A comparison of the analgesic efficacy of Tramadol Contramid OAD versus placebo in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis.

One thousand twenty-eight (1,028) patients with pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel study designed to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of Tramadol Contramid OAD compared to placebo. An open-label phase was followed by a double-blind phase, in which a total of 646 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with placebo or Tramadol Contramid OAD. Patients were titrated to their optimal dose (200mg or 300 mg), which was maintained for 12 weeks. An absolute mean reduction of 3.0+/-2.1 on a Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS) was noted in the Tramadol Contramid OAD treatment group. The difference between active and placebo groups regarding this absolute mean reduction was statistically significant (P<0.001) throughout the study. The responder analysis demonstrated that a significantly greater percentage of patients in the active treatment arm achieved a reduction of >or=1 and >or=2 points on the PI-NRS score by the end of the study (P=0.035). A significantly greater percentage of respondents in the Tramadol Contramid OAD group indicated improvement on both the Patient and Physician Global Impressions of Change (P=0.0002). Both the 200mg and 300 mg doses contributed to the overall superiority of Tramadol Contramid OAD. The most frequent adverse events were consistent with the known side effects of tramadol and were generally mild to moderate in intensity. These results confirm that Tramadol Contramid OAD given once daily is an efficacious and safe treatment for pain due to OA.

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of a Novel Once-Daily Tablet Formulation of Tramadol : A Randomised, Controlled Study versus Twice-Daily Tramadol in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 24-hour sustained efficacy and safety of a new tramadol once-daily formulation (tramadol OAD) using Contramid((R)) controlled-release technology with a marketed twice-daily formulation (tramadol BID). PATIENTS, DESIGN AND SETTING: 431 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee were enrolled in this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel study. After titration to optimum dose (range 100-400mg), patients received medication for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Efficacy evaluations included: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (pain, stiffness, physical function and global), daily efficacy ratings (post-dose: tramadol OAD 24 hours; tramadol BID 12 hours), pain ratings over 24 hours, and patient and investigator overall ratings. Non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, mean percentage change in WOMAC pain score from baseline to week 12 (tramadol OAD 58%; tramadol BID 59%) [95% CI -7.67, 3.82]. The median optimum dose received was 200mg (both treatments). In 73% of patients, pain was mild to absent at the end of the dosing interval for both treatments (tramadol OAD 24 hours; tramadol BID 12 hours). Pain ratings over 24 hours were similar between groups, indicating 24-hour sustained efficacy for tramadol OAD. More tramadol BID patients reported dizziness/vertigo (37% vs 26%), vomiting (14% vs 8%) and headache (18% vs 13%) while tramadol OAD patients reported more somnolence (30% vs 21%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that this novel tramadol OAD formulation provides sustained analgesic efficacy over the entire 24-hour dosing interval and a clinically favourable safety profile, both of which will provide a clear clinical benefit.

Efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of osteoarthritic pain therapy with once-daily tramadol (Tramadol Contramid OAD).

This placebo-controlled study examined the analgesic efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of Tramadol Contramid OAD, a once-daily formulation with both immediate- and extended-release components. Five hundred and fifty-two patients with moderate to severe pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee were randomized into this multicenter, double-blind, parallel arm study. After randomization to Tramadol Contramid OAD 100, 200, or 300 mg, or to placebo, patients' dose was titrated to the fixed randomized dose and maintained for 12 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated with the Patients' Global Rating of Pain Relief (median ratings at maintenance visits), and the Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function subscales (percent difference, baseline to end of study) as coprimary endpoints. A responder analysis was conducted (percentage of patients who achieved a 30 percent improvement on their baseline WOMAC pain score). The difference from placebo on the median Patient Global Rating of Pain Relief at the four maintenance visits was statistically significant (200 and 300 mg: p < or = 0.001). Treatment was rated effective or very effective by 75 percent and 80 percent of patients randomized to Tramadol Contramid OAD 200 mg and 300 mg, respectively. There was a 46 percent (300-mg dose; p = 0.016) and 43 percent (200-mg dose; p = 0.05) improvement on the WOMAC pain score (baseline to the end of the study) with Tramadol Contramid OAD compared with 32percent for placebo. The responder analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients who achieved a 30 percent improvement in their baseline WOMAC pain score for both Tramadol Contramid OAD 200 mg (65 percent; p = 0.0095) and 300 mg (65 percent; p = 0.0104) compared with placebo (50 percent). The type and incidence of adverse events were typical of tramadol (nausea, dizziness/vertigo, vomiting, somnolence, and constipation) and the intensity was mild to moderate in 87percent of patients who experienced them regardless of dose. This study shows the efficacy and safety of Tramadol Contramid OAD 200 mg and 300 mg in patients with moderate or severe pain of the knee due to OA.

Acute renal failure in bone marrow transplant patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Review of bone marrow transplant (BMT) cases admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) and to compare co-morbidity and outcome of BMT patients developing or not developing acute renal failure (ARF). METHODS: A case review of BMT patients admitted to the ICU (a 16-bed medico-surgical ICU in a tertiary care teaching institution) over a 4-year period. RESULTS: Between January 1994 and December 1998, 57 among 441 BMT patients (12.9%) were admitted to the ICU, mainly for respiratory distress (58%) and hypotension (32%). Forty-two patients (73.7%) presented ARF as defined as a doubling of serum creatinine. Compared to the 15 other patients, ARF patients had a higher APACHE II score (30 +/- 8 vs. 25 +/- 7, p < 0.05). For ARF vs. non-ARF patients, there was no difference in age (43.8 +/- 10.8 vs. 44.3 +/- 11.1 years), in requirement for mechanical ventilation (76 vs. 73%) and vasopressors (69 vs. 60%), and in prevalence of graft-versus-host disease (19 vs. 13%) or neutropenia (69 vs. 67%), but the prevalence of sepsis (83 vs. 60%) and liver failure (69 vs. 40%) was higher. Maximum serum bilirubin was markedly increased in ARF compared to non-ARF patients (p < 0.005). For both subgroups, no difference in the administration of potential nephrotoxic agents was identified. Usually, ARF was considered multifactorial by clinicians, with ATN being the most frequent diagnosis (55%). Maximum serum creatinine reached a mean of 330 +/- 130 micromol/l. In 74% of cases, ARF occurred concomitantly or after admission to the ICU. Oligoanuria was present in 38%, whereas polyuria was observed in 17%. Fourteen ARF patients (33%) required dialytic support. Mortality rates were significantly different in ARF vs. non-ARF patients (88 vs. 60%, p < 0.05). Predictive factors for the development of ARF were liver failure (odds ratio (OR) 5.9), low serum albumin (OR 1.2) and APACHE II score (OR 1.1), whereas variables predictive of mortality were mechanical ventilation (OR 14.8), ARF (OR 5.8), liver failure (OR 3.7), and APACHE II score (OR 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that ARF in BMT patients admitted to the ICU is frequent, multifactorial, related to liver failure, and that its development has a negative impact on outcome.