Discovery and validation of biomarkers to aid the development of safe and effective pain therapeutics: challenges and opportunities

Abstract

Pain medication plays an important role in the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, but some drugs, opioids in particular, have been overprescribed or prescribed without adequate safeguards, leading to an alarming rise in medication-related overdose deaths. The NIH Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative is a trans-agency effort to provide scientific solutions to stem the opioid crisis. One component of the initiative is to support biomarker discovery and rigorous validation in collaboration with industry leaders to accelerate high-quality clinical research into neurotherapeutics and pain. The use of objective biomarkers and clinical trial end points throughout the drug discovery and development process is crucial to help define pathophysiological subsets of pain, evaluate target engagement of new drugs and predict the analgesic efficacy of new drugs. In 2018, the NIH-led Discovery and Validation of Biomarkers to Develop Non-Addictive Therapeutics for Pain workshop convened scientific leaders from academia, industry, government and patient advocacy groups to discuss progress, challenges, gaps and ideas to facilitate the development of biomarkers and end points for pain. The outcomes of this workshop are outlined in this Consensus Statement. In 2018, the Discovery and Validation of Biomarkers to Develop Non-Addictive Therapeutics for Pain workshop convened to discuss strategies to facilitate the development of biomarkers and end points for pain. The outcomes of this workshop are outlined in this Consensus Statement.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 246

1. 1.

   Treede RD, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP classification of chronic pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain. 2019;160:19-27.

   Not in our library10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001384

2. 2.

   Von Korff M, et al. United States National Pain Strategy for population research: concepts, definitions, and pilot data. J. Pain. 2016;17:1068-1080.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.jpain.2016.06.009

3. 3.
   Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 · 2018

   No notice
4. 4.

   Nahin RL, Sayer B, Stussman BJ, Feinberg TM. Eighteen-year trends in the prevalence of, and health care use for, noncancer pain in the United States: data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. J. Pain. 2019;20:796-809.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.jpain.2019.01.003

5. 5.

   US Institute of Medicine. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research (National Academies, 2011).

   Not in our library

6. 6.
   Prevalence of Chronic Pain and High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Adults — United States, 2016 · 2018

   No notice
7. 7.

   Gatchel RJ, et al. Research agenda for the prevention of pain and its impact: report of the Work Group on the Prevention of Acute and Chronic Pain of the Federal Pain Research Strategy. J. Pain. 2018;19:837-851.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.jpain.2018.02.015

8. 8.

   World Health Organization. Management of substance abuse. Information sheet on opioid overdose (WHO, 2018).

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Facing addiction in America: the Surgeon General’s report on alcohol, drugs, and health (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2016).

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Mackey S, Kao MC. Managing twin crises in chronic pain and prescription opioids. BMJ. 2019;364:l917.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.l917

11. 11.

    Pitcher MH, Von Korff M, Bushnell MC, Porter L. Prevalence and profile of high-impact chronic pain in the United States. J. Pain. 2019;20:146-160.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.006

12. 12.

    FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Advancing health through innovation: 2018 new drug therapy approvals (FDA, 2019).

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Fogel DB. Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: a review. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 2018;11:156-164.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001

14. 14.

    Thomas D, Wessel C. The state of innovation in highly prevalent chronic disease. BIO Ind. Anal. 2018;II:1-15.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Ferber G. Biomarkers and proof of concept. Methods Find. Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 2002;24(Suppl. C):35-40.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Morgan P, et al. Impact of a five-dimensional framework on R&D productivity at AstraZeneca. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2018;17:167-181.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2017.244

17. 17.

    Thomas, D. W. et al. Clinical development success rates 2006–2015 (BIO, 2016).

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Nagakura Y. The need for fundamental reforms in the pain research field to develop innovative drugs. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2017;12:39-46.

    Not in our library10.1080/17460441.2017.1261108

19. 19.

    Niculescu AB, et al. Towards precision medicine for pain: diagnostic biomarkers and repurposed drugs. Mol. Psychiat. 2019;24:501-522.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41380-018-0345-5

20. 20.

    Wideman TH, et al. The multimodal assessment model of pain: a novel framework for further integrating the subjective pain experience within research and practice. Clin. J. Pain. 2019;35:212-221.

    Not in our library10.1097/ajp.0000000000000670

21. 21.

    Treede RD. The International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: as valid in 2018 as in 1979, but in need of regularly updated footnotes. Pain. Rep. 2018;3:e643.

    Not in our library10.1097/pr9.0000000000000643

22. 22.

    Bonafe FSS, de Campos LA, Maroco J, Campos J. Brief pain inventory: a proposal to extend its clinical application. Eur. J. Pain. 2019;23:565-576.

    Not in our library10.1002/ejp.1330

23. 23.

    Main CJ. Pain assessment in context: a state of the science review of the McGill pain questionnaire 40 years on. Pain. 2016;157:1387-1399.

    Not in our library10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000457

24. 24.

    Bullock L, et al. Pain assessment and pain treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiat. 2019;34:807-821.

    Not in our library10.1002/gps.5078

25. 25.

    Birnie KA, Hundert AS, Lalloo C, Nguyen C, Stinson JN. Recommendations for selection of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment of measurement properties. Pain. 2019;160:5-18.

    Not in our library10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001377

26. 26.

    Dansie EJ, Turk DC. Assessment of patients with chronic pain. Br. J. Anaesth. 2013;111:19-25.

    Not in our library10.1093/bja/aet124

27. 27.

    Smith SM, et al. Pain intensity rating training: results from an exploratory study of the ACTTION PROTECCT system. Pain. 2016;157:1056-1064.

    Not in our library10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000502

28. 28.

    Vollert J, et al. Quantitative sensory testing using DFNS protocol in Europe: an evaluation of heterogeneity across multiple centers in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain and healthy subjects. Pain. 2016;157:750-758.

    Not in our library10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000433

29. 29.
    Stratifying patients with peripheral neuropathic pain based on sensory profiles: algorithm and sample size recommendations · 2017

    No notice
30. 30.

    Haanpaa M, et al. NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment. Pain. 2011;152:14-27.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pain.2010.07.031

31. 31.

    Group BDW. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2001;69:89-95.

    Not in our library10.1067/mcp.2001.113989

32. 32.

    US Food and Drug Administration–National Institutes of Health Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource (FDA, 2016).

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the clinical investigation of medicines for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (EMA, 2018).

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Biomarker qualification: evidentiary framework (FDA, 2018).

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    Wager TD, et al. An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;368:1388-1397.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1204471

36. 36.

    Woo C-W, Wager TD. Neuroimaging-based biomarker discovery and validation. Pain. 2015;156:1379-1381.

    Not in our library10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000223

37. 37.

    Davis KD, et al. Brain imaging tests for chronic pain: medical, legal and ethical issues and recommendations. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2017;13:624-638.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrneurol.2017.122

38. 38.

    Kragel PA, Koban L, Barrett LF, Wager TD. Representation, pattern information, and brain signatures: from neurons to neuroimaging. Neuron. 2018;99:257-273.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neuron.2018.06.009

39. 39.

    Woo C-W, Chang LJ, Lindquist MA, Wager TD. Building better biomarkers: brain models in translational neuroimaging. Nat. Neurosci. 2017;20:365-377.

    Not in our library10.1038/nn.4478

40. 40.

    Kohoutová L, et al. Toward a unified framework for interpreting machine-learning models in neuroimaging. Nat. Protoc. 2020;15:1399-1435.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41596-019-0289-5

Cited by papers we hold 1

• Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it? · 2022
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.