Measures of outcome for stimulant trials: ACTTION recommendations and research agenda

BACKGROUND: The development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence. METHODS: In March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success

Early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) versus usual care post ankle fracture fixation: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Background: Following surgical fixation of ankle fractures, the traditional management has included immobilisation for 6 weeks in a below-knee cast. However, this can lead to disuse atrophy of the affected leg and joint stiffness. While early rehabilitation from 2 weeks post surgery is viewed as safe, controversy remains regarding its benefits. We will compare the effectiveness of early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) ankle rehabilitation, against usual care, i.e. 6 weeks’ immobilisation in a below-knee cast. Method/design: We have designed a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (p-RCT) to compare the EMADE intervention against usual care. We will recruit 144 independently living adult participants, absent of tissue-healing comorbidities, who have undergone surgical stabilisation of isolated Weber B ankle fractures. The EMADE intervention consists of a non-weight-bearing progressive home exercise programme, complemented with manual therapy and education. Usual care consists of immobilisation in a non-weight-bearing below-knee cast. The intervention period is between week 2 and week 6 post surgery. The primary outcome is the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at 12 weeks post surgery. Secondary PROMs include the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, return to work and return to driving, with objective outcomes including ankle range of motion. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. An economic evaluation will be included. Discussion: The EMADE intervention is a package of care designed to address the detrimental effects of disuse atrophy and joint stiffness. An advantage of the OMAS is the potential of meta-analysis with other designs. Within the economic evaluation, the cost-utility analysis, may be used by commissioners, while the use of patient-relevant outcomes, such as return to work and driving, will ensure that the study remains pertinent to patients and their families. As it is being conducted in the clinical environment, this p-RCT has high external validity. Accordingly, if significant clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness are demonstrated, EMADE should become a worthwhile treatment option. A larger-scale, multicentre trial may be required to influence national guidelines. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN11212729. Registered retrospectively on 20 March 2017

The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) Multidimensional Approach to Classifying Acute Pain Conditions.

Objective: With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (e.g., pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain. Setting: Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). Methods: As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions. Perspective: The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Conclusions: Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research : IMMPACT recommended considerations

The consensus recommendations are based on the views of IMMPACT meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. The following individuals made important contributions to the IMMPACT meeting but were not able to participate in the preparation of this article: David Atkins, MD (Department of Veterans Affairs), Rebecca Baker, PhD (National Institutes of Health), Allan Basbaum, PhD (University of California San Francisco), Robyn Bent, RN, MS (Food and Drug Administration), Nathalie Bere, MPH (European Medicines Agency), Alysha Croker, PhD (Health Canada), Stephen Bruehl, PhD (Vanderbilt University), Michael Cobas Meyer, MD, MBS (Eli Lilly), Scott Evans, PhD (George Washington University), Gail Graham (University of Maryland), Jennifer Haythornthwaite, PhD (Johns Hopkins University), Sharon Hertz, MD (Hertz and Fields Consulting), Jonathan Jackson, PhD (Harvard Medical School), Mark Jensen, PhD (University of Washington), Francis Keefe, PhD (Duke University), Karim Khan, MD, PhD, MBA (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), Lynn Laidlaw (University of Aberdeen), Steven Lane (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute), Karen Morales, BS (University of Maryland), David Leventhal, MBA (Pfizer), Jeremy Taylor, OBE (National Institute for Health Research), and Lena Sun, MD (Columbia University). The manuscript has not been submitted, presented, or published elsewhere. Parts of the manuscript have been presented in a topical workshop at IASP World Congress on Pain in Toronto, in 2022.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions

Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research:PPRECISE considerations

Acknowledgements The authors thank Allison Lin, Dan Mellon, and LiSheng Chen for their help throughout the process of writing this article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD