Reductions in All-Cause Mortality Associated with the Use of Methylnaltrexone for Opioid-Induced Bowel Disorders: A Pooled Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that activation of the µ-opioid receptor may reduce overall survival and increase the risk for all-cause mortality in patients with cancer and noncancer pain. Methylnaltrexone, a selective, peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. This retrospective analysis of 12 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of methylnaltrexone evaluated the treatment of opioid-induced bowel disorders in patients with advanced illness or noncancer pain. METHODS: The risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days after the last dose of study medication during the double-blind phase was compared between methylnaltrexone and placebo groups. The data were further stratified by cancer vs noncancer, age, gender, and acute vs chronic diagnoses. RESULTS: Pooled data included 2,526 methylnaltrexone-treated patients of which 33 died, and 1,192 placebo-treated patients of which 35 died. The mortality rate was 17.8 deaths/100 person-years of exposure in the methylnaltrexone group and 49.5 deaths/100 person-years of exposure for the placebo group. The all-cause mortality risk was significantly lower among patients receiving methylnaltrexone compared with placebo (hazard ratio: 0.399, 95% confidence interval: 0.25, 0.64; P = .0002), corresponding to a 60% risk reduction. Significant risk reductions were observed for those receiving methylnaltrexone who had cancer or chronic diagnoses. Methylnaltrexone-treated patients had a significantly reduced mortality risk compared with placebo regardless of age or gender. CONCLUSIONS: Methylnaltrexone reduced all-cause mortality vs placebo treatment across multiple trials, suggesting methylnaltrexone may confer survival benefits in patients with opioid-induced bowel disorders taking opioids for cancer-related or chronic noncancer pain.

Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Quality of Life Measures in Opioid-Induced Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Opioids have a role in chronic pain management. However, opioid-induced constipation may cause patients to skip or reduce opioid doses, leading to inadequate pain relief and negatively impacting quality of life. We sought to establish a minimal clinically important difference to understand whether changes in quality of life scores are of value to patients. METHODS: Integrated data from the double-blind, controlled, phase 3 COMPOSE-1 and COMPOSE-2 trials of naldemedine in chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation were used to determine minimal clinically important differences using Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) and Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaires. Patients completed the questionnaires (5-point Likert scale; predose, Weeks 2, 4, and 12), kept a daily log of Bowel Movement and Constipation Assessment, and rated satisfaction at end of study. Minimal clinically important differences were computed using an anchor-based method with 6 anchors: 5 from the Bowel Movement and Constipation Assessment and 1 from patient satisfaction. Threshold values for each anchor were set to define responders versus nonresponders based on score definitions. Clinically meaningful cutoff values for changes in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL scores were determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Data from 1095 patients (549, naldemedine; 546, placebo) were analyzed. The area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic curves (ranges, 0.719 to 0.798 for PAC-SYM and 0.734 to 0.833 for PAC-QOL) indicated that both instruments can discriminate responders and nonresponders for each anchor. PAC-SYM cutoff values ranged from -1.04 to -0.83; PAC-QOL cutoff values ranged from -0.93 to -0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data derived from the anchor method, reductions in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL scores of >1.0 in patients with chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation are clinically meaningful. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Registration: NCT01965158; NCT01993940.

Accelerating and de-risking CMC development with transposon-derived manufacturing cell lines.

The development of highly productive, genetically stable manufacturing cell lines is on the critical path to IND filing for protein-based biologic drugs. Here, we describe the Leap-In Transposase® platform, a novel transposon-based mammalian (e.g., Chinese hamster ovary) cell line development system that produces high-titer stable pools with productivity and product quality attributes that are highly comparable to clones that are subsequently derived therefrom. The productivity distributions of clones are strongly biased toward high producers, and genetic and expression stability is consistently high. By avoiding the poor integration rates, concatemer formation, detrimental transgene recombination, low average expression level, unpredictable product quality, and inconsistent genetic stability characteristic of nonhomologous recombination methods, Leap-In provides several opportunities to de-risk programs early and reduce timelines and resources.

Wooden Chest syndrome: The atypical pharmacology of fentanyl overdose.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: A large percentage of opioid overdose fatalities involve fentanyl or one of its legal or illegal analogs (F/FAs). Is there something about the pharmacology of these drugs that make them unusually dangerous in an overdose? COMMENT: Some of the reasons for the dangers of overdose of F/FAs is their high potency and low cost (that leads to wide distribution). But it is rarely asked if the basic pharmacology of F/FAs differ in some fundamental way from conventional opioids such as morphine and heroin. In addition to centrally mediated respiratory depression via opioid receptors, F/FAs cause rigidity in the key respiratory muscles of the chest, upper airway and diaphragm ("wooden chest syndrome," WCS) by a non-opioid mechanism. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: WCS is an atypical pharmacology of F/FAs. Because of its rapid onset and non-opioid mechanism, WCS makes F/FA overdose particularly dangerous.

Dilemma of Addiction and Respiratory Depression in the Treatment of Pain: A Prototypical Endomorphin as a New Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Although mu-opioid receptor agonists have been the mainstay of analgesic regimens for moderate to severe pain, they are associated with serious side effects, risks, and limitations. We evaluate the most serious risks associated with conventional opioids and compare these with the pharmacology of CYT-1010, a prototypical endomorphin and mu-opioid receptor agonist. RESULTS: Addiction and respiratory depression are serious risks of traditional mu-opioid analgesics. Mitigation strategies have been inadequate at addressing the opioid crisis and may interfere with the effective treatment of pain. Improved understanding of mu-opioid receptor biology and the discovery in 1997 of an additional and unique family of endogenous opioid peptides (endomorphins) have provided a pathway for dissociating analgesia from opioid-related adverse events and developing new classes of mu-opioid receptor agonists that use biased signaling and/or target novel sites to produce analgesia with reduced side effect liability. Endomorphin-1 and -2 are endogenous opioid peptides highly selective for mu-opioid receptors that exhibit potent analgesia with reduced side effects. CYT-1010 is a cyclized, D-lysine-containing analog of endomorphin-1 with a novel mechanism of action targeting traditional mu- and exon 11/truncated mu-opioid receptor 6TM variants. CYT-1010 preclinical data have demonstrated reduced abuse potential and analgesic potency exceeding that of morphine. In an initial phase 1 clinical study, CYT-1010 demonstrated significant analgesia vs baseline and no respiratory depression at the dose levels tested. CONCLUSIONS: CYT-1010 and other novel mu-opioid receptor agonists in clinical development are promising alternatives to conventional opioids that may offer the possibility of safer treatment of moderate to severe pain.

Understanding Buprenorphine for Use in Chronic Pain: Expert Opinion.

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel convened to reach a consensus on common misconceptions surrounding buprenorphine, a Schedule III partial µ-opioid receptor agonist indicated for chronic pain. The panel also provided clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of buprenorphine and conversion strategies for switching to buprenorphine from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist for chronic pain management. METHODS: The consensus panel met on March 25, 2019, to discuss relevant literature and provide recommendations on interpreting buprenorphine as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist, prescribing buprenorphine before some Schedule II, III, or IV options, perioperative/trauma management of patients taking buprenorphine, and converting patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine. RESULTS: The panel recommended that buprenorphine's classification as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist not be clinically translated to mean partial analgesic efficacy. The panel also recommended that buprenorphine be considered before some Schedule II, III, or IV opioids in patients with a favorable risk/benefit profile on the basis of metabolic factors, abuse potential, and tolerability and that buprenorphine be continued during the perioperative/trauma period. In addition, switching patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine should be considered with no weaning period at starting doses that are based on the previous opioid dose. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide a framework for clinicians to address most clinical scenarios regarding buprenorphine use. The overall consensus of the panel was that buprenorphine is a unique Schedule III opioid with favorable pharmacologic properties and a safety profile that may be desirable for chronic pain management.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Placebo-Controlled, Intranasal Human Abuse Potential Study of Oxycodone ARIR, a Novel, Immediate-Release, Abuse-Deterrent Formulation.

OBJECTIVE: Prescription opioid abuse continues to be a public health concern. Oxycodone ARIR is an immediate-release (IR) oxycodone tablet composed of multiple overlapping barriers that deter manipulation of the tablet for non-oral abuse. DESIGN: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, four-way crossover, intranasal human abuse potential study assessed the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of crushed intranasal oxycodone ARIR compared with crushed intranasal IR oxycodone and intact oral oxycodone ARIR. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacodynamic end points included mean maximum drug liking (Emax), as measured by subjects on a bipolar 100-mm visual analog scale (primary), and desire to take the drug again, overall drug liking, drug high, and good effects (secondary). Pharmacokinetic assessments included peak concentration and time to peak concentration. RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects completed the treatment phase. Crushed intranasal oxycodone ARIR demonstrated a significant reduction of 46.9% and 23.4% in drug liking Emax compared with crushed intranasal IR oxycodone and intact oral oxycodone ARIR, respectively (P < 0.0001 for both). Significant reductions also were observed in desire to take the drug again, drug high, overall drug liking, and good effects when comparing crushed intranasal oxycodone ARIR with crushed intranasal IR oxycodone and intact oral oxycodone ARIR (P < 0.001 for all). Crushed intranasal oxycodone ARIR exhibited lower peak oxycodone plasma concentrations and slower time to peak concentration compared with crushed intranasal IR oxycodone and intact oral oxycodone ARIR. All treatments were well tolerated; adverse effects were typical of opioids or intranasal administration. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that oxycodone ARIR has the potential to reduce abuse via the intranasal route.

Human Abuse Potential of the New Opioid Analgesic Molecule NKTR-181 Compared with Oxycodone.

Objective: Evaluate the human abuse potential, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of NKTR-181, a novel mu-opioid agonist molecule, relative to oxycodone. Design: This randomized, single-center, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled five-period crossover study enrolled healthy, adult, non-physically dependent recreational opioid users. Setting: Inpatient clinical research site. Subjects: Forty-two randomized subjects (73.8% male, 81% white, mean age = 25 years). Methods: The primary objective was to evaluate single orally administered 100, 200, and 400 mg NKTR-181 doses in solution compared with 40 mg oxycodone and placebo solutions using the Drug Liking visual analog scale. Secondary measures included the Drug Effects Questionnaire, Addiction Research Center Inventory/Morphine Benzedrine Group Subscale, Price Value Assessment Questionnaire, Global Assessment of Overall Drug Liking, and Take Drug Again Assessment. Central nervous system mu-opioid effects were assessed using pupillometry. The study included qualifying and treatment phases. Subjects received each of the five treatments using a crossover design. Results: NKTR-181 at all dose levels had significantly lower Drug Liking Emax than oxycodone (P < 0.0001). Drug Liking scores for oxycodone increased rapidly within 15 minutes and peaked at approximately one hour postdose, whereas Drug Liking (and most secondary abuse potential measures) for all doses of NKTR-181 were comparable with placebo for at least the first hour. Only the 400 mg Drug Liking scores were minimally differentiated vs placebo from one and a half to four hours, but remained significantly lower than oxycodone (P < 0.003). NKTR-181 treatment-related adverse effects were mild and occurred at a lower rate compared with oxycodone. Conclusions: NKTR-181 demonstrated delayed onset of CNS effects and significantly lower abuse potential scores compared with oxycodone in recreational opioid users.

Pharmacokinetics and Abuse Potential of Benzhydrocodone, a Novel Prodrug of Hydrocodone, After Intranasal Administration in Recreational Drug Users.

Objective: Developing an acetaminophen-free, immediate-release hydrocodone product remains an unmet medical need; however, new opioid analgesics should not introduce new abuse risks. Benzhydrocodone is a prodrug of hydrocodone that must be metabolized into hydrocodone by enzymes in the intestinal tract to optimally deliver its pharmacologic effects. This study evaluated the intranasal pharmacokinetics and abuse potential of benzhydrocodone active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) compared with hydrocodone bitartrate (HB) API. Design: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Setting: Clinical research site. Subjects: Healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods: Subjects (N = 51 Completers) were randomized to receive 13.34 mg of intranasal benzhydrocodone API and 15.0 mg of intranasal HB API (molar-equivalent doses of hydrocodone). Blood samples were taken, and Drug Liking scores (assessed on a bipolar visual analog scale) were obtained throughout each dosing interval. Nasal irritation and safety were assessed. Results: Peak hydrocodone plasma concentration (Cmax) was 36.0% lower, and total hydrocodone exposures (AUClast and AUCinf) were 20.3% and 19.5% lower, respectively, for benzhydrocodone API compared with HB API (P < 0.0001). All partial AUC values were lower for benzhydrocodone API, with a ≥ 75% reduction in hydrocodone exposure at all time intervals up to one hour postdose (P < 0.0001). Median Tmax of hydrocodone following benzhydrocodone API was delayed by more than one hour compared with HB. Drug Liking score, as assessed by maximal liking (Emax), was significantly lower for benzhydrocodone API vs HB API (P = 0.004), with 45% of subjects showing a ≥ 30% reduction in Drug Liking Emax. Conclusion: Reductions in hydrocodone exposure and associated decreases in Drug Liking relative to HB suggest that the prodrug benzhydrocodone may deter intranasal abuse.

Evaluation of the Relative Intranasal Abuse Potential of a Hydrocodone Extended-Release Tablet Formulated with Abuse-Deterrence Technology in Nondependent, Recreational Opioid Users.

Objective: To assess the intranasal abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablets developed with CIMA Abuse-Deterrence Technology compared with hydrocodone powder and hydrocodone bitartrate ER capsules (Zohydro ER, original formulation [HYD-OF]). Design: Single-dose, randomized, double-blind, quadruple-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover study. Setting: One US site. Subjects: Healthy, adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods: Subjects able to tolerate intranasal hydrocodone and discriminate hydrocodone from placebo were eligible for study enrollment. Eligible participants randomly received intranasal hydrocodone ER, intranasal hydrocodone powder, intranasal HYD-OF, intact oral hydrocodone ER, and placebo. Coprimary pharmacodynamic end points were a maximum effect on "at the moment" Drug Liking visual analog scale and Overall Drug Liking visual analog scale. Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed. Results: Mean maximum effect for "at the moment" Drug Liking was significantly (P < 0.01) lower for intranasal hydrocodone ER (72.8) compared with hydrocodone powder (80.2) and HYD-OF (83.2). Similar results were observed for Overall Drug Liking maximum effect (68.5 vs 77.1 and 79.8, respectively; P < 0.01). Secondary end points, including balance of effects and positive, sedative, and other effects, were consistent with these results. Intranasal treatments showed significantly greater effects vs placebo, while intact oral hydrocodone ER was similar to placebo. For each treatment, plasma concentration-time profiles paralleled "at the moment" Drug Liking over time. Incidences of adverse events for intranasal treatments were 52% for hydrocodone ER, 53% for hydrocodone powder, and 61% for HYD-OF. Conclusions: The statistically significant differences between hydrocodone ER vs hydrocodone powder and HYD-OF for the primary drug liking end points indicate a lower intranasal abuse potential with hydrocodone ER in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users.

Efficacy of Lubiprostone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation, Analyzed by Opioid Class.

Objectives: To examine the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients by opioid class received. Design: Data were pooled from three phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Subjects/Setting: Adults with chronic noncancer pain receiving opioid therapy for 30 or more days and diagnosed with OIC. Methods: Overall mean change from baseline in spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency, overall treatment response (≥1 SBM/week improvement over baseline SBM frequency in all treatment weeks with available data and ≥3 SBMs/week for ≥9 of the 12 weeks of treatment), and OIC-related symptoms were examined in patients taking opioids. Data were pooled and analyzed by opioid group. Results: In patients receiving phenanthrene opioids (e.g., oxycodone; N = 1,159), lubiprostone significantly increased overall mean changes in SBM frequency from baseline (P = 0.0001), increased overall response rate (P = 0.0024), and improved OIC symptoms (P ≤ 0.0229) vs placebo. Patients receiving phenylpiperidine opioids (e.g., fentanyl; N = 137) had significant improvement in SBM frequency (P = 0.0129) and favorable trends in response rates (21.4% vs 9.8%; P = 0.0723) and OIC symptoms vs placebo. Efficacy was not observed in overall analyses of patients receiving diphenylheptane opioids (e.g., methadone), although an increase in SBM frequency was observed in patients who received a morphine-equivalent daily dose of 200 or fewer mg, suggesting a dose-dependent negative interference of this opioid class on lubiprostone effects. For all groups, the lubiprostone adverse event profile was similar; the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea and diarrhea. Conclusions: In patients using commonly prescribed opioids, lubiprostone is effective and generally well tolerated for the treatment of OIC.

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Objective: To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids. Methods: An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations. Results: Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment. Conclusions: Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

Treatment with Naloxegol Versus Placebo: Pain Assessment in Patients with Noncancer Pain and Opioid-Induced Constipation.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize results from pain and opioid use assessments with naloxegol in adults with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, 12-week studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral naloxegol (12.5 or 25 mg daily) in adults (18 to < 85 years) with confirmed OIC and chronic noncancer pain: KODIAC-04 (NCT01309841) and KODIAC-05 (NCT01323790). Pain level was assessed daily (11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain). Changes from baseline in mean weekly pain scores and opioid dose (weeks 1 through 12) were analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures. RESULTS: At baseline, mean daily NRS average pain scores ranged from 4.5 to 4.8 for all groups in KODIAC-04 (N = 652) and were 4.6 for each group in KODIAC-05 (N = 700). Respective mean ± SD changes from baseline average pain for placebo, naloxegol 12.5 mg, and naloxegol 25 mg were -0.2 ± 1.07, -0.3 ± 1.05 (P = 0.773 vs. placebo), and 0.2 ± 0.95 (P = 0.837 vs. placebo; KODIAC-04) and -0.1 ± 0.94, -0.1 ± 0.87 (P = 0.744), and 0.0 ± 1.18 (P = 0.572; KODIAC-05). At baseline, mean daily opioid doses ranged from 135.6 to 143.2 morphine equivalent units (MEUs)/day in KODIAC-04, and from 119.9 to 151.7 MEUs/day in KODIAC-05. Respective mean ± SD changes from baseline dose were -1.8 ± 30.19, -2.3 ± 20.52 (P = 0.724 vs. placebo), and 0.4 ± 13.01 (P = 0.188 vs. placebo; KODIAC-04) and -0.3 ± 17.14, -1.3 ± 17.11 (P = 0.669 vs. placebo), and 0.1 ± 8.54 (P = 0.863 vs. placebo; KODIAC-05). Changes in maintenance opioid dose were few; reasons for such changes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Centrally mediated opioid analgesia was maintained during treatment with naloxegol in patients with noncancer pain and OIC.

Naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation in patients with noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced constipation is common and debilitating. We investigated the efficacy and safety of naloxegol, an oral, peripherally acting, µ-opioid receptor antagonist, for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. METHODS: In two identical phase 3, double-blind studies (study 04, 652 participants; study 05, 700 participants), outpatients with noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation were randomly assigned to receive a daily dose of 12.5 or 25 mg of naloxegol or placebo. The primary end point was the 12-week response rate (≥3 spontaneous bowel movements per week and an increase from baseline of ≥1 spontaneous bowel movements for ≥9 of 12 weeks and for ≥3 of the final 4 weeks) in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end points were the response rate in the subpopulation of patients with an inadequate response to laxatives before enrollment, time to first postdose spontaneous bowel movement, and mean number of days per week with one or more spontaneous bowel movements. RESULTS: Response rates were significantly higher with 25 mg of naloxegol than with placebo (intention-to-treat population: study 04, 44.4% vs. 29.4%, P=0.001; study 05, 39.7% vs. 29.3%, P=0.02; patients with an inadequate response to laxatives: study 04, 48.7% vs. 28.8%, P=0.002; study 05, 46.8% vs. 31.4%, P=0.01); in study 04, response rates were also higher in the group treated with 12.5 mg of naloxegol (intention-to-treat population, 40.8% vs. 29.4%, P=0.02; patients with an inadequate response to laxatives, 42.6% vs. 28.8%, P=0.03). A shorter time to the first postdose spontaneous bowel movement and a higher mean number of days per week with one or more spontaneous bowel movements were observed with 25 mg of naloxegol versus placebo in both studies (P<0.001) and with 12.5 mg of naloxegol in study 04 (P<0.001). Pain scores and daily opioid dose were similar among the three groups. Adverse events (primarily gastrointestinal) occurred most frequently in the groups treated with 25 mg of naloxegol. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with naloxegol, as compared with placebo, resulted in a significantly higher rate of treatment response, without reducing opioid-mediated analgesia. (Funded by AstraZeneca; KODIAC-04 and KODIAC-05 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01309841 and NCT01323790, respectively.).

Analysis of Nausea in Clinical Studies of Lubiprostone for the Treatment of Constipation Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Lubiprostone is a ClC-2 chloride channel activator approved for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in adults and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in women. Lubiprostone is generally well tolerated, with nausea being the most common adverse event. AIMS: To characterize nausea with lubiprostone using pooled results from clinical studies in patients with CIC, OIC, or IBS-C. METHODS: Data from three 3- and 4-week placebo-controlled studies and three long-term open-label studies were pooled for the CIC analysis. The OIC and IBS-C analyses each used pooled data from three 12-week placebo-controlled studies and one 36-week open-label extension study. RESULTS: The populations included the following numbers of patients: CIC, 316 (placebo) and 1113 (lubiprostone 24 mcg twice daily [BID]); OIC, 652 (placebo) and 889 (lubiprostone 24 mcg BID); and IBS-C, 435 (placebo) and 1011 (lubiprostone 8 mcg BID). The incidence of nausea in lubiprostone-treated patients ranged from 11.4 to 31.1%, with the highest incidence in patients with CIC. Among patients with any nausea, most reported only mild or moderate severity (96.5-99.1% across indications) and only one event (83.6-88.7%); most events occurred within the first 5 days of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Nausea was the most common adverse event following the treatment with lubiprostone. Event rates varied by indication and dose, and the majority of nausea adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. Nausea events predominantly occurred early in the treatment period in all of the pooled study populations.

Risk Factors for Opioid-Use Disorder and Overdose.

Opioid analgesics are recognized as a legitimate medical therapy for selected patients with severe chronic pain that does not respond to other therapies. However, opioids are associated with risks for patients and society that include misuse, abuse, diversion, addiction, and overdose deaths. Therapeutic success depends on proper candidate selection, assessment before administering opioid therapy, and close monitoring throughout the course of treatment. Risk assessment and prevention include knowledge of patient factors that may contribute to misuse, abuse, addiction, suicide, and respiratory depression. Risk factors for opioid misuse or addiction include past or current substance abuse, untreated psychiatric disorders, younger age, and social or family environments that encourage misuse. Opioid mortality prevalence is higher in people who are middle aged and have substance abuse and psychiatric comorbidities. Suicides are probably undercounted or frequently misclassified in reports of opioid-related poisoning deaths. Greater understanding and better assessment are needed of the risk associated with suicide risk in patients with pain. Clinical tools and an evolving evidence base are available to assist clinicians with identifying patients whose risk factors put them at risk for adverse outcomes with opioids.

A Phase 2b, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral naldemedine 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, or 0.4 mg once daily in patients who had opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and maintained a stable laxative regimen. METHODS: This four-week, phase 2b, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01443403) enrolled patients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain with OIC. The primary efficacy end point was change in weekly spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency from baseline to the last two weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the proportion of SBM responders (patients with ≥3 SBMs/week and an increase of ≥1 SBM/week from baseline over the last 2 weeks of treatment). Safety parameters assessed included adverse events, effects on analgesia, and opioid withdrawal symptoms. RESULTS: Overall, 244 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to naldemedine 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, 0.4 mg, or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were comparable. Weekly SBM frequency was significantly higher with naldemedine 0.2 mg (3.37, P = 0.0014) and 0.4 mg (3.64, P = 0.0003), but not with 0.1 mg (1.98, P = 0.3504), vs placebo (1.42). The proportion of SBM responders was significantly higher with naldemedine 0.2 mg (71.2%, P = 0.0005) and 0.4 mg (66.7%, P = 0.003), but not with 0.1 mg (52.5%, P = 0.1461), vs placebo (39.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity; incidences increased with naldemedine dose. No clinically meaningful changes in other safety parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: Naldemedine 0.2 mg once daily is the optimal dose for future confirmatory trials in OIC.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Methylnaltrexone in Patients with Opioid-Induced Constipation and Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Phase 3, Open-Label Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, alleviates opioid-induced constipation. Understanding its long-term safety and efficacy profile in patients with chronic noncancer pain is warranted given the persistence of opioid-induced constipation. METHODS.: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, adults with chronic noncancer pain (N = 1034) received subcutaneous methylnaltrexone 12 mg once daily for 48 weeks. RESULTS: The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal related (e.g., abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea) and were mild to moderate in intensity. Only 15.2% of patients discontinued because of an adverse event. Serious cardiac-related adverse events occurred in nine patients. Of the seven instances of major adverse coronary events reported, three were adjudicated after external review; all instances occurred in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. Methylnaltrexone elicited a bowel movement within four hours in 34.1% of the injections throughout the 48-week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Change from baseline in mean weekly bowel movement rate, Bowel Movement Straining Scale score, Bristol Stool Scale score, and mean percentage of patients with complete evacuation from baseline to week 48 were significantly improved ( P < 0.001 for all). Long-term subcutaneous methylnaltrexone was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns, and provided consistent opioid-induced constipation relief in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Abuse Potential with Oral Route of Administration of a Hydrocodone Extended-Release Tablet Formulated with Abuse-Deterrence Technology in Nondependent, Recreational Opioid Users.

Objective: To compare the oral abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablet developed with CIMA ® Abuse-Deterrence Technology with that of hydrocodone immediate release (IR). Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Setting and Patients: One study site in the United States; adult nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods: After confirming their ability to tolerate and discriminate hydrocodone IR 45 mg from placebo, eligible participants were randomized to receive each of the following oral treatments once: finely crushed placebo, hydrocodone IR 45-mg powder, intact hydrocodone ER 45-mg tablet, and finely crushed hydrocodone ER 45-mg tablet. Primary pharmacodynamic measure was "at the moment" drug liking. Secondary measures included overall drug liking, drug effects (e.g., balance, positive, negative, sedative), pupillometry, pharmacokinetics, and safety. Results: Mean maximum effect (E max ) for "at the moment" drug liking was significantly lower for intact (53.9) and finely crushed hydrocodone ER (66.9) vs. hydrocodone IR (85.2; P < 0.001). Drug liking for intact hydrocodone ER was comparable to placebo (E max : 53.9 vs. 53.2). Secondary measures were consistent with these results, indicating that positive, negative, and sedative drug effects were diminished with intact and crushed hydrocodone ER tablet vs. hydrocodone IR. The 72-hour plasma concentration-time profile for each treatment mimicked its respective "at the moment" drug-liking-over-time profile. Incidence of adverse events was lower with intact hydrocodone ER (53%) vs. hydrocodone IR (79%) and finely crushed hydrocodone ER (73%). Conclusions: The oral abuse potential of hydrocodone ER (intact and finely crushed) was significantly lower than hydrocodone IR in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Hydrocodone ER was generally well tolerated.

Human Abuse Potential of an Abuse-Deterrent (AD), Extended-Release (ER) Morphine Product Candidate (Morphine-ADER Injection-Molded Tablets) vs Extended-Release Morphine Administered Intranasally in Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative human abuse potential after insufflation of manipulated morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT) with that of marketed morphine ER tablets. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled five-way crossover study was performed with adult volunteers who were experienced, nondependent, recreational opioid users. After intranasal (IN) administration of manipulated high-volume (HV) morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg), participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive IN manipulated low-volume (LV) morphine ER (60 mg), IN manipulated LV morphine-ADER-IMT, intact oral morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg), and placebo in crossover fashion. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessments included peak effect of drug liking (E max ; primary endpoint) using drug liking visual analog scale (VAS) score, E max using overall drug liking, and take drug again (TDA) VASs scores, and mean abuse quotient (AQ), a pharmacokinetic parameter associated with drug liking. RESULTS: Forty-six participants completed the study. After insufflation of HV morphine-ADER-IMT and LV morphine-ADER-IMT, drug liking E max was significantly lower ( P < 0.0001) compared with IN morphine ER. Overall drug liking and TDA E max values were significantly lower ( P < 0.0001) after insufflation of HV morphine-ADER-IMT and LV morphine-ADER-IMT compared with IN morphine ER. Mean AQ was lower after insufflation of HV (9.2) and LV (2.3) morphine-ADER-IMT or ingestion of oral morphine-ADER-IMT (5.5) compared with insufflation of LV morphine ER (37.2). CONCLUSIONS: All drug liking, take drug again, and abuse quotient endpoints support a significantly lower abuse potential with insufflation of manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT compared with manipulated and insufflated non-AD ER morphine.