Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Affiliations

Affiliation

¹ University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany Metrum Research Group, Tariffville, CT, USA Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA Cytel, Boston, MA, USA Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA CRP Santé, Strassen, Luxembourg CP Taylor Consulting, Ann Arbor, MI, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA Desjardins Associates and Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Merck, Blue Bell, PA, USA Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, USA Virtuous Pharma, Inc., Raleigh-Durham, NC, USA University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA Richard L Leff MD LLC, Chadds Ford, PA, USA Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA Voyager Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, USA Johnson and Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA Imperial College, London, UK Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Alpharma, Piscataway, NJ, USA Grünenthal GMbH, Aachen, Germany GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Palo Alto, CA, USA Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals, Chadds Ford, PA, USA.

PMID: 24865794
PMCID: PMC4500524
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.025

Review

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Jennifer S Gewandter et al. Pain. 2014 Sep.

. 2014 Sep;155(9):1683-1695.

doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.025. Epub 2014 May 24.

Affiliation

¹ University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany Metrum Research Group, Tariffville, CT, USA Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Analgesic Solutions, Natick, MA, USA Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA Cytel, Boston, MA, USA Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA CRP Santé, Strassen, Luxembourg CP Taylor Consulting, Ann Arbor, MI, USA American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA Desjardins Associates and Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Merck, Blue Bell, PA, USA Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, USA Virtuous Pharma, Inc., Raleigh-Durham, NC, USA University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA Richard L Leff MD LLC, Chadds Ford, PA, USA Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA Voyager Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, USA Johnson and Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA Imperial College, London, UK Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Alpharma, Piscataway, NJ, USA Grünenthal GMbH, Aachen, Germany GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Palo Alto, CA, USA Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA Endo Pharmaceuticals, Chadds Ford, PA, USA.

PMID: 24865794
PMCID: PMC4500524
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.025

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 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.

Keywords: Clinical trials; IMMPACT; Methodology; Proof of concept.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, none of whom have financial conflicts of interest related to the issues discussed in this manuscript.

Figures

**Figure 1**
Examples of early stage proof-of-concept designs: Drop-the-loser dose finding and single dose studies. (A) In drop-the-loser dose finding trials, the “best” dosage from Stage 1 is selected based on efficacy, or a combination of safety and efficacy. That dosage is then tested in a new set of subjects. Data from Stages 1 and 2 are combined for both the placebo group and the “best” dosage group for final efficacy analysis [71]. (B) In single dose trials, treatment groups can be compared with respect to frequent assessments in a single session using area under the curve (AUC) as an outcome variable.

**Figure 2**
Example later stage POC designs: Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) and enriched cross-over design. (A) SPCD incorporates Stage 2 data from Stage 1 placebo non-responders only, potentially decreasing the impact of the placebo response [32]. *Indicates groups that are included in the final analysis. (B) In an enriched crossover design, two single-blind run-in phases (drug with known efficacy followed by placebo) used to identify subjects who appear to respond to the currently indicated drug. The experimental drug is tested only in these “responders” [46].

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Turning a blind eye: Testing the success of blinding and the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2004;328:1135. - PMC - PubMed
1. Anand P, Bley K. Topical capsaicin for pain management: therapeutic potential and mechanisms of action of the new high-concentration capsaicin 8% patch. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:490–502. - PMC - PubMed
1. Andre-Obadia N, Magnin M, Garcia-Larrea L. On the importance of placebo timing in rTMS studies for pain relief. Pain. 2011;152:1233–1237. - PubMed
1. Attal N, Cruccu G, Baron R, Haanpää M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, Nurmikko T. EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17:1113–e88. - PubMed
1. Backonja MM, Attal N, Baron R, Bouhassira D, Drangholt M, Dyck PJ, Edwards RR, Freeman R, Gracely R, Haanpää MH, Hansson P, Hatem SM, Krumova EK, Jensen TS, Maier C, Mick G, Rice AS, Rolke R, Treede RD, Serra J, Toelle T, Tugnoli V, Walk D, Walalce MS, Ware M, Yarnitsky D, Ziegler D. Value of quantitative sensory testing in neurological and pain disorders: NeuPSIG concensus. Pain. 2013;154:1807–1819. - PubMed

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

R01 NS026363/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations
Medical
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Affiliation

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Authors

Affiliation

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources

Medical