Naldemedine is effective in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic non-cancer pain who had a poor response to laxatives.

BACKGROUND: Two studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC). However, no studies have compared the efficacy of peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists in patients with adequate and inadequate responses to prior OIC therapy with laxatives. This post hoc analysis of integrated data from the two previous studies compared the efficacy of naldemedine in patients who were unsuccessfully treated with laxatives [poor laxative responders (PLRs)] with those who either did not receive laxatives >30 days prior to screening or those who only received rescue laxative at or after screening (non-PLRs). METHODS: Patients with OIC were randomized to once-daily treatment with naldemedine 0.2 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders [⩾3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week and an increase from baseline of ⩾1 SBM/week for ⩾9 weeks of the 12-week treatment period and ⩾3 weeks of the final 4 weeks of the 12-week treatment period]. Additional endpoints included change in SBM frequency, change in frequency of SBMs without straining, proportion of complete SBM (CSBM) responders, change in CSBM frequency, and time to first SBM. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: The analysis included 538 (317 PLRs, 221 non-PLRs) and 537 (311 PLRs, 226 non-PLRs) patients in the naldemedine and placebo arms, respectively. There were significantly more responders in the naldemedine PLR (46.4%; p < 0.0001) and non-PLR (54.3%; p = 0.0009) subgroups versus the placebo groups (30.2% and 38.9%, respectively). In both the PLR and non-PLR subgroups, naldemedine treatment was superior to placebo on all additional endpoints. Overall incidence of TEAEs in the PLR subgroups treated with naldemedine or placebo was similar. CONCLUSION: This integrated analysis further supports the efficacy and tolerability of naldemedine in the treatment of OIC and demonstrates a consistent effect in both PLR and non-PLR subgroups.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01965158 and NCT01993940].

A Renal Impairment Subgroup Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Receiving Opioid Therapy.

PURPOSE: Naldemedine, an oral, peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), is renally excreted. This subgroup analysis integrated data from 3 Phase 3 trials (COMPOSE-1, COMPOSE-2, COMPOSE-3) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of naldemedine in patients with renal impairment (RI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age 18-80 years with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and OIC received oral naldemedine 0.2 mg or placebo once daily. RI subgroups consisted of patients with normal function (baseline glomerular filtration rate ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2), mild (≥60 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m2), and moderate (≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) RI. Safety assessments based on ≤12 weeks of treatment from all 3 studies included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was based on the proportion of responders in COMPOSE-1 and COMPOSE-2 only, defined as ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week and a ≥1-SBM/week increase from baseline for ≥9 of 12 weeks and ≥3 of the last 4 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 2328 patients were included in this analysis. The incidence of TEAEs was similar in the naldemedine and placebo groups (overall, 47.1% vs 45.6%; normal, 44.6% vs 43.6%; mild RI, 49.0% vs 44.7%; moderate RI, 46.6% vs 55.9%). GI-related TEAEs occurred more frequently in the naldemedine group versus placebo (overall, 21.8% vs 13.8%; normal, 21.6% vs 12.5%; mild RI, 22.6% vs 14.7%; moderate RI, 18.0% vs 14.2%). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the naldemedine 0.2 mg group were responders versus the placebo group (overall, 50.1% vs 34.1%, P<0.0001; normal, 52.0% vs 39.3%; mild RI, 48.3% vs 30.3%; moderate RI, 52.5% vs 31.7%). CONCLUSION: This integrated analysis confirmed that OIC treatment with naldemedine 0.2 mg was generally well tolerated and effective in patients with CNCP and mild or moderate RI. Safety and efficacy results were consistent with the overall population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION: COMPOSE-1: NCT01965158; COMPOSE-2: NCT01993940; COMPOSE-3: NCT01965652.

Evaluation of Quality of Life, Functioning, Disability, and Work/School Productivity Following Treatment with an Extended-Release Hydrocodone Tablet Formulated with Abuse-Deterrence Technology: A 12-month Open-label Study in Patients with Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: This phase 3 study evaluated quality of life, functioning, and productivity after treatment with extended-release (ER) hydrocodone formulated with CIMA® Abuse-Deterrence Technology platform. METHODS: Patients with chronic pain were rolled over from a 12-week placebo-controlled hydrocodone ER study or were newly enrolled. Hydrocodone ER doses were titrated (15 to 90 mg every 12 hours) to an analgesic dose, and patients received up to 52 weeks of open-label treatment. Assessments included Clinician Assessment of Patient Function (CAPF), Patient Assessment of Function (PAF), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire-Short Form (HPQ-SF). RESULTS: Of 330 enrolled patients, 291 composed the full analysis population. By week 4, ≥ 50% of patients showed improvement from baseline in all 5 CAPF domains (general activities, walking, work/daily living, relationships, and enjoyment of life) and 6 of 7 PAF domains (work attendance, work performance, walking, exercise, socializing, and enjoying life). Mean decreases from baseline of 2 to 3 points were noted for BPI-SF pain interference questions from week 4 through endpoint. Mean improvements from baseline to endpoint in SF-36 subscales ranged from 3.3 to 22.3, and SDS scores improved from moderate (4.8 to 5.1) to mild (2.5 to 2.8) disruptions in work/school, social life, and family life. At endpoint, mean HPQ-SF absolute absenteeism scores decreased from 13.6 to 10.0 hours lost/month and absolute presenteeism scores improved from 67.0 to 77.1. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving hydrocodone ER showed early numeric improvements in functioning that continued throughout this 12-month study.

Six-month, open-label study of hydrocodone extended release formulated with abuse-deterrence technology: Safety, maintenance of analgesia, and abuse potential.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety, maintenance of analgesia, and aberrant drug-related behaviors of hydrocodone extended release (ER) formulated with CIMA® Abuse-Deterrence Technology. DESIGN: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label extension. SETTING: Fifty-six US centers. PATIENTS: Adults with chronic low back pain completing a 12-week placebocontrolled study of abuse-deterrent hydrocodone ER were eligible. One hundred eighty-two patients enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study drug, 170 entered openlabel treatment, and 136 completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients receiving hydrocodone ER in the 12-week, placebo-controlled study continued their previous dose unless adjustment was needed; those previously receiving placebo (n=78) underwent dose titration/adjustment to an analgesic dose (15-90 mg every 12 hours). Patients received 22 weeks of open-label treatment. SAFETY: adverse events (AEs). Maintenance of analgesia: worst pain intensity (WPI) and average pain intensity (API) at each study visit. Aberrant drug behavior: study drug loss and diversion. RESULTS: AEs were reported for 65/182 (36 percent) patients during dose titration/ adjustment and 88/170 (52 percent) during open-label treatment. No treatmentrelated serious AEs were reported. There were no clinically meaningful trends in other safety assessments, including physical examinations and pure tone audiometry. One patient receiving hydrocodone ER 30 mg twice daily experienced a severe AE of neurosensory deafness that was considered treatment related. Mean WPI and API remained steady throughout open-label treatment. Six (3 percent) patients reported medication loss, and 5 (3 percent) reported diversion. CONCLUSIONS: Abuse-deterrent hydrocodone ER was generally well tolerated in patients with chronic low back pain, maintained efficacy, and was associated with low rates of loss and diversion.

Abuse-deterrent formulations of prescription opioid analgesics in the management of chronic noncancer pain.

Misuse, abuse and diversion of prescription opioid analgesics represent a global public health concern. The development of abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) of prescription opioid analgesics is an important step toward reducing abuse and diversion of these medications, as well as potentially limiting medical consequences when misused or administered in error. ADFs aim to hinder extraction of the active ingredient, prevent administration through alternative routes and/or make abuse of the manipulated product less attractive, less rewarding or aversive. However, opioid ADFs may still be abused via the intended route of administration by increasing the dose and/or dosing frequency. The science of abuse deterrence and the regulatory landscape are still relatively new and evolving. This paper reviews the current status of opioid ADFs, with particular focus on different approaches that can be used to deter abuse, regulatory considerations and implications for clinical management.

Twelve-month, open-label assessment of long-term safety and abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release formulated with abuse-deterrence technology in patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) formulated with CIMA(®) Abuse-Deterrence Technology platform. DESIGN: Phase 3, open-label study. SETTING: Sixty-one US study centers. PATIENTS: Patients with chronic pain newly enrolled or rolled over from a 12-week, placebo-controlled hydrocodone ER study; 330 patients enrolled, 329 patients received study drug, and 189 completed the study. INTERVENTION: After titrating to an analgesic dose (15-90 mg every 12 hours), patients received ≤ 52 weeks of open-label treatment. SAFETY: adverse events (AEs), vital signs, laboratory values, electrocardiograms, and audiometry. Abuse potential: drug loss and diversion, Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R), Addiction Behaviors Checklist (ABC), Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) questionnaires, and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of pain control. RESULTS: Of 329 patients who received ≥ 1 hydrocodone ER dose, 284 (86 percent) reported ≥ 1 AE and 27 (8 percent) experienced ≥ 1 serious AE. Sixty-two (19 percent) patients withdrew because of AEs, and two AEs leading to death were reported. No serious AEs or AEs leading to death were considered treatment related by the investigator. There were no clinically meaningful trends in other safety assessments. SOAPP-R, ABC, and COMM scores demonstrated low risk of aberrant drug-related behavior. Good/excellent PGA responses were reported by 20 percent of patients at baseline and 75 percent at endpoint. The incidence of drug loss (11 percent) and diversion (2 percent) was low. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocodone ER demonstrated acceptable safety when administered for ≤ 12 months in patients with chronic pain. Low occurrence of aberrant drugrelated behavior may support the abuse-deterrence properties of hydrocodone ER.

Efficacy and tolerability of a hydrocodone extended-release tablet formulated with abuse-deterrence technology for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain in patients with osteoarthritis or low back pain.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrocodone extended release (ER) developed with abuse-deterrence technology to provide sustained pain relief and limit effects of alcohol and tablet manipulation on drug release. Eligible patients with chronic moderate-to-severe low back or osteoarthritis pain were titrated to an analgesic dose of hydrocodone ER (15-90 mg) and randomized to placebo or hydrocodone ER every 12 hours. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to week 12 in weekly average pain intensity (API; 0=no pain, 10=worst pain imaginable). Secondary measures included percentage of patients with >33% and >50% increases from baseline in weekly API, change from baseline in weekly worst pain intensity, supplemental opioid usage, aberrant drug-use behaviors, and adverse events. Overall, 294 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of placebo (n=148) or hydrocodone ER (n=146). Weekly API did not differ significantly between hydrocodone ER and placebo at week 12 (P=0.134); although, in post hoc analyses, the change in weekly API was significantly lower with hydrocodone ER when excluding the lowest dose (15 mg; least squares mean, -0.20 vs 0.40; P=0.032). Significantly more patients had >33% and >50% increase in weekly API with placebo (P<0.05), and mean weekly worst pain intensity was significantly lower with hydrocodone ER at week 12 (P=0.026). Supplemental medication usage was higher with placebo (86%) than hydrocodone ER (79%). Incidence of aberrant drug-use behaviors was low, and adverse events were similar between groups. This study did not meet the primary endpoint, although results support the effectiveness of this hydrocodone ER formulation in managing chronic low back or osteoarthritis pain. Use of the hydrocodone ER 15-mg dose, a robust placebo response, and use of supplemental analgesics, particularly in the placebo group, may have limited detection of a statistically significant treatment effect, and additional research is needed to clarify these findings.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a hydrocodone extended-release tablet formulated with abuse-deterrence technology in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of hydrocodone bitartrate extended release (ER) tablets developed with CIMA(®) Abuse-Deterrence Technology (ADT) versus placebo in alleviating moderate-to-severe pain in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind study consisting of a screening period (7-14 days), open-label titration period (≤ 6 weeks), and double-blind treatment period (≤ 12 weeks). SETTING: Seventy-eight US centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline at week 12 in weekly average of daily worst pain intensity (WPI; primary efficacy measure), weekly average pain intensity (API; secondary efficacy measure), adverse events (AEs), and study drug loss and diversion. RESULTS: Patients (N = 625) who entered open-label dose titration and identified the analgesic hydrocodone ER dose (30-90 mg every 12 h) providing optimal pain relief with minimal AEs were randomized to hydrocodone ER (n = 191) or placebo (n = 180) for double-blind treatment at the identified dose; 297 patients completed the study. Least squares means [SE] changes from baseline were significantly greater (worsening pain; 11-point scale) with placebo than hydrocodone ER in weekly average of daily WPI (0.74 [0.15] vs 0.11 [0.14]; p < 0.001) and weekly API (0.55 [0.14] vs -0.03 [0.12]; p < 0.001). The most common AEs with hydrocodone ER were constipation (14 percent) and nausea (10 percent). Study drug loss (≤ 4 percent) and diversion (≤ 2 percent) rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocodone ER formulated with ADT was significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating chronic low back pain and demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that of opioids, with a low occurrence of study drug loss and diversion.

IV acetaminophen: Efficacy of a single dose for postoperative pain after hip arthroplasty: subset data analysis of 2 unpublished randomized clinical trials.

Inadequate control of postoperative pain after orthopedic procedures may trigger complications that increase morbidity. Multimodal analgesia is used to manage pain effectively after surgical procedures and reduce the need for rescue analgesia. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (OFIRMEV; Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), an analgesic that has been studied and used in the multimodal management of acute pain after major orthopedic procedures, combines the safety seen with oral and rectal formulations with a preferred route of administration. Two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials were conducted (total 130 patients) to determine the efficacy and safety of single-dose IV acetaminophen in patients following total hip arthroplasty. Although both studies were stopped prematurely, overlap in patient populations, study design, and methodologies in the single-dose phase of these studies allowed for analysis of their results to be presented concurrently. Both trials demonstrated IV acetaminophen having greater efficacy than placebo in terms of primary endpoints [pain intensity differences from T0.5 to T3 (P < 0.05 in both studies)]. The use of IV acetaminophen also reduced the need for rescue opioid consumption, with patients receiving IV acetaminophen consuming, on average, less than half the amount of rescue medication as those receiving placebo. IV acetaminophen was effective in treating moderate-to-severe pain after total hip arthroplasty and reduced the need for rescue opioid consumption.

A long-term, open-label safety study of single-entity hydrocodone bitartrate extended release for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of single-entity extended-release hydrocodone in opioid-experienced subjects with moderate to severe chronic pain not receiving adequate pain relief or experiencing intolerable side effects from their current opioid. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label study started with a conversion/titration phase (≤6 weeks) where subjects (n=638) were converted to individualized doses (range 20-300 mg) of extended-release hydrocodone dosed every 12 hours, followed by a 48-week maintenance phase (n=424). The primary objective (safety and tolerability) and the secondary objective (long-term efficacy as measured by change in average pain score; 0= no pain, 10= worst imaginable pain) were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Subjects were treated for a range of chronic pain etiologies, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic and musculoskeletal conditions. The mean hydrocodone equivalent dose at screening was 68.9±62.2 mg/day and increased to 139.5±81.7 mg/day at the start of the maintenance phase. Unlimited dose adjustments were permitted at the investigator's discretion during the maintenance phase, reflecting typical clinical practice. No unexpected safety issues were reported. Common adverse events during the conversion/titration and maintenance phases, respectively, were constipation (11.3% and 12.5%), nausea (10.7% and 9.9%), vomiting (4.1% and 9.7%), and somnolence (7.7% and 4.2%). Four deaths occurred during the study; all were considered unrelated to treatment. One subject died 13 months after the study ended. From the start to end of the conversion/titration phase, 84% of subjects had a clinically meaningful improvement in average pain score (≥30% improvement), and the mean average pain scores remained stable through the maintenance phase. CONCLUSION: This single-entity, extended-release formulation of hydrocodone was generally safe, well tolerated, and effective in reducing chronic pain for 48 weeks. This formulation provides a new option for patients experiencing chronic pain, especially those who are taking immediate-release hydrocodone and have concerns about liver toxicity due to acetaminophen.

Effectiveness and gastrointestinal tolerability during conversion and titration with once-daily OROS® hydromorphone extended release in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic low back pain.

PURPOSE: To describe the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone extended-release tablets (OROS hydromorphone ER) during dose conversion and titration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 459 opioid-tolerant adults with chronic moderate to severe low back pain participated in an open-label, 2- to 4-week conversion/titration phase of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal trial, conducted at 70 centers in the United States. Patients were converted to once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER at 75% of the equianalgesic dose of their prior total daily opioid dose (5:1 conversion ratio), and titrated as frequently as every 3 days to a maximum dose of 64 mg/day. The primary outcome measure was change in pain intensity numeric rating scale; additional assessments included the Patient Global Assessment and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores. Safety assessments were performed at each visit and consisted of recording and monitoring all adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) final daily dose of OROS hydromorphone ER was 37.5 (17.8) mg. Mean (standard error of the mean [SEM]) numeric rating scale scores decreased from 6.6 (0.1) at screening to 4.3 (0.1) at the final titration visit (mean [SEM] change, -2.3 [0.1], representing a 34.8% reduction). Mean (SEM) change in Patient Global Assessment was -0.6 (0.1), and mean change (SEM) in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was -2.8 (0.3). Patients achieving a stable dose showed greater improvement than patients who discontinued during titration for each of these measures (P < 0.001). Almost 80% of patients achieving a stable dose (213/268) had a ≥30% reduction in pain. Commonly reported AEs were constipation (15.4%), nausea (11.9%), somnolence (8.7%), headache (7.8%), and vomiting (6.5%); 13.0% discontinued from the study due to AEs. CONCLUSION: The majority of opioid-tolerant patients with chronic low back pain were successfully converted to effective doses of OROS hydromorphone ER within 2 to 4 weeks.

Safety and tolerability of OROS® hydromorphone ER in adults with chronic noncancer and cancer pain: pooled analysis of 13 studies.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis was designed to assess the pooled safety and tolerability of once-daily hydromorphone extended release (ER) (OROS® hydromorphone ER) in opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain. DESIGN: Safety results were pooled from 13 controlled and uncontrolled clinical studies, with varying approaches to dosing and titration, pain etiology, and duration of exposure. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Of the 3,075 patients in the pooled population, 2,335 (76 percent) received at least one dose of OROS hydromorphone ER, with a duration of dosing of up to 1.5 years; 420 patients were treated for at least 6 months and 141 for longer than 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the incidence of AEs in the overall population as well as according to baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Overall AE incidence with OROS hydromorphone ER treatment was 80.5 percent (1,880/2,335 patients). The most common treatment-related AEs were constipation (28.9 percent, 674 patients) and nausea (22.7 percent, 529 patients), and most cases were mild to moderate in severity. The incidence of overall AEs did not undergo a notable change over time. Opioid-related AEs were higher in patients ≥65 years of age, female patients, and opioid-naïve patients. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 10.2 percent (239) of patients. A total of 64 deaths occurred, none of which were considered related to OROS hydromorphone ER treatment. CONCLUSIONS: OROS hydromorphone was generally well tolerated in short- and long-term studies and demonstrated a consistent AE profile over time.

Safety and Tolerability of Once-Daily OROS(®) hydromorphone extended-release in opioid-tolerant adults with moderate-to-severe chronic cancer and noncancer pain: pooled analysis of 11 clinical studies.

CONTEXT: The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily hydromorphone extended release (ER) (OROS(®) hydromorphone ER, Exalgo(®), Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hazelwood, MO) in patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain have been reported in previous studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to assess the pooled safety data of OROS hydromorphone ER in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain. METHODS: Safety results were pooled from 11 clinical studies in opioid-tolerant patients: one 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; three active-controlled studies; and seven uncontrolled studies (durations of three to 52 weeks). Patients were included in this analysis if they took ≥1 dose of study medication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze baseline and demographic characteristics, supplemental analgesic use, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In total, 1251 opioid-tolerant patients received ≥1 dose of OROS hydromorphone ER. Mean (SD) duration of exposure was 43.1 (67.8) days (range 1-396 days), and mean (SD) daily dose was 43.4 (47.1) mg. Overall, 1081 patients (86.4%) used supplemental rescue analgesics. The overall incidence of AEs was 76.9%. The most frequently reported AEs were nausea (23.2%), constipation (22.4%), vomiting (14.4%), somnolence (12.9%), and headache (12.8%). Treatment-related constipation occurred in 20.5% of patients, nausea in 16.8%, somnolence in 11.8%, vomiting in 8.2%, and headache in 7.0%. Serious adverse events occurred in 13.5% of patients, with the most frequently reported serious adverse events being dehydration, nausea, and vomiting. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile in opioid-tolerant patients that is consistent with the known safety profiles of opioids.

Efficacy and safety of OPANA ER (oxymorphone extended release) for relief of moderate to severe chronic low back pain in opioid-experienced patients: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

UNLABELLED: Opioid-experienced (N = 250) patients with chronic, moderate to severe low back pain (LBP) were converted from their prestudy opioid(s) to an approximately equianalgesic dose of OPANA ER (oxymorphone extended release). Patients continued slow titration, with 56% stabilized within 1 month to a dose of OPANA ER that reduced average pain to <40 mm on a visual analog scale with good tolerability. Stabilized patients (n = 143) were randomized to placebo or their stabilized dose of OPANA ER every 12 hours for a 12-week double-blind period. Pain intensity increased significantly more for patients randomized to placebo than for patients who continued their stabilized dose of OPANA ER; the increase from baseline (at randomization) to final visit was 31.6 mm for placebo versus 8.7 mm with OPANA ER (P < .0001). During double-blind treatment, placebo patients were approximately 8-fold more likely than OPANA ER patients to discontinue because of lack of efficacy (P < .001). Discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar between groups, 10% with placebo and 11% with OPANA ER. Opioid-related adverse events included constipation (6%), somnolence (3%), and nausea (3%). Fifty-seven percent of opioid-experienced patients with chronic, moderate to severe LBP achieved a stable dose of OPANA ER that was efficacious and generally well-tolerated for up to 12 weeks. PERSPECTIVE: In a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in opioid-experienced patients with chronic, moderate to severe LBP, OPANA ER provided efficacious, long-term analgesia and was generally well-tolerated. OPANA ER may provide clinicians with a new treatment option for patients experiencing suboptimal analgesic responses or poor tolerability with other opioids.

Low-dose cyclobenzaprine versus combination therapy with ibuprofen for acute neck or back pain with muscle spasm: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, community-based study was conducted to compare cyclobenzaprine 5 mg three times daily (TID) orally (CYC5) given for 7 days as monotherapy or in combination with ibuprofen 400 mg TID (CYC5/IBU400) or 800 mg TID (CYC5/IBU800) in adults with acute neck or back pain with muscle spasm. STUDY DESIGN: Eligible patients were 18-65 years old, had cervical or thoracolumbar pain and spasm for < or = 14 days, and, aside from the prescribed study medications, discontinued treatment with all analgesics, anti-inflammatory agents, and skeletal muscle relaxants during the study period. Randomization was 1:1:1 to the three treatment groups. Treatment outcome was assessed after 3 and 7 days of therapy using five patient-rated scales: spasm, pain, patient global impression of change (PGIC), medication helpfulness, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: A total of 867 patients provided postbaseline data and were included in the intent-to-treat population (CYC5, n = 288; CYC5/IBU400, n = 286; CYC5/IBU800, n = 293). All three treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements from baseline in PGIC, spasm, pain, ODI, and medication helpfulness (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) after 3 and 7 days of therapy. There were no significant differences in mean PGIC among groups after 3 days of therapy (p = 0.65 for treatment effect) or after 7 days of therapy (primary endpoint; p = 0.41). A PGIC responder analysis of changes from baseline showed that 88% and 93% of patients reported at least mild improvement after 3 and 7 days of therapy, respectively. All three treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences between treatments regarding the number of adverse events (AEs) reported or number of patients reporting AEs. The most common AEs in all groups were fatigue, somnolence, dizziness, sedation, and nausea. Limitations of this study include an unblinded design and possible introduction of bias into efficacy and safety results by use of a voluntary telephone reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, community-based clinical trial demonstrated that combination therapy with cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID plus ibuprofen was not superior to cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID alone in adult patients with acute neck and back pain with muscle spasm. All treatments were well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release in chronic low back pain: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study.

UNLABELLED: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial was conducted to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release (ER) with placebo and oxycodone controlled release (CR) in ambulatory patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain requiring opioid therapy. Patients (N = 213) aged 18 to 75 years were randomized to receive oxymorphone ER (10 to 110 mg) or oxycodone CR (20 to 220 mg) every 12 hours during a 7- to 14-day dose-titration phase. Patients achieving effective analgesia at a stable opioid dose entered an 18-day double-blind treatment phase and either continued opioid therapy or received placebo. With stable dosing throughout the treatment phase, oxymorphone ER (79.4 mg/day) and oxycodone CR (155 mg/day) were superior to placebo for change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on a visual analog scale; the LS mean differences were -18.21 and 18.55 (95% CI, -25.83 to -10.58 and -26.12 to -10.98, respectively; P = .0001). Use of rescue medication was 20 mg per day. Adverse events for the active drugs were similar; the most frequent were constipation and sedation. Oxymorphone ER and oxycodone CR were generally safe and effective for controlling low back pain. Oxymorphone ER was equianalgesic to oxycodone CR at half the milligram daily dosage, with comparable safety. PERSPECTIVE: Definitive studies of long-acting opioids in patients with chronic low back pain are lacking. We report the results of a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluating the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone ER and oxycodone CR in opioid-experienced patients with chronic low back pain.