Safety and Efficacy of Vocacapsaicin for Management of Postsurgical Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid management of postsurgical pain remains a major unmet need. Few studies have evaluated TRPV1 agonists for analgesia after surgery. We studied intraoperative vocacapsaicin, a novel prodrug of the TRPV1 agonist capsaicin, in a validated model of postsurgical pain. METHODS: This was a triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial in patients undergoing bunionectomy. We randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to surgical site administration of 14 mL of placebo or one of three vocacapsaicin concentrations: 0.30, 0.15, or 0.05 mg/mL. The prespecified primary endpoint was the area-under-the-curve of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score at rest through 96 hours for the 0.3 mg/mL group. Prespecified ordered, secondary endpoints for the 0.3 mg/mL group included percent of patients who did not require opioids from 0-96 hours, total opioid consumption through 96 hours, and the area-under-the-curve of the NRS pain score for the first week. RESULTS: We randomized 147 patients. During the first 96 hours, vocacapsaicin 0.30 mg/mL reduced pain at rest by 33% vs. placebo (primary endpoint, 95% CI [10%, 52%], effect size (Cohen's D) = 0.61, p = 0.005). Twenty-six percent of patients receiving vocacapsaicin 0.30 mg/mL did not require postoperative opioids for analgesia (p=0.025) vs. 5% of patients receiving placebo. Vocacapsaicin 0.30 mg/mL reduced opioid consumption over the first 96 hours by 50% vs. placebo (95% CI [26%, 67%], effect size = 0.76, p = 0.002). Vocacapsaicin 0.30 mg/mL reduced pain over the first week by 37% vs. placebo (95% CI [12%, 57%], effect size = 0.62, p = 0.004). Treatment effect persisted for at least 2 weeks. All study endpoints showed an administered concentration vs. response relationship. Vocacapsaicin was well-tolerated with no differences between groups in any safety parameter. CONCLUSIONS: A single, local administration of vocacapsaicin during surgery reduced pain and opioid consumption for at least 96 hours after surgery compared to control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03599089.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a bupivacaine hydrochloride implant in patients undergoing abdominoplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infiltration with bupivacaine hydrochloride (HCl) is a standard element of postoperative analgesia for soft tissue surgeries, but results in short-lived analgesia. A novel bupivacaine implant, XARACOLL (bupivacaine HCl), is Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of acute postsurgical pain following adult inguinal herniorrhaphy. This study examined the efficacy and safety of the bupivacaine implant (300 mg) compared with placebo for postsurgical pain after abdominoplasty. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients undergoing abdominoplasty were randomized to three 100 mg bupivacaine implants or three placebo collagen implants, in a 1:1 ratio, implanted intraoperatively. No other analgesics were administered into the surgical site. Patients were allowed opioids and acetaminophen for postoperative pain. Patients were followed for up to 30 days after treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME: the analgesic effect of the bupivacaine implants through 24 hours postsurgery, measured by the sum of time-weighted pain intensity (SPI24). Prespecified key secondary outcomes included SPI48 and SPI72, percentage of opioid-free patients through 24, 48, and 72 hours, and adverse events, which were tested sequentially to control for multiplicity (ie, if the first variable failed to reach significance, no subsequent variables were declared statistically significant). RESULTS: The bupivacaine implant patients (n=181) reported statistically significant lower SPI24 (mean (SD) SPI24=102 (43), 95% CI 95 to 109) compared with placebo patients (n=184; SPI24=117 (45), 95% CI 111 to 123, p=0.002). SPI48 was 190 (88, 95% CI 177 to 204) for INL-001 and 206 (96, 95% CI 192 to 219) for placebo, and not significantly different between groups. The subsequent secondary variables were therefore declared not statistically significant. SPI72 was 265 (131, 95% CI 244 to 285) for INL-001 and 281 (146, 95% CI 261 to 301) for placebo. The opioid-free percentage of patients at 24, 48, and 72 hours was 19%, 17%, and 17% for INL-001 and 6.5% for placebo patients (at all timepoints). The only adverse event occurring in ≥5% of patients and for which proportion INL-001 >placebo was back pain (7.7% vs 7.6%). CONCLUSION: The study design was limited by not containing an active comparator. Compared with placebo, INL-001 provides postoperative analgesia that is temporally aligned with the period of maximal postsurgical pain in abdominoplasty and offers a favorable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04785625.

Abdominoplasty as an acute postoperative pain model: insights from 8 years of clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: To have a complete understanding of an experimental analgesic's efficacy in treating acute postoperative pain, it is necessary to understand its effect on both hard-tissue pain and soft-tissue pain. For this reason, regulatory bodies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European EMA typically require drug developers to demonstrate efficacy in both hard-tissue and soft-tissue pain to grant a broad approval for an analgesic in acute postoperative pain. Hard-tissue models such as bunionectomy and molar extraction are well-validated and efficient with long histories in clinical trials, but until recently, a similarly well-standardized and fast-enrolling soft-tissue model was not available. Abdominoplasty was developed as an acute postoperative pain model and introduced to the clinical trial marketplace in 2014 to address the need for a viable soft-tissue model. Since then, at least 13 industry-sponsored studies, including multiple pivotal trials, have been conducted, providing a data set that can be used to interrogate the model's strengths and weaknesses. The authors outline the development history of abdominoplasty, discuss key clinical and design characteristics of the model, and review public data from abdominoplasty acute pain studies available to date. The data suggest that abdominoplasty is a well-validated soft-tissue surgical model that provides high-quality experimental outputs, enabling the efficacy of investigational analgesics in soft-tissue pain to be understood successfully.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose DFN-15 for treatment of acute postsurgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

ABSTRACT: The analgesic efficacy and safety of DFN-15, a new oral liquid formulation of celecoxib with more rapid absorption than the capsule, were evaluated in the treatment of acute pain in adult patients after dental surgery. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study, 120 otherwise healthy adults who underwent the extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar teeth and experienced moderate to severe pain postsurgery were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive one dose of either placebo or DFN-15 at 3 doses: 62.5, 125, and 250 mg. Participants were evaluated at prespecified time points over 8 hours after study drug administration, using several instruments, including the 11-point Numerical Pain Rating Scale, 5-point Pain Relief Scale, and 5-point Treatment Satisfaction Scale. Rescue analgesic (oxycodone / acetaminophen) was permitted. The primary endpoint was the summed pain intensity difference (SPID) over the 6-hour postdose period (SPID6), which was compared between each DFN-15 dose and placebo using analysis of covariance. Other assessments of pain relief, use of rescue medication, and safety were also analyzed. All 3 doses of DFN-15 were significantly superior to placebo in SPID6 (least square mean difference over placebo: -756.6, -1120.7, and -1355.1, P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). In addition, DFN-15 was generally superior to placebo in other endpoints, including reduction of pain intensity, speed and magnitude of pain relief, treatment satisfaction, and rescue medication use. DFN-15 was similar to placebo in the incidence of adverse events with no apparent dose-related effects.

Opioid-free recovery after herniorrhaphy with HTX-011 as the foundation of a multimodal analgesic regimen.

BACKGROUND: Most severe pain occurs within the first 72 hours after an operation, and current local anesthetics have a limited duration of action. HTX-011 is a dual-acting, local anesthetic containing bupivacaine, and low-dose meloxicam in an extended-release polymer. In a prior phase 3 inguinal herniorrhaphy study, HTX-011 alone provided superior pain relief for 72 hours and significantly decreased opioid use compared with saline placebo and bupivacaine hydrochloride. This open-label study assessed the safety, efficacy, and opioid-sparing properties of HTX-011 as the foundation of a scheduled, nonopioid, multimodal analgesia regimen in patients undergoing open inguinal herniorrhaphy. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 sequential cohorts. All patients received a single, intraoperative dose of HTX-011 prior to wound closure, followed by a scheduled postoperative regimen of oral ibuprofen and acetaminophen for 72 hours. Patients in cohort 2 also received a single intraoperative dose of ketorolac. Opioid analgesics were available by request only. RESULTS: More than 90% of patients remained opioid-free through 72 hours postoperatively, and 83% of patients remained opioid-free through day 28 (last study visit). Pain was well controlled, and mean intensity of the pain never increased higher than the mild range during the first 72 hours. Ketorolac did not demonstrate any additional benefit. HTX-011 with this multimodal analgesia regimen was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: HTX-011 when used as the foundation of a nonopioid, multimodal analgesia regimen, provided effective and well-tolerated analgesia without the need for opioids in the majority of patients recovering from an open inguinal herniorrhaphy.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenously Administered Tramadol in Patients with Moderate to Severe Pain Following Bunionectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Finding Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study is part of the registrational program for intravenously administered (IV) tramadol in the USA and compared the analgesic benefit and tolerability of two doses of IV tramadol (50 mg and 25 mg) to placebo in adult patients undergoing bunionectomy, an orthopedic surgical model. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, three-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-group trial to evaluate IV tramadol in the management of postoperative pain following bunionectomy. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to IV tramadol 50 mg, 25 mg, or placebo. Primary endpoint was summary of pain intensity differences over 48 h (SPID48). Key secondary endpoints included SPID24, total consumption of rescue analgesia, and patient global assessment of efficacy (PGA). Safety assessments included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). Assessment of the dose-response was an important objective of the study. RESULTS: The study established a dose response, with IV tramadol 50 mg demonstrating statistically significant benefit (p < 0.05) over placebo for primary and all key secondary efficacy endpoints, whereas tramadol 25 mg demonstrated intermediate results between the 50 mg and placebo arms. IV tramadol 50 mg was well tolerated; most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting; and there were no meaningful differences among treatments for vital signs, ECG, and laboratory assessments. The largest proportion of patients completed tramadol 50 mg (98.6%) compared to tramadol 25 mg (91.8%) and placebo (88.2%). CONCLUSION: IV tramadol 50 mg was effective and well tolerated as treatment for postoperative pain following bunionectomy surgery, while IV tramadol 25 mg, although well tolerated, was judged an ineffective dose for the treatment of pain in this setting. IV tramadol 50 mg was further developed in the registrational program for the USA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03290378.

IV Tramadol - A New Treatment Option for Management of Post-Operative Pain in the US: An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Safety Trial Including Various Types of Surgery.

PURPOSE: There is a need to reduce exposure to Schedule II opioids in the United States (US) due to the ongoing opioid epidemic. Schedule II opioids have higher potential for abuse and misuse than Schedule IV opioids. This Phase 3, multicenter, single-arm, open-label, multiple-dose US trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of intravenous tramadol 50 mg, a Schedule IV opioid, in the management of postoperative pain in a real-world setting, where intravenous tramadol is not yet approved for use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing a range of soft-tissue and orthopedic surgeries were enrolled. Intravenous tramadol 50 mg was given at hours 0, 2, 4, and every 4 h thereafter through up to 7 days of treatment. Non-opioid medications per treating physicians' discretion were allowed if additional pain relief was needed. Endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratories, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and patient global assessment (PGA) of effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 251 patients were enrolled, with 4% discontinuing due to TEAE; no patient discontinued due to a lack of efficacy. Patients averaged 13 doses, resulting in average 48 h of exposure. Intravenous tramadol was well tolerated, with TEAEs consistent with known tramadol pharmacology. No unexpected findings were observed, with 95% of patients reporting study medication was good, very good, or excellent for controlling pain. CONCLUSION: Outcomes from this real world use study demonstrated intravenous tramadol 50 mg was safe and well tolerated in the management of postoperative pain where intravenous conventional opioids are often used. Intravenous tramadol alone or coadministered with non-opioid medication (when needed) as a multimodal combination analgesia approach resulted in high patient satisfaction with their pain relief. In light of the US opioid epidemic, reducing the exposure to conventional opioids in these patients via use of IV tramadol may be possible.

Intravenous Tramadol is Effective in the Management of Postoperative Pain Following Abdominoplasty: A Three-Arm Randomized Placebo- and Active-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Oral tramadol, an atypical opioid approved in the United States (US) since 1995 and a Schedule IV controlled substance, has less abuse liability compared to Schedule II conventional opioids. Intravenous (IV) tramadol is not available in the US, but has the potential to fill a gap between non-opioid medications and conventional opioids for treatment of acute pain. This study evaluates IV tramadol in the management of postoperative pain compared to placebo and standard-of-care active control. METHODS: A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, three-arm, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 50 mg IV tramadol versus placebo and 4 mg IV morphine over 48 h in patients with postoperative pain following abdominoplasty surgery. RESULTS: IV tramadol was statistically superior (p < 0.05) to placebo and comparable to IV morphine for the primary and all key secondary efficacy outcomes and demonstrated numerically lower rates for the incidence of most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) compared to morphine. No unexpected findings were observed for TEAEs, laboratory tests, vital signs, or electrocardiograms (ECGs). Over 90% of patients completed the study. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that IV tramadol 50 mg is highly effective in the management of postoperative pain following abdominoplasty. The consistency of effects between tramadol and morphine (as compared to placebo) for primary and key secondary endpoints validates the efficacy of tramadol observed. The study also provided direct evidence of improved tolerability of IV tramadol over a standard-of-care conventional Schedule II opioid. IV tramadol may become a useful option in patients where exposure to conventional opioids is not desired.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

Characterisation and monitoring of postoperative respiratory depression: current approaches and future considerations.

Respiratory depression is common in patients recovering from surgery and anaesthesia. Failure to recognise and lack of timely institution of intervention can lead to catastrophic cardiorespiratory arrest, anoxic brain injury, and mortality. Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) is a common and often under-diagnosed cause of postoperative respiratory depression. Other causes include residual anaesthesia, residual muscle paralysis, concurrent use of other sedatives, splinting from inadequate pain control, and obstructive sleep apnoea. Currently used methods to identify and monitor respiratory safety events in the post-surgical setting have serious limitations leading to lack of universal adoption. New tools and technologies currently under development are expected to improve the prediction of respiratory depression especially in patients requiring opioids to alleviate acute postoperative pain. In this narrative review, we discuss the various causes of postoperative respiratory depression, and highlight the advances in monitoring and early recognition of patients who develop this condition with an emphasis on OIRD.

APOLLO-2: A Randomized, Placebo and Active-Controlled Phase III Study Investigating Oliceridine (TRV130), a G Protein-Biased Ligand at the µ-Opioid Receptor, for Management of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain Following Abdominoplasty.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical utility of conventional IV opioids is limited by the occurrence of opioid-related adverse events. Oliceridine is a novel G protein-biased µ-opioid receptor agonist designed to provide analgesia with an improved safety and tolerability profile. This phase III, double-blind, randomized trial (APOLLO-2 [NCT02820324]) evaluated the efficacy and safety of oliceridine for acute pain following abdominoplasty. METHODS: Patients received a loading dose of either placebo, oliceridine (1.5 mg), or morphine (4 mg), followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg oliceridine; 1 mg morphine; or placebo) with a 6-minute lockout interval. The primary endpoint was the proportion of treatment responders over 24 hours for oliceridine regimens compared to placebo. Secondary outcomes included a predefined composite measure of respiratory safety burden (RSB, representing the cumulative duration of respiratory safety events) and the proportion of treatment responders vs. morphine. RESULTS: A total of 401 patients were treated with study medication. Effective analgesia was observed for all oliceridine regimens, with responder rates of 61.0%, 76.3%, and 70.0% for the 0.1-, 0.35-, and 0.5-mg regimens, respectively, compared with 45.7% for placebo (all P < 0.05) and 78.3% for morphine. Oliceridine 0.35- and 0.5-mg demand dose regimens were equi-analgesic to morphine using a noninferiority analysis. RSB showed a dose-dependent increase across oliceridine regimens (mean hours [standard deviation], 0.1 mg: 0.43 [1.56]; 0.35 mg: 1.48 [3.83]; 0.5 mg: 1.59 [4.26]; all comparisons not significant at P > 0.05 vs. placebo: 0.60 [2.82]). The RSB measure for morphine was 1.72 (3.86) (P < 0.05 vs. placebo). Gastrointestinal adverse events increased in a dose-dependent manner across oliceridine demand dose regimens (0.1 mg: 49.4%; 0.35 mg: 65.8%; 0.5 mg: 78.8%; vs. placebo: 47.0%; and morphine: 79.3%). In comparison to morphine, the proportion of patients experiencing nausea or vomiting was lower with the 2 equi-analgesic dose regimens of 0.35 and 0.5 mg oliceridine. CONCLUSIONS: Oliceridine is a safe and effective IV analgesic for the relief of moderate to severe acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing abdominoplasty. Since the low-dose regimen of 0.1 mg oliceridine was superior to placebo but not as effective as the morphine regimen, safety comparisons to morphine are relevant only to the 2 equi-analgesic dose groups of 0.35 and 0.5 mg, which showed a favorable safety and tolerability profile regarding respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse effects compared to morphine. These findings support that oliceridine may provide a new treatment option for patients with moderate to severe acute pain where an IV opioid is warranted.

APOLLO-1: a randomized placebo and active-controlled phase III study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a G protein-biased ligand at the µ-opioid receptor, for management of moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy.

PURPOSE: Oliceridine is a novel G protein-biased µ-opioid receptor agonist designed to provide intravenous (IV) analgesia with a lower risk of opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) than conventional opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: APOLLO-1 (NCT02815709) was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy. Patients received a loading dose of either placebo, oliceridine (1.5 mg), or morphine (4 mg), followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg oliceridine, 1 mg morphine, or placebo). The primary endpoint compared the proportion of treatment responders through 48 hours for oliceridine regimens and placebo. Secondary outcomes included a composite measure of respiratory safety burden (RSB, representing the cumulative duration of respiratory safety events) and the proportion of treatment responders vs morphine. RESULTS: Effective analgesia was observed for all oliceridine regimens, with responder rates of 50%, 62%, and 65.8% in the 0.1 mg, 0.35 mg, and 0.5 mg regimens, respectively (all P<0.0001 vs placebo [15.2%]; 0.35 mg and 0.5 mg non-inferior to morphine). RSB showed a dose-dependent increase across oliceridine regimens (mean hours [SD]: 0.1 mg: 0.04 [0.33]; 0.35 mg: 0.28 [1.11]; 0.5 mg: 0.8 [3.33]; placebo: 0 [0]), but none were statistically different from morphine (1.1 [3.03]). Gastrointestinal adverse events also increased in a dose-dependent manner in oliceridine regimens (0.1 mg: 40.8%; 0.35 mg: 59.5%; 0.5 mg: 70.9%; placebo: 24.1%; morphine: 72.4%). The odds ratio for rescue antiemetic use was significantly lower for oliceridine regimens compared to morphine (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Oliceridine is a novel and effective IV analgesic providing rapid analgesia for the relief of moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain compared to placebo. Additionally, it has a favorable safety and tolerability profile with regard to respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse effects compared to morphine, and may provide a new treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain where an IV opioid is required.

Intravenous meloxicam for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain: a pooled analysis of safety and opioid-reducing effects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the safety and tolerability of intravenous meloxicam compared with placebo across all phase II/III clinical trials. METHODS: Safety data and opioid use from subjects with moderate to severe postoperative pain who received ≥1 dose of intravenous meloxicam (5-60 mg) or placebo in 1 of 7 studies (4 phase II; 3 phase III) were pooled. Data from intravenous meloxicam 5 mg, 7.5 mg and 15 mg groups were combined (low-dose subset). RESULTS: A total of 1426 adults (86.6% white; mean age: 45.8 years) received ≥1 dose of meloxicam IV; 517 (77.6% white; mean age: 46.7 years) received placebo. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in intravenous meloxicam and placebo-treated subjects was 47% and 57%, respectively. The most commonly reported TEAEs across treatment groups (intravenous meloxicam 5-15 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg and placebo, respectively) were nausea (4.3%, 20.8%, 5.8% and 25.3%), headache (1.5%, 5.6%, 1.6% and 10.4%), vomiting (2.8%, 4.6%, 1.6% and 7.4%) and dizziness (0%, 3.5%, 1.1% and 4.8%). TEAE incidence was generally similar in subjects aged >65 years with impaired renal function and the general population. Similar rates of cardiovascular events were reported between treatment groups. One death was reported (placebo group; unrelated to study drug). There were 35 serious adverse events (SAEs); intravenous meloxicam 15 mg (n=5), intravenous meloxicam 30 mg (n=15) and placebo (n=15). The SAEs in meloxicam-treated subjects were determined to be unrelated to study medication. Six subjects withdrew due to TEAEs, including three treated with intravenous meloxicam (rash, localized edema and postprocedural pulmonary embolism). In trials where opioid use was monitored, meloxicam reduced postoperative rescue opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous meloxicam was generally well tolerated in subjects with moderate to severe postoperative pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01436032, NCT00945763, NCT01084161, NCT02540265, NCT02678286, NCT02675907 and NCT02720692.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Meloxicam in Subjects with Moderate-to-severe Pain Following Abdominoplasty.

BACKGROUND: A nanocrystal intravenous (IV) formulation of meloxicam is being studied with the aim of providing postoperative analgesia. METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated meloxicam IV 30 mg or placebo (≤ 3 doses) in 219 subjects undergoing abdominoplasty. The primary endpoint was the summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours postdose (SPID24). RESULTS: Meloxicam IV-treated subjects had a statistically significant reduction in the least squares mean of SPID24 compared with placebo-treated subjects (-4,262.1 versus -3,535.7; P = 0.0145). Meloxicam IV was associated with statistically significant differences over placebo on several other secondary endpoints, including other SPID intervals (ie, SPID12, SPID48, and SPID24-48), achievement of perceptible pain relief, the proportion of subjects with a ≥ 30% improvement in the first 24 hours, and Patient Global Assessment of pain at hour 48. Meloxicam IV was also associated with a reduction in the number of subjects receiving opioid rescue medication during hours 24-48 and the total number of doses of opioid rescue analgesia. Meloxicam IV was generally well tolerated, with the numbers and frequencies of adverse events similar to that of the placebo group. There was no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events commonly associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including bleeding, thrombotic, cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, cardiovascular, injection site, and wound healing events. CONCLUSION: Meloxicam IV provided sustained pain relief and generally was well tolerated in subjects with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominoplasty.

Pharmacokinetics of Fentanyl Sublingual Spray in Opioid-Naïve Participants: Results of a Phase 1, Multiple Ascending Dose Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fentanyl sublingual spray may be a viable alternative to intravenous (IV) opioids for the treatment of acute pain. As patients with acute pain may include those who have limited prior exposure to opioids, this phase 1, open-label, randomized, multiple ascending-dose study was conducted to assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of multiple doses of fentanyl sublingual spray in opioid-naïve participants. This article primarily reports the pharmacokinetics results. METHODS: Study drugs were administered in four dosing cohorts: every 0.5, 1, 2, or 4 h for a maximum of three doses per cohort. Eight fasted individuals per cohort were randomized to either fentanyl sublingual spray (100, 200, or 400 µg) or fentanyl citrate IV 50 µg (6:2 ratio). Blood samples were collected pre-dose through 24 h post first dose. RESULTS: A total of 98 healthy adults were enrolled and 96 completed the study. Mean plasma fentanyl concentrations increased with increasing doses of fentanyl sublingual spray administered every 0.5-4 h. With multiple doses, systemic exposure increased relative to the first dose; shorter dosing intervals resulted in higher concentrations. Analysis of dose proportionality suggested that systemic exposure increased in a linear but slightly greater than dose-proportional manner. Accumulation between the first and last doses of fentanyl sublingual spray was more pronounced with shorter dosing intervals. CONCLUSION: Dose-dependent fentanyl pharmacokinetics following multiple doses of fentanyl sublingual spray were well characterized in an opioid-naïve population. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02641340.

A randomized, Phase IIb study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, was designed to improve the therapeutic window of conventional opioids by activating G-protein signaling while causing low ß-arrestin recruitment to the µ receptor. This randomized, double-blind, patient-controlled analgesia Phase IIb study was conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oliceridine compared with morphine and placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain following abdominoplasty (NCT02335294; oliceridine is an investigational agent not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive postoperative regimens of intravenous oliceridine (loading/patient-controlled demand doses [mg/mg]: 1.5/0.10 [regimen A]; 1.5/0.35 [regimen B]), morphine (4.0/1.0), or placebo with treatment initiated within 4 hours of surgery and continued as needed for 24 hours. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were treated (n=39, n=39, n=83, and n=39 in the oliceridine regimen A, oliceridine regimen B, morphine, and placebo groups, respectively). Patients were predominantly female (n=198 [99%]) and had a mean age of 38.2 years, weight of 71.2 kg, and baseline pain score of 7.7 (on 11-point numeric pain rating scale). Patients receiving the oliceridine regimens had reductions in average pain scores (model-based change in time-weighted average versus placebo over 24 hours) of 2.3 and 2.1 points, respectively (P=0.0001 and P=0.0005 versus placebo); patients receiving morphine had a similar reduction (2.1 points; P<0.0001 versus placebo). A lower prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to nausea, vomiting, and respiratory function was observed with the oliceridine regimens than with morphine (P<0.05). Other AEs with oliceridine were generally dose-related and similar in nature to those observed with conventional opioids; no serious AEs were reported with oliceridine. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that oliceridine may provide effective, rapid analgesia in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain, with an acceptable safety/tolerability profile and potentially wider therapeutic window than morphine.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of fentanyl sublingual spray and fentanyl citrate intravenous: a multiple ascending dose study in opioid-naïve healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Fentanyl sublingual spray, with its rapid onset for pain relief, may be efficacious in the management of acute or post-operative pain. Because patients in these settings may be opioid-naïve, the study was conducted to determine the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of multiple dose administration of fentanyl sublingual spray in an opioid-naïve population. METHODS: Fentanyl sublingual spray (100 mcg, 200 mcg, and 400 mcg) and fentanyl citrate intravenous (IV; 50 mcg) were administered every 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 h for up to three doses per cohort in opioid-naïve subjects (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02641340). Eight subjects in each cohort were randomly assigned (six subjects received fentanyl sublingual spray; two subjects received fentanyl citrate IV). Pharmacokinetic and safety-related pharmacodynamic assessments were performed through 24 h post-first dose. Safety assessments were collected through Day 7. RESULTS: Ninety-six opioid-naïve subjects, aged 20-55 years, with a body mass index of 18.7-31.5 kg/m2, participated in the study. Multiple doses of fentanyl sublingual spray (100, 200, and 400 mcg) were generally well tolerated. Hypoxia, observed in the 200-mcg and 400-mcg dose groups, increased with increasing doses and higher dosing frequency, but was readily managed by nasal cannula oxygenation. Overall, nausea increased with increasing doses, and ∼52.6% (10 out of 19) cases of nausea that occurred at the highest dose of 400 mcg were treated with concomitant medication. Overall, the reported adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of fentanyl. CONCLUSION: Fentanyl sublingual spray (100 mcg, 200 mg, and 400 mcg) administered every 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 h was generally well tolerated in an opioid-naïve population. The results suggest that doses of 200 mcg or lower may be safe for use in an opioid-naïve population.

Exploring the Interplay between Rescue Drugs, Data Imputation, and Study Outcomes: Conceptual Review and Qualitative Analysis of an Acute Pain Data Set.

In placebo-controlled acute surgical pain studies, provisions must be made for study subjects to receive adequate analgesic therapy. As such, most protocols allow study subjects to receive a pre-specified regimen of open-label analgesic drugs (rescue drugs) as needed. The selection of an appropriate rescue regimen is a critical experimental design choice. We hypothesized that a rescue regimen that is too liberal could lead to all study arms receiving similar levels of pain relief (thereby confounding experimental results), while a regimen that is too stringent could lead to a high subject dropout rate (giving rise to a preponderance of missing data). Despite the importance of rescue regimen as a study design feature, there exist no published review articles or meta-analysis focusing on the impact of rescue therapy on experimental outcomes. Therefore, when selecting a rescue regimen, researchers must rely on clinical factors (what analgesics do patients usually receive in similar surgical scenarios) and/or anecdotal evidence. In the following article, we attempt to bridge this gap by reviewing and discussing the experimental impacts of rescue therapy on a common acute surgical pain population: first metatarsal bunionectomy. The function of this analysis is to (1) create a framework for discussion and future exploration of rescue as a methodological study design feature, (2) discuss the interplay between data imputation techniques and rescue drugs, and (3) inform the readership regarding the impact of data imputation techniques on the validity of study conclusions. Our findings indicate that liberal rescue may degrade assay sensitivity, while stringent rescue may lead to unacceptably high dropout rates.