Smith Shannon M, Dworkin Robert H, Turk Dennis C, Baron Ralf, Polydefkis Michael, Tracey Irene, Borsook David, Edwards Robert R, Harris Richard E, Wager Tor D, Arendt-Nielsen Lars, Burke Laurie B, Carr Daniel B, Chappell Amy, Farrar John T, Freeman Roy, Gilron Ian, Goli Veeraindar, Haeussler Juergen, Jensen Troels, Katz Nathaniel P, Kent Jeffrey, Kopecky Ernest A, Lee David A, Maixner William, Markman John D, McArthur Justin C, McDermott Michael P, Parvathenani Lav, Raja Srinivasa N, Rappaport Bob A, Rice Andrew S C, Rowbotham Michael C, Tobias Jeffrey K, Wasan Ajay D, Witter James
J Pain. 2017 Jul;18(7):757-777. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.02.429. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
Valid and reliable biomarkers can play an important role in clinical trials as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or as a signal of treatment response. Currently, there are no biomarkers for pain qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for use in clinical trials. This article summarizes an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting in which 3 potential biomarkers were discussed for use in the development of analgesic treatments: 1) sensory testing, 2) skin punch biopsy, and 3) brain imaging. The empirical evidence supporting the use of these tests is described within the context of the 4 categories of biomarkers: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) predictive, and 4) pharmacodynamic. Although sensory testing, skin punch biopsy, and brain imaging are promising tools for pain in clinical trials, additional evidence is needed to further support and standardize these tests for use as biomarkers in pain clinical trials.
The applicability of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and brain imaging as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers for use in analgesic treatment trials is considered. Evidence in support of their use and outlining problems is presented, as well as a call for further standardization and demonstrations of validity and reliability.
有效且可靠的生物标志物在临床试验中可作为生物或致病过程的指标或作为治疗反应的信号发挥重要作用。目前,尚无经美国食品药品监督管理局或欧洲药品管理局认定可用于临床试验的疼痛生物标志物。本文总结了一次关于临床试验中方法、测量和疼痛评估的倡议会议,会上讨论了3种潜在的用于镇痛治疗研发的生物标志物:1)感觉测试,2)皮肤打孔活检,3)脑成像。在诊断性、预后性、预测性和药效学这4类生物标志物的背景下描述了支持使用这些测试的实证证据。尽管感觉测试、皮肤打孔活检和脑成像在临床试验中是用于疼痛的有前景的工具,但还需要更多证据来进一步支持并规范这些测试,使其能用作疼痛临床试验中的生物标志物。
探讨了感觉测试、皮肤活检和脑成像作为用于镇痛治疗试验的诊断性、预后性、预测性和药效学生物标志物的适用性。介绍了支持其使用的证据并概述了问题,同时呼吁进一步标准化并证明其有效性和可靠性。