1 / 28

IMMPACT-VIII Single-dose and short-term Proof of Concept trials in Neuropathic Pain

IMMPACT-VIII Single-dose and short-term Proof of Concept trials in Neuropathic Pain. Srinivasa N. Raja Johns Hopkins University. Proof of Concept Studies New Drug Development.

Download Presentation

IMMPACT-VIII Single-dose and short-term Proof of Concept trials in Neuropathic Pain

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. IMMPACT-VIIISingle-dose and short-term Proof of Concept trials in Neuropathic Pain Srinivasa N. Raja Johns Hopkins University

  2. Proof of Concept StudiesNew Drug Development • Early stage clinical drug development of a compound that has shown potential in animal models and early safety testing • Help make an early Go-No Go decision

  3. POC studies in Neuropathic Pain Potential uses • Is neuropathic pain resistant to certain drugs? • Opioids in neuropathic pain (PHN and postamputation pains) • Test a new route of therapy/ site of action-Topical lidocaine/capsaicin • Are there predictors of drug effects? • Genetic polymorphisms, Pain mechanisms • Testing novel formulations of an existing drug for better safety • Abuse deterrent opioids • Can neuropathic pain be prevented or the disease modified? • Persistent post-surgical NP pain; Diabetic neuropathy and dietary supplements • Testing and validating objective measures of drug effects

  4. Phantom Pain 10 Placebo PHN Opioid Lidocaine P=0.001 8 P=0.88 P<0.001 P=0.08 6 Pain Score on Numeric Rating Scale (0-10) 4 PrePost PrePost PrePost 2 0 Placebo Diphenhydramine 50 mg Morphine 0.25mg/kg Lidocaine 5 mg/kg Single fixed dose-based on body weight over 60 min Infusion pain rating correlated with MS blood levels, but not lidocaine levels Rowbotham MC et al. Neurol 1991;41:1024 Wu et al. Anesthesiology 2002;96:841-848 Is neuropathic pain resistant to opioids?I.V. morphine and lidocaine infusions in PHN and Phantom Pain: 3-session double-blind cross-over studies N=19

  5. CON PRO Single dose infusion cross-over trials: Pros and Cons • Minimizes effects of inter-subject variability • Fewer subjects required • Early signal to help predict efficacy • Short study duration • Slow offset or prolonged duration of effect may lead to carry over effects • May not help predict side effects • No information on oral bio-availability • No dose-response information • May miss effect if inappropriate dose chosen

  6. Placebo Maintenance Pain Score Opioid Maintenance Pain Score Mexiletine Maintenance Pain Score 10 P<0.001 P<0.001 8 6 * 4 2 0 Postamputation Pain: Oral morphine vs mexiletine on pain intensity ratings (3-period crossover) Wu et al. Anesthesiology 2008 (in press) * Pain Score on Numeric Rating Scale (0-10) * Placebo n=43 Opioid n=50 Mexiletine n=42

  7. Can topical therapies be effective in neuropathic pain? Single-dose cross-over design with vehicle control Vehicle and Lidocaine patches for 12 hrs vs Observation alone Outcome measure: Change in VAS scores of pain Rowbotham et al., Pain 1996;65:39

  8. Single dose cross-over trials with topical agents: Balancing the pros and cons PRO CON • Helps establish new routes of therapy, mechanistic implications? • Minimizes effects of inter-subject variability • Fewer subjects required • Early signal to help predict efficacy • Short study duration • Short duration of observation may not be predictive of long-term effects • May not help predict side effects with longer term treatment • No dose-response information

  9. 100 80 60 40 Decrease in Pain Intensity, % 20 0 -20 -40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Subject No. Predicting responders? Variability in Opioid Response: PHN Trial Side Effects Lack of response Tella et al. 2007, Proceedings of 11th World Congress on Pain

  10. Post-hoc analysis prospective study Is this a phenotype for a genetic polymorphism? e.g., MOR Predictors of Opioid Response in PHN: Phenotype: Heat pain threshold at unaffected site • Quantitative Sensory Testing • Heat pain sensitivity at unaffected site prior to opioid exposure (baseline) 48 † P=0.09 P=0.04 47 * 46 45 Baseline Heat Pain Threshold, °C 44 43 42 41 <30% Pain Reduction ≥30% Pain Reduction <30% Pain Relief ≥30% Pain Relief Edwards R et al. Anesthesiology 2006;104:1243

  11. Irritable Nociceptor PHN (Intact C-fibers) Deafferentation Subtype P<0.04 P=0.86 3.0 3.0 P<0.001 2.5 P<0.001 2.5 P<0.001 2.0 2.0 P=0.04 Pain Intensity Pain Intensity 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Placebo Opioid TCA Placebo Opioid TCA Irritable Nociceptor PHN subgroup of patients more responsive to opioids TCA=Tricyclic antidepressant. Tella et al. IASP 11th World Congress on Pain; 2005.

  12. MSS Placebo Screening Randomization Placebo MSS Testing novel formulations of existing drugAbuse-deterrent opioid(ALO-01/Embeda) • Healthy men and women, non-dependent recreational opioid users aged 18 to 55 years • Ability to tolerate single dose of 120 mg of morphine sulfate andto distinguish morphine from placebo (2-day crossover design) 3-phase study: Screening/Qualifying, Treatment, Followup 43+ 32 Jones et al. 2008, APS and AAPM Adapted from Stauffer J. 2008 MSS = morphine sulfate solution.

  13. Capsules, crushed pellets in apple juice, and apple juice Washout Washout Washout Post-treatment Follow-up Session 2 Session 4 Session 3 Session 1 14-21d 14-21d 14-21d Negative control Positive control ALO-01W ALO-01C Placebo MSS ALO-01W ALO-01C MSS Placebo Safety Assessments ALO-01W MSS ALO-01C Placebo Placebo ALO-01W MSS ALO-01C Outcomes: PK and PD measures (subjective and objective measures) Treatment Phase Study DesignRandomized, double-blind, triple-dummy, 4-way crossover Aim: If study drug taken intact less desirable than crushed capsule or MS sol. for recreation users Jones et al. 2008, APS and AAPM

  14. Screened N=160 Placebo N=29 20 mg DB N=29 10 mg DB N=30 Randomized N=30 4-wk Multi-dose N=28 5-60 mg/ day Phase II Open-label, extension Multi-dose study All patients offered entry POC Designs: Two phase studyDronabinol as adjuvant for patients on opioid therapy Chronic non- cancer pain on stable opioid Phase I Double-blind, randomized, Placebo-controlled, 3 period Single-dose croosover study Three 8-hour visits Narang et al. J Pain 9;245:2008

  15. Pros and Cons • Single dose cross-over design established a POC of effects as an adjuvant analgesic with a small N • Established that higher dose not associated with better pain relief but more common side effects • Pain relief sustained during the open label phase • Limitations • Effectiveness demonstrated only as an adjuvant • Open label phase II could be non-specific- no placebo control • Design useful only for drugs with rapid onset of action

  16. 12 responders N=41 Stage 1- 3-period crossover Stage 2- Four double blind randomized 1 wk treatment periods Enriched study: Clonidine in diabetic neuropathy • Two stage design- Selection and Efficacy Byas-Smith et al., Pain 1995

  17. Active treatment Placebo treatment Active treatment Placebo treatment Individual patient Assessment Patient preference randomize N N of 1 or single-patient designs • To test statistically within a single patient whether or not an intervention improves clinical outcome • Within patient response vs group response Ideal Design: randomized allocation, blinding, measurements of outcomes, formal statistical analysis Ideal Drug: Rapid onset, rapid offset, reversible action Ideal Disease: Stable pain over long duration Scuffham PA Value in Health 11;97:2008

  18. N of 1 trials: the pros and cons PRO CON • Minimizes effects of inter-subject variability • Potential to identify subset of patients who are responders • Can influence clinical decision for the patient • Has been used for cost-benefit analysis • Slow onset drug effects may lead to long duration study • Slow offset or prolonged duration of effect leads to carry over effects • Potential for drop out and less enthusiasm to continue with paired comparisons Australian studies: to improve access to selected high cost medications Celecoxib vs sustained release paracetamol for osteoarthritis Gabapentin vs placebo for neuropathic pain Scuffham PA Value in Health 11;97:2008

  19. Is an ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure?NMDA antagonists for postmastectomy pain • Randomized D-B, PC trial in patients undergoing mastectomy, lumpectomy with axillary node dissection • Amantadine 100mg bid, day before to 14 day after surgery • Rescue drugs OK Eisenberg E. J Pain 2007;8;223

  20. Prevention of disease progression and improved pain Acetyl-L-Carnitine in Diabetic Neuropathy • Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT in 333 subjects, 1 yr followup • 1 g im for 10 d, 2 g orally for 355 d • NCV (motor and sensory) and amplitude primary OM, pain secondary • 6m and12 m- NCV increased in active group in all nerves; decrease or no change in placebo • 199 pts had pain at baseline- 39% decrease at 12 m * ** VAS De Grandis and Minardi Drugs R&D 2002; 3:223

  21. Testing drugs for chronic pain Core outcome measures • Pain • Physical functioning • Multidimensional Pain Inventory Interference Scale  • Brief Pain Inventory interference items • Emotional functioning • Participant rating of global improvement and satisfaction • Symptoms and adverse events • Patient disposition IMMPACT recommendations Dworkin RH et al Pain 2005;113:9

  22. 37.4% Validating a measure of function:Pain relief with Opioids objective increase in activity Transdermal fentanyl- 25-150 mcg/h Intent to treat: 33.7 + 14% decrease in pain Agarwal S et al. Pain Medicine 2007; 8:554-62

  23. Early stage drug developmentSensitivity vs Specificity • Wrong disease state • Wrong dose • Wrong duration of treatment (exposure-response relationship) • Outcome measure- no biomarkers (surrogate endpoint) for pain • Not considering the natural course of the disease- disease progression or regression • Active comparators with proven efficacy to distinguish negative from failed trials

  24. 2.5 yr 1980-84 1995-99 Median 6.5 yr Dosage changes in new molecular entities approved between 1980-1999 • 499 NME, 354 evaluable • Dosage changes occurred in 21% of 354 NME post approval • 79% safety-motivated dosage decrease • 27% neuropharm. drugs • Smallest dose that produces near maximal effect rather than maximal tolerated dose Cross et al., 2002 Pharmacoepidemiol & Drug safety

  25. Lessons learnt from failed neuropathic pain RCTsRelation to study characteristics • Aim: to identify factors associated with + vs – outcomes of placebo-controlled neuropathic pain trials • 106 clinical trials with 123 Rx-group comparisons • + studies: medication response rates greater, placebo response lower, larger sample size, cross-over design, published earlier (1995 vs 1998.5) • Greater placebo response: • greater medication response & trial duration, parallel design • -ve vs + outcome: 27% vs 16% placebo responders (>50%) Katz JK, Finnerup NB, Dworkin RH Neurology 2008;70:263 Polydefkis M, Raja SN Neurology 2008;70:250

  26. Study Designs • Parallel vs Crossover • Enriched enrollment design • Excluding high placebo responders? • N-of-1 studies • Adaptive designs • Time-to-exit designs (see Galer et al Pain 1999-Lido patch) • Mechanism-based clinical studies (Wallace MS 2002 J Pain) • Genetic screening: e.g. MOR polymorphism • Split-trial strategy- pooled data from few centers with extensive testing Rowbotham M Neurology 2005;65:S67

  27. Summary • Study design- adaptive, depending on nature of question being asked • Consider the balance of pros and cons of the design relative to the question

  28. New strategies to test and develop new drugs efficiently for neuropathic pain: A combined effort Stakeholders Patients Health-care providers Insurers Industry Agencies Academia NIH Regulatory Agencies Industry

More Related