-placebo (weeks 1-20; AUEweeks1-12; AUEweeks1-24). At week 12, a higher proportion reported no knee pain (ADP = 0) with TA-ER (~ 28%) vs. TAcs (~ 8%). TA-ER significantly improved WOMAC-A vs. TAcs at weeks 4, 8, and 12, with significant reduction in rescue medication usage observed with TA-ER from weeks 2 to 20 vs. TAcs. CONCLUSIONS: In patients reporting moderate-to-severe knee OA pain at baseline based on concordant ADP and WOMAC-A scores, TA-ER provided statistically significant pain relief for ≥ 12 weeks compared with conventional TAcs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02357459.

Osteoarthritis is a chronic condition that greatly impacts patients. Pain is the most common symptom of osteoarthritis. Clinical trials evaluating the effects of new drugs to treat osteoarthritis pain frequently use scales to rate overall pain following treatment. Patients may rate their pain using a number that best describes their pain, with the lowest number typically meaning "no pain," and the highest number typically meaning "pain as bad as you can imagine." Other rating scales may be used to rate pain in situations commonly associated with osteoarthritis.Results from a large clinical trial demonstrated that injection of an extended-release steroid significantly reduced pain compared with a conventional steroid injection on only one of the two pain-reporting scales used in the trial. A closer look found that some patients reported their pain differently on the two rating scales at the start of the trial, with some reporting moderate-to-severe pain using one questionnaire and mild pain using the other. Here, we focused on those patients who reported having moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis knee pain on both pain scales at the start and found that the pain relief benefit associated with the extended-release steroid injection was greatly improved compared with the conventional steroid injection with both measures. Patients receiving the extended-release steroid injection also decreased their use of rescue medication for pain relief.

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.

Prescribing recommendations for the treatment of acute pain in dentistry.

Effective acute pain management is an essential but sometimes challenging component of dental practice. Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of various analgesic agents in dental postoperative models. This article combines an evaluation of the available evidence with current prescribing patterns to provide dental practitioners prescribing recommendations for acute pain, based on the anticipated severity of post-procedural pain. An important consideration when prescribing analgesics is to determine for whom opioid analgesics are necessary and appropriate, and if so, the dose and quantity that should be prescribed. This is partly because of the prevalence of substance and alcohol abuse that can be expected to be encountered within the dental patient population, and because substance abusers in the community frequently obtain prescription drugs from friends and family for misuse.

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.

Placebo Response Reduction and Accurate Pain Reporting Training Reduces Placebo Responses in a Clinical Trial on Chronic Low Back Pain: Results From a Comparison to the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: A literature review was conducted to compare placebo responses in a recent trial-which implemented an accurate pain reporting (APR) and placebo response reduction (PRR) training program-with placebo responses in similar previous trials in chronic lower back pain (CLBP) that did not use such training. METHODS: A literature search was performed to find parallel design, randomized, controlled trials of pharmacological treatments administered orally or through intravenous injection for CLBP. Studies were assessed for the proportion of placebo responders, defined as the proportion of patients in the placebo group with ≥30% reduction in pain intensity. A χ analysis was performed on the proportion of responders from the SPRINT trial and from other similar studies. RESULTS: Of 844 studies identified in the initial screening process, 16 studies were included for comparison. The percentage of placebo responders was statistically significantly lower in the SPRINT study (19.1%) compared with other CLBP trials (38.0%) (P=0.003). Our results show that the placebo response was lower in the SPRINT trial than other comparable studies on CLBP. DISCUSSION: These findings are consistent with results from other studies showing that neutralizing subject and study staff expectations of therapeutic benefit can decrease the placebo response in clinical trials. The results of this study suggest training participants and staff to improve pain reporting accuracy, neutralize expectations, and decrease external cues that may bias participants' pain ratings in clinical trials may effectively decrease the placebo response leading to increased assay sensitivity.

A Real-World Study Using Claims Data to Evaluate Possible Failure of Opioid Treatment Regimens Among Patients with Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis in the US.

BACKGROUND: Although opioids may be used in the management of pain in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), there is a dearth of real-world data characterizing opioid regimen failure in these patients. OBJECTIVE: Using claims data, this study explored measures that may be potentially indicative of opioid treatment failure and the association of such potential failure with health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a national employer-sponsored insurance claims database covering the years 2011-2016, this retrospective longitudinal study identified adults with hip/knee osteoarthritis who filled ≥1 opioid prescription (index event) and had continuous health plan enrollment 6 months pre- and ≥12 months post-index. Index opioid regimen intensity was defined in the 3-month post-index period by frequency, average daily dose, and duration of action. Possible index opioid regimen failure was defined as an increase in opioid regimen intensity, addition of a non-opioid pain medication, joint surgery, or opioid-abuse-related events. One-year follow-up HRU and costs were compared between those with possible treatment failure and those without. RESULTS: Among 271,512 OA patients (61.5% knee; 11.1% hip; 27.4% both), 34.9% met the definition of possible index opioid regimen failure within a year: increased regimen intensity (16.1%), joint surgery (14.0%), addition of non-opioid pain medication (11.4%), and opioid-abuse-related events (1.9%). Rates of possible failure generally increased with higher index regimen intensity. Compared with those who did not fail, those who potentially failed their index treatment regimen had significantly higher HRU (P<0.001), and all-cause ($36,699 vs $15,114) and osteoarthritis-related costs ($17,298 vs $1,967) (both P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among OA patients treated with opioids, approximately one-third may fail their index opioid regimen within a year and incur significantly higher HRU and costs than those without. Further research is needed to validate these findings with clinical outcomes.

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.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

Staircase-evoked Pain May be More Sensitive Than Traditional Pain Assessments in Discriminating Analgesic Effects: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Naproxen in Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

OBJECTIVES: Analgesic trials often fail to show a significant effect even when medications with known efficacy are tested. This could be attributed to insufficient assay sensitivity of analgesic trials, which may be due, in part, to the insensitivity of pain-related outcome measures. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the responsiveness of evoked pain generated by the staircase procedure compared with other commonly used pain outcomes in knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial of 1-week treatment of naproxen versus placebo. Participants were assigned to one of the 2 treatment sequences (naproxen-placebo or placebo-naproxen). Pain-at-rest, evoked pain using the Staircase-Evoked Pain Procedure (StEPP), pain diary, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) data were collected before and at the end of each treatment sequence. RESULTS: A total of 55 osteoarthritis patients (30 M, 25 F) completed the study. Among all pain assessments, evoked pain was the most sensitive outcome to detect treatment effects, with Standardized Effect Size (SES) of 0.47 followed by the WOMAC and pain-at-rest with SES of 0.43 and 0.36, respectively. Sample size calculations demonstrated that compared with spontaneous pain, the evoked pain model reduces required number of subjects by 40%. DISCUSSION: Study results support our hypothesis that evoked pain using the StEPP may demonstrate greater responsiveness to treatment effects compared with traditional pain-related outcome measures. Accordingly, these results may facilitate development and validation of other chronic pain-related evoked pain models, which could contribute to future research and development of new analgesics.

A deeper look at pain variability and its relationship with the placebo response: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of naproxen in osteoarthritis of the knee.

Previous studies have shown a robust correlation between variability of clinical pain scores and responsiveness to placebo (but not active drug) in pain studies, but explanations for these relationships are lacking. We investigated this further by assessing relationship between the Focused Analgesia Selection Test (FAST), a psychophysical method that quantifies pain reporting variability in response to experimental stimuli, variability of daily clinical pain scores as captured using diary, and response to treatment in the context of a randomized controlled crossover trial of naproxen vs placebo in knee osteoarthritis. Evoked pain using the Staircase-Evoked Pain Procedure served as the primary efficacy endpoint. Variability of daily pain scores and the FAST were assessed at baseline. Fifty-five subjects completed the study and were included in the analyses. Our results indicated a statistically significant, moderate linear relationship between variability of clinical and experimental pain reports (r = -0.416, P = 0.004). Both correlated with the placebo response (r = 0.393, P = 0.004; r =-0.371, P = 0.009; respectively), but only the FAST predicted the treatment difference between naproxen and placebo, as demonstrated both in a regression model (P = 0.002, Beta = 0.456, t = 3.342) and in a receiver operating characteristic curve (0.721) analysis. Our results extend previous findings to include a correlation between experimental pain variability and the placebo response and suggest that experimental pain variability is a better predictor of patients who respond preferentially to drug over placebo. A theoretical model unifying these observations is proposed, and practical implications are discussed.

Demonstrating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects Among Patients: An Overlooked but Important Step Toward Precision Medicine.

Although heterogeneity in the observed outcomes in clinical trials is often assumed to reflect a true heterogeneous response, it could actually be due to random variability. This retrospective analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiperiod (i.e., episode) crossover trials of fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain illustrates the use of multiperiod crossover trials to examine heterogeneity of treatment response. A mixed-effects model, including fixed effects for treatment and episode and random effects for patient and treatment-by-patient interaction, was used to assess the heterogeneity in patients' responses to treatment during each episode. A significant treatment-by-patient interaction was found for three of four trials (P < 0.05), suggesting heterogeneity of the effect of fentanyl among different patients in each trial. Similar analyses in other therapeutic areas could identify conditions and therapies that should be investigated further for predictors of treatment response in efforts to maximize the efficiency of developing precision medicine strategies.

Assessment of potentially abuse-related events in two phase 3 studies of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, using the MADDERS® system (Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System).

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the abuse potential of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, in two phase 3 clinical trials using a newly developed reporting system: the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS®).Methods: SUMMIT-07 was an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study that examined the safety and efficacy of NKTR-181 across 12 weeks in opioid-naïve subjects with chronic low back pain. SUMMIT-LTS was a 52 week open-label study in opioid-naïve and experienced subjects with chronic low back pain or noncancer pain rolled over from SUMMIT-07 or enrolled de novo. System evaluations were triggered by adverse events of interest and drug accountability discrepancies signaling potentially abuse-related events. Each event was assigned a primary classification and supplementary classification(s) by investigators and by a blinded, independent committee of substance abuse experts (adjudicators). At the final study visit, investigators administered a survey to subjects to identify overlooked events of interest.Results: Seventy-nine (6.6%) of 1189 subjects were associated with 86 events in SUMMIT-07 and 51 (8.0%) of 638 subjects were associated with 59 events in SUMMIT-LTS. Most events were attributed to "Withdrawal" and, primarily in SUMMIT-07, "Therapeutic Error" (unintentional overuse) or "Misuse" (intentional overuse for a therapeutic purpose) of study medication. Adjudicators identified five possible "Abuse" events (three NKTR-181, two placebo) in SUMMIT-07 and four possible "Abuse" events (all NKTR-181) in SUMMIT-LTS.Conclusions: The MADDERS® system discerns potentially abuse-related events and identified low rates of withdrawal and a low risk of abuse potential, diversion or addiction associated with NKTR-181 in phase 3 trials.