Interpreting the Clinical Importance of Treatment Outcomes in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials: IMMPACT Recommendations

Tricyclic antidepressants and carbamazepine have become the mainstay in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Within the last decade, controlled trials have shown that numerous other drugs relieve such pain. We identified all placebo-controlled trials and calculated numbers needed to treat (NNT) to obtain one patient with more than 50% pain relief in order to compare the efficacy with the current treatments, and to search for relations between mechanism of pain and drug action. In diabetic neuropathy, NNT was 1.4 in a study with optimal doses of the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine as compared to 2.4 in other studies on tricyclics. The NNT was 6.7 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 3.3 for carbamazepine, 10.0 for mexiletine, 3.7 for gabapentin, 1.9 for dextromethorphan, 3.4 for tramadol and levodopa and 5.9 for capsaicin. In postherpetic neuralgia, the NNT was 2.3 for tricyclics, 3.2 for gabapentin, 2.5 for oxycodone and 5.3 for capsaicin, whereas dextromethorphan was inactive. In peripheral nerve injury, NNT was 2.5 for tricyclics and 3.5 for capsaicin. In central pain, NNT was 2.5 for tricyclics and 3. 4 for carbamazepine, whereas selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, mexiletine and dextromethorphan were inactive. There were no clear relations between mechanism of action of the drugs and the effect in distinct pain conditions or for single drug classes and different pain conditions. It is concluded that tricyclic antidepressants in optimal doses appear to be the most efficient treatment of neuropathic pain, but some of the other treatments may be important due to their better tolerability. Relations between drug and pain mechanisms may be elucidated by studies focusing on specific neuropathic pain phenomena such as pain paroxysms and touch-evoked pain.

Efficacy of pharmacological treatments of neuropathic pain: an update and effect related to mechanism of drug action.

Placebo

Background
Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.

For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.

Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.

Objectives
To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.

Methods
We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.

We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.

Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.

Main results
We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.

Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.

Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence.

Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point.

Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes).

Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects.

Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant.

Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review.

Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.

Authors' conclusions
The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.

There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.

The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

/pdf/physical-activity-and-exercise-for-chronic-pain-in-adults-an-44jtk3rxll.pdf

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

Background
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2005 of The Cochrane Library . For many years antidepressant drugs have been used to manage neuropathic pain, and are often the first choice treatment. It is not clear, however, which antidepressant is more effective, what role the newer antidepressants can play in treating neuropathic pain, and what adverse effects are experienced by patients.

Objectives
To determine the analgesic effectiveness and safety of antidepressant drugs in neuropathic pain.

Search methods
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants in neuropathic pain were identified in MEDLINE (1966 to Oct 2005); EMBASE (1980 to Oct 2005); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005; and the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Trials Register (May 2002). Additional reports were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators.

Selection criteria
RCTs reporting the analgesic effects of antidepressant drugs in adult patients, with subjective assessment of pain of neuropathic origin. Studies that included patients with chronic headache and migraine were excluded.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors agreed the included studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality independently. In this update a total of sixty one trials of 20 antidepressants were considered eligible (3293 participants) for inclusion (including 11 additional studies (778 participants)) Relative Risk (RR) and Number-Needed-to-Treat (NNTs) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness and adverse effects.

Main results
Sixty one RCTs were included in total. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are effective and have an NNT of 3.6 (95% CI 3 to 4.5) RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.5) for the achievement of at least moderate pain relief. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of the newer SSRIs but no studies of SNRIs were found. Venlafaxine (three studies) has an NNT of 3.1 (95% CI 2.2 to 5.1) RR 2.2 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.1). There were insufficient data to assess effectiveness for other antidepressants such as St Johns Wort and L-tryptophan. For diabetic neuropathy the NNT for effectiveness was 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5) RR 12.4 (95% CI 5.2 to 29.2) (five studies); for postherpetic neuralgia 2.7 (95% CI 2 to 4.1), RR 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.1) (four studies). There was evidence that TCAs are not effective in HIV-related neuropathies. The number needed to harm (NNH) for major adverse effects defined as an event leading to withdrawal from a study was 28 (95% CI 17.6 to 68.9) for amitriptyline and 16.2 (95% CI 8 to 436) for venlafaxine. The NNH for minor adverse effects was 6 (95% CI 4.2 to 10.7) for amitriptyline and 9.6 (95% CI 3.5 to 13) for venlafaxine.

Authors' conclusions
This update has provided additional confirmation on the effectiveness of antidepressants for neuropathic pain and has provided new information on another antidepressant - venlafaxine. There is still limited evidence for the role of SSRIs. Whether antidepressants prevent the development of neuropathic pain (pre-emptive use) is still unclear. Both TCAs and venlafaxine have NNTs of approximately three. This means that for approximately every three patients with neuropathic pain who are treated with either of these antidepressants, one will get at least moderate pain relief. There is evidence to suggest that other antidepressants may be effective but numbers of participants are insufficient to calculate robust NNTs. SSRIs are generally better tolerated by patients and more high quality studies are required.

Antidepressants for neuropathic pain

Abstract Variability in patients' response to interventions in pain and other clinical settings is large. Many explanations such as trial methods, environment or culture have been proposed, but this paper sets out to show that the main cause of the variability may be random chance, and that if trials are small their estimate of magnitude of effect may be incorrect, simply because of the random play of chance. This is highly relevant to the questions of ‘How large do trials have to be for statistical accuracy?’ and ‘How large do trials have to be for their results to be clinically valid?’ The true underlying control event rate (CER) and experimental event rate (EER) were determined from single‐dose acute pain analgesic trials in over 5000 patients. Trial group size required to obtain statistically significant and clinically relevant (0.95 probability of number‐needed‐to‐treat within ±0.5 of its true value) results were computed using these values. Ten thousand trials using these CER and EER values were simulated using varying group sizes to investigate the variation due to random chance alone. Most common analgesics have EERs in the range 0.4–0.6 and CER of about 0.19. With such efficacy, to have a 90% chance of obtaining a statistically significant result in the correct direction requires group sizes in the range 30–60. For clinical relevance nearly 500 patients are required in each group. Only with an extremely effective drug (EER>0.8) will we be reasonably sure of obtaining a clinically relevant NNT with commonly used group sizes of around 40 patients per treatment arm. The simulated trials showed substantial variation in CER and EER, with the probability of obtaining the correct values improving as group size increased. We contend that much of the variability in control and experimental event rates is due to random chance alone. Single small trials are unlikely to be correct. If we want to be sure of getting correct (clinically relevant) results in clinical trials we must study more patients. Credible estimates of clinical efficacy are only likely to come from large trials or from pooling multiple trials of conventional (small) size.

Size is everything--large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects.

Hurricane Laura was the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Louisiana since 1969 with maximum sustained winds of 130 knots. One University of Oklahoma Shared Atmospheric Mobile and Teaching Polarmetric Radar (SR1‐P), and four portable in situ precipitation stations (PIPSs) equipped with parsivel disdrometers were spatially and temporally collocated with two NASA Global Precipitation Measurement Mission Dual‐frequency Precipitation Radar overpasses. The combined retrieval methods were able to quantify and compare drop size distribution moments and radar‐inferred precipitation processes before, during, and after the storm center made landfall. It was found that the magnitude of collision‐coalescence dominant precipitation decreased from before to after landfall. Further, the presence of a bright‐band becomes more evident across all percentiles in the post‐landfall overpass, indicating an increase in stratiform precipitation compared to convective precipitation after Laura moved inland. The PIPS showed an increase in mean drop size from 1.0 mm before landfall to as high as 4.0 mm in the eyewall, while decreasing to below 1.0 mm as Laura continued to move inland with a decrease in maximum echo top height of 0.5–1.0 km. Last, the Dual‐frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) algorithm overestimated the normalized intercept parameter by 0.5–1.0 m−3 mm−1 compared to the PIPS implying differences in measured drop number concentration, potentially due to differences in measurement footprint or assumptions in the DPR retrieval algorithm. These findings can potentially be used to improve the DPR particle size distribution algorithm in tropical cyclones.

R. W. Moore

Papers

Size is everything--large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects.

Hurricane Laura (2020): A Comparison of Drop Size Distribution Moments Using Ground and Radar Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods