Search

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.

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Pain., 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.

Background Multiple Sclerosis (MS) clinical trials increasingly focus on progressive and advanced MS, with upper limb function (ULF) as a key outcome. Within clinical trials, Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) quantify clinical variables and establish meaningfulness of changes. Scientific standards and regulatory criteria (from Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) require PROs be “fit-for-purpose”: well-defined and reliable measures of specific concepts in defined contexts. Objective To identify, from literature, existing PROs measuring ULF and determine which satisfy scientific and regulatory clinical trials requirements. Method We screened PubMed/Web of Science using multiple relevant terms. Abstracts and full texts were screened using suitability criteria. PRO development papers were evaluated using recently expanded Consensus Standards for Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria for content development. Results We identified 3619 articles; 485 used 24 different ULF PROs. No PRO satisfied scientific and regulatory requirements as a well-defined measure of a clearly defined construct in a specific clinical context. Conclusions Existing ULF PROs don't meet fit-for-purpose criteria. MS clinical trials require new measures with greater emphasis on patient engagement to derive theoretical frameworks, concepts of interest, and contexts of use followed by systematic literature searches, expert input, and qualitative research to support item generation. Until then, trials will miss aspects of meaningful within-patient change and thereby misrepresent (likely underestimating) treatment effects., Highlights • With MS clinical trials increasingly focusing on progressive and advanced MS, we searched for and assessed existing Upper Limb Function (ULF) Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) for MS clinical trials • We established that existing PROs for ULF in MS do not meet regulatory and scientific criteria for content validity. • In fact, we established that the content development of existing PROs is worrisome – often falling short of guidelines around conceptual development, qualitative involvement of patients, use of representative samples and well-documented literature searches. • These results reiterate the work of other authors, where poor historical PRO content development has been established in various clinical contexts. • New measures are required.

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.

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.

Identifying methods to improve assay sensitivity in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may facilitate the discovery of efficacious pain treatments. RCTs evaluating pain treatments typically use average pain intensity (API) or worst pain intensity (WPI) as the primary efficacy outcome. However, little evidence is available comparing the assay sensitivity of these 2 measures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively reviewed all low back pain, osteoarthritis pain, fibromyalgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain, and postherpetic neuralgia RCTs that used a parallel group design. Eligibility required: 1) primary RCT report published between 1980 and 2016, 2) comparing 1 or more active, efficacious pharmacologic pain treatment(s) with placebo, and 3) providing data on the standardized effect size (SES) for API as well as WPI for all treatment arms. Twenty-seven active versus placebo comparisons were identified in 23 eligible articles. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, API SES and WPI SES did not differ significantly (difference = −.021, 95% confidence interval = −.047 to .004, P = .12). The findings indicate that, depending on the objectives of the study, either API or WPI could be used as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials for the chronic pain conditions included in this analysis. Perspective Understanding the comparative assay sensitivity of API and WPI may advance pain treatment research. A meta-analysis of trials of efficacious pharmacologic treatments in 5 pain conditions did not show a statistically significant difference between the assay sensitivity of API and WPI.

Accurate assessment of inappropriate medication use events (ie, misuse, abuse, and related events) occurring in clinical trials is an important component in evaluating a medication's abuse potential. A meeting was convened to review all instruments measuring such events in clinical trials according to previously published standardized terminology and definitions. Only 2 approaches have been reported that are specifically designed to identify and classify misuse, abuse, and related events occurring in clinical trials, rather than to measure an individual's risk of using a medication inappropriately: the Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion (SR-MAD) instrument and the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS). The conceptual basis, strengths, and limitations of these methods are discussed. To our knowledge, MADDERS is the only system available to comprehensively evaluate inappropriate medication use events prospectively to determine the underlying intent. MADDERS can also be applied retrospectively to completed trial data. SR-MAD can be used prospectively; additional development may be required to standardize its implementation and fully appraise the intent of inappropriate use events. Additional research is needed to further demonstrate the validity and utility of MADDERS as well as SR-MAD. Perspective Identifying a medication's abuse potential requires assessing inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials on the basis of a standardized event classification system. The strengths and limitations of the 2 published methods designed to evaluate inappropriate medication use events are reviewed, with recommended considerations for further development and current implementation.

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.

Although pain reduction is commonly the primary outcome in chronic pain clinical trials, physical functioning is also important. A challenge in designing chronic pain trials to determine efficacy and effectiveness of therapies is obtaining appropriate information about the impact of an intervention on physical function. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a meeting to consider assessment of physical functioning and participation in research on chronic pain. The primary purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence on the scope of physical functioning to inform work on refining physical function outcome measurement. We address issues in assessing this broad construct and provide examples of frequently used measures of relevant concepts. Investigators can assess physical functioning using patient-reported outcome (PRO), performance-based, and objective measures of activity. This article aims to provide support for the use of these measures, covering broad aspects of functioning, including work participation, social participation, and caregiver burden, which researchers should consider when designing chronic pain clinical trials. Investigators should consider the inclusion of both PROs and performance-based measures as they provide different but also important complementary information. The development and use of reliable and valid PROs and performance-based measures of physical functioning may expedite development of treatments, and standardization of these measures has the potential to facilitate comparison across studies. We provide recommendations regarding important domains to stimulate research to develop tools that are more robust, address consistency and standardization, and engage patients early in tool development.

Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.

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.

The objective of the present research was to develop a single measure of the major symptoms of both neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain that can be used in studies of epidemiology, natural history, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and treatment response. We expanded and revised the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) pain descriptors by adding symptoms relevant to neuropathic pain and by modifying the response format to a 0-10 numerical rating scale to provide increased responsiveness in longitudinal studies and clinical trials. The reliability, validity, and subscale structure of the revised SF-MPQ (SF-MPQ-2) were examined in responses from 882 individuals with diverse chronic pain syndromes and in 226 patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy who participated in a randomized clinical trial. The data suggest that the SF-MPQ-2 has excellent reliability and validity, and the results of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provided support for four readily interpretable subscales-continuous pain, intermittent pain, predominantly neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors. These results provide a basis for use of the SF-MPQ-2 in future clinical research, including clinical trials of treatments for neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions.

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.

This two-phase study was conducted to identify relevant domains of patient-reported outcomes from the perspective of people who experience chronic pain. In Phase 1, focus groups were conducted to generate a pool of patient outcome-related domains and their components. The results of the focus groups identified 19 aspects of their lives that were significantly impacted by the presence of their symptoms and for which improvements were important criteria they would use in evaluating the effectiveness of any treatment. Phase 2 was conducted to examine the importance and relevance of domains identified from a much larger and diverse sample of people with chronic pain. A survey was developed and posted on the American Chronic Pain Association website. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each item or domain identified by the focus groups on a scale of 0 to10 (i.e., 0="not at all important" and 10="extremely important"). The survey was completed by 959 individuals. The results indicate that all 19 aspects of daily life derived from the focus groups were considered important with a majority of respondents indicating a score of 8 or greater. In addition to pain reduction, the most important aspects were enjoyment of life, emotional well-being, fatigue, weakness, and sleep-related problems. Chronic pain clearly impacts health-related quality of life. The results of the two phases of the study indicate that people with chronic pain consider functioning and well-being as important areas affected by the presence of symptoms and as appropriate targets of treatment. These multiple outcomes should be considered when evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments.

a University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA b University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA c United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA d Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA e Johnson and Johnson, Raritan, NY, USA f AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA g University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA h Merck and Company, Blue Bell, PA, USA i University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, USA j American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA k Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA, USA l National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Bethesda, MD, USA m University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA n Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA o University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada p Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, USA q VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA r Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA s Celgene Corporation, Warren, NJ, USA t Pfizer Global Research and Development, Ann Arbor, MI, USA u Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada v London Regional Cancer Centre, London, Ont., Canada

Measurement of inappropriate medication use events (eg, abuse or misuse) in clinical trials is important in characterizing a medication's abuse potential. However, no gold standard assessment of inappropriate use events in clinical trials has been identified. In this systematic review, we examine the measurement properties (ie, content validity, cross-sectional reliability and construct validity, longitudinal construct validity, ability to detect change, and responder definitions) of instruments assessing inappropriate use of opioid and nonopioid prescription medications to identify any that meet U.S. and European regulatory agencies' rigorous standards for outcome measures in clinical trials. Sixteen published instruments were identified, most of which were not designed for the selected concept of interest and context of use. For this reason, many instruments were found to lack adequate content validity (or documentation of content validity) to evaluate current inappropriate medication use events; for example, evaluating inappropriate use across the life span rather than current use, including items that did not directly assess inappropriate use (eg, questions about anger), or failing to capture information pertinent to inappropriate use events (eg, intention and route of administration). In addition, the psychometric data across all instruments were generally limited in scope. A further limitation is the heterogeneous, nonstandardized use of inappropriate medication use terminology. These observations suggest that available instruments are not well suited for assessing current inappropriate medication use within the specific context of clinical trials. Further effort is needed to develop reliable and valid instruments to measure current inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials. Perspective This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties of inappropriate medication use (eg, abuse or misuse) instruments to determine whether any meet regulatory standards for clinical trial outcome measures to assess abuse potential.

Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain , Journal of Pain , and Pain ) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults. Perspective This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting.

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

A critical component in development of opioid analgesics is assessment of their abuse liability (AL). Standardization of approaches and measures used in assessing AL have the potential to facilitate comparisons across studies, research laboratories, and drugs. The goal of this report is to provide consensus recommendations regarding core outcome measures for assessing the abuse potential of opioid medications in humans in a controlled laboratory setting. Although many of the recommended measures are appropriate for assessing the AL of medications from other drug classes, the focus here is on opioid medications because they present unique risks from both physiological (e.g., respiratory depression, physical dependence) and public health (e.g., individuals in pain) perspectives. A brief historical perspective on AL testing is provided, and those measures that can be considered primary and secondary outcomes and possible additional outcomes in AL assessment are then discussed. These outcome measures include the following: subjective effects (some of which comprise the primary outcome measures, including drug liking; physiological responses; drug self-administration behavior; and cognitive and psychomotor performance. Before presenting recommendations for standardized approaches and measures to be used in AL assessments, the appropriateness of using these measures in clinical trials with patients in pain is discussed.

Opioids are essential to the management of pain in many patients, but they also are associated with potential risks for abuse, overdose, and diversion. A number of efforts have been devoted to the development of abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids to reduce these risks. This article summarizes a consensus meeting that was organized to propose recommendations for the types of clinical studies that can be used to assess the abuse deterrence of different opioid formulations. Due to the many types of individuals who may be exposed to opioids, an opioid formulation will need to be studied in several populations using various study designs in order to determine its abuse-deterrent capabilities. It is recommended that the research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability; (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation; (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse; and (4) post-marketing epidemiological studies.

A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo ("assay sensitivity"). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.

An essential component of the interpretation of results of randomized clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain involves the determination of their clinical importance or meaningfulness. This involves two distinct processes--interpreting the clinical importance of individual patient improvements and the clinical importance of group differences--which are frequently misunderstood. In this article, we first describe the essential differences between the interpretation of the clinical importance of patient improvements and of group differences. We then discuss the factors to consider when evaluating the clinical importance of group differences, which include the results of responder analyses of the primary outcome measure, the treatment effect size compared to available therapies, analyses of secondary efficacy endpoints, the safety and tolerability of treatment, the rapidity of onset and durability of the treatment benefit, convenience, cost, limitations of existing treatments, and other factors. The clinical importance of individual patient improvements can be determined by assessing what patients themselves consider meaningful improvement using well-described methods. In contrast, the clinical meaningfulness of group differences must be determined by a multi-factorial evaluation of the benefits and risks of the treatment and of other available treatments for the condition in light of the primary goals of therapy. Such determinations must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and are ideally informed by patients and their significant others, clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and representatives of society at large.

A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed. Perspective Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.

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.