Effectiveness, Safety, and Tolerability of Nabiximols Oromucosal Spray vs Typical Oral Long-Acting Opioid Analgesics in Patients with Severe Neuropathic Back Pain: Analysis of 6-Month Real-World Data from the German Pain e-Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of add-on nabiximols (NBX) oromucosal spray vs typical oral long-acting opioid (LAO) analgesics in patients with severe (± chronic) peripheral neuropathic back pain poorly responsive to other treatments. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of anonymized, propensity score-matched data from the German Pain e-Registry of adult outpatients who initiated NBX or LAO between March 2017 and March 2020. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from propensity score-matched patients treated with NBX (n = 655) or LAO (n = 655): mean age ≈51 years; 57% female; mean pain duration ≈2.6 years; chronic pain 61%; severe dysfunctional pain 93%. At 6 months, NBX was noninferior to LAO for overall symptom relief, based on the least-squares mean difference between cohorts in change from baseline in patient-reported, pain-related aggregated nine-item scale scores (-27.84%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -29.71 to -25.96; P < 0.001) and individual pain-related scale scores. Subsequent prespecified superiority analysis of the primary endpoint showed that NBX was superior to LAO: all secondary endpoints measuring symptoms of pain and physical function improved significantly with NBX and LAO, with between-group differences favoring NBX (all P < 0.001). Fewer patients treated with NBX than LAO experienced treatment-related adverse events (25.5% vs 76.0%; P < 0.001) or discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events (7.9% vs 29.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within study limitations (e.g., observational design, all potential biases), add-on NBX was superior to and better tolerated than add-on treatment with typical oral LAO analgesics in patients with neuropathic back pain inadequately controlled by recommended/established systemic therapies.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Nabiximols (THC:CBD) Oromucosal Spray versus Oral Dronabinol (THC) as Add-on Treatment for Severe Neuropathic Pain in Real-World Clinical Practice: Retrospective Analysis of the German Pain e-Registry.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on treatment with nabiximols (NBX: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: cannabidiol) oromucosal spray or oral dronabinol (DRO: synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol) in patients with severe neuropathic pain poorly responsive to established treatments. METHODS: An analysis was conducted of anonymized, propensity score-matched real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry, using a sequential non-inferiority superiority approach, for adult outpatients with neuropathic pain who had initiated treatment with NBX or DRO between 10 March 2017 and 31 December 2019. The primary effectiveness variable was percent change from baseline in a 9-factor aggregated symptom relief (ASR-9) score, a composite index of nine distinct pain- and health-related parameters assessed using validated patient-reported instruments. Safety was assessed by the incidence of physician-confirmed treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and TRAEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Propensity score-matched data were analyzed for 337 patients treated with NBX and 337 patients treated with DRO. Mean (standard deviation) THC dose over the 24-week evaluation period was 16.6 (6.5) mg for NBX and 17.2 (7.6) mg for DRO (p<0.001). Median (standard error) improvement relative to baseline in the ASR-9 composite score was 55.4% (0.5) for NBX and 40.5% (0.5) for DRO (least squares mean difference, 14.0 (0.7), 95% confidence interval 12.6-15.4; p<0.001), and incidences of TRAEs (21.1 vs 35%) and TRAE-related discontinuations (5.9 vs 14.8%) were significantly lower with NBX than DRO (p<0.001 for both), collectively indicating pre-specified non-inferiority and superiority of NBX. More NBX- than DRO-treated patients discontinued non-cannabinoid background pain medications and rescue analgesics, especially opioid analgesics (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: Add-on treatment with cannabinoids is effective for treatment of severe neuropathic pain with inadequate response to established treatments. In daily practice, NBX had superior effectiveness and tolerability compared to DRO. The results emphasize the importance of combining CBD with THC in this patient population.

Efficacy and tolerability balance of oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol in chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component: a blinded end point analysis of randomly selected routine data from 12-week prospective open-label observations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit-risk profile (BRP) of oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) and tapentadol (TAP) in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) with a neuropathic component (NC) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was a blinded end point analysis of randomly selected 12-week routine/open-label data of the German Pain Registry on adult patients with cLBP-NC who initiated an index treatment in compliance with the current German prescribing information between 1st January and 31st October 2015 (OXN/TAP, n=128/133). Primary end point was defined as a composite of three efficacy components (≥30% improvement of pain, pain-related disability, and quality of life each at the end of observation vs baseline) and three tolerability components (normal bowel function, absence of either central nervous system side effects, and treatment-emergent adverse event [TEAE]-related treatment discontinuation during the observation period) adopted to reflect BRP assessments under real-life conditions. RESULTS: Demographic as well as baseline and pretreatment characteristics were comparable for the randomly selected data sets of both index groups without any indicators for critical selection biases. Treatment with OXN resulted formally in a BRP noninferior to that of TAP and showed a significantly higher primary end point response vs TAP (39.8% vs 25.6%, odds ratio: 1.93; P=0.014), due to superior analgesic effects. Between-group differences increased with stricter response definitions for all three efficacy components in favor of OXN: ≥30%/≥50%/≥70% response rates for OXN vs TAP were seen for pain intensity in 85.2%/67.2%/39.1% vs 83.5%/54.1%/15.8% (P= ns/0.031/<0.001), for pain-related disability in 78.1%/64.8%/43.8% vs 66.9%/50.4%/24.8% (P=0.043/0.018/0.001), and for quality of life in 76.6%/68.0%/50.0% vs 63.9%/54.1%/34.6% (P=0.026/0.022/0.017). Overall, OXN vs TAP treatments were well tolerated, and proportions of patients who either maintained a normal bowel function (68.0% vs 72.2%), reported no central nervous system side effects (91.4% vs 89.5%), or completed the 12-week evaluation period without any TEAE-related treatment discontinuations (93.0% vs 92.5%) were similar for both index medications (P= ns for each comparison). CONCLUSION: In daily practice, the BRP of OXN proved to be noninferior to that of TAP in patients with cLBP-NC, but showed a superior efficacy if stricter analgesic response definitions were evaluated.

Safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone vs. oxycodone vs. morphine for the treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a 12 week prospective, randomized, open-label blinded endpoint streamlined study with prolonged-release preparations.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most prevalent patient complaint associated with opioid use and interferes with analgesic efficacy. OBJECTIVES: This PROBE trial compares the overall safety and tolerability of oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) with those of traditional opioid therapy with oxycodone (OXY) or morphine (MOR) in the setting of the German healthcare system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) streamlined study (German pain study registry: 2012-0012-05; EudraCT: 2012-001317-16), carried out in 88 centers in Germany, where a total of 453 patients, requiring WHO step III opioids to treat low back pain, were randomized to OXN, OXY or MOR (1:1:1) for 3 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients without adverse event-related study discontinuations who presented with a combination of a ≥50% improvement of pain intensity, disability and quality-of-life and a ≤50% worsening of bowel function at study end. RESULTS: Significantly more OXN patients met the primary endpoint (22.2%) vs. OXY (9.3%; OR: 2.80; p < 0.001) vs. MOR (6.3%; OR: 4.23; p < 0.001), with insignificant differences between OXY vs. MOR (p = 0.155). A ≥50% improvement of pain intensity, functional disability and quality-of-life has been found for OXN in 75.0/61.1/66.0% of patients and thus for all parameters significantly more than with OXY (58.9/49.0/48.3; p < 0.001 for each) or MOR (52.5/46.2/37.3; p < 0.001 for each). A total of 86.8% of OXN patients kept normal BFI scores during treatment, vs. 63.6% for OXY (p < 0.001) vs. 53.8% for MOR (p < 0.001). Overall 189 TEAEs (OXN: 45, OXY: 69, MOR: 75) in 92 patients (OXN: 21, OXY: 44, MOR: 37) occurred, most gastrointestinal (50.8%). One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this PROBE design, OXN was associated with a significantly better tolerability, a lower risk of OIC and a significantly better analgesic efficacy than OXY or MOR.

Physicians Experience with and Expectations of the Safety and Tolerability of WHO-Step III Opioids for Chronic (Low) Back Pain: Post Hoc Analysis of Data from a German Cross-Sectional Physician Survey.

Objective. To describe physicians' daily life experience with WHO-step III opioids in the treatment of chronic (low) back pain (CLBP). Methods. Post hoc analysis of data from a cross-sectional online survey with 4.283 Germany physicians. Results. With a reported median use in 17% of affected patients, WHO-step III opioids play a minor role in treatment of CLBP in daily practice associated with a broad spectrum of positive and negative effects. If prescribed, potent opioids were reported to show clinically relevant effects (such as ≥50% pain relief) in approximately 3 of 4 patients (median 72%). Analgesic effects reported are frequently related with adverse events (AEs). Only 20% of patients were reported to remain free of any AE. Most frequently reported AE was constipation (50%), also graded highest for AE-related daily life restrictions (median 46%). Specific AE countermeasures were reported to be necessary in approximately half of patients (median 45%); nevertheless AE-related premature discontinuation rates reported were high (median 22%). Fentanyl/morphine were the most/least prevalently prescribed potent opioids mentioned (median 20 versus 8%). Conclusion. Overall, use of WHO-step III opioids for CLBP is low. AEs, especially constipation, are commonly reported and interfere significantly with analgesic effects in daily practice. Nevertheless, beneficial effects outweigh related AEs in most patients with CLBP.

Efficacy and safety of flupirtine modified release for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of SUPREME, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group phase IV study.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate non-inferior/superior efficacy of flupirtine modified release (MR) compared with tramadol/placebo for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain (LBP). RESEARCH DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, active-/placebo-controlled double-dummy multicenter study, performed in 31 German study centers. LBP patients (n = 363) with moderate pain intensity were randomized 1:1:1 to receive flupirtine MR 400 mg, tramadol extended release (ER) 200 mg, or matching placebo (each given OD in the evening) over 4 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2009-013268-38. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoint was change from baseline in the LBP intensity index (LBPIX; 11-point NRS) at week 4; last observation carried forward was used to impute missing scores. RESULTS: Least square (LS) mean ± SD LBPIX changes from baseline at week 4 were clinically significant for all three treatment groups of the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) population (n = 326/276): placebo (n = 110/96): -1.81 ± 1.65/-1.77 ± 1.59; flupirtine MR (n = 109/95): -2.23 ± 1.73/-2.28 ± 1.68; and tramadol ER (n = 107/85): -1.92 ± 1.84/2.03 ± 1.83 (p < 0.001 for each). ITT/PP treatment effects for flupirtine MR were non-inferior when compared with tramadol ER and superior when compared with placebo (p = 0.003/0.033). Significantly more ITT patients treated with flupirtine MR (59.6/37.6 showed a ≥30/50% LBPIX relief in comparison to placebo (46.4/24.6%; p vs. flupirtine MR: 0.049/0.037). Treatment contrasts for tramadol failed to reach significance vs. placebo. Within the safety population (n = 355), flupirtine MR (n = 119) was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 21.0%) and TEAE-related study discontinuations (3.4%) than tramadol ER (n = 116; 34.5/12.0%; p = 0.039/0.017) and exhibited an overall safety/tolerability profile non-inferior to placebo (n = 120; 15.8/3.3%; p = ns for each). Major limitations of this study were the short treatment duration, the comparison of different drug classes and the lack of a titration phase. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic efficacy of flupirtine MR 400 mg OD was comparable to that of tramadol ER 200 mg OD and superior to that of placebo.