Skip to content

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations

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

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02260388
Acronym
PAIN-CONTRoLS
Enrollment
402
Registered
2014-10-09
Start date
2014-10-31
Completion date
2017-09-30
Last updated
2018-07-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cryptogenic Sensory Polyneuropathy

Keywords

CSPN, neuropathy, pain, pain management

Brief summary

The purpose of this large comparative effectiveness study led by Richard J. Barohn, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, is to learn about the safety and effectiveness of nortriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin and mexiletine in treating cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN).

Detailed description

The goal of this research project is to find the best drug for the treatment of pain in patients with CSPN. While the pharmaceutical industry has focused attention on drugs for treating diabetic sensory neuropathy (DSPN), and two drugs are now FDA approved, there have not been any prospective trials in CSPN. And, because there are no studies with CSPN patients, insurance carriers often reject authorizing prescriptions for some drugs for patients with CSPN. There are four drugs that will be tested in this study: nortriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin and mexiletine. These drugs are not approved by the FDA for the treatment of CSPN and are considered investigational in this study. There are two periods in this study: Screening/Baseline and Study Drug. During the Screening/Baseline period the researchers will determine eligibility for potential subjects. During the second period, eligible patients who consented to participate will take the study drug. Participants will be randomized to receive one of the four drugs in this study. Participants will know which drug they are taking. Participants will not be allowed to switch groups and receive a different drug during the study. This study uses an adaptive study design. This means the study can enroll less participants and provide better conclusions. The study design allows the researchers the ability to make changes to the approach of the study or to stop the study early if there are strong results.

Interventions

DRUGNortriptyline
DRUGDuloxetine
DRUGPregabalin
DRUGMexiletine

Sponsors

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Kansas Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
30 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Diagnosis of cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. * Likert Pain Score of greater than or equal to 4. * Must not currently be on nortriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or mexiletine or similar class of medication for at least 7 days from baseline study visit.

Exclusion criteria

* Any medical condition or current medication that would prevent them from taking either nortriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or mexiletine. * Unable to give consent. * Unable or not willing to comply with the study. * Other causes for polyneuropathy.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Co-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That Quit12 weeksThe final outcome of the study is a combination of two endpoints, efficacy and quit or treatment discontinuation rates. The first endpoint was a patient responder-defined measure of efficacy. A patient was deemed efficacious if a 50% or more reduction was observed in the Likert pain-scale from the baseline visit to the 12 week visit (i.e. 6 at baseline to 3 or less at week 12). The second endpoint was the observed percentage of patients who discontinued treatment prior to the last follow up visit for any reason or were lost to follow up. The utility function, which combines efficacy and quit rates, was used to drive the adaptive randomization, stopping criteria, and final analysis conclusions.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
SF12 Health Composite Scores12 weeksSF-12v2® Health Survey Standard The Optum™ SF-12v2® Health Survey is a shorter version of the SF-36v2® Health Survey that uses just 12 questions to measure functional health and well-being from the patient's point of view. Survey provides psychometrically-based physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores. Scores are calibrated so that 50 is the average score or norm, standard deviation = 10. Higher scores indicate better health for both mental and physical component summary scores.
PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form v1.0 8a T Score12 weeksHigher scores for pain interference represents worse outcome (more pain interference) T-score metric: 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population. On the T-score metric: A score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population; A score of 60 is one SD higher than the mean of the reference population.
PROMIS Fatigue Short Form v1.0 8a12 WeeksHigher scores for fatigue represents worse outcome (more fatigue). T-score metric: 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population. On the T-score metric: A score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population; A score of 60 is one SD higher than the mean of the reference population.
PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form v1.0 8a12 weeksHigher scores for sleep disturbance represents worse outcome (more sleep disturbance). T-score metric: 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population. On the T-score metric: A score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population; A score of 60 is one SD higher than the mean of the reference population. Higher scores equals more of the concept being measured

Countries

Canada, United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Nortriptyline
Nortriptyline - 25 mg daily for 1 week at bedtime, then 50 mg daily at bedtime for 1 week, then 75 mg daily at bedtime for the remainder of the study. Nortriptyline
134
Duloxetine
Duloxetine - 20 mg daily for 1 week, then 40 mg daily for 1 week, then 60 mg daily for the remainder of the study. Duloxetine
126
Pregabalin
Pregabalin - 100 mg at bedtime for 1 week, then 100 mg 2 times per day for 1 week, then 100 mg 3 times per day for the remainder of the study. Pregabalin
73
Mexiletine
Mexiletine - 200 mg at bedtime for 1 week, then 200 mg 2 times per day for 1 week, then 200 mg 3 times per day for the remainder of the study. Mexiletine
69
Total402

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002FG003
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up2834

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicNortriptylineDuloxetinePregabalinMexiletineTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
43 Participants40 Participants23 Participants28 Participants134 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
91 Participants86 Participants50 Participants41 Participants268 Participants
Age, Continuous60.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.7
59.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14
59.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.6
60.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.7
60.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.4
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
8 Participants6 Participants4 Participants3 Participants21 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
126 Participants119 Participants68 Participants66 Participants379 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Likert Pain Scale6.9 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.5
6.7 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6
6.4 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6
6.5 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7
6.7 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale T-Scores
PROMIS Fatigue T-Score
59.6 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.4
59.7 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.3
59.1 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.7
59.7 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.2
59.6 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.4
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale T-Scores
PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score
63.1 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7
62.4 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.8
63.3 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.5
60.9 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.9
62.5 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.9
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale T-Scores
PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score
59.1 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.8
60.6 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.3
59.8 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.7
57.0 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.4
59.3 T-Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.5
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
6 Participants4 Participants4 Participants3 Participants17 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
10 Participants11 Participants4 Participants1 Participants26 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
4 Participants7 Participants3 Participants1 Participants15 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
113 Participants104 Participants62 Participants64 Participants343 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
134 Participants126 Participants73 Participants69 Participants402 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
59 Participants68 Participants34 Participants28 Participants189 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
75 Participants58 Participants39 Participants41 Participants213 Participants
SF12 Health Component Scores
Mental Component Score
48.0 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4
46.7 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.1
46.8 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.3
47.2 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.1
47.2 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.6
SF12 Health Component Scores
Physical Component Score
38.0 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.3
38.5 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.3
37.9 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.1
41.1 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.1
38.7 Norm-Based Standardization Score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.4

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 1340 / 1260 / 730 / 69
other
Total, other adverse events
75 / 13459 / 12629 / 7327 / 69
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 1340 / 1260 / 730 / 69

Outcome results

Primary

Co-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That Quit

The final outcome of the study is a combination of two endpoints, efficacy and quit or treatment discontinuation rates. The first endpoint was a patient responder-defined measure of efficacy. A patient was deemed efficacious if a 50% or more reduction was observed in the Likert pain-scale from the baseline visit to the 12 week visit (i.e. 6 at baseline to 3 or less at week 12). The second endpoint was the observed percentage of patients who discontinued treatment prior to the last follow up visit for any reason or were lost to follow up. The utility function, which combines efficacy and quit rates, was used to drive the adaptive randomization, stopping criteria, and final analysis conclusions.

Time frame: 12 weeks

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
NortriptylineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitEfficacious and Non-Quit34 Participants
NortriptylineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitQuit51 Participants
NortriptylineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitNon-Efficacious and Non-Quit49 Participants
DuloxetineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitEfficacious and Non-Quit29 Participants
DuloxetineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitQuit47 Participants
DuloxetineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitNon-Efficacious and Non-Quit50 Participants
PregabalinCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitNon-Efficacious and Non-Quit31 Participants
PregabalinCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitEfficacious and Non-Quit11 Participants
PregabalinCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitQuit31 Participants
MexiletineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitEfficacious and Non-Quit14 Participants
MexiletineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitQuit40 Participants
MexiletineCo-Primary Measures: Percent of Patients With at Least a 50% Decrease in Likert Pain Scale From Baseline to Week 12 Follow Up and Percent of Patients That QuitNon-Efficacious and Non-Quit15 Participants
Secondary

PROMIS Fatigue Short Form v1.0 8a

Higher scores for fatigue represents worse outcome (more fatigue). T-score metric: 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population. On the T-score metric: A score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population; A score of 60 is one SD higher than the mean of the reference population.

Time frame: 12 Weeks

Population: No secondary data were collected for participants who 'Quit' taking the study medication prior to study completion. Thus, only participants that were deemed efficacious and non-quit, or non-efficacious and non-quit at the primary outcome were collected and analyzed for the secondary outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
NortriptylinePROMIS Fatigue Short Form v1.0 8a53.6 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 9.5
DuloxetinePROMIS Fatigue Short Form v1.0 8a55.4 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 10.2
PregabalinPROMIS Fatigue Short Form v1.0 8a56.7 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 10.6
MexiletinePROMIS Fatigue Short Form v1.0 8a51.6 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 10.7
Secondary

PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form v1.0 8a T Score

Higher scores for pain interference represents worse outcome (more pain interference) T-score metric: 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population. On the T-score metric: A score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population; A score of 60 is one SD higher than the mean of the reference population.

Time frame: 12 weeks

Population: No secondary data were collected for participants who 'Quit' taking the study medication prior to study completion. Thus, only participants that were deemed efficacious and non-quit, or non-efficacious and non-quit at the primary outcome were collected and analyzed for the secondary outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
NortriptylinePROMIS Pain Interference Short Form v1.0 8a T Score56.4 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 8.4
DuloxetinePROMIS Pain Interference Short Form v1.0 8a T Score56.5 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 8.3
PregabalinPROMIS Pain Interference Short Form v1.0 8a T Score60.0 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 7.5
MexiletinePROMIS Pain Interference Short Form v1.0 8a T Score54.5 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 8.8
Secondary

PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form v1.0 8a

Higher scores for sleep disturbance represents worse outcome (more sleep disturbance). T-score metric: 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population. On the T-score metric: A score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population; A score of 60 is one SD higher than the mean of the reference population. Higher scores equals more of the concept being measured

Time frame: 12 weeks

Population: No secondary data were collected for participants who 'Quit' taking the study medication prior to study completion. Thus, only participants that were deemed efficacious and non-quit, or non-efficacious and non-quit at the primary outcome were collected and analyzed for the secondary outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
NortriptylinePROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form v1.0 8a58.9 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 2.5
DuloxetinePROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form v1.0 8a58.9 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 2.6
PregabalinPROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form v1.0 8a58.3 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 2.3
MexiletinePROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form v1.0 8a59.1 T-ScoreStandard Deviation 2
Secondary

SF12 Health Composite Scores

SF-12v2® Health Survey Standard The Optum™ SF-12v2® Health Survey is a shorter version of the SF-36v2® Health Survey that uses just 12 questions to measure functional health and well-being from the patient's point of view. Survey provides psychometrically-based physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores. Scores are calibrated so that 50 is the average score or norm, standard deviation = 10. Higher scores indicate better health for both mental and physical component summary scores.

Time frame: 12 weeks

Population: No secondary data were collected for participants who 'Quit' taking the study medication prior to study completion. Thus, only participants that were deemed efficacious and non-quit, or non-efficacious and non-quit at the primary outcome were collected and analyzed for the secondary outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
NortriptylineSF12 Health Composite ScoresMental Component Score51.0 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 8.9
NortriptylineSF12 Health Composite ScoresPhysical Component Score42.8 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 8.7
DuloxetineSF12 Health Composite ScoresPhysical Component Score42.1 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 9.5
DuloxetineSF12 Health Composite ScoresMental Component Score50.9 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 9.9
PregabalinSF12 Health Composite ScoresMental Component Score47.2 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 11.2
PregabalinSF12 Health Composite ScoresPhysical Component Score40.0 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 8.2
MexiletineSF12 Health Composite ScoresMental Component Score51.3 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 10.8
MexiletineSF12 Health Composite ScoresPhysical Component Score43.7 Norm-Based Standardization ScoreStandard Deviation 9.6

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 12, 2026