Deliberately inflicting carefully controlled painful stimuli on human volunteers and seeing how well specific drugs reduce the feeling of pain can be an effective way of testing new drugs. So conclude two researchers who reviewed the available literature on these types of tests in a paper published in the British Journal of Pharmacology.
Pain is important. It acts as an alarm mechanism, warning us that something is about to cause physical damage. It could be triggered by something physical like a cut or bruise, or a temperature driven stimulus such as extreme heat or cold. It could be caused internally by injuries where nerves get trapped. Pain can also become a long-term sensation that lasts long after the damage has occurred. In this case it is referred to as 'chronic' pain, and this can be particularly hard to treat.
The need to tackle pain is huge. A fifth of Europeans suffer from daily pain requiring treatment, with the proportion increasing in people over 70 years old. But pain control is still often insufficient or unsatisfactory because the available drugs fail to provide adequate relief or produce major side effects. Pain has therefore remained one of the major healthcare problems generating estimated socio-economic costs of $560-635 billion/year in the USA alone.
Finding new drugs is complicated because you can't measure pain directly. In animal models you have to watch animals as they respond to stimuli, and in human trials you have to get individuals to report how they feel. On top of this, the body has a number of different ways of detecting pain- generating stimuli, and each mechanism is likely to respond to a different set of pain-killing drugs.
Based in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Bruno Georg Oertel and Jörn Lötsch started out with a theory. "We thought that if a pain-relieving drug was effective in a particular experimental pain model and also in a specific type of clinical pain, then the experimental model should be predictive for the particular clinical setting," says Lötsch, who works in the Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the Goethe-University.
They found that overall, human experimental pain models were able to predict how well a drug worked in patients better than previously realised. "Not using these pain models in drug development seems to be unjustified – in fact they should be used routinely in drug development programmes," says Oertel, who works in the Fraunhofer Project Group for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (TMP), an initiative supported by the Hessian Excellence Initiative ("LOEWE") that runs at the junction between pharmacological research in academia and in the pharmaceutical industry.
The process isn't simple though as not every model can predict every clinical setting. "However, by analysing the way that drugs work in experimental and clinical settings, we identified that different sets of experimental pain models, rather than single models, may be best suited to provide cost-effective yet predictive studies in analgesic drug development," says Lötsch.
"It is difficult and unusual to undertake truly translational research in pharmacology. Here, Jörn Lötsch and Bruno G. Oertel have focused on experiments on humans to bridge the gap between animal research and clinical pharmacology. The review examines how well clinical analgesia is predicted by human experimental pain models, with a view to guiding model selection in phase I studies. The authors identify important disparities between drug effects on experimental and clinical pain. This will help inform thinking on the refinement of human and animal models of pain, ultimately helping the pharmaceutical industry bridge the translational gap in the pain field," says Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Pharmacology, Professor Ian McGrath.
More work is needed before this approach is fully ready to use, but the researchers believe this could lead to a more cost effective approach that can help scientists gain valuable information about the ways new drugs are working.
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
The complicated science behind picky eating is giving experts plenty of food for thought
The compound kills disease-causing parasites by popping them like water balloons
The U.S. had planned to build 17 treatment units across Liberia, one in each county's major town. Now that more cases are appearing in remote areas, the Army may need to rethink its strategy.
A woman is thought to be spreading Ebola in a remote village. So health workers spend four hours trekking through the bush to track her down. By the time they make it, it's too late.
Doctors have used perfect replicas of childrens' hearts to uncover and repair hidden defects
An experiment testing people’s altruism in the face of electric shocks is clear on one thing: we are drawn to these little blasts
Researchers gear up tests in West Africa to see whether blood from Ebola survivors can help people who are sick with the disease. This is part of a broader effort to test therapies in West Africa.
The virus's foray into Europe coincides with peak production of Christmas turkeys, the poultry species most vulnerable to bird flu
A novel kind of nanoparticle could lead to more effective cancer treatments.Patients and doctors often don’t know if surgery to remove cancerous tissue was successful until scans are performed months later. A new kind of nanoparticle could show patients if they’re in the clear much earlier.
One challenge in evaluating the effectiveness of different medical procedures, is that patients behave differently after different procedures. Is this true for patients getting heart surgery?