Interpreting patient treatment response in analgesic clinical trials: Implications for genotyping, phenotyping, and personalized pain treatment
Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA. Electronic address: .Pain (Impact Factor: 5.64). 09/2013; 155(3). DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.09.019
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Previous analysis of a single data set in acute pain following third molar extraction demonstrated a strong relationship between the speed of reduction of pain intensity and overall pain relief, as well as need for additional analgesia.Methods Individual patient data analysis of a single randomized, double-blind trial of placebo, paracetamol 1000 mg, ibuprofen sodium 400 mg and ibuprofen-poloxamer 400 mg following third molar extraction. Visual analogue scale pain intensity (VASPI) and other measurements were made at baseline, every 5-45 min, and at 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 min.ResultsMost patients produced consistent VASPI results over time. For placebo and paracetamol, few patients achieved low VASPI scores and maintained them. For both ibuprofen formulations, VASPI scores fell rapidly during the first hour and were then typically maintained until later re-medication. Analysis of all patients showed that rapid VASPI reduction in the first hour was strongly correlated with good overall pain relief (high total pain relief over 0-6 h), and with lesser need for additional analgesia within 6 h. Results for this analysis were in very good agreement with a previous analysis, validating the relationship between fast initial pain intensity reduction and overall good pain relief in this setting.Conclusions In acute pain following third molar extraction, faster acting analgesic formulations provide earlier onset of pain relief, better overall pain relief and a less frequent need for additional analgesia, indicating longer lasting pain relief.European journal of pain (London, England) 05/2014; 19(2). DOI:10.1002/ejp.536 · 3.37 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article presents general considerations discussed at an IMMPACT consensus meeting regarding proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials and major POC trial designs and their advantages and limitations when used to evaluate chronic pain treatments. Abstract Proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine if a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus if it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge of designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no-go decision in a cost effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade-off between parallel-group and cross-over designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs including (1) N-of-1 designs, (2) enriched designs, (3) adaptive designs, and (4) sequential parallel comparison designs are summarized and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.Pain 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.025 · 5.64 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.