Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Research design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Tolerability, Safety, and Quality of Life with Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Compared with Oxycodone/Naloxone PR in Patients with Severe Chronic Low Back Pain with a Neuropathic Component: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Phase 3b/4 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tolerability, safety, and quality-of-life outcomes in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component receiving tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. METHODS: Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale] ≥ 6; painDETECT positive/unclear ratings) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. Change in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) total score from baseline to final evaluation was a primary endpoint. RESULTS: For the primary tolerability-related endpoint, the 97.5% exact repeated confidence interval for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR for the PAC-SYM total score was [-0.259, 0.121], showing noninferiority (upper limit < 0.7). Incidences of constipation and vomiting were significantly lower with tapentadol PR than oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.045). Confirmatory superiority based on formal noninferiority was shown for the primary effectiveness endpoint (change from baseline to final evaluation in pain intensity) for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (presented separately). Improvements in the Short Form-12 physical component summary and EuroQol-5 Dimension health status index and health state assessment were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Tapentadol PR had a minimal impact on bowel function (noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR) and, along with superior effectiveness (presented separately), was associated with significantly lower incidences of constipation and vomiting and significant improvements in quality-of-life measures vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR.

Effectiveness of Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Compared with Oxycodone/Naloxone PR for the Management of Severe Chronic Low Back Pain with a Neuropathic Component: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label, Phase 3b/4 Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component. METHODS: Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3)] ≥6; painDETECT positive/unclear) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the change in NRS-3 from baseline to final evaluation; the exact repeated confidence interval (RCI) for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR was used to establish noninferiority (upper limit <1.3) and superiority (confirmatory analyses). RESULTS: For the primary effectiveness endpoint, tapentadol PR was noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR (97.5% RCI: [-1.820, -0.184]; P < 0.001). This exact RCI also yielded evidence of superiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (significantly greater reduction in pain intensity; P = 0.003). Improvements (baseline to final evaluation) in painDETECT and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (all P ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The study was formally shown to be positive and demonstrated, in the primary effectiveness endpoint, the noninferiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. The effectiveness of tapentadol PR was superior to that of oxycodone/naloxone PR by means of clinical relevance and statistical significance (confirmatory evidence of superiority). Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly greater improvements in neuropathic pain-related symptoms and global health status than oxycodone/naloxone PR and with a significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability profile. Tapentadol PR may be considered a first-line option for managing severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component.

Does tapentadol affect sex hormone concentrations differently from morphine and oxycodone? An initial assessment and possible implications for opioid-induced androgen deficiency.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid-induced androgen deficiency (OPIAD) affects patients treated with opioid analgesics. The norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) and µ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist activities of tapentadol may result in tapentadol having less effect on serum androgen concentrations than analgesics acting through the MOR alone, such as morphine and oxycodone. The objectives of this publication are to 1) evaluate the effects of tapentadol (NUCYNTA and NUCYNTA extended release [ER]) on sex hormone concentrations in healthy male volunteers (vs placebo and morphine) and patients with osteoarthritis (vs placebo and oxycodone), and 2) present a mechanistic hypothesis explaining how the combined MOR agonist and NRI activities of tapentadol may result in less impact on androgen concentrations. METHODS: Three clinical studies were conducted: study 1 (single-dose comparison study vs morphine in healthy volunteers), study 2 (single-dose-escalation study in healthy volunteers without an active comparator), and study 3 (multiple-dose study vs oxycodone in patients with osteoarthritis). Studies 1 and 2 were conducted at medical research centers in Germany and the United Kingdom; study 3 was conducted at primary and secondary care centers and medical research centers in the United States. All three studies were randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled. Concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; study 3 only) were evaluated at 6 and 24 hours postdose in studies 1 and 2, respectively, and at varying time points postdose in study 3. RESULTS: In study 1, mean serum total testosterone concentrations in healthy male volunteers were similar at baseline for all treatment periods; 6 hours after dosing, mean concentrations were comparable between placebo (8.6 nmol/L) and tapentadol immediate release (IR; 43 mg, 8.8 nmol/L; 86 mg, 9.3 nmol/L), but were lower following administration of morphine IR 30 mg (5.4 nmol/L). In study 2, there were no or minimal changes in testosterone in the therapeutic dose range with tapentadol IR (75-100 mg), and there was a modest decrease that appeared to level off in the supratherapeutic range (125-175 mg); mean testosterone and LH concentrations with all doses remained within normal ranges (testosterone, 4.56-28.2 nmol/L; LH, 2.9-4.6 U/L). In study 3, the decrease in the mean [standard deviation] testosterone concentration from baseline to endpoint for male patients receiving tapentadol ER (100 mg, -1.9 [0.71] nmol/L; 200 mg, -2.1 [0.93] nmol/L) was numerically smaller compared to oxycodone CR (20 mg, -2.7 [0.93] nmol/L), but higher compared to placebo (-0.3 [1.62] nmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that tapentadol, which has combined MOR and NRI activities, may have a lower impact on sex hormone concentrations than pure opioid analgesics, such as morphine or oxycodone. The data and mechanistic rationale presented herein provide a justification for conducting additional hypothesis testing studies, and are not intended to be used as a basis for clinical decision making. Future studies may help elucidate whether the observed trends are clinically significant and would translate into a reduced incidence of OPIAD.

Research design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Practical considerations for the use of tapentadol prolonged release for the management of severe chronic pain.

PURPOSE: Chronic pain is often challenging to address appropriately. Although patients with severe chronic pain may respond to treatment with an opioid analgesic, opioids are often associated with adverse effects that may lead patients to disrupt or discontinue therapy. In addition, opioid analgesics alone may not be effective for all types of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain. Tapentadol prolonged release (PR), a centrally acting analgesic with 2 mechanisms of action (µ-opioid receptor agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition), provides strong and reliable analgesia across a range of indications, including nociceptive, neuropathic, and mixed types of chronic pain, and is associated with an improved tolerability profile relative to classic opioid analgesics. The purpose of this article was to review the recent literature on different aspects related to the clinical use of tapentadol PR. METHODS: A review was conducted of the current literature and relevant unpublished data on initiation and titration of tapentadol PR, switching from classic strong opioids, risk of withdrawal after discontinuation, long-term treatment, coadministration with other medications, and risk of abuse and diversion. FINDINGS: Tapentadol PR may provide clinically meaningful benefits over classic opioid analgesics, including ease of initiating and titrating tapentadol PR treatment in opioid-naive and opioid-experienced patients, low risk of withdrawal after cessation of tapentadol PR therapy, a favorable pharmacokinetic profile (allowing for coadministration with other medications) of tapentadol PR, and low potential for tapentadol PR abuse. IMPLICATIONS: The broad analgesic efficacy of tapentadol PR may simplify chronic pain management by allowing for the treatment of different types of pain with a single analgesic. In addition, tapentadol is associated with a low risk of pharmacokinetic interactions, which permits its use in patients taking multiple medications. Furthermore, the favorable tolerability profile of tapentadol PR may result in improved patient compliance and allow for easy titration and rotation from previous strong opioids.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Moderate Dose of Tapentadol Prolonged Release for Managing Severe, Chronic Low Back Pain with a Neuropathic Component: An Open-label Continuation Arm of a Randomized Phase 3b Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for severe, chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component in a subpopulation that achieved adequate pain relief with tapentadol PR 300 mg/day in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3b study. METHODS: Patients with painDETECT "unclear" or "positive" ratings and pain intensity ≥ 6 (11-point NRS-3 [average 3-day pain intensity]) were titrated to tapentadol PR 300 mg/day over 3 weeks. A subpopulation with pain intensity < 4 continued receiving tapentadol PR 300 mg/day during an 8-week, open-label continuation arm. For the primary study population, patients with ≥ 1-point decrease from baseline and pain intensity ≥ 4 were randomized to tapentadol PR 500 mg/day or tapentadol PR 300 mg/day plus pregabalin 300 mg/day during a concurrent 8-week, double-blind comparative period. RESULTS: From baseline to end of titration and to final evaluation, significant improvements were observed in pain intensity (mean [SD] changes from baseline to: end of titration; - 5.3 [1.78]; final evaluation; - 5.2 [2.39]; both P < 0.0001), neuropathic pain symptoms, and quality-of-life measures in the open-label continuation arm, with greater improvements in this selected subpopulation than in either group in the primary study population. A favorable tolerability profile was observed, with incidences of all individual treatment-emergent adverse events ≤ 5.1% during the continuation period. CONCLUSIONS: A subpopulation of patients with low back pain with a neuropathic component responded very well to tapentadol PR 300 mg/day, with significant improvements in pain intensity, neuropathic pain-related symptoms, and quality of life. Further research is needed to identify factors associated with a very positive treatment response.

Effectiveness and Safety of Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Versus a Combination of Tapentadol PR and Pregabalin for the Management of Severe, Chronic Low Back Pain With a Neuropathic Component: A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3b Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol PR monotherapy versus tapentadol PR/pregabalin combination therapy for severe, chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. METHODS: Eligible patients had painDETECT "unclear" or "positive" ratings and average pain intensity ≥ 6 (11-point NRS-3 [average 3-day pain intensity]) at baseline. Patients were titrated to tapentadol PR 300 mg/day over 3 weeks. Patients with ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity and average pain intensity ≥ 4 were randomized to tapentadol PR (500 mg/day) or tapentadol PR (300 mg/day)/pregabalin (300 mg/day) during an 8-week comparative period. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population (n = 288), the effectiveness of tapentadol PR was clinically and statistically comparable to tapentadol PR/pregabalin based on the change in pain intensity from randomization to final evaluation (LOCF; LSMD [95% CI], -0.066 [-0.57, 0.43]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). Neuropathic pain and quality-of-life measures improved significantly in both groups. Tolerability was good in both groups, in line with prior trials in the high dose range of 500 mg/day for tapentadol PR monotherapy, and favorable compared with historical combination trials of strong opioids and anticonvulsants for combination therapy. The incidence of the composite of dizziness and/or somnolence was significantly lower with tapentadol PR (16.9%) than tapentadol PR/pregabalin (27.0%; P = 0.0302). CONCLUSIONS: Tapentadol PR 500 mg is associated with comparable improvements in pain intensity and quality-of-life measures to tapentadol PR 300 mg/pregabalin 300 mg, with improved central nervous system tolerability, suggesting that tapentadol PR monotherapy may offer a favorable treatment option for severe low back pain with a neuropathic component.

Driving Ability in Patients with Severe Chronic Low Back or Osteoarthritis Knee Pain on Stable Treatment with Tapentadol Prolonged Release: A Multicenter, Open-label, Phase 3b Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Strong centrally acting analgesics, including tapentadol prolonged release (PR), have demonstrated efficacy for the management of non-malignant, chronic pain. Maintaining patient independence, including the ability to drive safely, is a key goal of long-term analgesic therapy. This multicenter, open-label, phase 3b trial evaluated the effects of tapentadol PR on driving ability. METHODS: This study included patients who had completed previous tapentadol PR trials for severe low back or osteoarthritis pain. After at least 6 weeks of dose stability, patients continued taking tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) and could take supplemental immediate-release tapentadol 50 mg, except on the day before or day of the driving test (before the test). Pain intensity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale. The Vienna Test System-Traffic Plus was used to assess cognitive and psychomotor function. The key surrogate parameter for driving ability was a global judgment based on 6 battery tests. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients enrolled and completed the trial, and 35 patients completed all 6 tests. Pain scores remained unchanged from enrollment to final visit [mean (standard deviation) change, -0.2 (1.0)]. Approximately two-thirds [65.7% (23/35)] of patients were classified as fit to drive based on the global judgment of driving-specific ability [34.3% (12/35) not fit to drive]. Total daily tapentadol PR dose (>200 vs. ≤200 mg/day) did not affect global judgment of driving ability (P = 0.4885). Two adverse events (considered unrelated to study drug) were reported. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that most patients receiving a stable dose of tapentadol PR for severe, chronic pain would be able to drive, consistent with earlier studies evaluating stable treatment with strong opioids. Study design limitations and needs for individual patient assessment must be considered in clinical practice.

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no-go decision in a cost-effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia, with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single-dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade-off between parallel-group and crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N-of-1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and sequential parallel comparison designs, are summarized, and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.

Effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release compared with prior opioid therapy for the management of severe, chronic osteoarthritis pain.

BACKGROUND: Tapentadol prolonged release (PR; 100-250 mg twice daily) has been efficacious and well tolerated for managing moderate-to-severe, chronic osteoarthritis hip or knee pain in phase 3 studies with washout of previous analgesic treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) after direct rotation from World Health Organization (WHO) step III opioids in patients with severe osteoarthritis knee pain who previously responded to WHO step III therapy but showed poor tolerability. METHODS: This open-label, phase 3b study (NCT00982280) was conducted from October 2009 through June 2010 (prematurely terminated due to slow recruitment and study drug shortages) in clinical care settings in Europe and Australia. The study population included patients with severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain who had taken WHO step III opioids daily for ≥2 weeks before screening, responded to therapy (average pain intensity [11-point numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3)] ≤5 at screening), and reported opioid-related adverse effects as their reason for changing analgesics. Patients switched directly from WHO step III therapy to tapentadol. Patients received oral tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) during 5-week titration and 7-week maintenance periods. Oral tapentadol immediate release (IR) was permitted (≤twice/day, ≥4 h apart) for acute pain episodes due to index pain or withdrawal symptoms following discontinuation of previous opioids (combined dose of tapentadol [PR and IR] ≤500 mg/day). This study was planned to evaluate conversion to tapentadol PR, based on responder rate 1 (percentage of patients with same/less pain [NRS-3] versus Week -1) at Week 6 (primary endpoint), adverse events (AEs), and discontinuation rates. Equianalgesic ratios were calculated for tapentadol prior to WHO step III opioids (PR and PR plus IR formulations). RESULTS: Of 82 patients enrolled, 63 received study medication. In the per-protocol population, responder rate 1 at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) was 94.3 % (50/53; P < 0.0001 vs. the null hypothesis rate [<60 %]). Mean (standard deviation) pain intensity scores were 4.7 (0.66) at baseline, 2.5 (1.46) at Week 6, and 1.8 (1.41) at Week 12 in the main analysis population (change from baseline at Weeks 6 and 12, P < 0.0001). Tapentadol to transdermal buprenorphine equianalgesic ratios (PR [n = 48], 262.9:1; PR plus IR [n = 48], 281.1:1) and tapentadol to oral oxycodone equianalgesic ratios (PR [n = 4], 4.3:1; PR plus IR [n = 6], 4.6:1) were calculated for the main analysis population. In the safety population, prevalence of AEs reported as associated with prior opioids at Week -1 (reasons for rotation) and related to tapentadol treatment at Week 12 decreased over time; the most common were nausea (46.0 vs. 24.1 %) and constipation (31.7 vs. 7.4 %). Overall, 14.3 % of patients discontinued the study early; reasons included AEs (9.5 %), lack of efficacy (3.2 %), and withdrawal of consent (1.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in effectiveness were observed for tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) versus WHO step III opioids in patients with severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain who previously responded to WHO step III therapy. Equianalgesic ratios were calculated for tapentadol to transdermal buprenorphine and oral oxycodone and were in line with observations from previous phase 3 studies.

Tapentadol prolonged release versus strong opioids for severe, chronic low back pain: results of an open-label, phase 3b study.

INTRODUCTION: This open-label, phase 3b study evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of oral tapentadol prolonged release (PR; 50-250 mg twice daily [b.i.d.]) for managing severe, chronic low back pain in patients responding to World Health Organization (WHO) step III opioids but tolerating treatment poorly. Equianalgesic ratios for tapentadol to prior strong opioids were calculated. METHODS: Patients rotated directly from prior WHO step III opioids to tapentadol. Patients received tapentadol PR (50-250 mg b.i.d.) during 5-week titration and 7-week maintenance periods. Tapentadol immediate release (IR) 50 mg (≤ twice/day, ≥ 4 h apart) was allowed (total daily dose of tapentadol PR and IR ≤ 500 mg/day). The primary endpoint was responder rate 1 at week 6 (percentage of patients with the same or less pain intensity [11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 3-day average)] vs week -1). RESULTS: Responder rate 1 at week 6 (last observation carried forward [LOCF]) was 80.9% (76/94; P < 0.0001 vs. the null responder hypothesis rate [<60%]), resulting in a positive trial despite premature termination (136 recruited of 180 planned). Significant improvements from baseline in pain intensity and neuropathic pain symptoms were observed at weeks 6 and 12 with tapentadol PR (P < 0.05). Equianalgesic ratios were calculated for PR formulations alone and for PR and IR formulations combined for tapentadol to oxycodone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, morphine, and hydromorphone. The prevalences of adverse events reported as the reason for switching to tapentadol (most commonly constipation and nausea) decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Tapentadol PR (50-250 mg b.i.d.) provided at least comparable pain relief and improved tolerability versus prior strong opioids in patients with severe, chronic low back pain responding to WHO step III therapy. Conversion from strong opioids to tapentadol PR, with its two mechanisms of action, went smoothly considering overall effectiveness and tolerability outcomes. Equianalgesic ratios of tapentadol to oxycodone and other strong opioids were in line with other phase 3/3b studies.

Effectiveness and safety of tapentadol prolonged release with tapentadol immediate release on-demand for the management of severe, chronic osteoarthritis-related knee pain: results of an open-label, phase 3b study.

This open-label, phase 3b study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00983073) evaluated the effectiveness, and tolerability of tapentadol for severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain that was inadequately managed with World Health Organization (WHO) Step I or II analgesics or co-analgesics, or that was not treated with regular analgesics. Prior to starting study treatment, patients discontinued any WHO Step II analgesics, while Step I analgesics and/or co-analgesics were continued at the same dose. Patients received tapentadol prolonged release (50-250 mg bid) during a 5-week titration period and a 7-week maintenance period. Doses of tapentadol immediate release 50 mg (≤twice/day; ≥4 hours apart) were permitted throughout the study (total daily dose of tapentadol prolonged and immediate release, ≤250 mg bid). The primary endpoint was the change in pain intensity on an 11-point numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3; recalled average pain intensity [11-point NRS] during the last 3 days) from baseline to Week 6, using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to impute missing pain intensity scores. The mean (standard deviation) change from baseline to Week 6 (LOCF) in pain intensity was -3.4 (2.10; P < 0.0001) for all patients evaluated for effectiveness (n = 195). Significant decreases in pain intensity were also observed at Weeks 6, 8, and 12 (all P < 0.0001) using observed-case analysis. Corresponding significant improvements from baseline to Weeks 6 and 12 were observed in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, the EuroQol-5 Dimension health status questionnaire, the Short Form-36 health survey, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (all P ≤ 0.0103). Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with those observed in previous studies of tapentadol prolonged release. Overall, the results of this study indicate that tapentadol treatment results in significant improvements in pain intensity, health-related quality of life, and function in patients with inadequately managed, severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain.

Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo ("assay sensitivity"). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.

Effectiveness and safety of tapentadol prolonged release for severe, chronic low back pain with or without a neuropathic pain component: results of an open-label, phase 3b study.

OBJECTIVE: This open-label, phase 3b study evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release and tapentadol immediate release (for acute pain episodes) for severe, chronic low back pain with or without a neuropathic pain component that was inadequately managed in patients taking World Health Organization (WHO) Step I or II analgesics or who were not regularly treated with analgesics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Average baseline pain intensity was greater than 5 (11-point numerical rating scale-3 [NRS-3; 3-day average pain intensity]) with WHO Step I or II analgesics and greater than 6 with no regular analgesic regimen. WHO Step II analgesics were discontinued before starting study treatment; WHO Step I analgesics or co-analgesics were continued at the same dose. Patients received tapentadol prolonged release (50-250 mg bid) during a 5-week titration and 7-week maintenance period. Tapentadol immediate release was permitted for acute pain episodes (tapentadol prolonged release and immediate release maximum combined dose, ≤500 mg/day). The painDETECT questionnaire was used to define subsets of patients based on the probability of a neuropathic pain component to their low back pain as 'negative', 'unclear', or 'positive'. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00983385. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in average pain intensity (NRS-3), using the last observation carried forward to impute missing scores. RESULTS: In the painDETECT negative (n = 49) and unclear/positive (n = 126) subsets, respectively, mean (SD) changes in pain intensity from baseline to week 6 were -2.4 (2.18) and -3.0 (2.07; both p < 0.0001). Among patients who had not received prior WHO Step II treatment, lower doses of tapentadol prolonged release were generally required with increasing likelihood of a neuropathic pain component. Based on the painDETECT questionnaire and the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), tapentadol prolonged release treatment was also associated with significant improvements in neuropathic pain symptoms, with decreases in the number of pain attacks and the duration of spontaneous pain in the last 24 hours in patients with low back pain with a neuropathic pain component (painDETECT unclear or positive score at baseline or screening). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence ≥10%, n = 176) were nausea, dizziness, headache, dry mouth, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Tapentadol prolonged release was well tolerated and effective for managing severe, chronic low back pain with or without a neuropathic pain component.

5% lidocaine medicated plaster versus pregabalin in post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic polyneuropathy: an open-label, non-inferiority two-stage RCT study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster with pregabalin in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a two-stage adaptive, randomized, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority study. Data are reported from the initial 4-week comparative phase, in which adults with PHN or painful DPN received either topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster applied to the most painful skin area or twice-daily pregabalin capsules titrated to effect according to the Summary of Product Characteristics. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 weeks, defined as reduction averaged over the last three days from baseline of > or = 2 points or an absolute value of < or = 4 points on the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-3). Secondary endpoints included 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores; change in allodynia severity rating; quality of life (QoL) parameters EQ-5D, CGIC, and PGIC; patient satisfaction with treatment; and evaluation of safety (laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, adverse events [AEs], drug-related AEs [DRAEs], and withdrawal due to AEs). RESULTS: Ninety-six patients with PHN and 204 with painful DPN were analysed (full analysis set, FAS). Overall, 66.4% of patients treated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and 61.5% receiving pregabalin were considered responders (corresponding numbers for the per protocol set, PPS: 65.3% vs. 62.0%). In PHN more patients responded to 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treatment than to pregabalin (PPS: 62.2% vs. 46.5%), while response was comparable for patients with painful DPN (PPS: 66.7% vs 69.1%). 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores were greater with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster than with pregabalin. Both treatments reduced allodynia severity. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed greater improvements in QoL based on EQ-5D in both PHN and DPN. PGIC and CGIC scores indicated greater improvement for 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treated patients with PHN. Improvements were comparable between treatments in painful DPN. Fewer patients administering 5% lidocaine medicated plaster experienced AEs (safety set, SAF: 18.7% vs. 46.4%), DRAEs (5.8% vs. 41.2%) and related discontinuations compared to patients taking pregabalin. CONCLUSION: 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed better efficacy compared with pregabalin in patients with PHN. Within DPN, efficacy was comparable for both treatments. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed a favourable efficacy/safety profile with greater improvements in patient satisfaction and QoL compared with pregabalin for both indications, supporting its first line position in the treatment of localized neuropathic pain.