Trial reportJAMA neurology2021
Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial.
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.
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.
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.
Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS)
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- A secondary analysis of PAIN-CONTRoLS: Pain's impact on sleep, fatigue, and activities of daily living.Muscle & nerve · 2022Trial
- Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial.JAMA neurology · 2021Trial
- Peripheral Neuropathy: A Phenotype-Driven Review for Diagnosis and Management.Revista de neurologia · 2026Review
- Select NSAIDs enhance peripheral nerve growth and calcium signaling through PPARγ activation.Molecular and cellular neurosciences · 2026Article
- A case study in teaching and learning the design, conduction, and analysis of Bayesian adaptive trials through an application.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Dual Role of Ibuprofen and Indomethacin in Promoting Peripheral Nerve RegenerationTissue engineering. Part A · 2025Article
- An overview of the non-procedural treatment options for peripheral neuropathic pain.Muscle & nerve · 2025Review
- Role of Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Neuropathy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Discordance between preclinical and clinical testing of Na V 1.7-selective inhibitors for pain.Pain · 2025Review
- Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs) for Treatment of Fibromyalgia: A Comprehensive Clinical Review.Psychopharmacology bulletin · 2025Review
- Bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy: from molecular mechanisms to clinical management.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Mobile Mindfulness Meditation for Cancer-Related Anxiety and Neuropathy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- A practical guide to adopting Bayesian analyses in clinical research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Conducting a bayesian multi-armed trial with response adaptive randomization for comparative effectiveness of medications for CSPN.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2023Article
- Using a Bayesian model of the joint distribution of pain and time on medication to decide on pain medication for neuropathy.Communications in statistics. Case studies, data analysis and applications · 2023Article
- Roadmap to engagement: Bringing patient partners into cancer research and beyond.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Comparative Effectiveness Research using Bayesian Adaptive Designs for Rare Diseases: Response Adaptive Randomization Reusing Participants.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2023Article
- Prevention and Management Strategies for Diabetic Neuropathy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Antinociceptive Potential ofAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
59 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.