Standard Methods for Analysis and Reporting of VAS or NRS Derived Pain Relief Response Scores

Similar documents
BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF PAIN SCALE PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN CLINICAL TRIALS

Immediate-release Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen M Abbreviated Clinical Study Report R&D/08/1020

Examples: Tables. Descriptive stats with ANOVA, ANCOVA, and t test p values Frequency and percent Correlation coefficients

Statistical Analysis Plan RH01649 Version Document Identifier Effective Date eldo_clinical_doc Reason For Issue

Frequency Tables Aspects to Consider / PhUSE - Industry Starters / Katja Glaß

Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen Extended-Release Tablets M Clinical Study Report R&D/09/1109

A French, multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind,

(For National Authority Use Only) Name of Study Drug: to Part of Dossier:

Negative Studies. March 26, 2011 ADEPT

confirmatory clinical trials - The PMDA Perspective -

Support for Acetaminophen 1000 mg Over-the-Counter Dose:

SYNOPSIS (FOR NATIONAL AUTHORITY USE ONLY) INDIVIDUAL STUDY TABLE REFERRING TO PART OF THE DOSSIER

PFIZER INC. These results are supplied for informational purposes only. Prescribing decisions should be made based on the approved package insert.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study of the Safety and Analgesic Efficacy of MNK-795 Controlled-Release

Quantifying the clinical measure of interest in the presence of missing data:

Implementing Worst Rank Imputation Using SAS

Title: Dexketoprofen/tramadol 25mg/75mg: randomised double-blind trial in moderate-to-severe acute pain after abdominal hysterectomy

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Case Study in Placebo Modeling and Its Effect on Drug Development

Estimands, Missing Data and Sensitivity Analysis: some overview remarks. Roderick Little

SYNOPSIS. The study results and synopsis are supplied for informational purposes only.

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment: Objectives:

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Supplementary material

Individual Study Table Referring to Part of Dossier: Volume: Page:

SYNOPSIS OF RESEARCH REPORT (PROTOCOL BC20779)

Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting for Selective Crossover in Oncology Clinical Trials.

PROGRAMMER S SAFETY KIT: Important Points to Remember While Programming or Validating Safety Tables

Estimands and Their Role in Clinical Trials

Analysis Strategies for Clinical Trials with Treatment Non-Adherence Bohdana Ratitch, PhD

Effect of Source and Level of Protein on Weight Gain of Rats

DRAFT (Final) Concept Paper On choosing appropriate estimands and defining sensitivity analyses in confirmatory clinical trials

POPULATION PHARMACOKINETICS RAYMOND MILLER, D.Sc. Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development

Summary of Findings tables

Pacira v. FDA: Summary of Declaration by Lee Jen Wei, PhD Concluding that the Pivotal Hemorrhoidectomy Study for EXPAREL Demonstrated a Treatment

Principal Investigator and Study Center: F. Nobuoka, MD Ageo Medical Clinic, 3133 Haraichi, Ageo City, Saitama , Japan

The study listed may include approved and non-approved uses, formulations or treatment regimens. The results reported in any single study may not

Missing data in clinical trials: making the best of what we haven t got.

Guidance for Industry

Professor Rose-Helleknat's PCR Data for Breast Cancer Study

CDISC Journey in Solid Tumor using RECIST 1.1. Kevin Lee Statistician/CDISC Consultant/Programmer

Study Center(s): The study was conducted at 39 study sites in Japan.

XP23829 PHASE 2 PSORIASIS TRIAL PRELIMINARY TOPLINE DATA PRESENTATION SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 COPYRIGHT 2015 XENOPORT, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Study Centers: This study was conducted in 2 centers in Italy.

BRL /RSD-101C0D/1/CPMS-704. Report Synopsis

Using Statistical Principles to Implement FDA Guidance on Cardiovascular Risk Assessment for Diabetes Drugs

How the ICH E9 addendum around estimands may impact our clinical trials

Statistical Challenges for Novel Technologies. Roseann M. White, MA Director of Pragmatic Clinical Trial Statistics Duke Clinical Research Institute

Introduction to SPSS. Katie Handwerger Why n How February 19, 2009

Pharmaceutical Statistics Journal Club 15 th October Missing data sensitivity analysis for recurrent event data using controlled imputation

SYNOPSIS. Risperidone-R064766: Clinical Study Report RIS-INT-24 (FOR NATIONAL AUTHORITY USE ONLY)

CDISC Journey in Solid Tumor using RECIST 1.1 Kevin Lee PhUSE conference Oct 14th, 2013

Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual Sufentanil 30 mcg for the Management of Acute Pain Following Ambulatory Surgery. Pamela P.

Adalimumab M Clinical Study Report Final R&D/16/0603

I.V. CR845 Adaptive Phase 2/3 Post Operative Pain Study Results

Pharmacometric Modelling to Support Extrapolation in Regulatory Submissions

Title: Intention-to-treat and transparency of related practices in randomized, controlled trials of anti-infectives

Sponsor: Sanofi Drug substance(s): GZ316455

PFIZER INC. THERAPEUTIC AREA AND FDA APPROVED INDICATIONS: See United States Package Insert (USPI)

Supplementary Appendix

ClinialTrials.gov Identifier: Sponsor/company: sanofi-aventis

Summary ID# Clinical Study Summary: Study B4Z-JE-LYBC

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Supplementary Online Content

Design and Construct Efficacy Analysis Datasets in Late Phase Oncology Studies

Data Visualization for Data Monitoring Committees for Clinical Trial

SYNOPSIS. Drug substance(s) Budesonide/formoterol Document No. Edition No. Study code SD Date 16 December 2004

University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center

Generalized Estimating Equations for Depression Dose Regimes

1. Introduction. 2. Objectives. 2.1 Primary objective

Clinical Study Synopsis

INDIVIDUAL STUDY TABLE REFERRING TO PART OF THE DOSSIER. Volume: Page:

EU regulatory concerns about missing data: Issues of interpretation and considerations for addressing the problem. Prof. Dr.

Outcome Measure Considerations for Clinical Trials Reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov

Answer to exercise: Growth of guinea pigs

Survey research (Lecture 1) Summary & Conclusion. Lecture 10 Survey Research & Design in Psychology James Neill, 2015 Creative Commons Attribution 4.

Survey research (Lecture 1)

Applied Medical. Statistics Using SAS. Geoff Der. Brian S. Everitt. CRC Press. Taylor Si Francis Croup. Taylor & Francis Croup, an informa business

Clinical Study Synopsis

DRAFT GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Comparative Bioavailability Standards: Formulations Used for Systemic Effects

Sponsor. Generic drug name. Trial indication(s) Protocol number. Protocol title. Phase of Drug Development. Study Start/End Dates

Discussion Meeting for MCP-Mod Qualification Opinion Request. Novartis 10 July 2013 EMA, London, UK

Model-based quantification of the relationship between age and anti-migraine therapy

bivariate analysis: The statistical analysis of the relationship between two variables.

Clinically Important Changes in Acute Pain Outcome Measures: A Validation Study

Rimegepant Pivotal Phase 3 Trial Results - Conference Call March 26, Biohaven

Individual Study Table Referring to Item of the Submission: Volume: Page:

Volunteer for Clinical Research

Previous Study Return to List Next Study

P values From Statistical Design to Analyses to Publication in the Age of Multiplicity

Using methadone alongside other opioids. Dr. Jo Murrell BVSc. (hons), PhD, DiplECVAA, MRCVS

Michigan General Procedures PAIN MANAGEMENT Date: November 15, 2012 Page 1 of 7

INDIVIDUAL STUDY TABLE REFERRING TO PART OF THE DOSSIER

SYNOPSIS (PROTOCOL WX17796)

Learning Objectives 9/9/2013. Hypothesis Testing. Conflicts of Interest. Descriptive statistics: Numerical methods Measures of Central Tendency

PharmaSUG 2018 Paper AD-02

SYNOPSIS. Risperidone-R064766: Clinical Study Report RIS-AUS-5 (FOR NATIONAL AUTHORITY USE ONLY)

Allergan Not Applicable AGN A Multi-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multiple Dose, Parallel

PSI Missing Data Expert Group

Transcription:

Standard Methods for Analysis and Reporting of VAS or NRS Derived Pain Relief Response Scores James R. Johnson, PhD Sr. Director Biostatistics and Data Sciences Flexion Therapeutics, Inc. Presentation at PhUSE 2016 Barcelona, Spain Paper: SP01

Pain and Pain Intensity Instruments Pain is a Subjective Experience composed of two complementary features: Localized sensation afflicting a particular part of the body An unpleasant quality of varying degrees of severity associated with behavior and treatments directed at relieving the pain experience (Pain Relief) Two main Pain Classifications: Acute pain (<3 months duration) Chronic pain (>3 months) 2

Clinical Trials Designed for Assessment of PR (Analgesics) Trial Design Considerations: Design must consider that Pain is a subjective response and fluctuates over time. Acute pain, post-operative, trials: PI decreases rapidly over days Chronic Pain, Osteoarthritis, trials: PI may decrease slowly over time High Placebo Response Rates are evident in Analgesic trials High drop-out rates should be expected. Drop-out rates likely to be associated with lack of efficacy (Chronic trials) or adverse events (Chronic and Acute trials). These are Non-random dropout patterns. Must make every effort to minimize drop-outs Rescue Medication used to minimize dropouts from lack of efficacy Many trial designs used: Parallel, cross-over, Add-on designs (adjunctive analgesic therapies) Titration to effect designs and enrichment designs Examination of Single-Dose and/or Multiple-Dose Characteristics 3

Pain Intensity Instruments: NRS and VAS Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 11-point scale, 0 to 10 0 = No Pain, 10 = Worst Imaginable Pain PI recorded in increments of 1 between 0 and 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Worst Pain Imaginable Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 100 millimeter (mm) scale 0 mm = No Pain, 100 mm = Worst Imaginable pain PI measured in mm, rounded to nearest 1mm unit, Continuous between 0 and 100 mm 4

Variations of the NRS Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 11-point scale, 0 to 10 0 = No Pain, 10 = Worst Possible Pain Increments of Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Very Severe specified. PI recorded in increments of 1 between 0 and 10 Modified for pediatric usage 5

NRS vs VAS Precision: Which Instrument to Use? NRS: 11-point scale, 0-10 Ordinal scale with 0=No Pain and 10-Worst Imaginable pain 100 90 VAS: 0-100 millimeter scale Continuous scale with 0 mm = No Pain, 100 mm = Worst Imaginable Pain. Measured and Rounded to increments of 1 mm. Precision in Measurement Better correlation between NRS and VAS at anchors 0 and 10 Small differences in VAS can have profound effects on PI scores and PID endpoints. Baseline VAS (0-100 mm) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 95.5 (4.39) 85.3 (4.41) 75.6 (4.38) 67.4 (4.94) 57.8 (4.90) 48.2 (5.15) 40.8 (5.15) Overall Pearson Correlation: 0.959 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline NRS (0-10) 6

Timing of PI Assessments Acute Pain Management Trials: Shorter Term duration generally <3 months in Pain duration. Pain associated with Injury, post-operative procedures, or short-term idiopathic conditions. Medications often administered multiple times per day, with pharmacokinetic profiles that warrant repeat dosing. Time points associated with single dose administration generally range up to 72 hours, with greater sampling intensity at early onset times. Early onset time associated with the PK of the medication. 7

Timing of PI Assessments Chronic Pain Management Trials: Longer Term duration generally >3 months in Pain duration. Pain associated with syndromes (cancer, fibromyalgia, Osteoarthritis, chronic migraine), or long-term idiopathic conditions. Medications often administered multiple times per day for long periods of time (up to a year or longer), with pharmacokinetic profiles that warrant repeat dosing. Time points associated with multiple dose Rx administration generally range up to 1 week, with greater sampling intensity at early onset times for the first dose. Early onset time associated with the PK of the medication for the first dose. Time points associated long term duration measured in Days and Weeks (e.g. daily PI assessment for 12 weeks). Long term sampling schema associated with repeat dosing and assessing impact of medication at steady state. Single dose chronic pain studies examining extent and duration of PR response following single Rx administration. Usually associated with Extended Release medications or medications with very long half-life or residence times as part of their PK profile. 8

Missing PI Assessments Imputation for Missing Data is needed for Computing some endpoints: Common include, LOCF, BOCF, WOCF Time (min) 0 (BL) 10 15 20 30 45 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 PI (0-10) 7 7 8 7 5 4 3 Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing LOCF 7 7 8 7 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 WOCF 7 7 8 7 5 4 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 BOCF 7 7 8 7 5 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Calculation of static endpoints: SPID, AUE will utilize imputation methods for sensitivity purposes. The use of LOCF has many statistical difficulties and should be avoided as a primary method for imputation of missing data. No one method for imputation should be used. Also consider Multiple Imputation methods. Wherever possible Observed Cases is the preferred method with no imputation. 9

Missing PI Assessments Consider the impact of imputation methods on an individual subjects PR profile. 10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), 0-10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BL 30 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 Time (Minutes) NRS LOCF Imputation WOCF Imputation BOCF Imputation BL 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 Time (Hours) 10

Rescue Medication Adjustment Imputation of Rescue Medication Adjusted PI scores Time (min) 0 (BL) 10 15 20 30 45 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 PI (0-10) 7 7 8 7 7 8 3 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rescue Time 50 130 Pre-Rescue PI 9 7 Rescue Adjusted PI 7 7 8 7 7 8 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 In Acute Pain trials adjustment of PI scores for Pre-Rescue PI assessment provides method for least bias in calculation of efficacy endpoints. Preferred method for implementation in Acute Pain management trials. 11

Rescue Medication Adjustment Consider the impact of Rescue Medication Adjusted imputation methods on an individual subjects PR profile. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), 0-10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Rescue Rx: 50 min: PI=9 Rescue Rx: 130 min: PI=7 NRS (No Adjustment) Rescue Medication Adjusted NRS Time of Rescue Medication 0 BL 30 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 Time (Minutes) BL 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 Time (Hours) 12

Efficacy Endpoints: Three Common Endpoints Pain Intensity Difference: Two methods for calculation, depending upon direction: 1 PPPPPP tt = PPPP bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb PPPP tt or 2 PPPPPP tt = PPPP tt PPPP bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Time-Weighted Sum Pain Intensity Differences (SPID): Serial assessments of PI over time, weighted by time differences tt ii+nn SSSSSSSS ttii tt ii+nn = (PPPPPP ii ) (tt ii+1 tt ii ) tt ii Sum Pain Intensity Differences Area Calculation (AUE): Linear trapezoid calculation of an area under PID tt ii+nn AAAAAA ttii tt ii+nn = ((PPPPPP ii + PPPPPP ii+1 )/2) (tt ii+1 tt ii ) tt ii 13

SPID and AUE Calculations: Rescue Medication Adjustment Single Subject Example: BL 10 Mins. 15 Mins. 20 Mins. 30 Mins. 45 Mins. Time (minutes) 0 10 15 20 30 45 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 TD min (t i+1 - t i ) 10 5 5 10 15 15 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 120 Rescue Adjusted Pain Intensity (0-10) 1 9 9 7 6 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 PID (t i -BL) 0 0-2 -3-4 -7-7 -7-8 -8-8 -6-4 -4-4 PIDi*(t i+1 -t i ) 0-10 -15-40 -105-105 -210-240 -240-240 -360-240 -240-480 (PID i+1 +PID i )/2 0-1 -2.5-3.5-5.5-7 -7-7.5-8 -8-7 -5-4 -4 [(PID i +PID i+1 )/2]*TD min 0.0-5.0-12.5-35.0-82.5-105.0-210.0-225.0-240.0-240.0-420.0-300.0-240.0-480.0 1 Hr. 1.5 Hrs. 2 Hrs. 2.5 Hrs. 3 Hrs. 4 Hrs. 5 Hrs. 6 Hrs. 8 Hrs. Endpoints: Efficacy Endpoint Value Efficacy Endpoint Value Time Weighted SPID 0-180 -1205 AUE 0-180 -1155 Time Weighted SPID 0-360 -2045 AUE 0-360 -2115 Time Weighted SPID 0-480 -2525 AUE 0-480 -2595 14

Analysis of PID Endpoint Completed with a longitudinal Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) proc mixed data=<adnrs> method=reml; where avisit) ^= 'baseline' and paramcd= PIDRA ; class usubjid trt01p avisitn; model chg = base trt01p avisitn trt01p*avisitn / DDFM=KR; repeated avisitn / type = un subject=usubjid; lsmeans trt01p / diff=control ('Placebo') cl; lsmeans trt01p*avisitn / pdiff cl; ods output lsmeans = lsmeans diffs = diffs Tests3 = test; run; Best Implemented with standardized ADaM datasets: (topic for next paper) 15

Analysis of PID Endpoint: Residuals Examination Completed with a longitudinal Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) proc mixed data=<adnrs> method=reml; where avisit) ^= 'baseline' and paramcd= PIDRA ; class usubjid trt01p avisitn; model chg = base trt01p avisitn trt01p*avisitn / DDFM=KR out=pred1 residual solution; repeated avisitn / type = un subject=usubjid; lsmeans trt01p / diff=control ('Placebo') cl; lsmeans trt01p*avisitn / pdiff cl; ods output lsmeans = lsmeans diffs = diffs Tests3 = test; run; Evaluating the standardized residuals is a very useful technique for detection of outliers: Generally expect 95% of the standardized residuals will be + 2 SD. Ideal technique for understating impact of covariates 16

Analysis of SPID and AUE Endpoints Completed with a Linear Models (ANOVA) proc mixed data=<adeff>; where paramcd = <endpoint code>; class trt01p; model aval = trt01p base / ddfm=kr; lsmeans trt01p / pdiff cl; estimate Treatment A v Placebo trt01p -1 0 1 / cl alpha=0.05; estimate Treatment B v Placebo trt01p 0-1 1 / cl alpha=0.05; ods output lsmeans = lsmeans diffs = diffs Tests3 = test Estimates = est; run; Best Implemented with standardized ADaM datasets: (topic for next paper) 17

Recommended Standard Displays: LSM Change from Baseline 0.0 LS Mean (+SE) Change from Baseline Pain Intensity Difference -0.5-1.0-1.5-2.0-2.5-3.0-3.5-4.0 Treatment A (N=200) Treatment B (N=197) Placebo (N=99) BL 30 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 Time (Minutes) BL 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 Time (Hours) 18

Recommend Standard Displays: PID Tabular Summaries Time Point / Statistic Treatment A (N=) Change from Observed Baseline Treatment B (N=) Change from Observed Baseline Placebo (N=) Change from Observed Baseline Baseline n Mean (SD) Median Min, Max.x,.x,.x, <Time Point> n Mean (SD) Min, Max LSM (SE) 95% CI.x,.x,.x,.x.x,.x,.x (xx.xx).x,.x.x,.x,.x (xx.xx).x,.x LSM Difference from Placebo 95% CI p-value, 2-sided xx.xx xx.xx, xx.xx 0.x xx.xx xx.xx, xx.xx 0.x Note: LSM (SE), mean difference from placebo, CI and p-values from mixed model, modeling Pain Intensity Difference from baseline with fixed effects of Treatment, time point, treatment by time interaction, and model covariates of baseline PI score and <covariates> <Other Footnotes> Programming Note: Display one time point per page for clarity of analysis Additional descriptive statistics may include %CV or Interquartile ranges if needed. Insert on separate lines 19

Recommend Standard Displays: SPID and AUE Summaries Endpoint / Statistic Treatment A (N=) Treatment B (N=) Placebo (N=) <Endpoint> n Mean (SD) Min, Max LSM (SE) 95% CI.x,.x,.x.x,.x,.x.x,.x,.x LSM Difference from Placebo 95% CI p-value, 2-sided xx.xx xx.xx, xx.xx 0.x xx.xx xx.xx, xx.xx 0.x Note: LSM (SE), mean difference from placebo, CI and p-values from linear model (ANOVA), modeling <Efficacy Endpoint> Difference from baseline with fixed effects of Treatment, and model covariates of baseline PI score and <covariates> <Other Footnotes> Programming Note: Display one efficacy endpoint per page for clarity of analysis Additional descriptive statistics may include %CV or Interquartile ranges if needed. Insert on separate lines 20

Conclusions and Recommendations NRS and VAS are powerful instruments for assessing PI, choose carefully based on the design and characteristics of the Rx under development. Methods for handling missing PI data has been the topic of many peer reviewed articles and appropriate methods are defined in the literature. Must adjust for Rescue Medication usage. Rescue adjusted PI score follows best practice on how to handle these data. Efficacy endpoints (PID, SPID, AUE) well established and validated in the literature. Accepted by regulatory agencies. Statistical models can be standardized for these analyses. No formal standards for presentation of these data. Proposed methods for standardizing the presentation (graphical and tabular) of endpoints. Propose development of PhUSE CSS sponsored White paper for Pain Endpoints. Standard TLF approaches Standard STDM and ADaM data sets for Pain data and endpoints. 21

22