IntroductionOpioids have been used for millennia for the treatment of pain. However, the long-term efficacy of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain continues to be debated. To evaluate opioids’ efficacy in chronic non-cancer pain, we performed a meta-analysis of published clinical trials for μ-opioid receptor agonists performed for US Food and Drug Administration approval.MethodsMEDLINE and Cochrane trial register were searched for enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal studies (before June 2016). Selection criteria included: adults, ≥10 subjects per arm, any chronic pain condition, double-blind treatment period lasting ≥12 weeks, and all μ-agonist opioids approved in the USA.ResultsFifteen studies met criteria. Opioid efficacy was statistically significant (p<0.001) versus placebo for pain intensity (standardized mean difference: −0.416), ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain (risk difference: 0.166 and 0.137), patient global impression of change (0.163), and patient global assessment of study medication (0.194). There were minor benefits on physical function and no effect on mental function.ConclusionOpioids are efficacious in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain for up to 3 months in randomized controlled trials. This should be considered, alongside data on opioid safety, in the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

Clinical trials of analgesics have been plagued with poor assay sensitivity due, in part, to variability in subjects’ pain reporting. Herein, we develop and evaluate the focused analgesia selection test (FAST), a method to measure patients’ pain reporting skills. Subjects with osteoarthritis of the hip, knee, and/or ankle with pain intensity of ≥3/10 on a 0–10 numerical rating scale were enrolled. Subjects underwent the FAST procedure, which consists of recording subjects’ pain reports in response to repeated administration of thermal noxious stimuli of various intensities applied on the arm with the Medoc® Thermal Sensory Analyzer II. Subjects also rated non-noxious stimuli consisting of visual contrast rating. After performing an exercise task, subjects also rated clinical pain and were asked to report whether their pain had increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Overall, 88 subjects were enrolled, and 83 were included in the analyses. FAST’s outcomes including the R2, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CoV) indicated that subjects’ pain reporting skills were widely distributed. Higher FAST ICC significantly predicted greater changes in clinical pain following exercise (p=0.017), whereas the visual contrast test did not predict postexercise pain. FAST is the first method that measures subjects’ pain reporting skills. Using FAST to enrich clinical trials with “good” pain reporters (with high FAST ICC) could increase assay sensitivity. Further evaluation of FAST is ongoing.

Patients on IV-PCA continue to experience serious complications as a result of preventable errors. Multi-modal interventions including educational training and the development and adoption of PCA devices with improved safety features are needed to improve safety.

No abstract

No abstract

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

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 χ2 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.

No abstract