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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Objective: To compare the relative human abuse potential of intact and manipulated morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT) with that of marketed morphine sulfate ER tablets. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, 4-way crossover, single-center study included adult volunteers who were experienced, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg, intact), morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg, manipulated), and morphine ER (60 mg, manipulated) and received 1 dose of each oral agent in crossover fashion, separated by ≥5 days. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic endpoints were assessed, including the primary endpoint of peak effect of Drug Liking (E max ) via Drug Liking Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and the secondary endpoints of time to E max (TE max ) and mean abuse quotient (AQ; a pharmacokinetic parameter associated with drug liking). Results: Thirty-eight participants completed the study. Median Drug Liking VAS E max was significantly lower after treatment with manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT (67) compared with manipulated morphine ER (74; P = 0.007). TE max was significantly shorter after treatment with manipulated morphine ER compared with intact ( P < 0.0001) or manipulated ( P = 0.004) morphine-ADER-IMT. Mean AQ was lower after treatment with intact (5.7) or manipulated (16.4) morphine-ADER-IMT compared with manipulated morphine ER (45.9). Conclusions: Manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT demonstrated significantly lower Drug Liking E max compared with manipulated morphine ER when administered orally. Morphine-ADER-IMT would be an important new AD, ER morphine product with lower potential for unintentional misuse by chewing or intentional manipulation for oral abuse than currently available non-AD morphine ER products.

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.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Placebo-Controlled, Intranasal Drug Liking Study on a Novel Abuse-Deterrent Formulation of Morphine-Morphine ARER.

OBJECTIVE: Misuse and abuse of prescription opioids remains a major healthcare concern despite considerable efforts to increase public awareness. Abuse-deterrent formulations of prescription opioids are designed to reduce intentional misuse, abuse, and prescription opioid-related death. A novel extended-release (ER) formulation of morphine (Morphine ARER; MorphaBond™) resists physical manipulation and retains the drug's ER characteristics, even if attempts are made to manipulate the formulation. DESIGN: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study investigated the abuse potential and safety of crushed intranasal and intact oral Morphine ARER compared with commercially available crushed intranasal ER morphine sulfate (ER morphine). OUTCOME MEASURES: Endpoints included maximum mean drug liking (E max ) as measured by subjects on a bipolar 100 mm visual analog scale (primary), a subject's desire to take the drug again, good effects of the drug, and drug high. RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects completed the treatment phase. There was a 40% reduction in E max for crushed intranasal Morphine ARER compared with crushed intranasal ER morphine ( P < .0001). There was no significant difference when comparing the E max for crushed intranasal vs intact Morphine ARER. When comparing crushed intranasal Morphine ARER with ER morphine, subjects reported lower mean scores for good effects of the drug, drug high, and overall drug liking, as well as a lower desire to use Morphine ARER again. Other than adverse events associated with intranasal administration of a drug, all adverse events were typical of those reported for opioid-containing drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these data suggest that Morphine ARER has a lower abuse potential via the intranasal route of administration when compared with ER morphine.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study to Evaluate the Intranasal Human Abuse Potential and Pharmacokinetics of a Novel Extended-Release Abuse-Deterrent Formulation of Oxycodone.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the human abuse potential (HAP) of an experimental, microsphere-in-capsule formulation of extended-release oxycodone (oxycodone DETERx®) (herein "DETERx"). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, positive- and placebo-controlled, single-dose, four-phase, four-treatment, crossover study. SETTING: Clinical research site. SUBJECTS: There were 39 qualifying subjects (72% male, 85% white, mean age of 27 years) with 36 completing all four Double-blind Treatment Periods. METHODS: The four phases encompassed: 1) Screening; 2) Drug Discrimination; 3) Double-blind Treatment; and 4) Follow-up. Drug Discrimination tests ensured that subjects could distinguish placebo from opioid. The four Double-blind Treatments compared DETERx-administered as either a crushed intranasal (IN) or an intact oral (PO) preparation-with immediate-release oxycodone IN (OXY-IR IN) and with an intact IN and PO placebo DETERx control. RESULTS: For primary pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments, abuse quotient (Cmax/Tmax) was lower with DETERx IN than DETERx PO; both treatments were substantially lower than OXY-IR IN (6.24, 8.60, and 69.6 ng/mL/h, respectively). For drug liking, the primary subjective pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoint, both DETERx IN and DETERx PO produced significantly lower scores than OXY-IR IN (P ≤ 0.0001 for each); DETERx IN was less liked than DETERx PO (P ≤ 0.05), mirroring the PK relationships. Objectively assessed pupillometry corroborated the more rapid and significantly greater effect of OXY-IR IN than either DETERx IN or DETERx PO (P ≤ 0.007 for each). Overall safety profiles of DETERx and OXY-IR were comparable and both were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic outcomes suggest that DETERx IN has relatively low HAP; continued research in larger populations is suggested.

Intravenous abuse potential study of oxycodone alone or in combination with naltrexone in nondependent recreational opioid users.

BACKGROUND: ALO-02, comprising pellets of extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone, is intended to deter abuse. OBJECTIVE: Determine the abuse potential of intravenous oxycodone combined with naltrexone, which represents simulated crushed ALO-02 in solution, compared with intravenous oxycodone in nondependent, recreational opioid users. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study with naloxone challenge, drug discrimination, and treatment phases. Intravenous treatments included oxycodone hydrochloride 20 mg, oxycodone hydrochloride 20 mg plus naltrexone hydrochloride 2.4 mg (simulated crushed ALO-02 20 mg/2.4 mg), or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride for injection). Primary end points were peak effects (Emax) and area under the effects curve within 2 h postdose (AUE0-2h) on drug liking and high visual analog scales. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants were randomized into treatment phase, and 29 completed all treatments. Study validity was confirmed with statistically significant differences in Emax for drug liking and high (p < 0.0001) between intravenous oxycodone and placebo. Intravenous simulated crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower scores than oxycodone on drug liking (Emax: 58.2 vs. 92.4; AUE0-2h: 104.3 vs. 152.4) and high (Emax: 17.2 vs. 93.1; AUE0-2h: 12.0 vs. 133.6), respectively (p < 0.0001, all comparisons). More participants experienced adverse events after intravenous oxycodone (n = 27 [90%]) versus intravenous simulated crushed ALO-02 (n = 4 [12.5%]) or placebo (n = 2 [6.5%]). CONCLUSION: Intravenous administration of simulated crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower abuse potential, as assessed by subjective ratings of drug liking and high, than intravenous oxycodone in nondependent, recreational opioid users. This suggests that injection of ALO-02 may not be as desirable to recreational opioid users compared with oxycodone taken for nonmedical reasons.

Effect of steady-state faldaprevir on the pharmacokinetics of steady-state methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone in subjects receiving stable addiction management therapy.

The effects of steady-state faldaprevir on the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of steady-state methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone were assessed in 34 healthy male and female subjects receiving stable addiction management therapy. Subjects continued receiving a stable oral dose of either methadone (up to a maximum dose of 180 mg per day) or buprenorphine-naloxone (up to a maximum dose of 24 mg-6 mg per day) and also received oral faldaprevir (240 mg) once daily (QD) for 8 days following a 480-mg loading dose. Serial blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis. The pharmacodynamics of the opioid maintenance regimens were evaluated by the objective and subjective opioid withdrawal scales. Coadministration of faldaprevir with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone resulted in geometric mean ratios for the steady-state area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24,ss)), the steady-state maximum concentration of the drug in plasma (C(max,ss)), and the steady-state concentration of the drug in plasma at 24 h (C(24,ss)) of 0.92 to 1.18 for (R)-methadone, (S)-methadone, buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and naloxone, with 90% confidence intervals including, or very close to including, 1.00 (no effect), suggesting a limited overall effect of faldaprevir. Although individual data showed moderate variability in the exposures between subjects and treatments, there was no evidence of symptoms of opiate overdose or withdrawal either during the coadministration of faldaprevir with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone or after faldaprevir dosing was stopped. Similar faldaprevir exposures were observed in the methadone- and buprenorphine-naloxone-treated subjects. In conclusion, faldaprevir at 240 mg QD can be coadministered with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone without dose adjustment, although given the relatively narrow therapeutic windows of these agents, monitoring for opiate overdose and withdrawal may still be appropriate. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01637922.).

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of lubiprostone for opioid-induced constipation in chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, phase 3 trial evaluated oral lubiprostone for constipation associated with non-methadone opioids in patients with chronic noncancer-related pain. METHODS: Adults with opioid-induced constipation (OIC; <3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs] per week) were randomized 1:1 to double-blind lubiprostone 24 µg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the overall SBM response rate. Responders had at least moderate response (≥1 SBM improvement over baseline frequency) in all treatment weeks with available observed data, as well as full response (≥3 SBMs per week) for at least 9 of the 12 treatment weeks. RESULTS: In total, 431 patients were randomized; 212 each received lubiprostone and placebo, and 7 were not treated. Overall, the SBM response rate was significantly higher for patients treated with lubiprostone vs. placebo (27.1 vs. 18.9%, respectively; P=0.030). Overall mean change from baseline in SBM frequency was significantly greater with lubiprostone vs. placebo (3.2 vs. 2.4, respectively; P=0.001). The median time to first SBM was significantly shorter with lubiprostone vs. placebo (23.5 vs. 37.7 h, respectively; P=0.004). Compared with placebo, the patients treated with lubiprostone exhibited significant improvements in straining (P=0.004), stool consistency (P<0.001), and constipation severity (P=0.010). No significant differences were observed in quality-of-life measures or the use of rescue medication; however, the percentage of patients who used rescue medication was consistently lower in the lubiprostone group than in the placebo group at months 1 (34.9 vs. 37.7%), 2 (23.4 vs. 26.6%), and 3 (20.5 vs. 22.0%). Adverse events (AEs) >5% were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (lubiprostone: 11.3, 9.9, 4.2, and 7.1%, respectively; placebo, 3.8, 4.7, 5.2, and 0%, respectively). None of the serious AEs (lubiprostone, 3.3%; placebo, 2.8%) were related to lubiprostone. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone significantly improved symptoms of OIC and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Definitions and outcome measures of clinical trials regarding opioid-induced constipation: a systematic review.

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent symptom in patients treated with opioids and impacts the patients' quality of life. However, there is no generally accepted definition for OIC. The aims of this study were to identify definitions for OIC in clinical trials and Cochrane Reviews and to compile assessment tools and outcome measures that were used in clinical trials. In a systematic review, 5 databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE) were searched to identify clinical trials assessing OIC in adult patients or healthy volunteers. Studies published between 1993 and August 2013 were included. A total of 1488 studies were retrieved and 47 publications were included in the analysis. A minority of the publications (n=16, 34%) provided a clear definition for OIC. The definitions were highly variable and the present or recent history of opioid therapy was frequently (n=6, 38%) not included in these definitions. Of 46 clinical trials, 17 (37%) relied exclusively on objective measures such as bowel movement frequency, whereas another 17 studies additionally included patient-reported outcome measures such as, "feeling of incomplete bowel evacuation." Few trials (n=7, 15%) assessed the patient-reported global burden of OIC. Standard definitions and outcome measures are necessary (i) for consistency in OIC diagnosis in clinical practice and clinical trials; and (ii) to assure comparability of trial findings (eg, in meta-analyses). An OIC definition and outcome measures are proposed.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between HCV protease inhibitor boceprevir and methadone or buprenorphine in subjects on stable maintenance therapy.

PURPOSE: Intravenous opioid use is a common route of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; consequently, the prevalence of HCV is high among patients on methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone. The authors evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction of boceprevir with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone in patients on stable maintenance therapy. METHODS: This was a two-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study in 21 adult volunteers on stable maintenance therapy. Oral methadone (20-150 mg once daily) or sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (8/2-24/6 mg once daily) was administered alone or in combination with boceprevir (800 mg every 8 h) on days 2-7. Pharmacokinetic sampling occurred before and up to 24 h after the dose on days 1 and 7. RESULTS: Coadministration of boceprevir reduced the area under the concentration-time curve during a dosing interval τ (AUC τ ) and maximum observed plasma (or serum) concentration (C max) of R-methadone (geometric mean ratios (GMRs) [90 % confidence intervals (CIs)], 0.85 [0.74, 0.96] and 0.90 [0.71, 1.13]) and S-methadone (GMRs [90 % CIs], 0.78 [0.66, 0.93] and 0.83 [0.64, 1.09]). Boceprevir increased the AUC τ and C max of buprenorphine (GMRs [90 % CIs], 1.19 [0.91, 1.58] and 1.18 [0.93, 1.50]) and naloxone (GMRs [90 % CIs], 1.33 [0.90, 1.93] and 1.09 [0.79, 1.51]). Boceprevir exposure upon methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone coadministration was not clinically different from historical controls and there was no evidence of opioid withdrawal or excess. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinically meaningful impact of boceprevir on methadone or buprenorphine pharmacokinetics, suggesting that methadone/buprenorphine dose adjustments are not required upon coadministration with boceprevir. Individual patients may differ in their clinical experience and clinicians should maintain vigilance when coadministering these medications.