Abrupt withdrawal of cannabidiol (CBD): A randomized trial.

RATIONALE: The rationale of this study was to assess occurrence of withdrawal symptoms induced by abrupt cessation of cannabidiol (CBD) after prolonged administration in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Thirty volunteers were randomized to receive 750 mg of a plant-derived pharmaceutical formulation of highly purified CBD in oral solution (100 mg/mL; Epidiolex® in the United States and Epidyolex® in Europe) twice daily (b.i.d.) for 4 weeks (Part 1) followed by 2 weeks of 750 mg b.i.d. CBD (Part 2, Arm 1) or matched placebo (Part 2, Arm 2). All volunteers completed the Cannabis Withdrawal Scale (CWS) and the 20-item Penn Physician Withdrawal Checklist (PWC-20) on days -1, 21, 28, 31, 35, 42, and at follow-up. RESULTS: Median CWS and PWC-20 scores slightly decreased from Part 1 to Part 2. Median CWS scores ranged from 0.0 to 4.0 (out of a possible 190) in Arm 1 and 0.0 to 0.5 in Arm 2. Median PWC-20 scores were 0.0 (out of a possible 60) in both arms. Twenty-nine (97%) volunteers in Part 1 reported all-causality treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs); the most commonly reported was diarrhea (63%). In Part 2, Arm 1, 6 (67%) volunteers reported all-causality AEs; the most commonly reported was diarrhea (44%). In Part 2, Arm 2, 9 (75%) volunteers reported all-causality AEs; the most commonly reported was headache (58%). Nine volunteers withdrew because of AEs in Part 1; 1 withdrew in Part 2, Arm 2, because of an AE that began in Part 1. Four severe AEs were reported in Part 1; the remainder were mild or moderate. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: In healthy volunteers, no evidence of withdrawal syndrome was found with abrupt discontinuation of short-term treatment with CBD.

A Phase 1, Open-Label, Pharmacokinetic Trial to Investigate Possible Drug-Drug Interactions Between Clobazam, Stiripentol, or Valproate and Cannabidiol in Healthy Subjects.

GW Pharmaceuticals' formulation of highly purified cannabidiol oral solution is approved in the United States for seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes in patients aged ≥2 years, for which clobazam, stiripentol, and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. This open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, healthy volunteer trial investigated the impact of cannabidiol on steady-state pharmacokinetics of clobazam (and N-desmethylclobazam), stiripentol, and valproate; the reciprocal effect of clobazam, stiripentol, and valproate on cannabidiol and its major metabolites (7-hydroxy-cannabidiol [7-OH-CBD] and 7-carboxy-cannabidiol [7-COOH-CBD]); and cannabidiol safety and tolerability when coadministered with each antiepileptic drug. Concomitant cannabidiol had little effect on clobazam exposure (maximum concentration [Cmax ] and area under the concentration-time curve [AUC], 1.2-fold), N-desmethylclobazam exposure increased (Cmax and AUC, 3.4-fold), stiripentol exposure increased slightly (Cmax , 1.3-fold; AUC, 1.6-fold), while no clinically relevant effect on valproate exposure was observed. Concomitant clobazam with cannabidiol increased 7-OH-CBD exposure (Cmax , 1.7-fold; AUC, 1.5-fold), without notable 7-COOH-CBD or cannabidiol increases. Stiripentol decreased 7-OH-CBD exposure by 29% and 7-COOH-CBD exposure by 13%. There was no effect of valproate on cannabidiol or its metabolites. Cannabidiol was moderately well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events reported when coadministered with clobazam, stiripentol, or valproate. There were no deaths, serious adverse events, pregnancies, or other clinically significant safety findings.

Extended-release morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride (EMBEDA): naltrexone-associated withdrawal and abuse-related effects in patients with chronic pain and recreational opioid users.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of naltrexone on withdrawal-related adverse events (AEs) and euphoria-related effects, and the relationship between plasma naltrexone concentrations and withdrawal across EMBEDA (MSN; extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone) studies. METHODS: Five studies in pain patients and a safety review summarizing AE reports during the first year following approval of MSN were assessed for withdrawal reports. Three of these studies also assessed Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores. Plasma naltrexone concentrations of MSN-treated individuals were summarized. Abuse potential was assessed in four studies in non-dependent recreational opioid users. RESULTS: Withdrawal AEs occurred in 13/1781 patients across five MSN studies, and 25/182 cases involving withdrawal were reported in the safety review. In three of these studies, 11/964 patients experienced moderate withdrawal (COWS score = 13-24) and 1/964 patients experienced moderately severe withdrawal (score = 28); all were either non-compliant with study drug, had undetectable plasma naltrexone concentrations, or were tapering to placebo. In ≥89% of plasma naltrexone concentration samples from patients who took MSN (n = 166), naltrexone was below the limit of quantification (4.0 pg/mL). In four studies with non-dependent recreational opioid users (n = 118), crushed MSN was associated with significantly lower scores of drug liking, high, and take drug again than crushed morphine sulfate (p ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: When taken intact as directed, naltrexone in MSN does not precipitate withdrawal. However, when MSN is crushed, naltrexone mitigates, but does not eliminate, the euphorigenic effects of crushed morphine sulfate.

Abuse potential assessment of cannabidiol (CBD) in recreational polydrug users: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Treatment with a highly purified oral solution of cannabidiol (CBD), derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L., demonstrated some evidence of central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events in patients enrolled in phase 3 trials for treatment of childhood-onset epilepsy. Cannabidiol was categorized as a Schedule 1 substance by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration; therefore, it was important to test CBD for human abuse potential. METHODS: This was a single-dose, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled crossover trial. The abuse potential of single oral doses of plant-derived pharmaceutical formulations of highly purified CBD (Epidiolex®; 750 mg, 1500 mg, and 4500 mg) was compared with that of single oral doses of alprazolam (2 mg), dronabinol (10 mg and 30 mg), and placebo in healthy recreational polydrug users. The primary endpoint to assess abuse potential was the maximum effect (Emax) on Drug-Liking visual analog scale (VAS). Other measurements included Emax on Overall Drug-Liking VAS, Take Drug Again VAS, positive and negative effects, other subjective effects, and Drug Similarity VAS. Cognitive and psychomotor functions were assessed using the Divided Attention Test, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, and the Digit-Symbol Substitution Task. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for CBD and its major metabolites. Standard safety measures and adverse events were assessed. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: Of 95 eligible subjects, 43 qualified for the treatment phase, received at least 1 dose of investigational medicinal product, and were included in safety assessments; 35 subjects were included in the pharmacodynamic analysis. Subjects receiving alprazolam and dronabinol had significantly higher Drug-Liking Emax (P < 0.0001) compared with those receiving placebo, confirming study validity. Compared with placebo, Drug-Liking was not significantly different for subjects taking 750-mg CBD (P = 0.51). Drug-Liking Emax values for 1500-mg and 4500-mg CBD were significantly different from placebo (P = 0.04 and 0.002, respectively); however, the mean differences were <10 points on VAS compared with >18-point differences between positive controls and placebo. Alprazolam and dronabinol had significantly higher Drug-Liking, Overall-Liking, and Take Drug Again VAS Emax values compared with all doses of CBD (P ≤ 0.004). In contrast to alprazolam, CBD administration had no observable effect on cognitive/psychomotor tests. Pharmacokinetic parameters for CBD in this trial were consistent with previous studies. The majority of adverse events reported during the trial were of mild or moderate severity; no serious adverse events or deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Administration of a therapeutic dose of CBD (750 mg) showed significantly low abuse potential in a highly sensitive population of polydrug users. Although high and supratherapeutic doses of CBD (1500 mg and 4500 mg, respectively) had detectable subjective effects compared with placebo; the effects were significantly lower than those observed with alprazolam and dronabinol.

Randomized, dose-ranging safety trial of cannabidiol in Dravet syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and preliminary pharmacokinetics of a pharmaceutical formulation of purified cannabidiol (CBD) in children with Dravet syndrome. METHODS: Patients aged 4-10 years were randomized 4:1 to CBD (5, 10, or 20 mg/kg/d) or placebo taken twice daily. The double-blind trial comprised 4-week baseline, 3-week treatment (including titration), 10-day taper, and 4-week follow-up periods. Completers could continue in an open-label extension. Multiple pharmacokinetic blood samples were taken on the first day of dosing and at end of treatment for measurement of CBD, its metabolites 6-OH-CBD, 7-OH-CBD, and 7-COOH-CBD, and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs; clobazam and metabolite N-desmethylclobazam [N-CLB], valproate, levetiracetam, topiramate, and stiripentol). Safety assessments were clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, vital signs, ECGs, adverse events (AEs), seizure frequency, and suicidality. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were randomized (10, 8, and 9 to the 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg/d CBD groups, and 7 to placebo); 32 (94%) completed treatment. Exposure to CBD and its metabolites was dose-proportional (AUC0-t). CBD did not affect concomitant AED levels, apart from an increase in N-CLB (except in patients taking stiripentol). The most common AEs on CBD were pyrexia, somnolence, decreased appetite, sedation, vomiting, ataxia, and abnormal behavior. Six patients taking CBD and valproate developed elevated transaminases; none met criteria for drug-induced liver injury and all recovered. No other clinically relevant safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to CBD and its metabolites increased proportionally with dose. An interaction with N-CLB was observed, likely related to CBD inhibition of cytochrome P450 subtype 2C19. CBD resulted in more AEs than placebo but was generally well-tolerated. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for children with Dravet syndrome, CBD resulted in more AEs than placebo but was generally well-tolerated.

Cannabidiol in patients with seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (GWPCARE4): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, a rare, severe form of epileptic encephalopathy, are frequently treatment resistant to available medications. No controlled studies have investigated the use of cannabidiol for patients with seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. We therefore assessed the efficacy and safety of cannabidiol as an add-on anticonvulsant therapy in this population of patients. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done at 24 clinical sites in the USA, the Netherlands, and Poland, we investigated the efficacy of cannabidiol as add-on therapy for drop seizures in patients with treatment-resistant Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Eligible patients (aged 2-55 years) had Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, including a history of slow (<3 Hz) spike-and-wave patterns on electroencephalogram, evidence of more than one type of generalised seizure for at least 6 months, at least two drop seizures per week during the 4-week baseline period, and had not responded to treatment with at least two antiepileptic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice response system, stratified by age group, to receive 20 mg/kg oral cannabidiol daily or matched placebo for 14 weeks. All patients, caregivers, investigators, and individuals assessing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline in monthly frequency of drop seizures during the treatment period, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had post-baseline efficacy data. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02224690. FINDINGS: Between April 28, 2015, and Oct 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 171 patients to receive cannabidiol (n=86) or placebo (n=85). 14 patients in the cannabidiol group and one in the placebo group discontinued study treatment; all randomly assigned patients received at least one dose of study treatment and had post-baseline efficacy data. The median percentage reduction in monthly drop seizure frequency from baseline was 43·9% (IQR -69·6 to -1·9) in the cannibidiol group and 21·8% (IQR -45·7 to 1·7) in the placebo group. The estimated median difference between the treatment groups was -17·21 (95% CI -30·32 to -4·09; p=0·0135) during the 14-week treatment period. Adverse events occurred in 74 (86%) of 86 patients in the cannabidiol group and 59 (69%) of 85 patients in the placebo group; most were mild or moderate. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, somnolence, pyrexia, decreased appetite, and vomiting. 12 (14%) patients in the cannabidiol group and one (1%) patient in the placebo group withdrew from the study because of adverse events. One patient (1%) died in the cannabidiol group, but this was considered unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Add-on cannabidiol is efficacious for the treatment of patients with drop seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and is generally well tolerated. The long-term efficacy and safety of cannabidiol is currently being assessed in the open-label extension of this trial. FUNDING: GW Pharmaceuticals.

Prescription opioid abuse and misuse: gap between primary-care investigator assessment and actual extent of these behaviors among patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of two open-label primary care-based studies that examined investigator assessment of patient risk for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion relative to patient self-reports and urine drug tests (UDTs). METHODS: Risk assessment data from two open-label, multicenter, primary care-based US studies in patients with chronic pain were compared. RESULTS: In one study (n = 1487), 54.4% of patients were at moderate, 24.8% at high, and 20.8% at low risk based on patients' self-reports at baseline on the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain®-Revised questionnaire. Investigators assigned 1.3% of patients as high risk despite 5.0% self-reporting prior illicit drug use and 15.3% with positive UDT(s) for an illicit drug at baseline. In the second study (n = 684), few patients were considered by investigators to be at high risk for misuse (1.6%), abuse (1.8%), or diversion (1.0%). However, 10.4% of patients reported prior illicit drug use; 23.4% had at least one abnormal baseline UDT; 60% of 537 patients reported on the Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion questionnaire they took more opioids than prescribed; and 10.9% reported chewing/crushing opioids in the past. Of patients completing the Current Opioid Misuse Measure, 40.6% were classified as having aberrant behaviors. CONCLUSION: A comparison of risk assessment across two studies indicates a tendency for investigators to assess patients as lower risk for opioid-related aberrant behaviors despite a significant proportion self-reporting aberrant behavior and/or presenting with illicit UDTs. These consistent findings underline the importance of appropriate implementation of objective measures and self-reporting tools when evaluating risk in patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00640042 and NCT01179191.

Abuse Potential Study of ALO-02 (Extended-Release Oxycodone Surrounding Sequestered Naltrexone) Compared with Immediate-Release Oxycodone Administered Orally to Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users.

Objective: To evaluate the abuse potential of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent formulation comprising pellets of extended-release oxycodone hydrochloride surrounding sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-/active-controlled, 6-way crossover study, with naloxone challenge, drug discrimination, and treatment phases. Subjects: Nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods: Oral administration of crushed and intact ALO-02, crushed immediate-release (IR) oxycodone, and placebo. Primary endpoints were Drug Liking and High measured on visual analog scales and reported as maximum effect (E max ) and area-under-the-effect-curve from 0 to 2 hours (AUE 0-2h ). Other pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic and safety assessments were included. Results: Drug Liking and High (E max ) for crushed oxycodone IR 40 mg were significantly higher compared with placebo, confirming study validity ( P < 0.0001). Drug Liking and High (E max, AUE 0-2h ) for crushed ALO-02 (40 mg/4.8 mg and 60 mg/7.2 mg) were significantly lower compared to corresponding doses of crushed oxycodone IR (40 and 60 mg; P < 0.0001). Likewise, Drug Liking and High (E max and AUE 0-2h ) for intact ALO-02 60 mg/7.2 mg were significantly lower compared with crushed oxycodone IR 60 mg ( P < 0.0001). Secondary pharmacodynamic endpoints and plasma concentrations of oxycodone and naltrexone were consistent with these results. Fewer participants experienced adverse events (AEs) after ALO-02 (crushed or intact: 71.1-91.9%) compared with crushed oxycodone IR (100%). Most common AEs following crushed ALO-02 and oxycodone IR were euphoric mood, pruritus, somnolence, and dizziness. Conclusions: The results suggest that ALO-02 (crushed or intact) has lower abuse potential than crushed oxycodone IR when administered orally in nondependent, recreational opioid users.

Intravenous abuse potential study of oxycodone alone or in combination with naltrexone in nondependent recreational opioid users.

BACKGROUND: ALO-02, comprising pellets of extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone, is intended to deter abuse. OBJECTIVE: Determine the abuse potential of intravenous oxycodone combined with naltrexone, which represents simulated crushed ALO-02 in solution, compared with intravenous oxycodone in nondependent, recreational opioid users. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study with naloxone challenge, drug discrimination, and treatment phases. Intravenous treatments included oxycodone hydrochloride 20 mg, oxycodone hydrochloride 20 mg plus naltrexone hydrochloride 2.4 mg (simulated crushed ALO-02 20 mg/2.4 mg), or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride for injection). Primary end points were peak effects (Emax) and area under the effects curve within 2 h postdose (AUE0-2h) on drug liking and high visual analog scales. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants were randomized into treatment phase, and 29 completed all treatments. Study validity was confirmed with statistically significant differences in Emax for drug liking and high (p < 0.0001) between intravenous oxycodone and placebo. Intravenous simulated crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower scores than oxycodone on drug liking (Emax: 58.2 vs. 92.4; AUE0-2h: 104.3 vs. 152.4) and high (Emax: 17.2 vs. 93.1; AUE0-2h: 12.0 vs. 133.6), respectively (p < 0.0001, all comparisons). More participants experienced adverse events after intravenous oxycodone (n = 27 [90%]) versus intravenous simulated crushed ALO-02 (n = 4 [12.5%]) or placebo (n = 2 [6.5%]). CONCLUSION: Intravenous administration of simulated crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower abuse potential, as assessed by subjective ratings of drug liking and high, than intravenous oxycodone in nondependent, recreational opioid users. This suggests that injection of ALO-02 may not be as desirable to recreational opioid users compared with oxycodone taken for nonmedical reasons.

A multicenter, primary care-based, open-label study to identify behaviors related to prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion in opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the investigator assessment of patient risk for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion with patient self-reports of these activities in a population with chronic pain. METHODS: As a secondary objective of an open-label, multicenter, primary care-based clinical study to evaluate the success of converting opioid-experienced patients with chronic pain to morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride, risk for misuse, abuse, and diversion was assessed using two nonvalidated questionnaires: one was completed by the investigator and another by the patient (Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion [SR-MAD]). In addition, the validated Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) test and urine drug test were used. RESULTS: Of the 684 patients assessed by the investigators, 537 returned the self-assessment, SR-MAD. Most patients were assigned by the investigator as low risk for misuse (84.2%), abuse (89.3%), and diversion (94.3%). Of the patients who returned SR-MAD, 60% indicated having taken more opioids than prescribed and 10.9% reported chewing or crushing their opioids in the past. Of the patients who completed COMM, 40.6% were deemed as having aberrant behaviors. COMM results correlated with the risk levels from the investigator assessment. One-third of patients (33.8%) had at least one abnormal urine drug test result. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to better understand the gap between the investigator assessment of potential risk for misuse, abuse, and diversion and the actual extent of these behaviors among patients with chronic pain.

A multicenter, primary-care-based, open-label study to assess the success of converting opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain to morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride extended-release capsules using a standardized conversion guide.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conversion of opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain to extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride (MSN) using a standardized conversion guide. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm study was conducted in 157 primary care centers in the United States. A total of 684 opioid-experienced adults with chronic moderate-to-severe pain were converted to oral administration of MSN from transdermal fentanyl and oral formulations of hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and other morphine products using a standardized conversion guide. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a stable MSN dose within a 6-week titration phase. Secondary endpoints included duration of time to stable dose, number of titration steps, safety and efficacy measures, and investigator assessment of conversion guide utility. RESULTS: Of the 684 patients, 51.3% were converted to a stable dose of MSN (95% confidence interval: 47.5%, 55.1%). The mean (standard deviation) number of days to stable dose was 20 (8.94), and number of titration steps to stable dose was 2.4 (1.37). The majority of adverse events were mild/moderate and consistent with opioid therapy. Mean pain scores at stable dose decreased from baseline. Investigators were generally satisfied with the conversion guide and, in 94% of cases, reported they would use it again. CONCLUSION: Conversion to MSN treatment using the standardized MSN conversion guide was an attainable goal in approximately half of the population of opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Investigators found the guide to be a useful tool to assist conversion of opioid-experienced patients to MSN.

Intranasal administration of crushed ALO-02 (extended-release oxycodone with sequestered naltrexone): A randomized, controlled abuse-potential study in nondependent recreational opioid users.

ALO-02 is an abuse-deterrent formulation consisting of capsules filled with pellets of extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-/active-controlled, 4-way crossover study examined the abuse potential of crushed ALO-02 administered intranasally to healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Following drug discrimination and naloxone challenge, eligible participants (n = 32) entered a 4-way crossover treatment phase: crushed single dose of 1 of 2 placebos, ALO-02 30 mg/3.6 mg (oxycodone/naltrexone) or oxycodone immediate-release (IR) 30 mg. Primary end points were Drug Liking and High, measured on visual analog scales (VAS) summarized as maximum effect (Emax ) and effect occurring over 2 hours postdose (AUE0-2 h ). Crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower scores versus oxycodone IR on Drug Liking (Emax , 60.5 vs 92.8; AUE0-2 h , 105.4 vs 160.0, respectively) and High (Emax , 25.2 vs 86.9; AUE0-2 h , 27.1 vs 136.4, respectively; n = 28; P < .0001). Adverse events occurred most frequently with oxycodone IR, followed by ALO-02, then placebo, and were considered mild and consistent with opioid therapy. Crushed ALO-02 administered intranasally to nondependent recreational opioid users resulted in significantly lower scores on Drug Liking/High VAS and other positive subjective measures versus crushed oxycodone IR, suggesting less abuse potential. Demonstration of actual abuse deterrence in the real world requires further research.

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of ALO-02 (extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone) for moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain treatment.

The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent formulation containing pellets of extended-release oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) surrounding sequestered naltrexone HCl, compared with placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain. An open-label titration period in which all patients received ALO-02 was followed by a double-blind treatment period where patients meeting treatment response criteria were randomized to either a fixed dose of ALO-02 or placebo. Daily average low back pain was assessed using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS)-Pain. Of the 663 patients screened, 410 received ALO-02 during the open-label conversion and titration period and 281 patients were randomized to the double-blind treatment period (n = 134, placebo; n = 147, ALO-02). Change in the mean NRS-Pain score from randomization baseline to the final 2 weeks of the treatment period was significantly different favoring ALO-02 compared with placebo (P = 0.0114). Forty-four percent of patients treated with placebo and 57.5% of patients treated with ALO-02 reported ≥30% improvement in weekly average NRS-Pain scores from screening to the final 2 weeks of the treatment period (P = 0.0248). In the double-blind treatment period, 56.8% of patients in the ALO-02 group and 56.0% of patients in the placebo group experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common treatment-related TEAEs for ALO-02 during the treatment period were nausea, vomiting, and constipation, consistent with opioid therapy. ALO-02 has been demonstrated to provide significant reduction of pain in patients with chronic low back pain and has a safety profile similar to other opioids.

A multicenter, 12-month, open-label, single-arm safety study of oxycodone-hydrochloride/naltrexone-hydrochloride extended-release capsules (ALO-02) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety of oxycodone-hydrochloride and sequestered naltrexone-hydrochloride (ALO-02) administered for up to 12 months. DESIGN: Open-label, single-arm safety study. SETTING: Thirty-two US research centers (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01428583). PATIENTS: Three hundred ninety-five adults (opioid experienced and opioid naïve) with moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). INTERVENTIONS: Open-label, oral ALO-02 capsules, daily dose ranging from 20 to 160 mg oxycodone for up to 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and type of adverse events (AEs) and drugrelated AEs, including assessments of withdrawal (Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale; COWS), pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and aberrant behaviors (Current Opioid Misuse Measure). RESULTS: A total of 193 (48.9 percent) patients received ALO-02 for ≥181 days and 105 (26.6 percent) patients for ≥361 days. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were nausea (25.3 percent), constipation (21.3 percent), vomiting (13.9 percent), and headache (11.6 percent). The most common drug-related AEs were constipation (18.0 percent), nausea (14.9 percent), somnolence (8.4 percent), fatigue (6.8 percent), dizziness (5.6 percent), and vomiting (5.1 percent). A majority of patients (86.6 percent) had a maximum COWS total score below the level for mild withdrawal symptoms at every visit throughout the study. Pain severity scores as measured by the short Form of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF) decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat dosing of ALO-02 for up to 12 months is safe and well tolerated in a CNCP population of both opioid-experienced and opioid-naïve patients. ALO-02 demonstrated a safety profile consistent with extended-release opioids and the expected analgesic efficacy. The addition of sequestered naltrexone had no significant clinical effect on patients when taken as directed.

Safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment with diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting for the treatment of acute repetitive seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an open-label continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS. METHODS: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected. RESULTS: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injection-site bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers to patients with epilepsy who require intermittent intervention for acute repetitive seizures.

PURPOSE: A diazepam auto­injector (AI) has been developed for intramuscular administration to treat acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the diazepam AI when administered by caregivers to control an episode of ARS (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00319501). METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double­blind, parallel­group, placebo­controlled, multicenter study, subjects with epilepsy on a stable antiepileptic drug regimen who required intermittent medical intervention to control ARS were randomized 1:1 to the placebo AI or the diazepam AI group. Subjects were stratified according to age (2­5, 6­11, ≥12 years). Dose (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg) was based on age and weight. A single dose of study medication was dispensed to be administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting when required. The primary end point was time to next seizure or rescue from 15 min to 12 h postdose. Secondary end points included rescue medication use, number of seizures postdose, caregiver and physician treatment assessments, and safety measures. KEY FINDINGS: Of 234 subjects randomized, 81/110 in the placebo AI group and 82/124 in the diazepam AI group were included in the intent­to­treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Time to next seizure or rescue was significantly longer in the diazepam AI group compared with the placebo AI group, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34­0.88; p = 0.012) for diazepam AI versus placebo AI, adjusted for age group. The 25th percentile for time to the next seizure or rescue was 1.18 h (95% CI 0.38­2.03) for placebo AI and 2.70 h (95% CI 0.48­11.42) for diazepam AI; the median was 5.9 h for placebo AI and was inestimable for diazepam AI due to the low number of events experienced by subjects in that group. The proportion of subjects using rescue medication postdose was 30% (24/81) placebo AI versus 17% (14/82) diazepam AI (p = 0.066). An event (seizure or rescue) occurred in 55.6% of subjects in the placebo AI group and 35.4% in the diazepam AI group. The number of seizures experienced during the 12­h postdose period was significantly lower for diazepam AI (median 0.0) compared with placebo AI (median 1.0; p = 0.010). Treatment­emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 44% (35/79) of subjects in the placebo AI group and 42% (34/81) in the diazepam AI group. The most common TEAEs reported were injection site pain (15% placebo AI, 17% diazepam AI) and injection site hemorrhage (6% placebo AI, 5% diazepam AI). SIGNIFICANCE: The diazepam AI was significantly more effective than placebo AI at delaying the next seizure or rescue. Secondary efficacy end points were generally supportive of the primary outcome. Diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers was effective for the treatment of ARS and was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Assessment of pharmacodynamic effects following oral administration of crushed morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride extended-release capsules compared with crushed morphine sulfate controlled-release tablets and placebo in nondependent recreational opioid users.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the pharmacodynamic effects, including self-reports of "drug liking" and "high," of crushed morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride extended-release capsules (MSN), crushed morphine sulfate controlled-release (CR) tablets, and placebo in an abuse potential study. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study. SETTING: Single-center. SUBJECTS: Nondependent recreational opioid users. INTERVENTIONS: Orally administered crushed MSN (120-mg morphine sulfate and 4.8-mg naltrexone hydrochloride), crushed 120-mg morphine sulfate CR, and placebo. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective ratings (100-point visual analog scales) of positive drug effects (drug liking, high, good effects, take drug again, and overall drug liking), any effects, and negative effects (bad effects, feel sick, nausea, sleepy, and dizzy), along with pupillometry, pharmacokinetic (PK), and safety assessments. RESULTS: Crushed morphine sulfate CR significantly increased ratings of all positive subjective measures relative to placebo (P < 0.0001). Crushed MSN significantly decreased all positive subjective ratings compared with morphine sulfate CR (P ≤ 0.005), but significantly increased ratings compared with placebo (P < 0.03). Peak pupil diameter was significantly larger for MSN than morphine sulfate (P < 0.0001). PK analysis of morphine plasma concentrations indicated that Cmax was significantly lower and tmax significantly longer for crushed MSN compared with crushed morphine sulfate CR. Plasma concentrations of naltrexone and 6-ß-naltrexol were present following crushed MSN. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that when crushed and administered orally to nondependent recreational opioid users, MSN was associated with significantly lower scores on all positive subjective measures including drug liking and high, and significantly less pupil constriction compared with crushed morphine sulfate CR.

A clinical trial to determine if corelease of morphine and naltrexone from crushed extended-release capsules induces withdrawal in opioid-dependent patients: a descriptive analysis of six patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether intact or crushed doses of an extended-release formulation of morphine sulfate surrounding an inner core of sequestered naltrexone (MSN) induces signs and symptoms of withdrawal in opioid-dependent patients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study. SETTING: Single center. PATIENTS: Fourteen patients with chronic moderate-to-severe noncancer pain receiving opioids were enrolled into the study; six completed the maintenance and treatment phases prior to early study discontinuation for issues with manufacturing; eight discontinued: adverse effects (4), noncompliance (1), patient decision (1), study termination (2). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were titrated to a stable dose of MSN (ranging from 30/1.2 to 100/4.0 mg of morphine/naltrexone) that was used in the single-dose crossover evaluation of crushed and intact MSN. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). RESULTS: Clinically significant withdrawal (COWS ≥ 13) was observed with rapid onset (≤0.8 hours postdose) in three patients (50 percent) following treatment with crushed MSN at the highest doses administered of ≥60/2.4 mg. Although naltrexone exposure was negligible following exposure to intact MSN, increasing plasma levels of naltrexone and 6-ß-naltrexol were associated with COWS score ≥13 in patients who received crushed MSN. COWS ≥ 13 was observed in one patient receiving intact MSN without quantifiable naltrexone concentrations. CONCLUSION: Crushing the MSN capsule may precipitate moderate-to-severe signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal in opioid-dependent individuals. The negligible exposure to naltrexone following exposure to intact MSN supports that intact capsules may be taken safely without precipitating withdrawal in opioid-dependent individuals.

Assessing subjective and physiologic effects following intranasal administration of a new formulation of immediate release oxycodone HCl (Oxecta™) tablets in nondependent recreational opioid users.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacodynamic effects (subjective and physiologic) of a new formulation of immediate release oxycodone HCl (IRO-A; Oxecta™) tablets compared with immediate release oxycodone HCl (IRO; Roxicodone®) tablets when crushed and administered intranasally to nondependent recreational opioid users. DESIGN: Single-center, single-dose, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled two-way crossover study. SETTING: Inpatient Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Nondependent, recreational opioid users aged 18-55 years. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects able to discriminate intranasally administered crushed IRO from placebo were randomized to receive 15 mg crushed IRO-A and crushed IRO in crossover fashion in treatment phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary subjective endpoints were maximum effect (E(max)) for Drug Liking and effect at 8 hours (E(8h)) postdose for Take Drug Again and Overall Drug Liking. All were assessed using bipolar 0-100 visual analog scale (VAS; 50 points = neutral). Secondary pharmacodynamic endpoints included other VAS endpoints, pupillometry, and subject-rated scales for nasal effects. RESULTS: Forty subjects were randomized to treatment; 39 were evaluable, one subject was excluded for postdose vomiting. Subjects were mostly male (80 percent) and White (75 percent). Least squares mean Drug Liking VAS E(max) (70.8 vs 93.5), Overall Drug Liking E(8h) (47.8 vs 87.4), and Take Drug Again E(8h) (45.9 vs 91.3) were significantly lower for crushed IRO-A vs IRO (all p < 0.0001). A significant sequence effect was found, but lower liking of IRO-A was observed for both treatment sequence groups. Pupillary responses between treatments were similar overall, but differences were noted for some endpoints/time points. Adverse events common to opioids were observed with both treatments. Subjects experienced more nasal-related symptoms with IRO-A. CONCLUSIONS: Crushed IRO-A tablets demonstrated lower scores on "drug liking," "overall drug liking," and "take drug again" than crushed IRO when administered intranasally to nondependent recreational opioid users.

Dose proportionality and the effects of food on bioavailability of an immediate-release oxycodone hydrochloride tablet designed to discourage tampering and its relative bioavailability compared with a marketed oxycodone tablet under fed conditions: a single-dose, randomized, open-label, 5-way crossover study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: An immediate-release oxycodone hydrochloride formulation (IRO-A) indicated for moderate to severe pain was designed (by adding functional excipients) to discourage tampering associated with intranasal and intravenous abuse of prescription opioids. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine the dose proportionality of oxycodone in IRO-A tablets under fasted conditions. Secondary objectives were to assess food effects on the pharmacokinetics of IRO-A tablets, to compare the relative bioavailability of oxycodone in IRO-A tablets versus marketed oxycodone hydrochloride (IRO) tablets under fed conditions and to evaluate the single-dose safety profile of the IRO-A tablets in healthy volunteers pretreated with naltrexone. METHODS: This open-label, single-dose, randomized, 5-way crossover study was conducted in healthy adults who received each of the following treatments, separated by a washout period of ≥7 days: IRO-A 1 × 5 mg, 2 × 5 mg, and 2 × 7.5 mg under fasted conditions, and IRO-A 2 × 7.5 mg and IRO 1 × 15 mg after a high-fat, high-calorie breakfast. Naltrexone was administered to minimize untoward pharmacologic effects of oxycodone. Dose proportionality (IRO-A), food effects (IRO-A), and relative bioavailability in a fed state (IRO-A and IRO) were assessed by using bioequivalence criteria (90% CIs between 80% and 125% for C(max) and AUC). RESULTS: Of the 35 adults enrolled in the study, 33 completed at least 1 dosing period. Most participants were male (54%) and white (69%), with a mean (SD) age of 32.6 (11.1) years and mean weight of 75.5 (12.3) kg. Plasma levels of oxycodone in IRO-A suggested dose-proportional pharmacokinetics; 90% CIs for dose-normalized C(max), AUC(0-last), and AUC(0-∞) fell within the 80% to 125% range. Concomitant food intake with IRO-A resulted in an ~14% reduction in oxycodone C(max) and an ~21% increase in AUC(0-last). The bioavailability of oxycodone from IRO-A tablets in the fed state was comparable with IRO tablets based on AUC parameters, although C(max) was ~16.5% lower. Reported or observed treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored throughout the study and were similar for IRO-A and IRO tablets. Nausea, headache, abdominal pain, and dizziness were the most common and are consistent with known effects of oxycodone after naltrexone blockade. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma levels of oxycodone in IRO-A tablets were compatible with proportional single-dose pharmacokinetics from 5 to 15 mg under fasted conditions. Administration of IRO-A with food suggested increased overall bioavailability relative to fasting conditions and a reduction in peak systemic exposure of oxycodone that is not expected to be clinically significant. When comparing IRO-A tablets with IRO tablets in the fed state, the overall systemic exposure of oxycodone was comparable, and peak systemic exposure was lower.