Between-group Difference in Mean Values or Changes in Pain Intensity? Evaluating the Distribution of Change from Baseline in a Neuropathic Cancer Pain Clinical Trial.

Hiromichi Matsuoka,Tatsuya Morita,Shunsuke Oyamada,Takuhiro Yamaguchi,Atsuko Koyama
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-930
2020-01-01
Annals of Palliative Medicine
Abstract:Ann Palliat Med 2020;9(6):4398-4402 | http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-930 When evaluating pain relief in pain research, both betweengroup differences in mean values and changes in pain intensity (absolute or relative values) are recommended (1). However, there is no consensus on which one is superior, thereby causing a few challenges such as difficulty in comparing multiple research views and differences in sample size calculations, resulting in different results within a single study. Our recent studies (2,3) have also yielded different results within a single study, making interpretation difficult. One such study of ours, the DIRECT study, which was a multicenter double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled two-parallel group trial, investigated the efficacy of duloxetine for cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP) nonresponsive or intolerant to opioidpregabalin combination therapy. In that study, duloxetine was commenced at a dose of 20 mg once daily. On day-3, the degree of pain relief was evaluated using the Pain Relief Scale (4). Patients who reported complete or substantial relief continued to receive the same dose while the dose was increased to 40 mg for the remaining patients. The primary endpoint was a comparison of pain intensity [Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-item 5] (5) at day-10 in both groups. Seventy eligible patients were enrolled and randomized, and 65 participants completed the study. Among the 70 patients, 67 were evaluable: 34 in group duloxetine (Group D) and 33 in group placebo (Group P). There were no primary endpoint data for one patient in each group. Of the 67 evaluable subjects, 32 patients (94.1%) in Group D and 29 patients (87.9%) in Group P completed the protocol treatment on day-10. Twenty-two patients (63%) of patients in Group D and 23 patients (66%) of those in Group P increased the dose to 40 mg per day. Three different types of analyses were applied revealing the following results. Firstly, in the complete case (CC) analysis, BPI-item 5 on day-10 was 4.03 [90% confidence interval (CI): 3.33–4.74] for Group D and 4.88 (90% CI: 4.37–5.38) for Group P (P=0.053). Secondly, in the sensitivity analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) (6), average pain scores on day-10 were 4.06 (90% CI: 3.37–4.74) for Group D and 4.91 (90% CI: 4.41–5.41) for Group P (P=0.04). BOCF is based on the assumption that the pain returns to the baseline state if treatment is stopped because neuropathic cancer pain is unlikely to improve in the natural course during this short period. Hence, we imputed missing data on day-10 with the score from day-0. However, responder analysis, comparing the percentages of patients with clinically meaningful pain reduction (≥30% and ≥50%), showed different results. On the tenth day, 15 patients (44.1%) in Group D and 6 patients (18.2%) in Group P reported pain improvement ≥30% (P=0.02) whereas 11 patients (32.4%) in Group D and 1 patient (3%) in Group Editorial Commentary
What problem does this paper attempt to address?