Dataset Information

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Abstract

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

SUBMITTER: Kleykamp BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8904641 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Kleykamp Bethea A BA Dworkin Robert H RH Turk Dennis C DC Bhagwagar Zubin Z Cowan Penney P Eccleston Christopher C Ellenberg Susan S SS Evans Scott R SR Evans Scott R SR Farrar John T JT Freeman Roy L RL Garrison Louis P LP Gewandter Jennifer S JS Goli Veeraindar V Iyengar Smriti S Jadad Alejandro R AR Jensen Mark P MP Junor Roderick R Katz Nathaniel P NP Kesslak J Patrick JP Kopecky Ernest A EA Lissin Dmitri D Markman John D JD McDermott Michael P MP Mease Philip J PJ O'Connor Alec B AB Patel Kushang V KV Raja Srinivasa N SN Rowbotham Michael C MC Sampaio Cristina C Singh Jasvinder A JA Steigerwald Ilona I Strand Vibeke V Tive Leslie A LA Tobias Jeffrey J Wasan Ajay D AD Wilson Hilary D HD

Pain 20210909 6

<h4>Abstract</h4>Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pai ...[more]

PMID: 34510135

Similar Datasets

Project description:Acupuncture is one of the therapeutic resources used for the management of chronic pain. Variability in outcome measurements in randomized clinical trials of non-oncologic chronic pain (RCT-NOCP) generates inconsistencies in determining effects of treatments. The objective of this survey was to assess the adherence to the recommendations made by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) in the measurement of RCT-NOCP of acupuncture. This methodological research made a systematic search for eligible studies from different sources of information. Eligible studies included those with number of patients ≥100, who randomized and allocated patients with chronic non-oncologic pain to be treated with acupuncture or with "sham" acupuncture, or non-acupuncture. This research included the recommendations for IMMPACT in the measurement of RCT-NOCP: presence of outcomes pain, physical function, emotional state and improvement perception of patient, the source of the outcome information pain and the tools used to measure such domains. From a total of 1,386 studies, 24 were included in this survey. Eleven studies presented low risk of bias. Pain outcome was measured in 23 studies, physical function in 22 studies, emotional state in 14 studies and improvement perception of patient in one study. As for the pain outcome, the patient was the information source in 50% of the studies. The measurement tools recommended for IMMPACT were included in eight studies (35%) that evaluated pain, one study that evaluated the emotional state (7%), and one study that evaluated the improvement perception and satisfaction of patient. It was observed that studies which did not adhere to the recommendations had more favorable results for acupuncture in the outcome pain. This study concludes that randomized clinical trials that used acupuncture to manage chronic pain failed to adhere to IMMPACT recommendations. Clinical societies and IMMPACT do not share the same recommendations. This fact reflects in the diversity of outcomes and instruments adopted in the studies, making it difficult to compare the results.

Project description:IntroductionPain is one of the most common and most debilitating complaints among patients. It affects the individual, their relationship with friends and family, their ability to function at work, and their sociability. Acupuncture is one of the therapeutic resources for managing chronic pain. Given the variability of outcome measures in controlled randomised clinical trials on non-oncologicchronic pain (CRCT-NOCP), the Initiative in Methods, Measurements and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommends six domains to be covered in evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain.ObjectiveTo check whether the methodological quality of outcome reporting in published trials has used IMMPACT recommendations in measuring CRCT-NOCP outcomes when acupuncture was used as a treatment.MethodThis is a methodological study. We will systematically search for eligible studies in specific databases with a defined strategy. We will use the MeSHterms of 'acupuncture', 'chronic pain' and similar terms, without restrictions on idiom. Eligible studies will include those which are randomised and chose NOCP patients to be treated with acupuncture or control (sham acupuncture or no acupuncture), recruited after September 2004, with ≥100 patients. The measured outcomes are to be the presence of outcome domains recommended by IMMPACT, domains reported by the patient or clinician, tools used to measure such domains, as well as other features of the studies. We shall conduct a regression analysis to explore factors which can be associated with the presence of outcome domains according to IMMPACT recommendations.Ethics and disseminationThis survey will be submitted for presentation at congresses and for publication in a scientific journal. The findings obtained in this study will allow us to measure the quality of the evidence and provide greater transparency in decisions regarding the use of acupuncture as a viable alternative to managing chronic pain.

Project description:IntroductionChronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and is commonly managed with pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and procedural interventions. However, adverse event (AE) reporting for these therapies often lacks transparency, raising concerns about the accuracy of safety data. This study aimed to quantify inconsistencies in AE reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive safety reporting to improve clinical decision-making and patient care.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed Phase 2-4 CBP RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2009 to 2023. Extracted data included AE reporting, trial sponsorship, and discrepancies in serious adverse events (SAEs), other adverse events (OAEs), mortality, and treatment-related withdrawals between registry entries and publications. Statistical analyses assessed reporting inconsistencies, following STROBE guidelines.ResultsA total of 114 registered trials were identified, with 40 (35.1%) corresponding publications. Among these, 67.5% were industry-sponsored. Only 4 (10%) publications fully reported adverse events (AEs) without discrepancies, while 36 (90%) contained at least one inconsistency compared to ClinicalTrials.gov. Discontinuation due to AEs was explicitly reported in 24 (60%) of ClinicalTrials.gov entries and in 30 (75%) of publications, with discrepancies in 16 trials (40%). Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported differently in 15 (37.5%) publications; 80% reported fewer SAEs than ClinicalTrials.gov. Other adverse events (OAEs) showed discrepancies in 37 (92.5%) publications, with 43.2% reporting fewer and 54.1% reporting more OAEs.DiscussionThis study highlights pervasive discrepancies in AE reporting for CBP trials, undermining the reliability of published safety data. Inconsistent reporting poses risks to clinical decision-making and patient safety. Adopting standardized reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT Harms, and ensuring transparent updates in publications could enhance the accuracy and trustworthiness of safety data. Journals and regulatory bodies should enforce compliance and future efforts should develop mechanisms to monitor and correct reporting inconsistencies, enhancing the trustworthiness of safety data in clinical research.

Dataset Information

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Abstract

Publications

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets