Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32809014›Full record

Trial reportJAMA neurology2021

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial.

Richard J Barohn, Byron Gajewski, Mamatha Pasnoor, Alexandra Brown, Laura L Herbelin, Kim S Kimminau, Dinesh Pal Mudaranthakam, Omar Jawdat, Mazen M Dimachkie, Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS) Study Team and 49 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02260388 (Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02260388 phase4completednot on this map

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterRan2014 to 2017Enrolled402ConditionsCryptogenic Sensory PolyneuropathyArmsNortriptyline, Duloxetine, Pregabalin, Mexiletine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Role of Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Neuropathy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. A practical guide to adopting Bayesian analyses in clinical research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The Antinociceptive Potential ofAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

59 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.

Richard J BarohnDepartment of Neurology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Byron GajewskiDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Mamatha PasnoorDepartment of Neurology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Alexandra BrownDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Laura L HerbelinDepartment of Neurology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Kim S KimminauDepartment of Family Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Dinesh Pal MudaranthakamDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Omar JawdatDepartment of Neurology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Mazen M DimachkieDepartment of Neurology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS) Study Team
Stanley IyaduraiThe Ohio State University, Columbus.
Amro StinoThe Ohio State University, Columbus.
John KisselThe Ohio State University, Columbus.
Robert PascuzziIndiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Thomas BrannaganColumbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Matthew WicklundPennsylvania State University, Centre County.
Aiesha AhmedPennsylvania State University, Centre County.
David WalkUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Gordon SmithUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Dianna QuanUniversity of Colorado-Denver, Denver.
Darryl HeitzmanTexas Neurology, Dallas.
Alejandro TobonUT Health Science-San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.
Shafeeq LadhaBarrow Neurology, Phoenix, Arizona.
Gil WolfeUniversity at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Michael PulleyUniversity of Florida Jacksonville, Jacksonville.
Ghazala HayatSaint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri.
Yuebing LiCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Pariwat ThaisetthawatkulUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
Richard LewisCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Suur BilicilerUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
Khema SharmaUniversity of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Kian SalajeghehBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jaya TrivediUT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
William MalloneeHutchinson Clinic, Hutchinson, Kansas.
Ted BurnsUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Mark JacobyMercy Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa.
Vera BrilUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tuan VuUniversity of South Florida-Tampa, Tampa.
Sindhu RamchandrenUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Mark BazantNorton Neurology Services, Louisville, Kentucky.
Sara AustinSeton Brain and Spine, Austin, Texas.
Chafic KaramOregon Health and Science University, Portland.
Yessar HussainAustin Neuromuscular Center, Austin, Texas.
Christen KutzColorado Springs Neurological Associates, Colorado Springs.
Paul TwydellSpectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Stephen ScelsaMt Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York.
Hani KushlafUniversity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
James WymerUniversity of Florida-Gainesville, Gainesville.
Michael HehirUniversity of Vermont, Burlington.
Noah KolbUniversity of Vermont, Burlington.
Jeffrey RalphUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Alexandru BarboiNorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
Navin VermaNeurological Services of Orlando Research, Orlando, Florida.
Moiz AhmedGrand Medical Clinic, Katy, Texas.
Anza MemonHenry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
David SapersteinPhoenix Neurological, Phoenix, Arizona.
Jau-Shin LouUniversity of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Andrea SwensonUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City.
Tiyonnoh CashUniversity of California-Irvine, Irvine.
University of Kansas Medical Center · USPennsylvania State University · USThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Vermont · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USCleveland Clinic · USColorado Springs Neurological Associates · USHenry Ford Hospital · USJacksonville University · USMount Sinai Beth Israel · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · USNorton Healthcare · USOregon Health & Science University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Denver · USUniversity of North Dakota · USUniversity of Toronto · CAColumbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

RADx-UP: Improving the Response of Local Urban and Rural Communities to Disparities in Covid-19 TestingUL1TR002366 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI Mario Castro, JAMES STEVEN LEEDER · 2017 to 2026
$44.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN. Objective: To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment's sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates. Results: Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02260388.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnalgesicsBayes TheoremComparative Effectiveness ResearchDuloxetine HydrochlorideFemaleHumansMaleMexiletineMiddle AgedNeuralgiaNortriptylinePain ManagementPolyneuropathiesPregabalinAnalgesicsDuloxetine HydrochlorideMexiletineNortriptylinePregabalin

Identifiers

PMID32809014
PMCPMC7432310
OpenAlexW3049075137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.