The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve ...the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.
Informed Consent Grady, Christine; Cummings, Steven R; Rowbotham, Michael C ...
New England journal of medicine/The New England journal of medicine,
03/2017, Letnik:
376, Številka:
9
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
An investigator obtaining informed consent traditionally asks participants to sign a written consent document — an approach that is becoming outdated. This multipart review examines electronic and ...video informed consent and consent in app-based and Internet-based trials, with videos showing examples.
This multipart review provides an overview of innovative approaches to improving and expanding the informed consent process for researchers and participants, along with short essays covering specific areas of innovation.
The Changing Face of Informed Consent
Christine Grady, R.N., Ph.D.
In the classic interaction in which informed consent is obtained for research, an investigator presents the potential participant with information regarding a new therapeutic, diagnostic, or prophylactic intervention and then asks the participant to read and sign a detailed written consent document. This traditional prototype is becoming outdated. Informed consent, which is ethically essential in most clinical research, respects persons’ . . .
Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. ...Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject's own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct = 77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct = 57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct = 75% vs 58%, p < .001). For all subjects, the total time spent reviewing the paper consent was 13.2 minutes, significantly less than the average of 22.7 minutes total on the three components to be reviewed using the iPad (introductory video, consent form, interactive quiz). Overall satisfaction and overall enjoyment slightly favored the interactive iPad presentation. This study demonstrates that combining an introductory video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz on a tablet-based system improves comprehension of research study procedures and risks.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
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.
Neuropathic pain causes substantial morbidity and healthcare utilization. Monotherapy with antidepressants or anticonvulsants often fails to provide relief. Combining different drugs sometimes ...provides improved analgesia and/or tolerability. More than half of patients receive 2 or more analgesics, and combination trials continue to emerge. This review comprehensively searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for relevant trials. Included studies are double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of 2 or more drugs vs placebo or at least one monotherapy in adults with neuropathic pain. Outcomes included measures of efficacy and adverse effects. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses compared combination to monotherapy wherever 2 or more similar studies were available. Forty studies (4741 participants) were included. Studies were heterogenous with respect to various characteristics, including dose titration methods and administration (ie, simultaneous vs sequential) of the combination. Few combinations involved a nonsedating drug, and several methodological problems were identified. For opioid-antidepressant, opioid-gabapentinoid, and gabapentinoid-antidepressant combinations, meta-analyses failed to demonstrate superiority over both monotherapies. In general, adverse event profiles were not substantially different for combination therapy compared with monotherapy. Despite widespread use and a growing number of trials, convincing evidence has not yet emerged to suggest superiority of any combination over its respective monotherapies. Therefore, implementing combination therapy-as second- or third-line treatment-in situations where monotherapy is insufficient, should involve closely monitored individual dosing trials to confirm safety and overall added benefit. Further research is needed, including trials of combinations involving nonsedating agents, and to identify clinical settings and specific combinations that safely provide added benefit.
Contributors to the ongoing epidemic of prescription opioid abuse, addiction, and death include opioid tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, and possibly opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). Thirty stable ...chronic nonmalignant pain patients entered a 6-month long, randomized, double-blind, dose-response, 2-center trial of the potent opioid levorphanol, conducted over a decade ago during an era of permissive opioid prescribing. Eleven were taking no opioids at study entry and eleven were taking between 35 and 122 morphine equivalents. Five weeks titration preceded twenty weeks stable dosing. Tolerance and OIH were inferred individually based on chronic pain ratings, brief pain inventory scores, and results of the brief thermal sensitization model at 5 opioid dosing sessions.
Seventeen patients completed. The average final daily opioid dose was 132; range 14 to 300; average addition 105 morphine equivalents. After observed dosing, the brief thermal sensitization area of hyperalgesia changed minimally but the painfulness of skin heating was reduced. Weekly 0 to 100 visual analog scale pain ratings (average 64 at study entry, 48 at end titration, 45 at end stable dosing) decreased a median 19%, but 8 completed with higher visual analog scale ratings. Three completers had evidence of both tolerance and hyperalgesia. A fully-powered trial similar to this feasibility study is ethically questionable. A large-scale pragmatic trial is more realistic.
NCT00275249 Evolution of Analgesic Tolerance With Opioids
A double-blind, 6-month, high-dose opioid feasibility trial, completed years ago, provides critically important data for clinically defining analgesic tolerance and OIH. Overall benefit was small, and 18% of patients had evidence of both tolerance and OIH. Future work requires a different approach than a classic randomized controlled trial design.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 6 weeks of venlafaxine extended-release (ER) (75 mg and 150–225 mg) treatment in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. This multicenter, double-blind, ...randomized, placebo-controlled study included 244 adult outpatients with metabolically stable type 1 or 2 diabetes with painful diabetic neuropathy. Primary efficacy measures were scores on the daily 100 mm Visual Analog Pain Intensity (VAS-PI) and Pain Relief (VAS-PR) scales. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions–Severity of Illness and the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement, Patient Global Rating of Pain Relief, and percentage of patients achieving 50% reduction in pain intensity. Baseline pain intensity was 68.7 mm (moderately severe). At week 6, the percentage reduction from baseline in VAS-PI was 27% (placebo), 32% (75 mg), and 50% (150–225 mg;
P<0.001 vs placebo). Mean VAS-PR scores in the 150–225 mg group were significantly greater than placebo at week 6 (44 vs 60 mm;
P<0.001). The number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain intensity reduction with venlafaxine ER 150–225 mg was 4.5 at week 6. Nausea and somnolence were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. Seven patients on venlafaxine had clinically important ECG changes during treatment. Venlafaxine ER appears effective and safe in relieving pain associated with diabetic neuropathy. NNT values for higher dose venlafaxine ER are comparable to those of tricyclic antidepressants and the anticonvulsant gabapentin.
Pain occurring after central nervous system or peripheral-nerve injury is known as neuropathic pain and is notoriously difficult to treat. Many physicians have avoided the use of opiates to treat ...this type of pain for fear of addiction or loss of efficacy due to tolerance. In this eight-week study, patients with neuropathic pain who were treated with high-strength levorphanol tablets had less intense pain than patients assigned to low-strength tablets but had more side effects.
Opioids, although frequently prescribed, remain a controversial treatment for chronic neuropathic pain.
1
–
7
Studies in animals and some studies in humans have suggested that chronic neuropathic pain may respond poorly to opioid therapy,
2
,
3
,
8
but placebo-controlled studies of brief intravenous infusions have demonstrated analgesia.
9
,
10
Oral controlled-release opioids have been reported to be superior to placebo for postherpetic neuralgia, but the responsiveness to opioids of many types of neuropathic pain, including the pain syndromes that follow central nervous system injuries and are considered to be especially difficult to manage, have not been evaluated in a blinded, prospective manner.
5
, . . .
This article presents general considerations discussed at an IMMPACT consensus meeting regarding proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials and major POC trial designs as well as their advantages and ...limitations when used to evaluate chronic pain treatments.
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 whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in 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 crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N-of-1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and 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.
PDF
