Efficacy and safety of controlled-release versus immediate-release oxycodone: randomized, double-blind evaluation in patients with chronic back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release oxycodone given every 12 hours with immediate-release oxycodone given four times daily in patients with persistent back pain. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two-period crossover trial. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven adult outpatients with stable, chronic, moderate-to-severe low back pain despite analgesic therapy were enrolled; 47 were randomized; 11 discontinued for side effects, most commonly nausea and vomiting. INTERVENTIONS: Controlled-release oxycodone tablets given every 12 hours; immediate-release oxycodone tablets given four times daily; dose titration with controlled-release or immediate-release for up to 10 days; double-blind treatment for 4-7 days each. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' pain scores (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased from moderate to severe at baseline to slight at the end of titration with both oxycodone formulations. The daily oxycodone dose was 40 mg or less in 68% of patients. During double-blind treatment, mean pain intensity was maintained at 1.2 (0.1 SE) with controlled-release and at 1.1 (0.1 SE) with immediate-release oxycodone. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, pruritus, somnolence, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Controlled-release oxycodone given every 12 hours was comparable with immediate-release oxycodone given four times daily in efficacy and safety, and it provides convenient, twice-daily, around-the-clock treatment for selected patients with persistent back pain that is inadequately controlled by nonopioids or as-needed opioid therapy.

Long-term administration of controlled-release oxycodone tablets for the treatment of cancer pain.

We conducted a study of the safety of controlled-release (CR) oxycodone tablets (OxyContin Tablets) administered chronically to patients with cancer-related pain in a usual clinical setting. These patients had participated in 1 of 2 double-blind, active-control studies. Our study was an open, 3-month treatment study that included 87 patients. Patients received CR oxycodone tablets every 12 hr in a manner that reflected typical clinical practice. Supplemental immediate-release (IR) oxycodone was available PRN for breakthrough pain. Patients recorded medication use, adverse events, and evaluations of pain intensity and acceptability of therapy in a daily diary. Forty-four patients (51%) completed all 12 weeks of study; 43 patients (49%) discontinued participation. At baseline and throughout the study period, the overall mean pain-intensity score was slight to moderate. A comparison of initial and final doses showed a significant but modest increase in total daily CR oxycodone dose. An increase or decrease in titration of the oxycodone dose occurred for 66 patients (84%) at least once during the 12-week study period, primarily for increased pain. Forty-four patients (56%) did not undergo dose titration when the latter was indicated. Half of the patients used IR oxycodone rescue almost daily; the mean number of rescue doses per day was 1.5. Despite stable pain control and an increasing total daily CR oxycodone dose, the percentage of patients reporting common opioid-related adverse events decreased over the course of the study. CR oxycodone tablets administered every 12 hr were successfully used to manage cancer pain over a 12-week period. Importantly, side effects diminished over time without a concomitant change in efficacy.

The use of controlled-release oxycodone for the treatment of chronic cancer pain: a randomized, double-blind study.

To compare the effectiveness and safety of controlled-release (CR) oxycodone tablets with immediate-release (IR) oxycodone in patients with chronic cancer pain, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was performed in 111 patients with cancer pain. Patients were treated with 6 to 12 tablets or capsules of fixed-combination opioid/nonopioid analgesics per day at study entry. Patients received 30 mg of CR oxycodone tablets every 12 hr or 15 mg of IR oxycodone four times daily for 5 days. No titration or supplemental analgesic medications were permitted. The mean (+/- SE) baseline pain intensity (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) was 1.5 +/- 0.1 for the CR oxycodone-treated group and 1.3 +/- 0.1 for the group given IR oxycodone (P > 0.05). The 5-day mean pain intensity was 1.4 +/- 0.1 and 1.1 +/- 0.1 for the CR and IR groups, respectively (P > 0.05). Discontinuation rates were equivalent (33%). There was no significant difference between treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events. This study demonstrates that cancer pain patients given 6 to 12 tablets or capsules of fixed-dose combination analgesics can be equally well treated with CR oxycodone administered every 12 hr or IR oxycodone four times daily at the same total daily dose. CR oxycodone offers the benefits of twice daily dosing.

Comparison of controlled-release and immediate-release oxycodone tablets in patients with cancer pain.

PURPOSE: This study compared the clinical efficacy of oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release (CR) tablets administered every 12 hours with immediate-release (IR) oxycodone tablets administered four times daily in patients with cancer-related pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer patients who required therapy for moderate to severe pain were randomized to CR oxycodone every 12 hours (n=81) or IR oxycodone four times daily (n=83) for 5 days in a multicenter, double-blind study. Pain intensity was assessed four times daily (categorical scale of none, slight, moderate, and severe); acceptability of therapy was assessed twice daily (categorical scale of very poor, poor, fair, good, and excellent). RESULTS: Pain intensity remained slight during the study, with mean oxycodone doses of 114 mg/d (range, 20 to 400 mg/d) for CR and 127 mg/d (range, 40 to 640 mg/d) for IR. Acceptability of therapy was fair to good with both treatments. While standard conversion ratios provided an acceptable dose for many patients, a protocol amendment that allowed initial titration and use of rescue medication reduced the discontinuation rate for lack of acceptable pain control (from 34% to 4% with CR and from 31% to 19% with IR before and after amendment, respectively) without increasing the discontinuation rate for adverse events (from 8% to 7% with CR and from 13% to 11% with IR). Fewer adverse events were reported with CR (109) than with IR (186) oxycodone (P=.006). CONCLUSION: CR oxycodone every 12 hours was as effective as IR oxycodone four times daily in managing moderate to severe cancer-related pain and was associated with fewer reports of adverse events.

Controlled-release oxycodone compared with controlled-release morphine in the treatment of cancer pain: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study.

Controlled-release oral formulations of oxycodone and morphine are both suitable analgesics for moderate to severe pain. They were compared in cancer-pain patients randomized to double-blind treatment with controlled-release oxycodone (n = 48) or controlled-release morphine (n = 52) every 12 h for up to 12 days. Stable analgesia was achieved by 83% of controlled-release oxycodone and 81% of controlled-release morphine patients in 2 days (median). Following titration to stable analgesia, pain intensity (0=none to 3=severe) decreased from baseline within each group (p

Analgesic efficacy of controlled-release oxycodone in postoperative pain.

The efficacy and safety of graded doses (10, 20, and 30 mg) of controlled-release (CR) oxycodone was compared with that of immediate-release (IR) oxycodone (15 mg), immediate-release oxycodone 10 mg in combination with acetaminophen 650 mg (APAP), and placebo in a single-dose, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. The participants, 182 inpatients experiencing moderate to severe pain after abdominal or gynecologic surgery, provided hourly ratings of pain intensity and relief for 12 hours after administration. All active treatments were significantly superior to placebo for many hourly measurements and for the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) and total pain relief (TOTPAR). A dose response was found among the three levels of CR oxycodone for pain relief and peak pain intensity difference (PID), with the 20- and 30-mg doses being significantly better than the 10-mg dose. For all active treatments, peak PID and peak pain relief occurred approximately 2 to 4 hours after administration. The median time to onset of relief was 32 minutes for oxycodone plus APAP, 41 minutes for IR oxycodone, and 46 minutes for CR oxycodone 30 mg. Duration of pain relief showed that the 10-, 20-, and 30-mg doses of CR oxycodone had durations of action of 10 to 12 hours compared with IR oxycodone and oxycodone plus APAP (both approximately 7 hours). Typical adverse events, particularly somnolence, occurred in all active treatment groups. Treatment with CR oxycodone was safe and effective in this study, and its characteristics will be beneficial in the treatment of pain.

Cancer pain management with a controlled-release oral morphine preparation.

An open-label pilot study was conducted to assess the efficacy and acceptability of a controlled-release oral morphine formulation, MS Contin tablets, when administered "by the clock" two to three times daily as a substitute for opioids given on request to patients with pain caused by advanced cancer. Initially, four-hourly does of standard "immediate-release" oral morphine sulfate tablets were substituted for the patients' prior analgesic medication and titrated to individual needs. Forty of the 47 patients enrolled in the study were subsequently switched to an eight-hourly MS Contin regimen (three patients became too ill to continue the study, and four left the study during the immediate-release titration phase because of adverse reactions that may have been drug related). Small "rescue" doses of standard oral morphine were available to the patients, but they were taken infrequently. Twenty-one of the 37 patients maintained on the eight-hourly schedule consented to be treated with, and were subsequently stabilized on, MS Contin administered every 12 hr, with a reduction of over 20% in their average daily morphine dose. Most of the patients rated the controlled-release medication superior to the standard oral morphine tablets in terms of both convenience and adequacy of relief.

Oral controlled-release morphine sulfate. Analgesic efficacy and side effects of a 100-mg tablet in cancer pain patients.

Fifty-one cancer pain patients with limited opioid exposure participated in a randomized, double-blind, repeated-dose, parallel-group comparison of two dosage strengths of the controlled-release morphine preparation, MS Contin tablets (The Purdue Frederick Company, Norwalk, CT). The patients were first stabilized on immediate-release oral morphine 30 mg every 4 hours, with 15 mg available every 2 hours as needed for breakthrough pain ("rescue" dose). Each patient then received either one 100 mg MS Contin tablet or three 30-mg MS Contin tablets every 12 hours, with rescue medication as needed, for 3 days. Analysis of study power revealed sufficient sensitivity to detect clinically relevant differences in pain intensity and use of rescue medication. The two tablet strengths yielded similar pain relief, use of rescue medication, and frequency of side effects. In addition, pain and use of rescue medication did not change from the beginning to the end of the 12-hour dosing intervals in either group. In the study population as a whole, pain intensity was lower and total morphine intake higher during the period on controlled-release morphine. These data establish comparable analgesic efficacy and side effect potential of these two dosage strengths and confirm a 12-hour duration of effect for both. The improved analgesia on the controlled-release morphine may be attributable to increased consumption of drug resulting from improved compliance.

The United States experience with oral controlled-release morphine (MS Contin tablets). Parts I and II. Review of nine dose titration studies and clinical pharmacology of 15-mg, 30-mg, 60-mg, and 100-mg tablet strengths in normal subjects.

The results of nine US multicenter, sequential crossover, dose titration studies of controlled-release oral morphine (MS Contin 30 mg tablets [MSC], Purdue Frederick, Norwalk, CT) are reviewed in Part I. The studies demonstrated the prolonged analgesic efficacy of the preparation in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe cancer-related pain. Approximately 93% of the patients achieved satisfactory to excellent analgesia on a 12-hour regimen when appropriate dose titration was allowed. The remaining patients were successfully maintained on an 8-hour regimen. The preparation was well-tolerated and comparable in safety to immediate-release oral morphine. In global evaluations, MSC was judged to be significantly (P less than 0.05) more effective, and with significantly (P less than 0.05) fewer side effects than both the prestudy opioid analgesics and 4-hour immediate-release oral morphine. Patients had a broad range of morphine requirements (mean daily MSC dose, 240 mg; range, 60 mg/day to 1800 mg/day); therefore various MSC tablet strengths were developed. Part II presents three studies in which the MSC formulations (15-mg, 60-mg, and 100-mg tablets) were compared to the 30-mg tablet within three randomized, single-dose, two-way crossover, analytically blinded bioavailability protocols, to determine bioequivalence and dose proportionality. The maximum morphine concentration, time of maximum morphine concentration, and area under the plasma morphine versus 12-hour and 24-hour time curve (AUC 0.12; AUC 0.24) were determined in each study. There were no significant differences between the values associated with MSC 1 X 30 mg tablet and 2 X 15 mg tablets (study 1), MSC 2 X 30 mg tablets and 1 X 60 mg tablet (study 2), and MSC 3 X 30 mg tablets and 1 X 100 mg tablet (study 3, values adjusted to dose of 90 mg), except for one marginally significant difference in study 3 (AUC 0.24; P = 0.04) which was not clinically or biopharmaceutically significant. The results showed that MSC 15-mg, 30-mg, 60-mg, and 100-mg dosage strengths are bioequivalent and dose proportional, and, therefore, therapeutically interchangeable. It was concluded that with routine assessment of the patient and adherence to the principles of analgesic dosing, MSC can be successfully used to control cancer-related pain. Furthermore, the availability of various MSC tablet strengths can be expected to facilitate the analgesic management of a patient population with widely differing opioid requirements.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone in patients with chronic pain.

Concentrations of methadone in plasma, estimates of pain relief, and pupillary size were determined after a single intravenous dose (10 to 30 mg) of methadone hydrochloride to eight patients with chronic pain, five of whom had cancer. The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates reveal rapid and extensive distribution (Varea) and a slow apparent elimination half-life (t1/2) (mean Varea = 3.59 L/kg and harmonic mean t1/2 = 23 hours). The harmonic mean blood clearance is 106 ml/min, the harmonic mean renal clearance is 3.9 ml/min, the mean hepatic extraction ratio is 0.089, and plasma protein binding is 86% to 89%. These results suggest that only the free (unbound) fraction of methadone present in blood is extracted by the liver and that methadone can be classified as a low (hepatic)-extraction drug. The data were fit to a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model to obtain estimates of the steady-state plasma methadone concentration required to produce 50% of the maximum pain relief. This value varied from 0.04 to 1.13 micrograms/ml (mean = 0.29 micrograms/ml). These results indicate substantial interindividual variation in the relationship between changes in plasma methadone concentration and analgesia in patients with chronic pain receiving opioids. A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model may be useful for the individualization of analgesic dosage and therefore the optimization of pain management in patients with chronic pain.

Crossover trials in clinical analgesic assays: studies of buprenorphine and morphine.

Analgesic studies of buprenorphine, a thebaine derivative and potent partial narcotic agonist, were carried out in patients with cancer who had postoperative or chronic pain. Intramuscular buprenorphine was compared with intramuscular morphine in a series of sequentially related, twin crossover assays and was found to be about 25 times as potent as morphine. Side effects were essentially morphine-like. In a second assay, the acceptability and analgesic activity of sublingual buprenorphine was studied in a 6-dose, balanced, incomplete block assay, a modification of the twin crossover design employed in the all-intramuscular trial. Sublingual buprenorphine was found to be about 15 times as potent as intramuscular morphine and was well accepted by our patients. The 4-dose twin crossover trial in which doses are adjusted sequentially is more flexible in that a wide range of doses may be studied, but it lacks the ability of the 6-dose design to provide estimates of the curvature of the dose-response slopes of the study drugs. When first-dose-only data were analyzed as parallel group assays, the main difference in results compared with the crossover studies was a decrease in efficiency and sensitivity.

Epidural and intrathecal opiates: cerebrospinal fluid and plasma profiles in patients with chronic cancer pain.

We studied the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma concentration-time profiles of morphine, methadone, and beta-endorphin after lumbar epidural or intrathecal injection in 17 patients with cancer. After epidural injection, all three drugs reached peak levels in lumbar CSF within 34 minutes that were 50 to 1300 times higher than free drug concentrations in plasma. The rate of decline of CSF levels correlated with drug lipid solubility (methadone [t1/2 = 73 minutes] greater than morphine [126 minutes] greater than beta-endorphin [317 minutes]). Plasma levels were comparable with those after intragluteal injection of the same dose. In four patients given intrathecal morphine or methadone, CSF at the C1-2 level contained high levels of morphine as early as 1 hour after injection, but levels of methadone were lower or undetectable. Three of 17 patients reported improved analgesia initially, but none were improved at 2 weeks after chronic therapy. We conclude that analgesia induced by intrathecal or epidural morphine injections is caused by drug acting at both spinal and supraspinal sites. The use of spinal opiates such as morphine is of limited value in patients whose pain is not adequately managed by high systemic doses of morphine-like drugs.

Intramuscular meptazinol and morphine in postoperative pain.

Meptazinol is an agonist-antagonist opioid analgesic believed to be unique in its selectivity for mu1 (high affinity) receptors and its cholinergic activity. Our objectives were to determine the relative analgesic potency of intramuscular meptazinol and morphine and to compare mood and side effects in 102 patients with cancer who have postoperative pain. Meptazinol (50, 100, and 200 mg) and morphine (4, 8, and 16 mg) were given for moderate to severe pain in a double-blind, randomized but balanced, incomplete block design. Serial multiple assessments of pain, relief, mood, and side effects were made. The most precise estimates of relative analgesic potency indicate that meptazinol is equivalent to 10 mg morphine at 120 mg (95% confidence interval 80 to 170 mg) for peak effect and at 175 mg (95% confidence interval 125 to 270 mg) for total effect. Mean (+/- SE) times to peak effect and to remedication were 0.9 +/- 0.1 and 3.6 +/- 0.2 hours for meptazinol and 1.4 +/- 0.1 and 4.8 +/- 0.4 hours for morphine at equianalgesic peak effects. The percentages of subjects with one or more side effects were 18, 49, and 73 for graded meptazinol doses and 32, 49, and 65 for graded morphine doses. Mean numbers of side effects per subject were 0.3, 1.5, and 3.5 for meptazinol and 0.5, 0.7, and 1.7 for morphine. Profiles of side effects differed. Mood improvement and overall satisfaction were dose related and greater for morphine than for meptazinol. Side effects may limit the use of meptazinol in doses that relieve severe postoperative pain.