8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Comparison between Enriched and Nonenriched Enrollment Randomized Withdrawal Trials of Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain

      , , ,
      Pain Research and Management
      Hindawi Limited

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          An enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) trial design has been advocated to be useful for the study of drugs that are beneficial to only a fraction of the individuals who take them. Some investigators defend the use of enrichment designs for opioids in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), reasoning that opioids may appear to underperform in clinically heterogeneous contexts, ie, that substantial efficacy in a particular patient subgroup may be diluted or masked by poor efficacy in another subgroup. The authors previously published a systematic review of opioids for CNCP in 2006; however, at that time, there were only a few EERW trials available for comparison. This more exhaustive, updated review compares the results between EERW and non-EERW trials of opioids for a variety of CNCP conditions.

          BACKGROUND: An enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) design excludes potential participants who are nonresponders or who cannot tolerate the experimental drug before random assignment. It is unclear whether EERW design has an influence on the efficacy and safety of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

          OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the results from EERW and non-EERW trials of opioids for CNCP. Secondary objectives were to compare weak versus strong opioids, subgroups of patients with different types of pain, and the efficacy of opiods compared with placebo versus other drugs.

          METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to July 2009, for randomized controlled trials of any opioid for CNCP. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted to compare the results. Treatment efficacy was assessed by effect sizes (small, medium and large) and the incidence of adverse effects was assessed by a clinically relevant mean difference of 10% or greater.

          RESULTS: Sixty-two randomized trials were included. In 61 trials, the duration was less than 16 weeks. There was no difference in efficacy between EERW and non-EERW trials for both pain (P=0.6) and function (P=0.3). However, EERW trials failed to detect a clinically relevant difference for nausea, vomiting, somnolence, dizziness and dry skin/itching compared with non-EERW. Opioids were more effective than placebo in patients with nociceptive pain (effect size=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72) and neuropathic pain (effect size=0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73).

          CONCLUSION: EERW trial designs appear not to bias the results of efficacy, but they underestimate the adverse effects. The present updated meta-analysis shows that weak and strong opioids are effective for CNCP of both nociceptive and neuropathic origin.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Controlled-release oxycodone relieves neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial in painful diabetic neuropathy.

          Painful neuropathy is one of the most common long-term complications of diabetes mellitus and often proves difficult to relieve. Patients with diabetic neuropathy with moderate or greater pain for at least 3 months, were evaluated for efficacy, safety and health-related quality of life (QOL) while receiving controlled-release (CR) oxycodone (OxyContin) or active placebo. Patients underwent washout from all opioids 2-7 days before randomization to 10 mg CR oxycodone or active placebo (0.25 mg benztropine) q12h. The dose was increased, approximately weekly, to a maximum of 40 mg q12h CR oxycodone or 1 mg q12h benztropine, with crossover to the alternate treatment after a maximum of 4 weeks. Acetaminophen, 325-650 mg q4-6h prn was provided as rescue. Thirty-six patients were evaluable for efficacy (21 men, 15 women, mean age 63.0+/-9.4 years). CR oxycodone resulted in significantly lower (P=0.0001) mean daily pain (21.8+/-20.7 vs. 48.6+/-26.6 mm VAS), steady pain (23.5+/-23.0 vs. 47.6+/-30.7 mm VAS), brief pain (21.8+/-23.5 vs. 46.7+/-30.8 mm VAS), skin pain (14.3+/-20.4 vs. 43.2+/-31.3 mm VAS), and total pain and disability (16.8+/-15.6 vs. 25.2+/-16.7; P=0.004). Scores from 6 of the 8 SF-36 domains and both summary scales, Standardized Physical Component (P=0.0002) and Standardized Mental Component (P=0.0338) were significantly better during CR oxycodone treatment. The number needed to treat to obtain one patient with at least 50% pain relief is 2.6 and clinical effectiveness scores favoured treatment with CR oxycodone over placebo (P=0.0001). CR oxycodone is effective and safe for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy and improves QOL.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of oxycodone in neuropathic pain: a randomized trial in postherpetic neuralgia.

            Although opioid analgesics are used in the management of neuropathic pain syndromes, evidence of their efficacy remains to be established. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of oxycodone in neuropathic pain using postherpetic neuralgia as a model. Patients with postherpetic neuralgia of at least moderate intensity were randomized to controlled-release oxycodone 10 mg or placebo every 12 hours, each for 4 weeks, using a double-blind, crossover design. The dose was increased weekly up to a possible maximum of 30 mg every 12 hours. Pain intensity and pain relief were assessed daily, and steady (ongoing) pain, brief (paroxysmal) pain, skin pain (allodynia), and pain relief were recorded at weekly visits. Clinical effectiveness, disability, and treatment preference were also assessed. Fifty patients were enrolled and 38 completed the study (16 men, 22 women, age 70+/-11 years, onset of postherpetic neuralgia 31+/-29 months, duration of pain 18+/-5 hours per day). The oxycodone dose during the final week was 45+/-17 mg per day. Compared with placebo, oxycodone resulted in pain relief (2.9+/-1.2 versus 1.8+/-1.1, p=0.0001) and reductions in steady pain (34+/-26 versus 55+/-27 mm, p=0.0001), allodynia (32+/-26 versus 50+/-30 mm, p=0.0004), and paroxysmal spontaneous pain (22+/-24 versus 42+/-32 mm, p=0.0001). Global effectiveness, disability, and masked patient preference all showed superior scores with oxycodone relative to placebo (1.8+/-1.1 versus 0.7+/-1.0, p=0.0001; 0.3+/-0.8 versus 0.7+/-1.0, p=0.041; 67% versus 11%, p=0.001, respectively). Controlled-release oxycodone is an effective analgesic for the management of steady pain, paroxysmal spontaneous pain, and allodynia, which frequently characterize postherpetic neuralgia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Double-blind randomized trial of tramadol for the treatment of the pain of diabetic neuropathy.

              The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol in treating the pain of diabetic neuropathy. The pain of diabetic neuropathy is a major cause of morbidity among these patients and treatment, as with other small-fiber neuropathies, is often unsatisfactory. Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic for use in treating moderate to moderately severe pain. This multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study consisted of a washout/screening phase, during which all analgesics were discontinued, and a 42-day double-blind treatment phase. A total of 131 patients with painful diabetic neuropathy were treated with tramadol (n=65) or placebo (n=66) tramadol, which were administered as identical capsules in divided doses four times daily. The primary efficacy analysis compared the mean pain intensity scores in the tramadol and placebo groups obtained at day 42 of the study or at the time of discontinuation. Secondary efficacy assessments were the pain relief rating scores and a quality of life evaluation based on daily activities and sleep characteristics. Tramadol, at an average dosage of 210 mg/day, was significantly (p < 0.001) more effective than placebo for treating the pain of diabetic neuropathy. Patients in the tramadol group scored significantly better in physical (p=0.02) and social functioning (p=0.04) ratings than patients in the placebo group. No statistically significant treatment effects on sleep were identified. The most frequently occurring adverse events with tramadol were nausea, constipation, headache, and somnolence. The results of this placebo-controlled trial showed that tramadol was effective and safe in treating the pain of diabetic neuropathy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pain Research and Management
                Pain Research and Management
                Hindawi Limited
                1203-6765
                2011
                2011
                : 16
                : 5
                : 337-351
                Article
                10.1155/2011/465281
                22059206
                3acdf974-f817-4db9-bbe3-a3216fd0f12e
                © 2011

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article