Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) is a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal of celecoxib and racemic tramadol with an improved pharmacologic profile, conferred by the co-crystal structure, compared with its active constituents administered alone/concomitantly. AIM: We evaluated CTC in moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT03108482) was conducted at 6 US clinical research centers. Adults with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy were randomized to oral CTC (200 mg [112 mg celecoxib/88 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride] every 12 h), tramadol (50 mg every 6 h), celecoxib (100 mg every 12 h), or placebo for 48 h. Patients, investigators, and personnel were blinded to assignment. The primary endpoint was the 0-48 h sum of pain intensity differences (SPID0-48) in all randomized patients. Pain intensity was assessed on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Safety was analyzed in patients who received study medication. Funded by ESTEVE Pharmaceuticals. RESULTS: In 2017 (March to November), 1323 patients were screened and 637 randomized to CTC (n = 184), tramadol (n = 183), celecoxib (n = 181), or placebo (n = 89). Mean baseline NRS was 6.7 in all active groups. CTC had a significantly greater effect on SPID0-48 (least-squares mean: -139.1 [95% confidence interval: -151.8, -126.5]) than tramadol (-109.1 [-121.7, -96.4]; p < 0.001), celecoxib (-103.7 [-116.4, -91.0]; p < 0.001), or placebo (-74.6 [-92.5, -56.6]; p < 0.001). Total treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 358 for CTC and 394 for tramadol. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 37.7% patients in the CTC group, compared with 48.6% in the tramadol group. There were no serious TEAEs/deaths. CONCLUSION: CTC provided greater analgesia than comparable daily doses of tramadol and celecoxib, with similar tolerability to tramadol. CTC is approved in the United States.

Efficacy and Safety of Single and Multiple Doses of a Fixed-dose Combination of Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen in the Treatment of Postsurgical Dental Pain: Results From 2 Phase 3, Randomized, Parallel-group, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Studies.

OBJECTIVES: A previous pilot study demonstrated that various fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of ibuprofen (IBU) and acetaminophen (APAP) provided analgesic efficacy comparable to a higher dose of IBU, with the same safety profile. These studies further evaluated the chosen FDC IBU/APAP 250/500 mg formulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two phase 3 dental pain studies enrolled healthy young patients with ≥moderate pain after ≥3 third molar extractions who received single-dose FDC IBU/APAP 250/500 mg, IBU 250 mg, APAP 650 mg, or placebo evaluated over 12 hours (study 1) or multiple-dose FDC or placebo every 8 hours, evaluated over 48 hours (study 2). Time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences over 8 (SPID[11]0-8) and 24 (SPID[11]0-24) hours were primary outcomes, respectively. Time to meaningful pain relief and duration of pain relief were assessed; tolerability was evaluated by adverse events. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized in study 1; 123 in study 2. Study 1: SPID[11]0-8 favored FDC significantly over placebo, IBU, and APAP (P<0.001, P=0.008, and P<0.001, respectively); study 2: SPID[11]0-24 significantly favored FDC over placebo (P<0.001), with sustained efficacy during multiple dosing. Time to meaningful pain relief occurred within 1 hour; pain relief duration was >8 hours in both studies. Adverse event rates were lowest with the FDC. DISCUSSION: FDC IBU/APAP 250/500 mg provides superior analgesic efficacy to individual monocomponents (IBU 250 mg and APAP 650 mg), a rapid onset of action, >8-hour duration of pain relief, is generally well tolerated, and may provide an additional nonopioid treatment option for acute pain.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of tapentadol oral solution for treating moderate to severe pain in pediatric patients.

Background: This trial is part of the global pediatric clinical development program investigating the administration of the strong analgesic tapentadol in children and adolescents. Patients and methods: The single site, open-label phase 2 trial evaluated the pharmacokinetic profile of tapentadol and its major metabolite, tapentadol-O-glucuronide, as well as safety and tolerability and efficacy of a single dose of tapentadol oral solution (1 mg/kg) in patients (2 to <18 years) undergoing dental, ear, nose, or throat surgery. Blood sampling and pain intensity measurements were conducted using age-appropriate schedules and rating scales, respectively. Adverse events were monitored throughout the trial. Results: Sixty-six patients were treated. They were stratified by age: Group 1 (12 to <18 years), n=21; Group 2 (6 to <12 years), n=28; and Groups 3 (3 to <6 years) and 4 (2 to <3 years), n=17. Serum tapentadol concentrations observed in these pediatric patients were within the range observed in adults after administration of a single tapentadol immediate-release dose (50-100 mg), whereas those of the metabolite tapentadol-O-glucuronide were within the same range or lower than in adults who received comparable single doses of tapentadol. Pain intensity improved over time across all age groups. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (24.2%), vomiting (16.7%), dizziness (9.1%), and headache (6.1%). Conclusion: A single dose of tapentadol oral solution (1 mg/kg) administered to pediatric patients (2 to <18 years) resulted in serum tapentadol concentrations within the targeted range shown to be safe and efficacious in adults. Tapentadol demonstrated good tolerability and safety; within the limitations of the trial design, improvements in postsurgical pain intensity were observed across the age groups. Tapentadol may provide a new treatment option in the management of moderate to severe pediatric pain.

Prevention of Opioid-Induced Nausea and Vomiting During Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing CL-108 (Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg/Rapid-Release, Low-Dose Promethazine 12.5 mg) with Conventional Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the relief of moderate to severe acute pain by CL-108, a novel drug combining a low-dose antiemetic (rapid-release promethazine 12.5 mg) with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (HC/APAP) was used. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled multidose study. After surgical extraction of two or more impacted third molar teeth (including at least one mandibular impaction), 466 patients with moderate to severe pain (measured on a categorical pain intensity scale [PI-CAT]) were randomized to CL-108, HC/APAP, or placebo. Over the next 24 hours, patients used the PI-CAT to assess pain at regular intervals whereas nausea, vomiting, and other opioid-related side effects were also assessed prospectively. Study medications were taken every four to six hours as needed; supplemental rescue analgesic and antiemetic medications were permitted. Co-primary end points were the incidence of OINV and the time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours (SPID24). RESULTS: Relative to HC/APAP treatment alone, CL-108 treatment reduced OINV by 64% (P < 0.001). Treatment with CL-108 significantly reduced pain intensity compared with placebo (SPID24 = 16.2 vs 3.5, P < 0.001). There were no unexpected or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: CL-108 is a safe and effective combination analgesic/antiemetic for the prevention of OINV during treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.

Randomized Comparison of Immunogenicity and Safety of Quadrivalent Recombinant Versus Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Adults 18-49 Years of Age.

Background: Seasonal influenza vaccines are transitioning to quadrivalent formulations including the hemagglutinins of influenza A subtypes H1N1 and H3N2 and B lineages Yamagata and Victoria. Methods: A new quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) was compared directly with a standard-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) for immunogenicity and safety in adults 18-49 years of age. The coprimary endpoints for noninferiority were hemagglutination inhibition seroconversion rates and postvaccination geometric mean titer ratios for each antigen using US regulatory criteria. Reactogenicity solicited for 7 days, other safety events collected for 28 days, and serious or medically attended adverse events collected for 6 months after vaccination comprised the safety evaluation. Results: The immunogenicity of RIV4 was comparable to that of IIV4; the coprimary noninferiority criteria were met for 3 antigens, and the antibody responses to the fourth antigen, influenza B/Brisbane/60/2008, were low in each group, making comparisons uninterpretable. Systemic and injection site reactions were mild, transient, and similar in each group, whereas none of the spontaneously reported adverse events, serious or nonserious, were considered related to study vaccine. Conclusions: This first head-to-head comparison of recombinant versus inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccines in 18-49 year old adults showed comparable immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability for both vaccines.

Efficacy of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50 Years of Age or Older.

BACKGROUND: Improved influenza vaccines are needed to control seasonal epidemics. This trial compared the protective efficacy in older adults of a quadrivalent, recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) with a standard-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) during the A/H3N2-predominant 2014-2015 influenza season, when antigenic mismatch between circulating and vaccine influenza strains resulted in the reduced effectiveness of many licensed vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of RIV4 (45 µg of recombinant hemagglutinin [HA] per strain, 180 µg of protein per dose) versus standard-dose IIV4 (15 µg of HA per strain, 60 µg of protein per dose) to compare the relative vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed, protocol-defined, influenza-like illness caused by any influenza strain starting 14 days or more after vaccination in adults who were 50 years of age or older. The diagnosis of influenza infection was confirmed by means of RT-PCR assay and culture of nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from participants with symptoms of an influenza-like illness. The primary end point was RT-PCR-confirmed, protocol defined, influenza-like illness between 14 days or more after vaccination and the end of the influenza season. RESULTS: A total of 9003 participants were enrolled and underwent randomization; 8855 (98.4%) received a trial vaccine and underwent an efficacy follow-up (the modified intention-to-treat population), and 8604 (95.6%) completed the per-protocol follow-up (the modified per-protocol population). Among RIV4 recipients, the RT-PCR-confirmed influenza attack rate was 2.2% (96 cases among 4303 participants) in the modified per-protocol population and 2.2% (96 cases among 4427 participants) in the modified intention-to-treat population. Among IIV4 recipients, the attack rate was 3.2% (138 cases among 4301 participants) in the modified per-protocol population and 3.1% (138 cases among 4428 participants) in the modified intention-to-treat population. A total of 181 cases of influenza A/H3N2, 47 cases of influenza B, and 6 cases of nonsubtypeable influenza A were detected. The probability of influenza-like illness was 30% lower with RIV4 than with IIV4 (95% confidence interval, 10 to 47; P=0.006) and satisfied prespecified criteria for the primary noninferiority analysis and an exploratory superiority analysis of RIV4 over IIV4. The safety profiles of the vaccines were similar. CONCLUSIONS: RIV4 provided better protection than standard-dose IIV4 against confirmed influenza-like illness among older adults. (Funded by Protein Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02285998 .).

Stable emulsion (SE) alone is an effective adjuvant for a recombinant, baculovirus-expressed H5 influenza vaccine in healthy adults: A Phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza A viruses of the H5 subtype have been identified as important targets for development of vaccines. Achievement of potentially protective antibody responses against pandemic strains has usually required the use of adjuvants. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated a candidate A/Indonesia/05/2005 (H5) vaccine generated by baculovirus expression of recombinant hemagglutinin (HA) protein with or without stable emulsion (SE) as an adjuvant. METHODS: Healthy subjects 18-49years old were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive two doses of rHA at 7.5ug per dose (no adjuvant), or 3.8ug, 7.5ug, or 15ug per dose formulated with 2% SE separated by 21days, and serum from day 0, 21, 42, and 201 assessed by hemagglutination-inhibition. RESULTS: 341 subjects were enrolled in the study and 321 received two doses of vaccine. Vaccination was well tolerated in all groups. After two doses, seroconversion was noted in only 9% (95% confidence interval 4%, 17%) of recipients of unadjuvanted vaccine at 7.5ug, but in 70% (59%, 80%), 76% (65%, 85%), and 83% (73%, 91%) of those receiving adjuvanted vaccine at 3.8ug, 7.5ug, or 15ug respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stable emulsion alone is an effective adjuvant for rH5 vaccine in healthy adults. All three adjuvanted dose groups met the current criterion for seroconversion rate for pandemic vaccines. This dose-ranging study also identified a group (15ug per dose formulated with 2% SE) that met the criteria for both seroconversion and percentage of subjects achieving an HI antibody titer⩾40. These Phase 2 data support the further clinical development of SE adjuvanted Panblok H5. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01612000. The protocol was approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board for each study site, and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, International Conference of Harmonisation - Good Clinical Practice, and all applicable laws and regulations. All participants provided written informed consent before study procedures.

Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of three vaccination schedules and two dose levels of AV7909 vaccine for anthrax post-exposure prophylaxis in healthy adults.

AV7909 vaccine being developed for post-exposure prophylaxis of anthrax disease may require fewer vaccinations and reduced amount of antigen to achieve an accelerated immune response over BioThrax(®) (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed). A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, BioThrax vacccine-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of three intramuscular vaccination schedules and two dose levels of AV7909 in 168 healthy adults. Subjects were randomized at a 4:3:2:4:2 ratio to 5 groups: (1) AV7909 on Days 0/14; (2) AV7909 on Days 0/28; (3) AV7909 on Days 0/14/28; (4) half dose AV7909 on Days 0/14/28; and (5) BioThrax vaccine on Days 0/14/28. Vaccinations in all groups were well tolerated. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 79% for AV7909 subjects and 65% for BioThrax subjects; 92% of AV7909 subjects and 87% of BioThrax subjects having AEs reported Grade 1-2 AEs. No serious AEs were assessed as potentially vaccine-related, and no AEs of potential autoimmune etiology were reported. There was no discernible pattern indicative of a safety concern across groups in the incidence or severity of reactogenicity events. Groups 2-4 achieved success for the primary endpoint, demonstrated by a lower 95% confidence limit of the percentage of subjects with protective toxin neutralizing antibody NF50 values (≥0.56) to be ≥40% at Day 63. Group 1 marginally missed the criterion (lower bound 95% confidence limit of 39.5%). Immune responses were above this threshold for Groups 1, 3 and 4 at Day 28 and all groups at Day 42. Further study of an AV7909 two-dose schedule given 2 weeks apart is warranted in light of the favorable tolerability profile and immunogenicity response relative to three doses of BioThrax vaccine, as well as preliminary data from nonclinical studies indicating similar immune responses correlate with higher survival for AV7909 than BioThrax vaccine.

A Phase 2, Randomized, Active-controlled, Observer-blinded Study to Assess the Immunogenicity, Tolerability and Safety of Bivalent rLP2086, a Meningococcal Serogroup B Vaccine, Coadministered With Tetanus, Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Serogroup A, C, Y and W-135 Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Healthy US Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent rLP2086, targeting meningococcal serogroup B, will extend prevention of meningococcal disease beyond that provided by quadrivalent serogroup ACWY vaccines; coadministration with recommended vaccines may improve adherence to vaccine schedules. This phase 2, randomized, active-controlled, observer-blinded study assessed whether immune responses induced by coadministration of Menactra (meningococcal A, C, Y and W-135 polysaccharide conjugate vaccine [MCV4]) and Adacel (tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, acellular pertussis vaccine [Tdap]) with bivalent rLP2086 (Trumenba [meningococcal serogroup B vaccine], approved in the United States) were noninferior to MCV4 + Tdap or bivalent rLP2086 alone. METHODS: Healthy adolescents aged 10 to <13 years received MCV4 + Tdap + bivalent rLP2086, MCV4 + Tdap or bivalent rLP2086. Bivalent rLP2086 response was assessed with serum bactericidal assays using human complement with 2 meningococcal serogroup B test strains expressing vaccine-heterologous factor H-binding protein variants; MCV4 with SBAs using rabbit complement; and Tdap with multiplexed Luminex assays. Safety was evaluated. RESULTS: Two thousand six hundred forty-eight subjects were randomized. Immune responses to MCV4 + Tdap + bivalent rLP2086 were noninferior to MCV4 + Tdap or bivalent rLP2086 alone. Seroprotective serum bactericidal assays using human complement titers were documented for 62.3%-68.0% and 87.5%-90% of MCV4 + Tdap + bivalent rLP2086 recipients after doses 2 and 3, respectively. A ≥4-fold rise in serum bactericidal assays using human complement titers from baseline was achieved by 56.3%-64.3% and 84.0%-85.7% of subjects after doses 2 and 3, respectively. Bivalent rLP2086 alone induced similar responses. Concomitant administration did not substantially increase reactogenicity compared with bivalent rLP2086 alone. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent rLP2086 given concomitantly with MCV4 + Tdap met all noninferiority immunogenicity criteria without a clinically meaningful increase in reactogenicity. MCV4 and bivalent rLP2086 coadministration would provide coverage against the 5 major disease-causing serogroups.

A dose-finding study of sufentanil sublingual microtablets for the management of postoperative bunionectomy pain.

BACKGROUND: Sufentanil sublingual microtablets (SSMs) at a dose of 15 µg per tablet have been studied for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia with a 20-minute lockout via a bedside handheld system over 2 days to 3 days of use. For more short-term (<24 hours) management of acute moderate-to-severe pain, such as in the ambulatory surgical setting, a single, higher-strength SSM dose administered via a health care provider would be of benefit as it would require less frequent administration and avoid the setup of a drug delivery system. METHODS: This study was a two-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for 12 hours in patients 18 years to 80 years of age who were undergoing bunionectomy alone or with hammertoe repair. Patients were randomly assigned at a 2:2:1 ratio to treatment with SSM 20 µg, SSM 30 µg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was time-weighted summed pain intensity difference to baseline over 12 hours (SPID12). Patients had to have a pain intensity score of 4 or higher just before initial microtablet dosing. Additional doses were administered when requested by the patient, with a minimum redosing interval of 1 hour. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized and received study drug. The SSM 30 µg was superior in the treatment of postbunionectomy surgical pain compared with placebo as demonstrated by the SPID12 score (6.53 vs. -7.12, respectively; p = 0.003) as well as all other secondary efficacy end points. The SSM 20-µg dosage strength was not superior to placebo for primary or secondary efficacy measures. Adverse events were similar among the three groups with the exception of nausea, vomiting, and somnolence, which demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in occurrence. CONCLUSION: The SSM 30 µg may be an effective, noninvasive alternative to health care provider-administered intravenous, intramuscular, or oral opioids for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level I.

Phase 3 trial evaluating the immunogenicity and safety of a three-dose BioThrax® regimen for post-exposure prophylaxis in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to support licensure of a post-exposure prophylaxis indication for BioThrax(®) (anthrax vaccine adsorbed) concurrent with antimicrobials for individuals exposed to aerosolized anthrax spores. METHODS: The immunogenicity and safety of a three-dose regimen (0, 2, and 4 weeks) of BioThrax administered subcutaneously (SC) were evaluated in 200 healthy adults 18-65 years of age. Toxin-neutralizing antibody (TNA) was expressed as 50% neutralization factor (NF50) at predetermined time points through Day 100. Safety was assessed by physical examinations, vital signs, solicited local and systemic reactions using web-enabled subject diaries, in-clinic solicited reactions, and unsolicited adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The prospectively defined success criteria for the primary and secondary endpoints were met. This required the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of subjects with a TNA NF50 value to be greater than 40% at Day 63 (primary), Day 70 (secondary) and Days 63-100 (secondary). At Day 63, 71% of subjects achieved a TNA NF50 threshold value ≥ 0.56, with a lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 40% (64%). The percentage of subjects achieving a TNA NF50 threshold value ≥ 0.56 at Day 70 was 58% (95% CI: 50%, 65%), and the mean value on Days 63-100 (inclusive) was 53% (95% CI: 41%, 55%). The threshold TNA NF50 value of 0.56 was developed from previous rabbit challenge and human immunogenicity studies. No related serious AEs occurred during the study, and no subjects withdrew from the study because of an AE. Tenderness and pain at the injection site were recorded most often in subject diaries following vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: BioThrax, administered as three SC doses at 0, 2, and 4 weeks, was well tolerated. The prospectively defined success criteria for TNA levels on Days 63, 70, and 63-100 were achieved.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, safety and immunogenicity study of 4 formulations of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed plus CPG 7909 (AV7909) in healthy adult volunteers.

A new anthrax vaccine that could accelerate the immune response and possibly reduce the number of injections needed for protection would be desirable in a post-exposure setting. This Phase 1 study compared the safety and immunogenicity of 2 IM doses (Days 0 and 14) of 4 formulations of AV7909 (AVA plus CPG 7909) with 2 IM doses of BioThrax(®) (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed) and 2 IM doses of saline placebo administered on Days 0 and 14. A total of 105 healthy adults 18-50 years of age were randomized to 1 of 6 study groups: BioThrax (0.5 mL), AV7909 Formulation 1 (0.5 mL AVA+0.5mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 2 (0.5 mL AVA+0.25mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 3 (0.25 mL AVA+0.5mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 4 (0.25 mL AVA+0.25mg CPG 7909), or saline placebo (0.5 mL). All randomized subjects received at least 1 vaccination, and 100 subjects completed the trial. After 2 doses, mean peak normalized toxin neutralizing antibody responses (TNA NF50) in the AV7909 groups were higher than in the BioThrax group. Differences among the 4 AV7909 groups were not statistically significant. Subjects who received AV7909 reached peak titers on Day 28 vs. Day 35 in the BioThrax group. The most common adverse events (AEs) in the BioThrax and AV7909 groups assessed as related to vaccination were injection site reactions. Transient lymphopenia was observed after the first dose in each AV7909 group. Frequencies of injection site and systemic reactions recorded by subjects in diaries for 7 days after each injection were highest with AV7909 Formulation 1. No AEs of special interest (autoimmune events) were observed in the study. Further studies of doses and dosing regimens are planned to assess the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of AV7909.