Search

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.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., 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.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., 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.

OBJECTIVES In this study, patients with painful diabetic neuropathy were trained using an experimental pain paradigm in an attempt to enroll a subset of patients who are "pain connoisseurs" and therefore more able to discriminate between active and placebo treatments. METHODS AZD5213, a novel histamine H3 receptor inverse agonist+pregabalin, pregabalin, and placebo were then tested in a 3-period cross-over. RESULTS The study did not provide any evidence of clinical efficacy for AZD5213 when combined with pregabalin in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. DISCUSSION The training of study patients in pain reporting and subsequent enrichment with good pain reporters also did not enable the robust detection of the efficacy of pregabalin relative to placebo in a small sample size. Further work is required before recommending the use of "connoisseur" patients in future neuropathic pain studies.

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.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. NKTR-181 provides effective analgesia in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low-back pain with low incidence of central nervous system side effects., NKTR-181, a new molecular entity, mu-opioid receptor agonist with an inherently slow rate of central nervous system (CNS) entry, was designed to provide analgesia while reducing abuse potential. This phase 3, enriched-enrollment, randomized-withdrawal trial evaluated the analgesic efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NKTR-181 in patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). Adults with moderate-to-severe CLBP refractory to nonopioid analgesics achieving an analgesic NKTR-181 dosage (100-400 mg twice daily) during the open-label titration period were randomized to continued NKTR-181 treatment, double-blind, or switched to placebo. The study was conducted at 55 sites in the United States. Of 1189 patients exposed to NKTR-181 during the titration period, 610 were randomized to NKTR-181 100 to 400 mg every 12 hours or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in weekly pain score (scale, 0-10) at 12 weeks from randomization baseline. Secondary outcome measures included responder rates defined by ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain score from screening to 12 weeks. Among 610 randomized patients, the mean pain score decreased from 6.73 to 2.32 during open-label titration. After randomization, the least-squares mean change in pain score was +0.92 for NKTR-181 vs +1.46 for placebo (P = 0.002). The ≥30%-improvement responder rate of NKTR-181 vs placebo was 71.2% vs 57.1% (P < 0.001), and the ≥50%-improvement responder rate was 51.1% vs 37.9% (P = 0.001). NKTR-181 was well tolerated with a low incidence (

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.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.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%.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.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and potentially dose-limiting side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapies. No therapies are available to prevent CIPN. The small number of positive randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating preventive therapies for CIPN provide little guidance to inform the design of future trials. Moreover, the lack of consensus regarding major design features in this area poses challenges to development of new therapies. An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION)–Consortium on Clinical Endpoints and Procedures for Peripheral Neuropathy Trials (CONCEPPT) meeting attended by neurologists, oncologists, pharmacists, clinical trialists, statisticians, and regulatory experts was convened to discuss design considerations and provide recommendations for CIPN prevention trials. This article outlines considerations related to design of RCTs that evaluate preventive therapies for CIPN including (1) selection of eligibility criteria (e.g., cancer types, chemotherapy types, inclusion of preexisting neuropathy); (2) selection of outcome measures and endpoints, including those that incorporate alterations in chemotherapy dosing, which may affect the rate of CIPN development and its severity; (3) potential effects of the investigational therapy on the efficacy of chemotherapy; and (4) sample size estimation. Our hope is that attention to the design considerations and recommendations outlined in this article will improve the quality and assay sensitivity of CIPN prevention trials and thereby accelerate the identification of efficacious therapies.

Integrating information on physical function and pain intensity into a composite measure may provide a useful method for assessing treatment efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain. Accordingly, we evaluated composite outcomes in trials of duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. Data on 2287 patients in 9 trials for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and 1513 patients in 6 trials for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) were analyzed. All trials assessed pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale and physical function with the 10-item subscale of the Short Form-36, ranging 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating better function. Correlation between change in pain intensity from baseline to posttreatment and change in physical function was small in DPN (ρ = -0.22; P < 0.001) and nonsignificant in PHN (ρ = -0.05; P = 0.08). Assay sensitivities of 10 composite outcomes were examined in a random subsample of patients enrolled in pregabalin trials for DPN and PHN. Of these, a responder outcome of ≥50% improvement in pain intensity, or a ≥20% improvement in pain intensity and ≥30% improvement in physical function was not only significantly associated with pregabalin vs placebo in the development cohorts for both pain conditions but also in the validation cohorts. Furthermore, this composite outcome was cross-validated in trials of gabapentin for PHN and duloxetine for DPN, and had slightly lower number needed to treat than a standard responder outcome of ≥50% reduction in pain intensity. In summary, this study identified a composite outcome of pain intensity and physical function that may improve the assay sensitivity of future neuropathic pain trials.

Background: Intra-articular corticosteroids relieve osteoarthritis pain, but rapid systemic absorption limits efficacy. FX006, a novel, microsphere-based, extended-release triamcinolone acetonide (TA) formulation, prolongs TA joint residence and reduces systemic exposure compared with standard TA crystalline suspension (TAcs). We assessed symptomatic benefits and safety of FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo and TAcs. Methods: In this Phase-3, multicenter, double-blinded, 24-week study, adults ≥40 years of age with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3) and average-daily-pain (ADP)-intensity scores of ≥5 and ≤9 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale) were centrally randomized (1:1:1) to a single intra-articular injection of FX006 (32 mg), saline-solution placebo, or TAcs (40 mg). The primary end point was change from baseline to week 12 in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo. Secondary end points were area-under-effect (AUE) curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo, AUE curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with TAcs, change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with TAcs, and AUE curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 24 for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo. Exploratory end points included week-12 changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life (KOOS-QOL) subscale scores for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo and TAcs. Adverse events were elicited at each inpatient visit. Results: The primary end point was met. Among 484 treated patients (n = 161 for FX006, n = 162 for saline-solution placebo, and n = 161 for TAcs), FX006 provided significant week-12 improvement in ADP intensity compared with that observed for saline-solution placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline: −3.12 versus −2.14; p < 0.0001) indicating ∼50% improvement. FX006 afforded improvements over saline-solution placebo for all secondary and exploratory end points (p < 0.05). Improvements in osteoarthritis pain were not significant for FX006 compared with TAcs using the ADP-based secondary measures. Exploratory analyses of WOMAC-A, B, and C and KOOS-QOL subscales favored FX006 (p ≤ 0.05). Adverse events were generally mild, occurring at similar frequencies across treatments. Conclusions: FX006 provided significant, clinically meaningful pain reduction compared with saline-solution placebo at week 12 (primary end point). Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cross-over trials are typically more efficient than parallel group trials in that the sample size required to yield a desired power is substantially smaller. It is important, however, to consider some issues specific to cross-over trials when designing and reporting them, and when evaluating the published results of such trials. This systematic review evaluated the quality of reporting and its evolution over time in articles of cross-over clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain published between 1993 and 2013. Seventy-six (61%) articles reported a within-subject primary analysis, or if no primary analysis was identified, reported at least 1 within-subject analysis, which is required to achieve the gain in power associated with the cross-over design. For 39 (31%) articles, it was unclear whether analyses conducted were within-subject or between-group. Only 36 (29%) articles reported a method to accommodate missing data (eg, last observation carried forward, n = 29), and of those, just 14 included subjects in the analysis who provided data from only 1 period. Of the articles that identified a within-subject primary analysis, 21 (51%) provided sufficient information for the results to be included in a meta-analysis (ie, estimates of the within-subject treatment effect and variability). These results and others presented in this article demonstrate deficiencies in reporting of cross-over trials for analgesic treatments. Clearer reporting in future trials could improve readers' ability to critically evaluate the results, use these data in meta-analyses, and plan future trials. Recommendations for proper reporting of cross-over trials that apply to any condition are provided.

A buccal film of buprenorphine (BBUP) was evaluated for safety and efficacy in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment, randomized-withdrawal study in opioid-experienced patients (30 to ≤160 mg/d morphine sulfate equivalent) with moderate to severe chronic low back pain taking around-the-clock opioid analgesics. Patients' opioid doses were tapered to ≤30 mg morphine sulfate equivalent before open-label titration with BBUP (range, 150-900 μg every 12 hours). Patients who responded (received adequate analgesia that was generally well tolerated for 14 days) were randomized to receive buprenorphine (n = 254) or placebo (n = 257) buccal film. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to week 12 of double-blind treatment in mean average daily pain-intensity scores using a rating scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). In the intent-to-treat population, mean pain scores were 6.7 after opioid taper and declined to 2.8 after the BBUP titration period. After randomization, mean pain scores were lower in the BBUP group than in the placebo group; the difference between groups in the mean change from baseline to week 12 was -0.98 (95% CI, -1.32 to -0.64; P < 0.001). A significantly larger percentage of patients receiving BBUP than placebo had pain reductions ≥30% and ≥50% (P < 0.001 for both). In the double-blind portion of the study, the only adverse event reported more frequently with BBUP than placebo and in ≥5% of patients was vomiting (5.5% vs 2.3%). These findings demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of BBUP in opioid-experienced patients taking around-the-clock opioid treatment for chronic low back pain.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

This article provides a set of practical, evidence-based suggestions for designing and executing chronic pain clinical trials in a manner that minimizes measurement error., The purpose of this article is to provide readers with a basis for understanding the emerging science of clinical trials and to provide a set of practical, evidence-based suggestions for designing and executing confirmatory clinical trials in a manner that minimizes measurement error. The most important step in creating a mindset of quality clinical research is to abandon the antiquated concept that clinical trials are a method for capturing data from clinical practice and shifting to a concept of the clinical trial as a measurement system, consisting of an interconnected set of processes, each of which must be in calibration for the trial to generate an accurate and reliable estimate of the efficacy (and safety) of a given treatment. The status quo of inaccurate, unreliable, and protracted clinical trials is unacceptable and unsustainable. This article gathers aspects of study design and conduct under a single broad umbrella of techniques available to improve the accuracy and reliability of confirmatory clinical trials across traditional domain boundaries.

Opioid analgesics are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP); however, abuse potential is a major concern. This study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment randomized-withdrawal study design to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and analgesic efficacy of an abuse-deterrent formulation of extended-release oxycodone, Xtampza ER, in opioid-naive and opioid-experienced adults with moderate-to-severe CLBP. Patients entered an open-label titration phase (N = 740); those who were successfully titrated on Xtampza ER (≥40 to ≤160 mg oxycodone hydrochloride equivalent per day) were randomized to active drug (N = 193) or placebo (N = 196) for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy results showed a statistically significant difference in average pain intensity from randomization baseline to treatment week 12 between the Xtampza ER and placebo groups (mean [±SE], -1.56 [0.267]; P < 0.0001). All sensitivity analyses results supported the primary result of the study. Secondary efficacy outcomes indicated that Xtampza ER vs placebo had more patients with improvement in patient global impression of change (26.4% vs 14.3%; P < 0.0001), longer time-to-exit from the study (58 vs 35 days; P = 0.0102), and a greater proportion of patients with ≥30% (49.2% vs 33.2%; P = 0.0013) and ≥50% (38.3% vs 24.5%; P = 0.0032) improvement in pain intensity. There was less rescue medication (acetaminophen) use in the Xtampza ER treatment group than in the placebo group. Xtampza ER had an adverse event profile consistent with other opioids and was well tolerated; no new safety concerns were identified. In conclusion, Xtampza ER resulted in clinically and statistically significant efficacy in patients with CLBP.

Qutenza is a high-dose capsaicin patch used to relieve neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and HIV-associated neuropathy (HIV-AN). In clinical studies, some patients had a dramatic response to the capsaicin patch. Our objective was to determine the baseline characteristics of patients who best benefit from capsaicin patch treatment.We conducted a meta-analysis of 6 completed randomized and controlled Qutenza studies by pooling individual patient data. Sustained response was defined as50% decrease in the mean pain intensity from baseline to weeks 2 to 12, and Complete Response as an average pain intensity score≤1 during weeks 2 to 12. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response and Complete Response, and subgroups of patients who respond best to the capsaicin patch.Baseline pain intensity score (BPIS)≤4 was a predictor of Sustained and Complete Response in PHN and HIV-AN patients; absence of allodynia and presence of hypoesthesia, and a McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) sensory score22 were predictors of Sustained Response in PHN patients; female sex was a predictor of Sustained and Complete Response in HIV-AN patients. Thus, characteristics associated with the highest chance of responding to the capsaicin patch were, for PHN, BPIS≤4, MPQ sensory score≤22, absence of allodynia, and presence of hypoesthesia; for HIV-AN, they were female sex and BPIS≤4. Patients with these characteristics had a statistically significantly greater chance of responding to the capsaicin patch than other patients.We identified subpopulations of PHN and HIV-AN patients likely to benefit from the capsaicin patch.

Patients with metastatic bone cancer report life-altering pain. Nerve growth factor is involved in pain signaling. Tanezumab, a nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated efficacy in chronic pain. Placebo-controlled parent (NCT00545129; study 1003) and noncontrolled open-label extension (NCT00830180; study 1029) studies evaluated efficacy and safety of tanezumab in patients with painful bone metastases taking daily opioids. Patients in study 1003 received a single intravenous injection of 10 mg tanezumab or placebo and were followed up to 16 weeks. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in daily average and worst pain at week 6 on an 11-point numeric rating scale. At week 8, patients could enroll in study 1029 and receive 4 infusions of 10 mg tanezumab at 8-week intervals with follow-up to 40 weeks. Safety assessments included adverse events and physical and neurologic examinations. Overall, 59 patients were randomized and treated (placebo, n = 30; tanezumab, n = 29). At the primary endpoint of study 1003, least squares mean (SE) difference in change from baseline in daily average pain vs placebo was -0.26 (0.45; P = 0.569). Post hoc analyses suggested that tanezumab had greater efficacy in patients with lower baseline opioid use and/or higher baseline pain. Mean (SE) pain scores in study 1029 were reduced through week 40 compared with study 1029 or 1003 baselines (-0.21 [0.76] and -1.27 [0.68], respectively). Adverse event incidence of study 1003 was similar between groups. Although the primary endpoint was not achieved, tanezumab may provide additional sustained analgesia in patients with metastatic bone pain taking daily opioids. Additional larger studies are warranted.

Enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) pain trials select, before randomisation, patients who respond by demonstrating a predetermined degree of pain relief and acceptance of adverse events. There is uncertainty over the value of this design. We report a systematic review of EERW trials in chronic noncancer pain together with a critical appraisal of methods and potential biases in the methods used and recommendations for the design and reporting of future EERW trials. Electronic and other searches found 25 EERW trials published between 1995 and June 2014, involving 5669 patients in a randomised withdrawal phase comparing drug with placebo; 13 (median, 107 patients) had a randomised withdrawal phase of 6 weeks or less, and 12 (median, 334) lasted 12 to 26 weeks. Risks of bias included short duration, inadequate outcome definition, incomplete outcome data reporting, small size, and inadequate dose tapering on randomisation to placebo. Active treatment was usually better than placebo (22/25 trials). This review reduces the uncertainty around the value of EERW trials in pain. If properly designed, conducted, and reported, they are feasible and useful for making decisions about pain therapies. Shorter, small studies can be explanatory; longer, larger studies can inform practice. Current evidence is inadequate for valid comparisons in outcome between EERW and classical trials, although no gross differences were found. This systematic review provides a framework for assessing potential biases and the value of the EERW trials, and for the design of future studies by making recommendations for the conduct and reporting of EERW trials.

The degree of variability in the patient baseline 7-day diary of pain ratings has been hypothesized to have a potential effect on the assay sensitivity of randomized clinical trials of pain therapies. To address this issue, we obtained clinical trial data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public–private partnership, and harmonized patient level data from 12 clinical trials (4 gabapentin and 8 pregabalin) in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Models were developed using exploratory logistic regression to examine the interaction between available baseline factors and treatment (placebo vs active medication) in predicting patient response to therapy (ie, >30% improvement). Our analysis demonstrated an increased likelihood of response in the placebo-treated group for patients with a higher standard deviation in the baseline 7-day diary without affecting the likelihood of a response in the active medication–treated group, confirming our hypothesis. In addition, there was a small but significant age-by-treatment interaction in the PHN model, and small weight-by-treatment interaction in the DPN model. The patient’s sex, baseline pain level, and the study protocol had an effect only on the likelihood of response overall. Our results suggest the possibility that, at least in some disease processes, excluding patients with a highly variable baseline 7-day diary has the potential to improve the assay sensitivity of these analgesic clinical trials, although reductions of external validity must be considered when increasing the homogeneity of the investigated sample.

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.

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.

Assessing and mitigating the abuse liability (AL) of analgesics is an urgent clinical and societal problem. Analgesics have traditionally been assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy relative to placebo or an active comparator. In these trials, rigorous, prospectively designed assessment for AL is generally not performed. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) convened a consensus meeting to review the available evidence and discuss methods for improving the assessment of the AL of analgesics in clinical trials in patients with pain. Recommendations for improved assessment include: (1) performing trials that include individuals with diverse risks of abuse; (2) improving the assessment of AL in clinical trials (eg, training study personnel in the principles of abuse and addiction behaviors, designing the trial to assess AL outcomes as primary or secondary outcome measures depending on the trial objectives); (3) performing standardized assessment of outcomes, including targeted observations by study personnel and using structured adverse events query forms that ask all subjects specifically for certain symptoms (such as euphoria and craving); and (4) collecting detailed information about events of potential concern (eg, unexpected urine drug testing results, loss of study medication, and dropping out of the trial). The authors also propose a research agenda for improving the assessment of AL in future trials.

Nerve growth factor (NGF) is increased in chronic pain conditions. This study examined analgesic efficacy and safety of fulranumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-NGF antibody, in adults with chronic osteoarthritis pain. Patients (n=466, intent-to-treat) were randomized to receive, in addition to their current pain therapy, subcutaneous injections in 1 of 6 parallel treatment groups: placebo (n=78), fulranumab 1 mg (n=77) or 3 mg (n=79) every 4 weeks (Q4wk), 3 mg (n=76), 6 mg (n=78), or 10 mg (n=78) every 8 weeks (Q8wk). Primary efficacy results showed that fulranumab significantly reduced the average pain intensity score (Por = 0.030) from baseline to week 12 compared with placebo in the 3mgQ4wk, 6mgQ8wk, and 10mgQ8wk groups. Secondary efficacy outcomes indicated that significant improvement occurred compared with placebo at week 12 on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales of pain, stiffness, and physical function (P0.040) across all fulranumab groups except 1mgQ4wk, on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form subscales of pain intensity (Por = 0.016) and pain interference (Por = 0.030) in the 3mgQ4wk and 10mgQ8wk groups, and on the Patient Global Assessment score (Por = 0.040) in the 3mgQ4wk, 6mgQ8wk, and 10mgQ8wk groups. The most common (or = 5% of patients) treatment-emergent adverse events in overall fulranumab groups during the first 12weeks included paresthesia (7%), headache (5%), and nasopharyngitis (5%). Most neurologic-related treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved at the end of week 12. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients, but they were not neurologically related and resolved before study completion. Fulranumab treatment resulted in statistically significant efficacy in pain measures and physical function versus placebo and was generally well tolerated.

Qutenza® is a capsaicin patch used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain, including postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and human immunodeficiency virus-associated neuropathy (HIV-AN). The Qutenza Clinical Trials Database has been assembled to more fully characterize the effects of Qutenza. We conducted a within-subject meta-analysis of Qutenza studies to further define the medication's efficacy profile across studies. The meta-analysis combined individual patient data from randomized, controlled studies of Qutenza in peripheral neuropathic pain (1458 subjects treated with approved doses of Qutenza or control patches; 1120 with PHN and 338 with HIV-AN). These 7 studies had similar designs and were performed with the high-dose 8% capsaicin Qutenza patch and a 0.04% low-dose control patch. The difference between treatment groups for the primary efficacy end point of percentage change from baseline to weeks 2 to 12 on pain intensity score was calculated. Response was defined as a ≥ 30% decrease in mean pain intensity score during weeks 2 to 12. The overall between-group difference in percentage change from baseline in pain intensity was 8.0% (95% confidence interval 4.6, 11.5; P

Increased nerve growth factor levels are associated with chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (LBP). This study examined safety and analgesic efficacy of tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in adults with chronic LBP. Patients received intravenous tanezumab 200 μg/kg plus oral placebo (n=88), intravenous placebo plus oral naproxen 500 mg twice a day (n=88), or intravenous placebo plus oral placebo (n=41). Primary outcome was average LBP intensity (aLBPI) at Week 6. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with ≥30% or ≥50% reduction in aLBPI, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory-short form scores, Patients' Global Assessment of LBP, Patients' Global Evaluation of study medication, and rescue medication use. Mean aLBPI change from baseline to Week 6 was greater with tanezumab vs naproxen (P=0.004) and placebo (P

There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain.

Objectives To systematically identify and critically assess clinical trials that use enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) trial design as a methodology for assessing the effect of analgesics pain. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted through April 2007 in Medline and Embase to identify all randomized controlled trials that use EERW trial designs. Data were collected from relevant trials and tabulated. Results were categorized on the basis of study designs, preenrichment and postenrichment disposition, discontinuation rates, primary and secondary efficacy results, and respective P values. Results The literature search identified 2875 unique citations, most of which were deemed inappropriate for this analysis. The primary reasons for exclusion included inappropriate study design, no available abstract, not a clinical study, and therapeutic area not related to chronic pain. Eight EERW clinical trials of analgesics were identified. Half of the trials were in chronic low back pain, and 5 of 8 trials used an opioid as the active drug. Of the 8 trials, 5 used a parallel design and 3 used crossover designs. The primary efficacy parameter used was pain scores or time to discontinuation, and statistically and clinically significant effects in active treatments relative to placebo were observed after randomization in all trials. The median magnitude of effect was 1.7 on a 10-point scale. Time to exit was a more statistically powerful endpoint than mean pain intensity. Discussions EERW trials are an emerging type of study design that in certain settings may offer advantages over traditional trial designs in characterizing the effects of analgesic medications.

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

Objectives: This study describes the development of a systematic approach to the analysis of Internet chatter as a means of monitoring potentially abusable opioid analgesics. Methods: Message boards dedicated to drug abuse were selected using specific inclusion criteria. Threaded discussions containing 48,293 posts were captured. A coding system was created to compare content of posts related to 3 opioid analgesics: Kadian, Vicodin, and OxyContin. Results: The number of posts containing mentions of the target drugs were significantly different [OxyContin (1813) > Vicodin (940)>Kadian (27), P

Clinicians recognize the importance of monitoring aberrant medication-related behaviors of chronic pain patients while being prescribed opioid therapy. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) for those pain patients already on long-term opioid therapy. An initial pool of 177 items was developed with input from 26 pain management and addiction specialists. Concept mapping identified six primary concepts underlying medication misuse, which were used to develop an initial item pool. Twenty-two pain and addiction specialists rated the items on importance and relevance, resulting in selection of a 40-item alpha COMM. Final item selection was based on empirical evaluation of items with patients taking opioids for chronic, noncancer pain (N=227). One-week test-retest reliability was examined with 55 participants. All participants were administered the alpha version of the COMM, the Prescription Drug Use Questionnaire (PDUQ) interview, and submitted a urine sample for toxicology screening. Physician ratings of patient aberrant behaviors were also obtained. Of the 40 items, 17 items appeared to adequately measure aberrant behavior, demonstrating excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Cutoff scores were examined using ROC curve analysis and reasonable sensitivity and specificity were established. To evaluate the COMM’s ability to capture change in patient status, it was tested on a subset of patients (N = 86) that were followed and reassessed three months later. The COMM was found to have promise as a brief, self-report measure of current aberrant drug-related behavior. Further cross-validation and replication of these preliminary results is pending.

Clinical trials of opioid analgesics for chronic pain are recognized to frequently fail to distinguish the analgesic effect from placebo, despite known efficacy of the drug. This paper reviews the methodologic features of such trials that may be associated with risk of failure. A literature search yielded 23 randomized placebo-controlled studies of opioids with at least one week of continuous treatment; contacting pharmaceutical companies yielded six additional studies. A classification system and standard terminology were developed for describing the methodologic features of these trials. The methodologic features that appeared to augur well for success of the trials were slow titration of medications, flexible dosing, minimizing concomitant and rescue analgesics, homogeneous samples, particularly in terms of opioid use upon entry, fewer study sites (for the same sample size), and including as much data as possible in statistical analyses. Study designs that lead to high dropout rates lack internal validity, unless dropout is the intended endpoint of the trial. Opioid analgesics should be studied in a manner that is clinically relevant, and that supports internal validity. More systematic attention is needed to clinical research methodology.

Sufentanil, a potent mu-opioid agonist, historically has not been been given systemically to treat chronic pain. An implantable, fixed-rate osmotic pump that delivers sufentanil subcutaneously is being developed for this purpose. In that transdermal fentanyl may be a useful intermediary to estimate the appropriate sufentanil dose before implant, accurate information is needed about the relative analgesic potency of sufentanil and fentanyl during continuous infusion. To determine this relative potency, we administered these drugs to opioid-treated chronic pain patients using a target-controlled infusion (TCI). Sixty-three patients with stable chronic pain and daily oral opioid requirements equivalent to 100-1000 mg of morphine received TCI of fentanyl and sufentanil, each for a minimum of 16 h. Drug administration was double-blind and the order of administration was randomly assigned. Target concentration was changed until the patient reported that analgesia was adequate (defined as a pain level equal to or better than baseline). Seven patients did not complete the infusion and protocol violations invalidated data for 15 patients. For the remaining 41 patients, target concentrations associated with adequate analgesia were achieved for both sufentanil and fentanyl. The median value for the equianalgesic concentration ratio (steady-state fentanyl infusion to steady-state sufentanil infusion) was 7.5; mean potency ratio was 7.44 (95% confidence interval 6.8-8.2). During titrated, intermediate-term infusions in patients previously treated with opioids for chronic pain, sufentanil is approximately 7.5 times as potent as fentanyl.

To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment.Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain.There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.

STUDY DESIGN Two replicate, 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trials of rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg versus placebo for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of two doses of rofecoxib compared to placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly prescribed for chronic low back pain, their efficacy is unproven and toxicity can be serious. These studies evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS Patients with chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1:1 to rofecoxib 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Primary endpoint: Low Back Pain Intensity. Secondary endpoints: Pain Bothersomeness, Global Assessments of Response to Therapy, Global Assessment of Disease Status, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-12 Health Survey, Use of Rescue Acetaminophen, and Discontinuations Due to Lack of Efficacy. RESULTS Combining both studies, 690 patients were randomized to placebo (N = 228), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 233), or rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 229). Mean (+/- SD) age was 53.4 (+/- 12.9) years, pain duration 12.1 (+/- 11.8) years, 62.3% female. Both rofecoxib groups improved significantly. Mean differences from placebo in pain intensity were -13.50 mm, -13.81 mm (25, 50 mg doses) respectively (P < 0.001). Both regimens were superior to placebo in eight of nine secondary endpoints. Fifty mg provided no advantage over 25 mg. Both rofecoxib regimens were well tolerated, although 25 mg had a slightly better safety profile. CONCLUSIONS Rofecoxib significantly reduced chronic low back pain in adults and was well tolerated.

The visual analogue scale (VAS) is an established, validated, self-report measure usually consisting of a 10 cm line on paper with verbal anchors labeling the ends. Palmtop computers (PTCs also known as personal digital appliances) have incorporated VAS entry by use of a touch screen. However, the validity and psychophysical properties of the electronic VAS have never been formally compared with the conventional paper VAS. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement between the electronic (eVAS) and paper (pVAS) modes. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Each study participant provided input using both measurement methods by marking the eVAS and pVAS in response to two kinds of stimuli, cognitive and sensory. A verbal rating scale of seven descriptors of intensity represented the cognitive stimuli. Participants were asked to mark the location that best corresponded to the pain intensity described by each word on scales from 'no pain' to 'worst possible pain'. The sensory stimuli used were a set of test weights consisting of plastic containers ranging from 7 to 129 g. The VAS for sensory stimuli ranged from 0 (no weight) to 'reference weight' (the heaviest weight outside the range of test weights). There were two types of input stimuli and two modes for recording responses for a total of four experimental conditions. Two evaluators independently measured and recorded all the pVAS forms to the nearest millimeter. A total of 2016 stimuli were rated. The overall correlation for ratings of both sensory and cognitive stimuli on eVAS and pVAS was r = 0.91. For paired verbal stimuli the correlation was r = 0.97. For paired sensory stimuli the correlation was r = 0.86. The correlation between group eVAS and pVAS ratings to common verbal stimuli was r = 0.99. For common sensory stimuli the group correlation was r = 0.99. The median of correlations comparing eVAS and pVAS ratings was 0.99 for verbal stimuli and 0.98 for sensory stimuli. Multivariate analyses showed equivalent stimuli to be rated much the same whether entered on paper VAS or PTC touch screen VAS (P < 0.0001). Support was found for the validity of the computer version of the VAS scale.

Electronic data collection for monitoring pain has become increasingly popular in clinical research. However, no direct comparison has been made between electronic diaries and self-report paper diaries or phone interviews. We asked 36 patients with chronic low back pain to monitor their pain for 1 year; 20 of them used both a palmtop computer and paper diaries, and 16 used paper diaries alone. All patients were called once a week and asked to rate their pain. Regression analyses with a measurement error model were run on hourly pain scores recorded by both palmtop computer and paper diaries. Ratings of pain intensity were highly reliable between data recorded with a palmtop computer and with data from paper diaries. Patients who monitored their pain with the palmtop computer entered data on average 6.75 times a week and were 89.9% compliant with daily monitoring throughout the year. Two-way messaging available through the palmtop computer seemed to encourage continued use of the device. Internal consistency of reporting and correlations with phone reports and standardized measures were highly significant, suggesting that data from electronic diaries are both reliable and valid. Patients using electronic diaries preferred them to paper diaries and showed much higher rates of compliance and satisfaction over the 1-year trial.

Study Design. A randomized, open, long-term, repeated-dose comparison of an anti-inflammatory drug and two opioid regimens in 36 patients with back pain. Objectives. To examine the long-term safety and efficacy of chronic opioid therapy in a randomized trial of patients with back pain. Methods. All participants underwent a 4-week washout period of no opioid medication before being randomly assigned to one of three treatment regimens for 16 weeks: 1) naproxen only, 2) set-dose oxycodone, or 3) titrated-dose oxycodone and sustained-release morphine sulfate. All patients then were assigned to a titrated dose of opioids for 16 weeks and then gradually tapered off their medication for 12 weeks. Finallv, all participants were monitored for a 1-month posttreatment washout period. Each patient was called once a week for a report on pain, activity, mood, medication, hours awake, and adverse effects and was monitored carefully for signs of abuse and noncompliance. Results. Weekly reports during the experimental phase showed the titrated-dose group to have less pain (P < 0.001) and less emotional distress (P< 0.001) than the other two groups. Both opioid groups were significantly different from the naproxen-only group. During the titration phase, patients also reported significantly less pain and improved mood. Few differences were found in activity or hours asleep, or between average pretreatment and posttreatment phone-interview and questionnaire variables. No adverse events occurred, and only one participant showed signs of abuse behavior. Conclusions. The results suggest that opioid therapy has a positive effect on pain and mood but little effect on activity and sleep, Opioid therapy for chronic back pain was used without significant risk of abuse. However, tapered-off opioid treatment is palliative and without long-term benefit.

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.

We report three cases of persistent cranial nerve palsies secondary to dural puncture despite subsequent epidural blood patching. A review of the literature and the likely mechanism of these palsies indicates that optimal timing of an epidural blood patch to prevent such a complication is no later t