Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many patients experience inadequate pain control due to limited options that are both efficacious and safe for treating moderate-to-severe acute pain; therefore, opioids are still frequently prescribed for their effectiveness despite known tolerability issues and safety concerns. Suzetrigine, an oral, non-opioid, offers a promising alternative by selectively inhibiting the voltage-gated sodium channel 1.8 (NaV1.8), a novel therapeutic target for pain management. Given the high selectivity of suzetrigine for NaV1.8 (does not bind to other sodium channels/receptors with CNS activity), suzetrigine does not have CNS side effects or addictive potential associated with opioids. In the largest randomized, controlled phase 3 trials in established acute pain models, suzetrigine monotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in moderate-to-severe acute pain compared to placebo.BackgroundMany patients experience inadequate pain control due to limited options that are both efficacious and safe for treating moderate-to-severe acute pain; therefore, opioids are still frequently prescribed for their effectiveness despite known tolerability issues and safety concerns. Suzetrigine, an oral, non-opioid, offers a promising alternative by selectively inhibiting the voltage-gated sodium channel 1.8 (NaV1.8), a novel therapeutic target for pain management. Given the high selectivity of suzetrigine for NaV1.8 (does not bind to other sodium channels/receptors with CNS activity), suzetrigine does not have CNS side effects or addictive potential associated with opioids. In the largest randomized, controlled phase 3 trials in established acute pain models, suzetrigine monotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in moderate-to-severe acute pain compared to placebo.To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of suzetrigine for the treatment of moderate-to-severe-acute surgical and non-surgical pain conditions, we conducted a phase 3, single-arm study in adults with moderate or severe acute pain on the verbal categorical rating scale and ≥4 on the numeric pain rating scale following surgical procedures or after presenting to a medical facility with moderate or severe acute pain of new origin. Participants received suzetrigine (100mg then 50mg every 12hrs) for 14 days or pain resolution, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was safety. The secondary endpoint was participant perception of suzetrigine's effectiveness in treating acute pain at the end of treatment using a patient global assessment.MethodsTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of suzetrigine for the treatment of moderate-to-severe-acute surgical and non-surgical pain conditions, we conducted a phase 3, single-arm study in adults with moderate or severe acute pain on the verbal categorical rating scale and ≥4 on the numeric pain rating scale following surgical procedures or after presenting to a medical facility with moderate or severe acute pain of new origin. Participants received suzetrigine (100mg then 50mg every 12hrs) for 14 days or pain resolution, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was safety. The secondary endpoint was participant perception of suzetrigine's effectiveness in treating acute pain at the end of treatment using a patient global assessment.Suzetrigine was generally safe and well-tolerated in participants (N=256) with a range of surgical and non-surgical acute pain conditions; the maximum severity for most participants who had adverse events was mild (71 participants; 27.7%) or moderate (21 participants; 8.2%). Most participants (213 participants; 83.2%) rated suzetrigine's effectiveness for treating pain on a patient global assessment as good, very good, or excellent.ResultsSuzetrigine was generally safe and well-tolerated in participants (N=256) with a range of surgical and non-surgical acute pain conditions; the maximum severity for most participants who had adverse events was mild (71 participants; 27.7%) or moderate (21 participants; 8.2%). Most participants (213 participants; 83.2%) rated suzetrigine's effectiveness for treating pain on a patient global assessment as good, very good, or excellent.Suzetrigine provides a safe and effective non-opioid, non-addictive treatment with broad applicability for moderate-to-severe acute pain.ConclusionSuzetrigine provides a safe and effective non-opioid, non-addictive treatment with broad applicability for moderate-to-severe acute pain.NCT05661734.Clinicaltrialsgov RegistrationNCT05661734.

AbstractBackgroundThe NaV1.8 voltage-gated sodium channel, expressed in peripheral nociceptive neurons, plays a role in transmitting nociceptive signals. The effect of VX-548, an oral, highly selective inhibitor of NaV1.8, on control of acute pain is being studied.MethodsAfter establishing the selectivity of VX-548 for NaV1.8 inhibition in vitro, we conducted two phase 2 trials involving participants with acute pain after abdominoplasty or bunionectomy. In the abdominoplasty trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the following over a 48-hour period: a 100-mg oral loading dose of VX-548, followed by a 50-mg maintenance dose every 12 hours (the high-dose group); a 60-mg loading dose of VX-548, followed by a 30-mg maintenance dose every 12 hours (the middle-dose group); hydrocodone bitartrate–acetaminophen (5 mg of hydrocodone bitartrate and 325 mg of acetaminophen every 6 hours); or oral placebo every 6 hours. In the bunionectomy trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:2:2 ratio to receive one of the following over a 48-hour treatment period: oral high-dose VX-548; middle-dose VX-548; low-dose VX-548 (a 20-mg loading dose, followed by a 10-mg maintenance dose every 12 hours); oral hydrocodone bitartrate–acetaminophen (5 mg of hydrocodone bitartrate and 325 mg of acetaminophen every 6 hours); or oral placebo every 6 hours. The primary end point was the time-weighted sum of the pain-intensity difference (SPID) over the 48-hour period (SPID48), a measure derived from the score on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (range, 0 to 10; higher scores indicate greater pain) at 19 time points after the first dose of VX-548 or placebo. The main analysis compared each dose of VX-548 with placebo.ResultsA total of 303 participants were enrolled in the abdominoplasty trial and 274 in the bunionectomy trial. The least-squares mean difference between the high-dose VX-548 and placebo groups in the time-weighted SPID48 was 37.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2 to 66.4) after abdominoplasty and 36.8 (95% CI, 4.6 to 69.0) after bunionectomy. In both trials, participants who received lower doses of VX-548 had results similar to those with placebo. Headache and constipation were common adverse events with VX-548.ConclusionsAs compared with placebo, VX-548 at the highest dose, but not at lower doses, reduced acute pain over a period of 48 hours after abdominoplasty or bunionectomy. VX-548 was associated with adverse events that were mild to moderate in severity. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals; VX21-548-101 and VX21-548-102 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04977336 and NCT05034952.)

ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of a 2015 cross-sectional analysis published in the BMJ Open which reported that pharmaceutical industry compliance with clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under US law was suboptimal and varied widely among companies.DesignWe performed a reassessment of the data reported in Miller et al to evaluate whether statutory compliance analyses and conclusions were valid.Data sourcesInformation from the Dryad Digital Repository, ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA and direct communications with sponsors.Main outcome measuresCompliance with the clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA).ResultsIndustry compliance with FDAAA disclosure requirements was notably higher than reported by Miller et al. Among trials subject to FDAAA, Miller et al reported that, per drug, a median of 67% (middle 50% range: 0%–100%) of trials fully complied with registration and results reporting requirements. On reanalysis of the data, we found that a median of 100% (middle 50% range: 93%–100%) of clinical trials for a particular drug fully complied with the law. When looking at overall compliance at the trial level, our reassessment yields 94% timely registration and 90% timely results reporting among the 49 eligible trials, and an overall FDAAA compliance rate of 86%.ConclusionsThe claim by Miller et al that industry compliance is below legal standards is based on an analysis that relies on an incomplete dataset and an interpretation of FDAAA that requires disclosure of study results for drugs that have not yet been approved for any indication. On reanalysis using a different interpretation of FDAAA that focuses on whether results were disclosed within 30 days of drug approval, we found that industry compliance with US statutory disclosure requirements for the 15 reviewed drugs was consistently high.

The Na 1.8 voltage-gated sodium channel, expressed in peripheral nociceptive neurons, plays a role in transmitting nociceptive signals. The effect of VX-548, an oral, highly selective inhibitor of Na 1.8, on control of acute pain is being studied. After establishing the selectivity of VX-548 for Na 1.8 inhibition in vitro, we conducted two phase 2 trials involving participants with acute pain after abdominoplasty or bunionectomy. In the abdominoplasty trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the following over a 48-hour period: a 100-mg oral loading dose of VX-548, followed by a 50-mg maintenance dose every 12 hours (the high-dose group); a 60-mg loading dose of VX-548, followed by a 30-mg maintenance dose every 12 hours (the middle-dose group); hydrocodone bitartrate-acetaminophen (5 mg of hydrocodone bitartrate and 325 mg of acetaminophen every 6 hours); or oral placebo every 6 hours. In the bunionectomy trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:2:2 ratio to receive one of the following over a 48-hour treatment period: oral high-dose VX-548; middle-dose VX-548; low-dose VX-548 (a 20-mg loading dose, followed by a 10-mg maintenance dose every 12 hours); oral hydrocodone bitartrate-acetaminophen (5 mg of hydrocodone bitartrate and 325 mg of acetaminophen every 6 hours); or oral placebo every 6 hours. The primary end point was the time-weighted sum of the pain-intensity difference (SPID) over the 48-hour period (SPID48), a measure derived from the score on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (range, 0 to 10; higher scores indicate greater pain) at 19 time points after the first dose of VX-548 or placebo. The main analysis compared each dose of VX-548 with placebo. A total of 303 participants were enrolled in the abdominoplasty trial and 274 in the bunionectomy trial. The least-squares mean difference between the high-dose VX-548 and placebo groups in the time-weighted SPID48 was 37.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2 to 66.4) after abdominoplasty and 36.8 (95% CI, 4.6 to 69.0) after bunionectomy. In both trials, participants who received lower doses of VX-548 had results similar to those with placebo. Headache and constipation were common adverse events with VX-548. As compared with placebo, VX-548 at the highest dose, but not at lower doses, reduced acute pain over a period of 48 hours after abdominoplasty or bunionectomy. VX-548 was associated with adverse events that were mild to moderate in severity. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals; VX21-548-101 and VX21-548-102 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04977336 and NCT05034952.).

BACKGROUND:Bias due to missing data is a major concern in electronic health record (EHR)-based research. As part of an ongoing EHR-based study of weight change among patients treated for depression, we conducted a survey to investigate determinants of missingness in the available weight information and to evaluate the missing-at-random assumption. METHODS:We identified 8,345 individuals enrolled in a large EHR-based health care system who had monotherapy treatment for depression from April 2008 to March 2010. A stratified sample of 1,153 individuals completed a detailed survey. Logistic regression was used to investigate determinants of whether a patient (1) had an opportunity to be weighed at treatment initiation (baseline), and (2) had a weight measurement recorded. Parallel analyses were conducted to investigate missingness during follow-up. Throughout, inverse-probability weighting was used to adjust for the design and survey nonresponse. Analyses were also conducted to investigate potential recall bias. RESULTS:Missingness at baseline and during follow-up was associated with numerous factors not routinely collected in the EHR including whether or not the patient had ever chosen not to be weighed, external weight control activities, and self-reported baseline weight. Patient attitudes about their weight and perceptions regarding the potential impact of their depression treatment on weight were not related to missingness. CONCLUSION:Adopting a comprehensive strategy to investigate missingness early in the research process gives researchers information necessary to evaluate key assumptions. While the survey presented focuses on outcome data, the overarching strategy can be applied to any and all data elements subject to missingness.

Background: Many patients experience inadequate pain control due to limited options that are both efficacious and safe for treating moderate-to-severe acute pain; therefore, opioids are still frequently prescribed for their effectiveness despite known tolerability issues and safety concerns. Suzetrigine, an oral, non-opioid, offers a promising alternative by selectively inhibiting the voltage-gated sodium channel 1.8 (NaV1.8), a novel therapeutic target for pain management. Given the high selectivity of suzetrigine for NaV1.8 (does not bind to other sodium channels/receptors with CNS activity), suzetrigine does not have CNS side effects or addictive potential associated with opioids. In the largest randomized, controlled phase 3 trials in established acute pain models, suzetrigine monotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in moderate-to-severe acute pain compared to placebo. Methods: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of suzetrigine for the treatment of moderate-to-severe-acute surgical and non-surgical pain conditions, we conducted a phase 3, single-arm study in adults with moderate or severe acute pain on the verbal categorical rating scale and [greater than or equal to]4 on the numeric pain rating scale following surgical procedures or after presenting to a medical facility with moderate or severe acute pain of new origin. Participants received suzetrigine (100mg then 50mg every 12hrs) for 14 days or pain resolution, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was safety. The secondary endpoint was participant perception of suzetrigine's effectiveness in treating acute pain at the end of treatment using a patient global assessment. Results: Suzetrigine was generally safe and well-tolerated in participants (N=256) with a range of surgical and non-surgical acute pain conditions; the maximum severity for most participants who had adverse events was mild (71 participants; 27.7%) or moderate (21 participants; 8.2%). Most participants (213 participants; 83.2%) rated suzetrigine's effectiveness for treating pain on a patient global assessment as good, very good, or excellent. Conclusion: Suzetrigine provides a safe and effective non-opioid, non-addictive treatment with broad applicability for moderate-to-severe acute pain. Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: NCT05661734. Keywords: suzetrigine, VX-548, non-opioid, NaV1.8 inhibitor, moderate-to-severe acute pain, surgical/nonsurgical acute pain

Many patients experience inadequate pain control due to limited options that are both efficacious and safe for treating moderate-to-severe acute pain; therefore, opioids are still frequently prescribed for their effectiveness despite known tolerability issues and safety concerns. Suzetrigine, an oral, non-opioid, offers a promising alternative by selectively inhibiting the voltage-gated sodium channel 1.8 (Na 1.8), a novel therapeutic target for pain management. Given the high selectivity of suzetrigine for Na 1.8 (does not bind to other sodium channels/receptors with CNS activity), suzetrigine does not have CNS side effects or addictive potential associated with opioids. In the largest randomized, controlled phase 3 trials in established acute pain models, suzetrigine monotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in moderate-to-severe acute pain compared to placebo. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of suzetrigine for the treatment of moderate-to-severe-acute surgical and non-surgical pain conditions, we conducted a phase 3, single-arm study in adults with moderate or severe acute pain on the verbal categorical rating scale and ≥4 on the numeric pain rating scale following surgical procedures or after presenting to a medical facility with moderate or severe acute pain of new origin. Participants received suzetrigine (100mg then 50mg every 12hrs) for 14 days or pain resolution, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was safety. The secondary endpoint was participant perception of suzetrigine's effectiveness in treating acute pain at the end of treatment using a patient global assessment. Suzetrigine was generally safe and well-tolerated in participants (N=256) with a range of surgical and non-surgical acute pain conditions; the maximum severity for most participants who had adverse events was mild (71 participants; 27.7%) or moderate (21 participants; 8.2%). Most participants (213 participants; 83.2%) rated suzetrigine's effectiveness for treating pain on a patient global assessment as good, very good, or excellent. Suzetrigine provides a safe and effective non-opioid, non-addictive treatment with broad applicability for moderate-to-severe acute pain. NCT05661734.

Various methods are available for analyzing data in which multiple outcomes, including a terminal event, are of interest. For example, under the semi-competing risks setting, one may fit an illness-death model to cohort data in order to investigate the association between some covariate of interest and the risk of both non-terminal and terminal events. Unfortunately, such covariates may be expensive or otherwise difficult to obtain, and cannot be ascertained for all members of the cohort. When only a single outcome is of interest, investigators faced with this problem often choose to perform a nested case-control (NCC) study, a cost-efficient design in which covariate information is ascertained for all cases of this outcome as well as a random sample of controls chosen via risk set sampling. However, previously developed methods for analyzing NCC studies have only considered univariate outcomes. This dissertation develops methodology based on inverse probability weighting that enables NCC studies to be used to answer scientific questions about multiple outcomes simultaneously, while additionally investigating novel design possibilities and their operating characteristics. Chapter 1 proposes estimation and inference for the illness-death model for semi-competing risks data arising from an existing NCC study and introduces the supplemented NCC study design. Chapter 2 extends these ideas to the joint frailty model for recurrent events in the presence of a terminal event, while proposing a general framework for the design of NCC studies in this setting. Chapter 3 returns to the semi-competing risks context, generalizing the NCC design to allow subsampling of both non-terminal and terminal events.