Browsing by Author "Dworkin, Robert H."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clinical Trials in Pancreatitis: Opportunities and Challenges in the Design and Conduct of Patient-Focused Clinical Trials in Recurrent Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2022) Hart, Phil A.; Andersen, Dana K.; Lyons, Erica; Cote, Gregory A.; Cruz-Monserrate, Zobeida; Dworkin, Robert H.; Elmunzer, B. Joseph; Fogel, Evan L.; Forsmark, Christopher E.; Gilron, Ian; Golden, Megan; Gozu, Aysegul; McNair, Lindsay; Pandol, Stephen J.; Perito, Emily R.; Evans Phillips, Anna; Rabbitts, Jennifer A.; Whitcomb, David C.; Windsor, John A.; Yadav, Dhiraj; Palermo, Tonya M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis represent high morbidity diseases, which are frequently associated with chronic abdominal pain, pancreatic insufficiencies, and reduced quality of life. Currently, there are no therapies to reverse or delay disease progression, and clinical trials are needed to investigate potential interventions that would address this important gap. This conference report provides details regarding information shared during a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases-sponsored workshop on Clinical Trials in Pancreatitis that sought to clearly delineate the current gaps and opportunities related to the design and conduct of patient-focused trials in recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis. Key stakeholders including representatives from patient advocacy organizations, physician investigators (including clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health convened to discuss challenges and opportunities with particular emphasis on lessons learned from trials in participants with other painful conditions, as well as the value of incorporating the patient perspective throughout all stages of trials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Measures of outcome for stimulant trials: ACTTION recommendations and research agenda
    (Elsevier, 2016-01-01) Kiluk, Brian D.; Carroll, Kathleen M.; Duhig, Amy; Falk, Daniel E.; Kampman, Kyle; Lai, Shengan; Litten, Raye Z.; McCann, David J.; Montoya, Ivan D.; Preston, Kenzie L.; Skolnick, Phil; Weisner, Constance; Woody, George; Chandler, Redonna; Detke, Michael J.; Dunn, Kelly; Dworkin, Robert H.; Fertig, Joanne; Gewandter, Jennifer; Moeller, F. Gerard; Ramey, Tatiana; Ryan, Megan; Silverman, Kenneth; Strain, Eric C.; Department of Psychiatry, IU School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: The development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence. METHODS: In March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) Hohenschurz-Schmidt, David; Cherkin, Dan; Rice, Andrew S. C.; Dworkin, Robert H.; Turk, Dennis C.; McDermott, Michael P.; Bair, Matthew J.; DeBar, Lynn L.; Edwards, Robert R.; Evans, Scott R.; Farrar, John T.; Kerns, Robert D.; Rowbotham, Michael C.; Wasan, Ajay D.; Cowan, Penney; Ferguson, McKenzie; Freeman, Roy; Gewandter, Jennifer S.; Gilron, Ian; Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna; Iyengar, Smriti; Kamp, Cornelia; Karp, Barbara I.; Kleykamp, Bethea A.; Loeser, John D.; Mackey, Sean; Malamut, Richard; McNicol, Ewan; Patel, Kushang V.; Schmader, Kenneth; Simon, Lee; Steiner, Deborah J.; Veasley, Christin; Vollert, Jan; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations
    (International Association for the Study of Pain, 2021) Gewandter, Jennifer S.; Smith, Shannon M.; Dworkin, Robert H.; Turk, Dennis C.; Gan, Tong Joo; Gilron, Ian; Hertz, Sharon; Katz, Nathaniel P.; Markman, John D.; Raja, Srinivasa N.; Rowbotham, Michael C.; Stacey, Brett R.; Strain, Eric C.; Ward, Denham S.; Farrar, John T.; Kroenke, Kurt; Rathmell, James P.; Rauck, Richard; Brown, Colville; Cowan, Penney; Edwards, Robert R.; Eisenach, James C.; Ferguson, McKenzie; Freeman, Roy; Gray, Roy; Giblin, Kathryn; Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna; Haythornthwaite, Jennifer; Jamison, Robert N.; Martel, Marc; McNicol, Ewan; Oshinsky, Michael; Sandbrink, Friedhelm; Scholz, Joachim; Scranton, Richard; Simon, Lee S.; Steiner, Deborah; Verburg, Kenneth; Wasan, Ajay D.; Wentworth, Kerry; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Hohenschurz-Schmidt, David J.; Cherkin, Dan; Rice, Andrew S. C.; Dworkin, Robert H.; Turk, Dennis C.; McDermott, Michael P.; Bair, Matthew J.; DeBar, Lynn L.; Edwards, Robert R.; Farrar, John T.; Kerns, Robert D.; Markman, John D.; Rowbotham, Michael C.; Sherman, Karen J.; Wasan, Ajay D.; Cowan, Penney; Desjardins, Paul; Ferguson, McKenzie; Freeman, Roy; Gewandter, Jennifer S.; Gilron, Ian; Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna; Hertz, Sharon H.; Iyengar, Smriti; Kamp, Cornelia; Karp, Barbara I.; Kleykamp, Bethea A.; Loeser, John D.; Mackey, Sean; Malamut, Richard; McNicol, Ewan; Patel, Kushang V.; Sandbrink, Friedhelm; Schmader, Kenneth; Simon, Lee; Steiner, Deborah J.; Veasley, Christin; Vollert, Jan; Anesthesia, School of Medicine
    Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.