Developing a Method to Objectively Measure Opioid Analgesia: A Pilot Study
Conditions: Analgesics, Antipyretics and Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Causing Adverse Effects in Therapeutic Use
Sponsor: Julia Finkel

PI: Finkel 
 
CNMC IRB No: Pro00006825 
 
 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL:  1/14/2016 
 
 
 
Page 1 of 22 
 
 
 
 
 
CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 
Department of Anesthesiology 
111 Michigan Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20010 
(202) 476-5000 
 
 
 
MEDICAL DEVICE PROTOCOL 
 
 
Developing a Method to Objectively Measure Opioid Analgesia: A Pilot 
Study 
 
Date of Protocol:   
June 2018 
 
 
 
Principal Investigators:  
Julia C. Finkel, M.D.   
 Children’s National Medical Center   
 111 Michigan Avenue, NW 
 Washington, DC 20010 
 (202) 476-4867 
 
Research Coordinator:  
  Kevin Jackson 
 
 
 
 
  Christina Shincovich 
 
 
 
 
  Luka Vujaskovic 
 
Co-investigators: 
 
  Zena M.N. Quezado, M.D. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Medical Device:                         AlgometRx Device 
 
 
 
Confidentiality Statement 
The information in this document contains trade secrets and commercial information that are privileged or 
confidential and may not be disclosed unless such disclosure is required by applicable law or regulations.  In 
any event, persons to whom information is disclosed must be informed that the information is privileged or 
confidential and may not be further disclosed by them.  These restrictions on disclosure will apply equally to 
all future information supplied to you that is indicated as privileged or confidential. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 2 of 22 
 
 
 
 
 
RESEARCH PLAN 
 
This pilot study utilizes pupillary reflexes to characterize opioid analgesia with the purpose of 
synthesizing the data into algorithms that detect specific conditions and provide decision support. 
 
A. 
Specific Aims 
 
1. To develop opioid profiles based on the pupillary light reflex (PLR) using IR video 
pupillometry. 
Hypothesis 1a:  There will be a repeatable and consistent impact, PLR signature profile, that 
is drug-specific and dose-dependent on pupil diameter, amplitude of constriction and 
constriction velocity within and between individuals. 
 
2. To develop analgesic response profiles that assess the fiber-specific dose-dependent 
impact of opioids on pupillary reflex dilation (PRD).   
Hypothesis 2a:  The PRD effect is more pronounced at the 5Hz stimulus than at higher 
frequency stimuli and leads to a characteristic sensory detection threshold (SDT) 
response per drug and dose.  
3. Explore the evidence that the PLR profile and the PRD SDT can be used to detect 
drug tolerance and hyperalgesia to improve clinical decision-making for pain 
management 
 
4. While we believe numbers of cases of tolerance and hyperalgesia are not rare, there 
are no reliable estimates of these events. Therefore, this research is designed to fill 
that gap so that such estimates can be used to adequately power future research. We 
will however use the available numbers to begin to accumulate evidence that  
Tolerance to the analgesic effect of an opioid, declining effect at constant dose, can be 
detected by a constant PLR and increasing PRD. 
Opioid induced hyperalgesia (OIH), poor responsiveness, can be detected by a PLR decline 
with increasing PRD. 
 
B. 
Background and Significance  
 
 
The Center for Disease Control found that in 2012, healthcare providers wrote 259 million 
prescriptions for opioid painkillers. In addition to being concerning due to the sheer volume this 
is also concerning given the difficulty with which prescribers have monitoring opioid analgesia1. 
Furthermore, it is generally recognized that pain assessment and management especially in 
newborns, children and other nonverbal populations is an unmet need2. According to the 
American Medical Association, “The pediatric population is at risk of inadequate pain 
management, with age-related factors affecting pain management in children.  Children are often 
given minimal or no analgesia for procedures that would routinely be treated aggressively in 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 3 of 22 
 
 
adults. Although much is now known about pain management in children, it has not been widely 
or effectively translated into routine clinical practice3.” These two factors combine to emphasize 
the necessity for an objective tool to quantify pain and monitor the effectiveness of analgesia, 
especially during treatments. This protocol proposes the use of infrared pupillometry in 
conjunction with selective neurostimulation as a method of measuring and monitoring pain and 
subsequently analgesia.  
Pupillometry is a useful, non-invasive clinical and research tool that can provide valuable 
insights into the autonomic nervous system. Pupillary tests provide a convenient and simple 
method for evaluation of autonomic function4. In normal pupillary responsiveness, pupils should 
be equal in size, approximately 3-4mm in size under average light conditions, and reactive to 
light at >1mm of movement. The sympathetic nervous system is activated during periods of pain 
and stress and creates relaxation of the ciliary muscles resulting in pupillary dilation, or 
mydriasis.  In accommodation, the parasympathetic axons that innervate the iris muscle produce 
constriction, or miosis. This reflex is known as the pupillary reflex dilation (PRD) and has been 
shown in previous studies to occur in both awake and anesthetized participants following a 
noxious stimulus5.  This protocol will utilize these known reactions to track the response to  
specific neurostimulation in participants receiving opioids to determine the effect and 
effectiveness of the treatment.  
All mu opioid agonists cause miosis (constriction of the pupil) thus reducing the 
constriction amplitude and constriction velocity of the PLR. This is the one opioid side effect to 
which tolerance does not occur. However, the pharmacologic impact is not consistent and will 
vary with different drugs in the class and duration of exposure. For example, morphine and 
Dilaudid (hydromorphone) each produce a neuro-excitatory metabolite that causes mydriasis or 
dilation of the pupil and also antagonizes the parent drug, producing the clinical appearance of 
tolerance, requiring more drug to achieve the same effect. With other drugs of this class such as 
fentanyl, which is commonly administered in ICUs, mydriasis may occur due to a phenomenon 
called opioid induced hyperalgesia (OIH) where there is an increased sensitivity to pain, often 
leading to an increased dose of drug. Increasing the dosing in this situation can potentially 
exacerbate the issue, having a method to monitor for OIH would provide decision support to 
physicians and allow them to recognize and properly reconcile this issue. Evaluation of PRD in 
response to a 5Hz neuro-stimulus can differentiate between these drug-related issues and disease 
progression. This works because opioid receptors populate the C fibers, which are stimulated 
with a 5Hz frequency6,7, allowing us to determine dose response relationships as well as the 
optimized analgesic dose and precisely determine dosing with opioid rotation. This occurs 
empirically during standard of care based on a trial and error approach that risks under or 
overdosing patients and having tolerance, dependence and OIH occur. 
This pilot study is part of an ongoing effort to develop a method to objectively assess 
pain and its response to specific interventions.  It specifically aims to develop profiles of the 
impact of a variety of opioids under a variety of conditions in a diverse patient population.  It 
will allow researchers to understand better the specific impact of drugs in this class on the PLR 
and PRD. Data collected herein will help will evaluate the feasibility of using this approach to 
detect and monitor opioid analgesia and open new avenues for future research in this area.  
The PI for this investigation, Julia Finkel, MD, has invented a device that combines 
pupillometry and neuro-specific neurostimulation that has the capability of measuring these three 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 4 of 22 
 
 
Figure 1. AlgometRx Research Prototype 
pupillary reflexes. The intellectual property associated with this project is the subject of three 
patents: US9326725B2, US2015/0116665A1, US2017/0100061A18-10. This technology was 
developed at Children’s National Medical Center by Dr. Julia Finkel. AlgometRx, Inc. is a spin 
out company from CNMC that will commercialize the technology. Dr. Julia Finkel is the founder 
and Chief Scientific Advisor of AlgometRx. The “AlgometRx device” is the technology that will 
be used to carry out this exploratory observational study, and is being developed to ultimately 
measure pain and drug effect.  
 
Description of Devices to be used: 
 
AlgometRx Device: 
The AlgometRx device is part of a platform technology, which integrates a smartphone 
enabled infrared video pupillometer comprised of an attach-on Camera, Processor, and Control 
Module (CPCM) with a Bluetooth enabled neuro-specific Neurostimulator Module (NSM). The 
smartphone serves as the graphical interface and display for clinical output. All data and signal 
processing occur on the CPCM and data is stored on a HIPAA compliant platform. These 
elements are used to assess the pharmacodynamic impact of analgesics and provide an objective 
measure of pain and pain sensitivity by modeling pupillary reflexes. Eventually, it will be used to 
provide an objective measure drug effect.  
The smartphone-enabled device makes use of pupillary responses to two different 
stimuli: the pupillary light reflex (PLR) and the pupillary reflex dilation (PRD), which have both 
been extensively studied and established in literature. The team utilizes low intensity, non-
noxious neurospecific neurostimulation from the NSM to produce a neuro-stimulus induced 
pupillary reflex dilation (nPRD). This is fundamental to our 
observations regarding pain sensitivity and drug effect. These 
pupillary reflexes have been evaluated several times by the study 
team using the NeurOptics pupillometer. The IR pupillometer in the 
CPCM collects pupillary measurements in the same way that the 
NeurOptics pupillometer does. 
The CPCM smartphone attachment communicates through a 
Wi-Fi connection. An application running on the smartphone 
provides the graphical user interface for control and monitoring 
of the system. The CPCM controls lighting within the eyepiece and records video during a 
measurement to monitor pupil dilation in response to a controlled light source and/or 
neurostimulation. The NSM provides electric stimulation through electrodes attached to the 
patient, and is controlled via the Bluetooth connection. Video recording of the pupil, processing, 
and parameter calculation are all performed using electronics within the CPCM. The device 
works with the same purposes as the NeurOptics pupillometer (for the pupillary measurement) 
and the Neurotron Neurometer (for the electric stimulation).  
 
Pupillometry  

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 5 of 22 
 
 
This device delivers a light stimulus to the eye and measures the following: the pupil 
diameter at time of constriction (max pupil diameter), the pupil diameter at peak constriction 
(minimum diameter), the constriction amplitude (max-min/max), latency of constriction, velocity 
of constriction, and velocity of re-dilation.  
 
In addition to assessment of the pupillary light reflex, CPCM also allows for the 
assessment of the pupillary reflex dilation (PRD). The device tracks the pupillary diameter 
without a light stimulus, which allows the researchers to measure changes in pupillary diameter 
in response to stimuli a valuable tool for detection of analgesia.  
Neurostimulator Module: 
Neurostimulation is accomplished by the delivery of minute currents, the magnitude and duration 
of which are designed to fall well below injurious or intolerable pain.  A sinusoid waveform at a 
specific frequency selectively depolarizes a particular nerve type because different diameter 
nerves have characteristic refractory periods. Each of the three major sensory nerve fibers: small 
unmyelinated C (slow pain, temperature, postganglionic sympathetic nervous system), small 
myelinated Aδ mechanoreceptors (touch, fast pain), and large myelinated Aβ (cutaneous touch, 
pressure) can be evaluated at 5 Hz, 250 Hz and 2,000 Hz, respectively6,11. The stimulus is 
administered through electrodes attached to a finger or toe (resembling a pulse-ox probe).  This 
module works the same as the Neurotron NEUROMETER® , which is an FDA-approved device that the 
study team has employed in past studies at Children’s National. 
Neurostimulator Patient Prep and Attachment of Electrodes 
The neurostimulator is attached to the patient using standard NEUROMETER® CPT 
disposable Goldtrode® electrodes purchased from Neurotron, Inc. (Baltimore, MD).  
 
Electrode Description: 
Goldtrode® electrodes consist of a pair of round, gold plated electrodes (1 cm./dia.) 
mounted in a clear, semi-rigid Mylar spreader separated by a distance of 1.7 cm.  They are 
composed of materials which deliver the stimulus with minimal amount of distortion for 
consistent, accurate measures.  
 
Attaching Electrodes: 
Over flat surfaces, the standard distance between the electrodes is 1.7 cm.  However, 
when stimulating the fingers or toes, the 1.7 cm distance only gives the maximum distance 
between the electrodes.  For the fingers and toes the electrodes must be placed on the “medial 
and lateral aspect of the distal phalange (overlying the digital branches of the nerve), proximal to 
the cuticle and distal to the distal to the distal interphalangeal joint.” (Neurometer Operating 
Manual Version 17.2c)   
Electrodes are attached to the patient using conductive gel.  Gel is hypo-allergenic, non-
staining and chloride free.  Only enough gel will be applied to cover a thin layer of the skin that 
will be in contact with the electrodes. After gel application, the electrodes are fixed to the skin 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 6 of 22 
 
 
surface with SOFTAPETM electrode tape.  The tape is applied over the backs of the electrodes to 
hold them in place.  Tape secures the electrodes so that they are in constant contact with the skin 
surface and not too tight as to cause significant sensation or restrict circulation.   
 
Device Safety Features 
● The AlgometRx device was developed to the same specifications as the predicate devices 
(Neurotron NEUROMETER®, NeurOptics pupillometer) used by this team in a number 
of prior trials 
● Several systems work in tandem to absolutely ensure that there are no risks of any 
electrical injury 
● Smart high voltage DC-DC converter from Emco with an internal shutdown feature for 
short circuit protection 
● Neurostimulator has a maximum current value of 50mA on the output electrodes limited 
by a 2kiloohm resistance in series. 
● LED indicators on the instrument turn on whenever stimulus is being applied 
● The equipment has been tested thoroughly and abides by the same safety standards 
applied to the predicate devices. These limits provide reasonable protection against 
electromagnetic interference when operated in the intended uses’ environments (e.g. 
hospitals, research laboratories). 
 
Labeling, Storage, and Maintenance 
Per 21CFR812, an investigational device or its immediate package shall bear a label with the 
following information: the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or 
distributor (in accordance with 801.1), the quantity of contents, if appropriate, and the following 
statement: "CAUTION--Investigational device. Limited by Federal (or United States) law to 
investigational use." The label or other labeling shall describe all relevant contraindications, 
hazards, adverse effects, interfering substances or devices, warnings, and precautions.” 
 
The AlgometRx device was manufactured by General Digital Corporation (South Windsor, 
CT). The caution label as described above is displayed on the back of the NSM and the side of 
the CPCM, as visualized in the User Manual.  
 
The gold electrodes are disposable. The eyecup of the device is cleaned with an alcohol wipe 
between uses.  
 
C. 
Preliminary Studies 
 
The investigators have extensive experience with pupillometry and neurostimulation and 
the ability of it to be used to assess various pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics 
relationships in both children and adults. The basis for this technique is derived from ongoing 
clinical research examining the ability of pupillometry to assess the effects of ketamine on 
morphine tolerance and hyperalgesia. Previous studies have utilized the Neurometer, a predicate 
to the AlgometRx device, for selective neurostimulation and have established a great deal of 
acceptability for this procedure among a population of children and adolescents. To date more 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 7 of 22 
 
 
than 50 patients across multiple trials including some ongoing trials have utilized this 
neurosimulation technique with no reportable difficulties or patient complaints.    
 
- Modulation of µ-Opioid Receptor Mediated Analgesia, Tolerance and Hyperalgesia   in 
Children and Adolescents. J.C. Finkel, S.R. Pestieau. 
 
- Quantitative sensory testing and pupillometry in sickle cell disease patients.  Z.Quezado, J.C. 
Finkel. Currently enrolling patients. Pro00003614. 
 
- Pupillometry as a screening tool for POTS. J.C. Finkel. Ongoing. Pro00004950.  
 
- Pupillometery as a screening tool for autonomic neuropathy in diabetic patients. J.C. Finkel. F. 
Cogen. Ongoing. Pro00006483  
 
 
D. 
Research Design and Methods  
 
 
This is a single center infrared pupillometry device study that monitors the analgesia response 
provided by an opioid to a controlled and selective neurostimulation.    
 
Eligibility Criteria and Recruitment 
 
 
 
This study will recruit patients from two populations: patients in perioperative care and 
patients admitted for chronic pain. For both populations, patients will be identified from the pain 
management service as patients requiring the use of one of three types of opioids: morphine, 
hydromorphone or fentanyl. Once identified, patients will be approached and consented in their 
private rooms and given ample time to review all necessary information and ask any questions prior 
to agreeing to participate.  
 
Study Oversight and Monitoring 
Testing will be conducted in a controlled environment and the direct observation and 
implementation of testing procedures will be conducted by trained study staff.  The Principal 
Investigator will oversee the testing conducted at each visit and ensure that the device is 
handled properly and data collection is conducted according to protocol. 
 
Prior and Concomitant Therapy 
Medications taken within the last 30 days prior to consent will be recorded as well as 
those taken from the time of informed consent until the completion of all study related 
procedures. 
 
Study Procedures 
 
Patients and parents will be informed on all aspects of the study and given ample time to 
review all documentation and ask questions prior to signing the consent forms. Once consented, 
the participant will provide a threshold for the electrical stimulus level that induces a neuro-

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 8 of 22 
 
 
specific neurostimulus evoked PRD (nPRD) will be determined for each test subject. This will 
occur by measuring the pupillary response to a neurostimulus, starting at 50µA and increasing by 
50µA until an nPRD appears that demonstrates a 20% increase in pupil size above the initial 
pupil size. Each sensory nerve fiber will be assessed for the stimulus intensity to be used at the 
frequency of stimulation that corresponds to their activation (5 Hz, 250 Hz, and 2000 Hz for C, 
Aδ, and Aβ, respectively). This determination of intensity serves as the baseline nPRD 
measurement. A baseline PLR measurement will occur as well. To establish the baseline PLR 
measurement, researchers will use the pupillometer function of the AlgometRx Device to assess 
the pupillary light reflex in each eye. This assessment consists of a simple flash of light followed by 
10 seconds of measurement by the infrared camera in the device. During this time the patient will 
simply be asked to hold their eye open for the duration of the assessment, there will be a wait of at 
least 30 seconds between the two measurements. 
 
 
The individual steps of the baseline testing are summarized in figure 2 below.  
 
 
Figure 2: Flow diagram of baseline testing procedures.  
 
 Once the baseline has been established for the PLR and nPRD the study team will visit 
the subject on a regular basis throughout the remainder of their time at the hospital with no more 
frequently than visits by the Pain Management team. The study team will operate independently 
from the Pain Management team and will not interfere with the care of the participant in any 
way. Visits from the study team will occur separately from those of the Pain Management Team 
so as to ensure the study is not interfering with normal clinical proceedings. The study aims only 
to observe the intervention put in place by this team. At each visit the study team will assess the 
pain level of the patient using the standard VAS 1-10 pain scale. For patients on a Patient 
Controlled Analgesia (PCA), if the patient is reporting a pain score of greater than or equal to a 6 
and wishes to administer analgesic, the researchers will begin the testing procedure. For patients 
receiving a bolus dose of an opioid at regularly scheduled intervals, the researchers will evaluate 
the patient prior to the regularly scheduled dose to determine their pain score, if the patient is 
reporting a score greater than or equal to a 6 the researcher will begin the testing procedure. The 
subject will receive a dose of an opioid from the PCA pump or via bolus when indicated. After, 
10 minutes the subject will undergo testing via the testing procedure outlined below. This 
sequence will be repeated if the patient continues to have pain (a pain score ≥6) until they have 
self-administered adequate analgesia. This will occur no more than four times in one day but will 
be done at least once daily while the patient is receiving an opioid. For patients in the PICU, 
twice daily testing will be done at specified times. To limit the potential burden on the 
participant, prior to each subsequent testing cycle the study team will give the participant the 
option to decline a running of the testing procedure at that time. 
 
Testing Procedure: 
Informed 
Consent 
Medical 
History 
Device testing 
and review 
with patient 
Baseline PLR 
Testing 
nPRD Stimulus 
Threshold 
Determination 
Baseline nPRD 
Testing 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 9 of 22 
 
 
 
The subject will participate in two rounds of testing each consisting of two steps, the 
assessment of the PLR and the assessment of the PRD.  
 
First, using the pupillometer function of the AlgometRx device, the researchers will assess 
the pupillary light reflex in each eye. This assessment is identical to the PLR procedure above and 
consists of a simple flash of light followed by 10 seconds of measurement by the infrared camera in 
the device. During this time the patient will simply be asked to hold their eye open for the duration 
of the assessment, there will be a wait of at least 30 seconds between the two measurements.    
 
Using the threshold of neurostimulation established at baseline the researchers will stimulate 
the subject 2 times at the threshold intensity for each of the three frequencies for a total of 6 
stimulations. Each stimulus will occur for exactly 1 second with a break of at least 60 seconds 
between. During each stimulus, the researchers will monitor the subject’s pupillary reflex dilation 
using an infrared pupillometer in the AlgometRx device. The device will be placed over the 
patient’s eye and passively monitor the pupillary reaction before, during and for 10 seconds 
following the stimulus. Unlike the PLR assessment, this examination does not involve a flash of 
light and instead measures the reaction of the pupil to the stimulation created by the 
neurostimulatory component of the device. 
 
Figure 3: Flow diagram of subsequent study procedures.  
Information Management and Statistical Considerations 
 
Collection and Management of Study Data: 
As part of PLR and PRD assessments we will record the parameters presented in Table 1 
and Table 2 below.   The curves produced during the PRD assessments will be compared taking 
into account the varying doses of opioids received to determine if there is a dose dependent 
impact on the PRD.  
Static Measures 
Dynamic Measures 
Maximum Pupil Diameter 
Latency of Constriction 
Minimum Pupil Diameter 
Constriction Velocity 
Amplitude of Pupil Constriction 
Redilation Velocity 
 
Recovery Time (75%) 
Table 1. Measured parameters of the Pupillary Light Reflex (PLR). 
Measures 
Amplitude of Dilation 
Area Under the Curve 
Table 2. Measured parameters of the Pupillary Reflex Dilation(PRD).  
 
Data Management Responsibilities 
Pain 
Assessment 
and Baseline 
Testing 
Patient 
Receives 
Opioid Dose 
PLR Testing 
PRD Testing 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 10 of 22 
 
 
All study staff will be responsible for ensuring participant confidentiality. All study data 
will be stored in the appropriate locked containers, and all electronic data should only be 
handled on hospital issued encrypted computers.  
 
Data Capture Methods 
Data collection is the responsibility of the trial staff.  The PI is responsible for ensuring 
the accuracy, completeness, legibility, timeliness and completeness of the data reported. 
 
Sites will maintain all relevant source data. Source data include all information and 
original records of clinical findings, observations, or other activities necessary for the 
reconstruction and evaluation of the trial. Examples of original source documentation 
include electronic medical records, laboratory reports, memoranda, subject diaries, 
pharmacy dispensing records, and recorded data from automated instruments. 
 
Paper copies of the electronic CRF (eCRF) will be provided for use as source documents.  
Study data will be recorded for each participant enrolled in the study. Data reported in the 
eCRF derived from source documents should be consistent with the source documents.  
Any discrepancies between the eCRF and source documentation should be explained via 
a CRF comment or a note to file. 
 
Study Record Retention Policy 
Study documents will be retained for seven years as per hospital policy, after which they 
will be disposed in the appropriate HIPAA bins.  
 
Statistical Considerations: 
 
Analysis Plan 
 
To address aims 1 and 2, we will evaluate the pupillary response curve (inverse for PLR) 
over time based on multiple regression modeling. We will use our models to estimate the 
following features +/- 95% confidence limits: the area under the curve, peak amplitude and 
constriction velocity (for PLR) controlling for age and gender as well as pretreatment pain 
severity and opioid dose?.  We will use these features to define specific profiles for each opioid 
we evaluate. Should we be unable to meet the normality assumption even after applying 
normalizing transformation we will switch to quantile (median) regression models to develop the 
aforementioned analyses. We will also explore various methods of data pre-processing (filtering, 
smoothing, interpolation etc.) to determine the procedure that leads for the most reliable and 
fastest extraction of these parameters from the raw curve data.  
In aim 3, we will use these same parameters to assess the extent to which characteristic 
change in PRD and PLR parameters can be used to predict either tolerance or hyperalgesia. We 
will accomplish this by first identifying patients who are diagnosed clinically with each of these 
outcomes. Tolerance will be defined as experiencing less pain relief at the same or increasing 
dose of drug and hyperalgesia will be defined as developing neurologic responsiveness that 
increases the pain sensation, which is considered to place the patient at risk of morbid or mortal 
outcomes. To evaluate evidence of such associations, we will use multiple logistic regression 
modeling to assess whether PRD and PLR parameter change in patients experiencing tolerance, 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 11 of 22 
 
 
hyperalgesia can be distinguished from those receiving persistent pain relief without tolerance or 
hyperalgesia.  In regard to tolerance, we will evaluate whether patients experiencing or 
developing tolerance can be differentiated have increasing PRD parameters but static PLR 
parameters. In regard to hyperalgesia, we will evaluate whether patients experiencing or 
developing hyperalgesia have increasing PRD parameters with PLR decline. We have consulted 
with Dr. Robert J. McCarter, Jr, ScD in developing this statistical analysis. 
 
Sample size 
PASS 14 was used to estimate the sample size needed in Aims 1 and 2 to provide suitably 
precise estimates of PLR and PRD parameters detect various effect size differences (expressed in 
standard deviation units)12.  If the study enters analysis with at least 30 patients with treated with 
each opioid species under study, it will be able to derive estimates of the mean or median for 
each parameter being evaluated at each time point with precision equal to +/- 0.37 standard 
deviation units. Based on a data from a pilot study of the drug cannabis, we believe this will be 
adequate to identify distinctive profile characteristics for each opioid medication.  
We will use these results to develop reliable estimates of the prevalence of tolerance in 
clinical practice of pain control and explore the clinical utility of the profiles in aim 3 by 
comparing PLR and PRD parameters in patients (across all opioid species) to assess the evidence 
that defined patterns as described in the above analysis plan can differentiate between patients 
experiencing drug tolerance and hyperalgesia.  We may not achieve numbers sufficient to 
achieve statistical significance but will begin to accumulate evidence of the viability of this 
approach and provide the statistics necessary to design appropriately powered future studies to 
resolve the issue.  
 
Safety and Effectiveness Assessments 
Safety Assessments 
All subjects will have a complete medical history collected.   
 
Inclusion Criteria:  
All of the following criteria must be met for the potential subject to be eligible for study 
participation: 
1) The subject is 7 to 21 years of age 
2) The subject is receiving an opioid via bolus or a PCA as part of treatment or fentanyl 
infusion in the PICU (generally postoperative patients). 
3) The subject is willing and able to provide written informed assent/parental consent to 
study participation 
 
Exclusion Criteria: 
The potential subject is NOT eligible for participation if any of the following exclusion 
criteria are met: 
1) Eye pathology precluding pupillometry 
2) For patients in the PICU, patients who are hemodynamically unstable 
 
E. 
Study Population – (Gender and Minority Inclusions): 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 12 of 22 
 
 
 
We anticipate that 100 subjects, from all ethnic backgrounds ages 7-21 will be enrolled.  
The census on the pain management service will be screened daily for patients receiving an opioid 
via bolus or a PCA and for patients in the PICU receiving fentanyl infusions.  
 
F. 
Human Subjects (Risks & Benefits) 
 
If the parent/patient shows interest in the study, the subject will be asked to read through the 
informed consent form. The informed consent form will also include language concerning HIPAA 
regulations and the use of personal health information in this research study.  The consent process 
will be conducted when the subject has completed reading the consent and all questions about the 
study have been answered to the subject’s satisfaction.  If the subject decides to participate, consent 
will be obtained. After consent, a thorough medical history will be conducted, including all 
medications taken in the last 30 days.  
 
  
G. 
Risks and Side Effects:  
 
The study device is non-invasive and integrates two technologies utilized by FDA 
approved medical devices with which the investigators have extensive experience.  Neuro-
specific neurostimulation is utilized as a diagnostic tool by Neurotron Inc.’s FDA approved 
Neurometer® device.  The battery on this device can never simultaneously charge and power the 
device.  This ensures that the patient is never directly connected to an electrical circuit that is 
also connected to the AC main (wall outlet) power supply.  Therefore, there is no risk of danger 
from electrical shock from this device.  The current intensity never reaches a level that causes 
actual pain.  The current transmitted is painless.  The patient is in control of stopping the 
stimulation when it reaches a level that they feel is no longer comfortable.   
 
The peak amount of current delivered by the device is 10mA.  This translates to a root-
square-mean of sinusoidal current that reaches a maximum of 7mA.  This is an amount of current 
that will not cause injury to the patient.   
Regarding the opioid aspect of the study, we propose to enroll subjects who are receiving 
an opioid as part of their already occurring treatment so, there is no increased risk associated 
with this portion of the study.   
No other risks are anticipated 
 
Reporting of Adverse Events, Unanticipated Problems and Serious Adverse Events: 
 
All adverse events will be captured by a member of the study team in the subject’s source 
document.  The principal investigator, Dr. Julia Finkel, will assess all AEs for their severity and 
relationship to the study device.   
 
The PI will be monitoring the study and available on site to address any SAEs or 
unanticipated adverse events or problems that involve risks to subjects or others.  The Children’s 
National Medical Center IRB will be notified of any Serious Adverse Events within 24 hours and 
any unanticipated adverse events that may impact patient safety within 5 days.  Reporting of 
SAEs and any unanticipated problems will follow the CNMC IRB guidelines - IRB document 
06.02 of ‘The IRB Policy and Procedure Manual’.  All other AEs will be reported to the IRB in 
continuing review reports. 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 13 of 22 
 
 
 
Reporting of Data Review Outcomes to the IRB: 
 
Unanticipated problems that pose an immediate threat to patient safety will be 
immediately reported to the IRB.  All SAEs will be reported within 24 hours to the IRB.  Semi-
annual data monitoring reports will be submitted to the IRB upon completion – generally within 
5 days of the data review.    
 
ADVERSE EVENT (AE), SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENT (SAE), UNANTICIPATED 
ADVERSE EVENT (UAE)  
 
Throughout the study, AEs will be documented on the source document whether or not 
considered device-related. AEs will be tracked in an AE table and reviewed for incidences of 
unanticipated AEs.  Reported AEs include any new signs, symptoms, injury or illness, including 
increased severity of previously existing signs, symptoms, injury, or illness. Conditions existing 
prior to screening will be recorded as part of the subject’s medical history. The investigator is 
responsible for assessing the relationship of AEs to the study device; relationship will be 
classified as unclassified, unrelated, unlikely, possible, probable, or very likely/certain.  All AEs 
will be collected by the investigator during the study visit.  
 
UAE is any AE with a specificity or severity not consistent with the risk information 
described in the protocol, or any event occurring more frequently than anticipated.  The PI will 
monitor any UAE and all UAEs will be reported to the IRB.         
Definition of SAE 
 
An SAE is defined as an AE that: 
 
• Results in death 
 
• Is life-threatening (there is an immediate risk of death from the AE as it occurred; or if 
it is suspected that the use or continued use of the study medication would result in the 
patient’s death 
 
• Results in an inpatient hospitalization (Note: a hospitalization for elective or preplanned 
surgery, procedure, or drug therapy does not constitute an SAE)  
 
• Results in significant, persistent or permanent disability (permanent or substantial 
disruption of one’s ability to conduct normal life functions) 
 
• Is a congenital anomaly/birth defect  
 
• Results in intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage; 
 
Disability is defined as a substantial disruption of a person’s ability to conduct normal 
life functions. 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 14 of 22 
 
 
Important medical events are defined as events that, based upon appropriate medical 
judgment, may jeopardize the subject and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent 
one of the outcomes. Examples of important medical events include acetaminophen overdose-
induced hepatotoxicity that requires treatment with acetylcysteine to prevent permanent damage; 
burns from radiation equipment that require drug therapy; breakage of screw that requires 
replacement of hardware to prevent malunion of a fractured long bone. 
 
Criteria for Identifying Relationship of AE/SAE to Study Device 
 
Relationship 
Attribution 
Description 
Unrelated to investigational 
agent/intervention 
Unrelated 
The AE is clearly NOT 
related to the intervention 
Unlikely 
The AE is doubtfully related 
to the intervention 
Related to investigational 
agent/intervention 
Possible 
The AE may be related to the 
intervention 
Probable 
The AE is likely related to the 
intervention 
Definite 
The AE is clearly related to 
the intervention 
 
Unanticipated Problem (UP) Definition: 
A UP includes unanticipated problems involving risks to participants or others, and 
includes any incident, experience, or outcome that meets all of the following criteria 
• Unexpected in terms of nature, severity, or frequency given the research procedures described 
in the study documents (e.g., consent, protocol, IB) the participant population; AND 
•  Related or possibly related to participation in the research-- “Possibly related” means there is 
a reasonable possibility that the incident, experience, or outcome may have been caused by the 
procedures involved in the research; AND 
•  Suggests that the research places participants or others at a greater risk of harm (including 
physical, psychological, economic or social harm) than was previously known or recognized. 
  
Event Severity:   
All AEs will be assessed by qualified investigators (MD, NP or PA) using the CTCAE 
defined grading system. The following guidelines will be used to determine the severity of the 
AE: 
 Grade        Description  
0. 
No AE (or within normal limits). 
1. 
Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention 
not indicated.  
2. 
Moderate; minimal, local, or noninvasive intervention (e.g., packing, cautery) indicated; 
limiting age-appropriate instrumental activities of daily living (ADL).  
3. 
Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or 
prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self-care ADL. 
4. 
Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated.  

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 15 of 22 
 
 
5. 
Death related to AE. 
 
In addition to monitoring by the PI, Evonne Greenidge, MD from the Department of Anesthesia will 
serve as a medical monitor for the study. Dr. Greenidge will review study data quarterly for patient 
safety.  
 
H. 
Benefits:   
 
This study provides initial data needed to make the first steps toward developing a technique that 
could meet a serious unmet medical need - objective measurement of pain and assessment of 
analgesic efficacy in patients. 
 
I. 
Outside Consultants/Collaborators   
 
Neil Goldsman, PhD., Professor of electrical engineering and computer science UMd 
 
Zeynep Dilli, PhD, computer Science and statistical methods 
 
Siddharth Potbhare, PhD. Both from CoolCAD LLC, a UMD start-up collaborating on the 
analysis of the data. CoolCAD is a member of the Technology Advancement Program 
incubator, an initiative of the Maryland Technology Enterprise Institute (Mtech) in the A. 
James Clark School of Engineering 
 
 
J. 
Contractual Agreements   
   
 
None. 
 
K. 
Costs To Subjects: 
 
There will be no costs to subjects.  
 
L. 
Conflicts Of Interest: 
This study’s independence from all perceived or actual influence is essential. All actual conflicts 
of interest of persons who have a role in the design, conduct, analysis, publication, or any aspect 
of this study will be disclosed and managed.  Furthermore, persons with a perceived conflict of 
interest will be required to have such conflicts managed in a way that is appropriate to their 
participation in the trial. The study leadership, in conjunction with the Children’s Research 
Institute (CRI) has established policies and procedures for all study group members to disclose 
all potential conflicts of interest.  The CRI has established a mechanism to manage all reported 
conflicts of interest. 
 
The device being used is a result of technology developed at Children’s National Medical Center 
by Julia Finkel, MD. AlgometRx, Inc. is a spin out company from CNMC that will 
commercialize the technology. Dr. Julia Finkel is the founder and Chief Scientific Advisor of 
AlgometRx. The IRB has determined that Dr. Finkel may serve as the PI for this study in 
previous meetings specifically conducted to discuss a conflict of interest. 
 
M. 
Confidentiality: 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 16 of 22 
 
 
All study records will be kept confidential.  Provisions to protect the privacy of patients and 
maintain the confidentiality of data will include the use of an assigned study number instead of 
the patient’s name on all records and documents produced in performing and reporting the results 
of this study.  These records will be kept in a secure location.  
 
N. 
Subject Compensation:  
None. All patients enrolled are receiving standard of care. 
 
O. 
Facilities and Equipment 
Facility:  CNMC 
 
 
P. 
References & Literature Cited  
 
 
 
1. 
Paulozzi LJ, Mack KA, Hockenberry JM. Vital signs: variation among States in 
prescribing of opioid pain relievers and benzodiazepines - United States, 2012. 
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Jul 4 2014;63(26):563-568. 
2. 
Lee JY, Jo YY. Attention to postoperative pain control in children. Korean J 
Anesthesiol. Mar 2014;66(3):183-188. 
3. 
Evans R. AMA Module 6 Pain Management: Pediatric Pain Management: American 
Medical Association; 2010. 
4. 
Bremner F. Pupil evaluation as a test for autonomic disorders. Clin Auton Res. Apr 
2009;19(2):88-101. 
5. 
Larson MD, Berry PD, May J, Bjorksten A, Sessler DI. Latency of pupillary reflex 
dilation during general anesthesia. J Appl Physiol (1985). Aug 2004;97(2):725-730. 
6. 
Katims JJ, Long DM, Ng LK. Transcutaneous nerve stimulation. Frequency and 
waveform specificity in humans. Appl Neurophysiol. 1986;49(1-2):86-91. 
7. 
Liu SS, Gerancher JC, Bainton BG, Kopacz DJ, Carpenter RL. The effects of 
electrical stimulation at different frequencies on perception and pain in human 
volunteers: epidural versus intravenous administration of fentanyl. Anesth Analg. Jan 
1996;82(1):98-102. 
8. 
Finkel JC, Quezado, Z.M.N., Inventor; Children’s National Medical Center, assignee. 
Apparatus and method for human algometryMay 2016. 
9. 
Finkel JC, Inventor; Children’s National Medical Center, assignee. Apparatus and 
method for determining physiologic perturbations of a patientSubmitted 2015 April 
30. 
10. 
Finkel JC, Inventor; Children’s National Medical Center, assignee. Apparatus and 
Method 
for 
Physiologic 
and 
Pharmacodynamic 
Assessment 
and 
MonitoringSubmitted 2017 April 13. 
11. 
Finkel JC, Yang CI, Yarvitz JL, Patel KM. Neuroselective sensory electrodiagnostic 
evaluation of 4% liposomal topical lidocaine. Anesth Analg. May 2002;94(5):1259-
1262, table of contents. 
12. 
PASS 14 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software. (NCSS, LLC). 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 17 of 22 
 
 
 
Q. 
Appendices   
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix I: Explanation and Visualization of Pupillary Light Reflex and Pupillary Reflex 
Dilation Parameters 
 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 18 of 22 
 
 
Appendix I 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 19 of 22 
 
 
Figure 1. Diagram of PLR curve with parameters labeled.  
Figure 2: Diagram of PRD curve with parameters labeled. 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 20 of 22 
 
 
 
Figure 5 PRD intensity –response relationship using the 250Hz (A-delta nerve fiber type). Image represents 1 sec of 
stimulation followed by the PRD. Blue is no stimulus, red is 5milliampere (mA) and green resulted from 7mAof 
stimulus and the purple curve resulted from 9mA. 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 21 of 22 
 
 
 
Figure 6 PRD Intensity –response relationship using the 2000Hz (A-beta nerve fiber type). Image represents 1 sec 
of stimulation followed by the PRD. Blue is no stimulus, red is 5milli amps and green resulted from 9mA of 
stimulation. Note that the A beta nerve is normally not a pain fiber but transmits neuropathic pain. The PRDs are 
therefore flatter in normal subjects. (At high intensities, A delta nerves are recruited accounting for the peak 
amplitude in the 9 m A curve) A patient with neuropathic pain would have high amplitudes in response to low 
intensity stimulation. 
 

 
 
PI: Finkel 
 
PROTOCOL FINAL: 1/14/2016 
Page 22 of 22 
 
 
 
Figure 7 PRD Intensity –response relationship using the 5Hz (C nerve fiber type). Image represents 1 sec of 
stimulation followed by the PRD. Blue is no stimulus, red is 5 mA and green resulted from 9 mA of stimulation. 
Note that the c fiber transmits slow burning pain and are populated by the opioid receptors.