Pain
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
A phase 3, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, safety, tolerability, and efficacy study of Xtampza ERTM in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain.
Opioid analgesics are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP); however, abuse potential is a major concern. This study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment randomized-withdrawal study design to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and analgesic efficacy of an abuse-deterrent formulation of extended-release oxycodone, Xtampza ER, in opioid-naive and opioid-experienced adults with moderate-to-severe CLBP. Patients entered an open-label titration phase (N = 740); those who were successfully titrated on Xtampza ER (≥40 to ≤160 mg oxycodone hydrochloride equivalent per day) were randomized to active drug (N = 193) or placebo (N = 196) for 12 weeks. ⋯ There was less rescue medication (acetaminophen) use in the Xtampza ER treatment group than in the placebo group. Xtampza ER had an adverse event profile consistent with other opioids and was well tolerated; no new safety concerns were identified. In conclusion, Xtampza ER resulted in clinically and statistically significant efficacy in patients with CLBP.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative-Effectiveness Study Comparing Pulsed Radiofrequency to Steroid Injections for Occipital Neuralgia or Migraine with Occipital Nerve Tenderness.
Occipital neuralgia (ON) is characterized by lancinating pain and tenderness overlying the occipital nerves. Both steroid injections and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) are used to treat ON, but few clinical trials have evaluated efficacy, and no study has compared treatments. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study in 81 participants with ON or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness whose aim was to determine which treatment is superior. ⋯ Comparable benefits favoring PRF were obtained for worst occipital pain through 3 months (mean change from baseline -1.925 ± 3.204 vs -0.541 ± 2.644; P = 0.043), and average overall headache pain through 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.738 ± 2.753 vs -1.120 ± 2.1; P = 0.037). Adverse events were similar between groups, and few significant differences were noted for nonpain outcomes. We conclude that although PRF can provide greater pain relief for ON and migraine with occipital nerve tenderness than steroid injections, the superior analgesia may not be accompanied by comparable improvement on other outcome measures.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Analgesic and sedative effects of perioperative gabapentin in total knee arthroplasty A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study.
Gabapentin has shown acute postoperative analgesic effects, but the optimal dose and procedure-specific benefits vs harm have not been clarified. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study, 300 opioid-naive patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty were randomized (1:1:1) to either gabapentin 1300 mg/d (group A), gabapentin 900 mg/d (group B), or placebo (group C) daily from 2 hours preoperatively to postoperative day 6 in addition to a standardized multimodal analgesic regime. The primary outcome was pain upon ambulation 24 hours after surgery, and the secondary outcome was sedation 6 hours after surgery. ⋯ Dizziness was more pronounced from days 2-6 in A vs C. More severe adverse reactions were observed in group A vs B and C. In conclusion, gabapentin may have a limited if any role in acute postoperative pain management of opioid-naive patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and should not be recommended as a standard of care.
-
Recent failures of clinical trials of novel analgesics designed to treat neuropathic pain have led to much speculation about the underlying reasons. One often discussed possibility is that the placebo response in these trials has increased in recent years, leading to lower separation between the drug and placebo arms. Whether this has indeed occurred has not yet been adequately addressed. ⋯ Consideration of participant and study characteristics revealed that in the United States but not elsewhere, RCTs have increased in study size and length. These changes are associated with larger placebo response. Analysis of individual RCT time courses showed different kinetics for the treatment vs placebo responses, with the former evolving more quickly than the latter and plateauing, such that maximum treatment advantage was achieved within 4 weeks.