Estimating controlled direct treatment effects on pain intensity using structural mean models: application to pain randomized controlled trials
Wang, R.; Heagerty, P.; Chan, K. C. G.; Suri, P.
Show abstract
Analytical methods to incorporate potential concurrent analgesic use into primary statistical summaries are underutilized in pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Without valid inclusion of analgesic use, the primary analyses of pain may produce diminished estimated treatment effects. We used contemporary causal inference methods that can account for concurrent treatment to reanalyze RCT data examining the effect of epidural steroid injection (ESI). Specifically, we define an "attributable to ESI estimand", which is the controlled direct effect of ESI. We used a simple composite pain intensity outcome, the QPAC1.5, and structural mean models (SMM) to estimate the target estimand. Compared to traditional methods such as strict intention to treat analysis (strict ITT), SMMs can account for analgesic use without assuming sequential ignorability. We estimated treatment effects of ESI on leg pain intensity (LPI) using the numeric rating scale (NRS) with strict ITT, 3 SMM estimating methods (estimating equations [EE], g-estimation, and generalized method of moments [GMM]), and the QPAC1.5. The treatment effect of ESI on LPI using strict ITT was -0.751 NRS points (95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.287, -0.214]). Estimates for the attributable to ESI estimand were -0.864 (95% CI: [-3.207, 1.478]) for EE, -0.935 (95% CI: [-1.779, 0.090]) for g-estimation, -0.653 (95% CI: [-1.218, -0.089]]) for GMM, and -0.930 (95% CI: [-1.508, - 0.352]) for the QPAC1.5. We illustrate how contemporary causal inference methods and alternative estimands can be used to account for concurrent analgesic use in pain RCTs, in a manner that may result in larger treatment effects.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Can a specific biobehavioral based therapeutic education program lead to changes in pain perception and brain plasticity biomarkers in chronic pain patients? A study protocol for a randomized clinical trial 96%
- Interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis 95%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving Power and Accuracy in Randomized Controlled Trials of Pain Treatments by Accounting for Concurrent Analgesic Use 98%
- Management of Central Post-Stroke Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 94%
- Real Bodies Not Required? Placebo Analgesia and Pain Perception in Immersive Virtual and Augmented Reality 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Convergent validity of a person-dependent definition of a low back pain flare 94%
- Beyond Black vs White: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Chronic Pain including Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and Multiracial U.S. Adults 93%
- The Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 5 Negative Allosteric Modulator Fenobam: Pharmacokinetics, Side Effects, and Analgesic Effects in Healthy Human Subjects. 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sociodemographically Differential Patterns of Chronic Pain Progression Revealed by Analyzing the All of Us Research Program Data 93%
- Suitability of just-in-time adaptive intervention in post-COVID-19-related symptoms: A systematic scoping review 92%
- Virtual and remote opioid poisoning education and naloxone distribution programs: a scoping review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A text messaging intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering: protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial 94%
- Acute Pain Pathways: protocol for a prospective cohort study 94%
- The Effects of Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block on Postoperative Recovery in Elderly Patients with Hip fracture: a study protocol for randomized, parallel controlled, double-blind trial 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.