scholarly journals 3523 Innovative Approaches to Clinical Research on Placebo Effects: A Regulatory Science Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 118-118
Author(s):  
Kimberly Uweh
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Placebo Effect ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Placebo Response ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Placebo Effects ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To analyze contemporary study design methods and clinical trial approaches in placebo research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: An analysis was conducted on the following studies: I. “Managing” the Placebo Effect: The Single-Blind Placebo Lead-in Response in Two Pain Models by RN Haden, et al. The objective of the study was to consider elements of the placebo response in the context of two pain models using a “single-blind placebo lead-in” design (SBPLI) by engaging the “placebo response” prior to randomization to active drug and placebo-controlled conditions. The methods of the study included two pilot drug trials using knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and non-radicular low back pain (LBP) subjects, SBPLI protocols were conducted. In the first study, 36 subjects with non-radicular CLBP were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of hydromorphone ER. In the second study, a total of 42 subjects with chronic KOA pain were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of milnacipran. Gender and/or diagnosis affected placebo responses as observed in changes in patient self-reported pain, depressive and pain anxiety symptoms were examined. Additionally, the placebo response on performance-based tests (stair climbing, range of motion (ROM), sit to stand repetitions, and 6-minute treadmill distance) was evaluated. II. Randomized Placebo-Controlled Placebo Trial to Determine the Placebo Effect Size by L. Gerdesmeyer, et al. The objective of the study was to analyze the pure placebo effect on clinical, chronic pain through a blinded RCT. The methods of the study included 182 patients suffering from chronic plantar heel pain for over 6 months, who failed to respond to conservative treatments, were screened and 106 of these patients were enrolled into this study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a blinded placebo shockwave treatment or an unblinded placebo shockwave treatment. The primary outcome measure was the differences in percentage change of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores 6 weeks after the intervention. The secondary outcome measure was the differences in Roles and Maudsley pain score (RMS) 6 weeks after intervention. III. Open-label placebo treatment in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial by C. Carvalho, et al. The objective of the study was to investigate whether placebo effects in chronic low back pain could be harnessed ethically by adding open-label placebo (OLP) treatment to treatment as usual (TAU) for 3 weeks. The methods of the study included 97 randomized participants in a 3-week randomized control trial comparing current treatment plus OLP to current treatment alone (TAU). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: N/a DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The aforementioned studies provide placebo researchers with contemporary and reliable methodologies to examine placebo effects on participants. These methodologies provide scientists with clinical translational research methodology styles based on the foundation of regulatory science.

Efficacy and safety of a hydrocodone extended-release tablet formulated with abuse-deterrence technology in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin E. Hale, MD ◽  
Thomas R. Zimmerman, MD ◽  
Eli Eyal, MSc ◽  
Richard Malamut, MD
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Extended Release ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Drug Loss ◽  
Efficacy Measure

Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of hydrocodone bitartrate extended-release (ER) tablets developed with CIMA® Abuse-Deterrence Technology (ADT) versus placebo in alleviating moderate-to-severe pain in patients with chronic low back pain.Design: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind study consisting of a screening period (7-14 days), open-label titration period (≤6 weeks), and double-blind treatment period (≤12 weeks).Setting: Seventy-eight US centers.Main outcome measures: Changes from baseline at week 12 in weekly average of daily worst pain intensity (WPI; primary efficacy measure), weekly average pain intensity (API; secondary efficacy measure), adverse events (AEs), and study drug loss and diversion.Results: Patients (N = 625) who entered open-label dose titration and identified the analgesic hydrocodone ER dose (30-90 mg every 12 h) providing optimal pain relief with minimal AEs were randomized to hydrocodone ER (n = 191) or placebo (n = 180) for double-blind treatment at the identified dose; 297 patients completed the study. Least squares means [SE] changes from baseline were significantly greater (worsening pain; 11-point scale) with placebo than hydrocodone ER in weekly average of daily WPI (0.74 [0.15] vs 0.11 [0.14]; p < 0.001) and weekly API (0.55 [0.14] vs −0.03 [0.12]; p < 0.001). The most common AEs with hydrocodone ER were constipation (14 percent) and nausea (10 percent). Study drug loss (≤4 percent) and diversion (≤2 percent) rates were low.Conclusions: Hydrocodone ER formulated with ADT was significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating chronic low back pain and demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that of opioids, with a low occurrence of study drug loss and diversion.

scholarly journals A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Axial or Discogenic Low Back Pain: Results of 2-Year Follow-Up

2013 ◽  
Vol 5;16 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E494-E504
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Discogenic Low Back Pain

Background: Chronic low back with or without lower extremity pain is extremely common, expensive, and disabling. Although it is responsible for a very small proportion of patients, disc herniation is the primary focus of modalities of treatments. In fact, chronic low back pain without disc herniation is common. Multiple modalities of treatments are utilized in managing axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation including surgery, intradiscal therapies, and epidural injections. There is, however, continued debate on the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of all modalities of treatments in managing axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic low back pain with epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. Setting: A private practice, specialty referral, interventional pain management practice in the United States. Methods: In this study, a total of 120 patients were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups of 60 patients receiving either local anesthetic alone or local anesthetic with steroids. The primary outcome measure was at least a 50% improvement in the numeric rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. Results: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement, defined as a reduction in scores from baseline of at least 50% or more, were observed in 72% of patients receiving local anesthetic alone and 67% of patients receiving local anesthetic with steroids. Opioid intake was reduced from the baseline in each group for 2 years. Limitations: The results of the study are limited by the lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids are effective in patients with chronic axial low back pain of discogenic origin without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis. Key words: Lumbar disc herniation, axial or discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks

scholarly journals Multicentre, Double Blind, Randomised Sham-Controlled Trial of 10kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Low Back Pain (MODULATE-LBP): A Trial Protocol

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan Al-Kaisy ◽  
Jonathan Royds ◽  
Stefano Palmisani ◽  
David Pang ◽  
Samuel Wesley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Prior Surgery ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Introduction Chronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. There is evidence demonstrating high frequency 10kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) but there is limited evidence in CNLBP without prior surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10kHz SCS for this population. Methods This is a multicentre double-blind randomised sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or sham 10kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. Primary outcome will be a 7 day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6-months adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6-months and over the patient lifetime. Discussion The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high frequency 10kHz SCS for patients with CNLBP without prior surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document