A randomized, phase 2 study investigating TRV130, a biased ligand of the µ-opioid receptor, for the intravenous treatment of acute pain.

Efficacy of conventional opioids can be limited by adverse events (AEs). TRV130 is a structurally novel biased ligand of the µ-opioid receptor that activates G protein signaling with little ß-arrestin recruitment. In this phase 2, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled study, we investigated the efficacy and tolerability of TRV130 in acute pain after bunionectomy. We used an adaptive study design in which 144 patients experiencing moderate-to-severe acute pain after bunionectomy were randomized to receive double-blind TRV130, placebo, or morphine in a pilot phase. After pilot phase analysis, 195 patients were randomized to receive double-dummy TRV130 0.5, 1, 2, or 3 mg every 3 hours (q3h); placebo; or morphine 4 mg q4h intravenously. The primary end point was the time-weighted average change in numeric rating scale pain intensity over the 48-hour treatment period. Secondary end points included stopwatch and categorical assessments of pain relief. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. TRV130 2 and 3 mg q3h, and morphine 4 mg q4h produced statistically greater mean reductions in pain intensity than placebo over 48 hours (P < 0.005). TRV130 at 2 and 3 mg produced significantly greater categorical pain relief than morphine (P < 0.005) after the first dose, with meaningful pain relief occurring in under 5 minutes. TRV130 produced no serious AEs, with tolerability similar to morphine. These results demonstrate that TRV130 rapidly produces profound analgesia in moderate-to-severe acute pain, suggesting that G-protein-biased µ-opioid receptor activation is a promising target for development of novel analgesics.

Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: Esomeprazole, the S isomer of omeprazole, has been shown to have higher healing rates of erosive esophagitis than omeprazole. This study compared esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the healing of erosive esophagitis and resolution of heartburn. METHODS: This United States multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group trial was performed in 5241 adult patients (intent-to-treat population) with endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis, which was graded by severity at baseline (Los Angeles classification). Patients received 40 mg of esomeprazole (n = 2624) or 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 2617) once daily before breakfast for up to 8 wk. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of erosive esophagitis at week 8. Secondary assessments included proportion of patients healed at week 4, resolution of investigator-recorded heartburn, time to first and time to sustained resolution of patient diary-recorded heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights. RESULTS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) demonstrated significantly higher healing rates (92.6%, 95% CI = 91.5-93.6%) than lansoprazole (30 mg) (88.8%, 95% CI = 87.5-90.0%) at week 8 (p = 0.0001, life-table estimates, intent-to-treat analysis). A significant difference in healing rates favoring esomeprazole was also observed at week 4. The difference in healing rates between esomeprazole and lansoprazole increased as baseline severity of erosive esophagitis increased. Sustained resolution of heartburn occurred faster and in more patients treated with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of nocturnal heartburn also occurred faster with esomeprazole. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) is more effective than lansoprazole (30 mg) in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving heartburn. Healing rates are consistently high with esomeprazole, irrespective of baseline disease severity.