Refocusing of Attention on Positive Events Using Monitoring-Based Feedback and Microinterventions for Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in the PerPAIN Randomized Controlled Trial: Protocol for a Microrandomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) affects between 13% and 47% of the population, with a global growth rate of 20.3% within the last 15 years, suggesting that there is a high need for effective treatments. Pain diaries have long been a common tool in nonpharmacological pain treatment for monitoring and providing feedback on patients' symptoms in daily life. More recently, positive refocusing techniques have come to be used, promoting pain-free episodes and positive outcomes rather than focusing on managing the pain. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility (ie, acceptability, intervention adherence, and fidelity) and initial signals of efficacy of the PerPAIN app, an ecological momentary intervention for patients with CMSP. The app comprises digitalized monitoring using the experience sampling method (ESM) and feedback. In addition, the patients receive 3 microinterventions targeted at refocusing of attention on positive events. METHODS: In a microrandomized trial, we will recruit 35 patients with CMSP who will be offered the app for 12 weeks. Participants will be prompted to fill out 4 ESM monitoring questionnaires a day assessing information on their current context and the proximal outcome variables: absence of pain, positive mood, and subjective activity. Participants will be randomized daily and weekly to receive no feedback, verbal feedback, or visual feedback on proximal outcomes assessed by the ESM. In addition, the app will encourage participants to complete 3 microinterventions based on positive psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy techniques. These microinterventions are prompts to report joyful moments and everyday successes or to plan pleasant activities. After familiarizing themselves with each microintervention individually, participants will be randomized daily to receive 1 of the 3 exercises or none. We will assess whether the 2 feedback types and the 3 microinterventions increase proximal outcomes at the following time point. The microrandomized trial is part of the PerPAIN randomized controlled trial (German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00022792) investigating a personalized treatment approach to enhance treatment outcomes in CMSP. RESULTS: Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee II of the University of Heidelberg on August 4, 2020. Recruitment for the microrandomized trial began in May 2021 and is ongoing at the time of submission. By October 10, 2022, a total of 24 participants had been enrolled in the microrandomized trial. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide evidence on the feasibility of the PerPAIN app and the initial signals of efficacy of the different intervention components. In the next step, the intervention would need to be further refined and investigated in a definitive trial. This ecological momentary intervention presents a potential method for offering low-level accessible treatment to a wide range of people, which could have substantial implications for public health by reducing disease burden of chronic pain in the population. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43376.

Prolonged-Release (PR) Oxycodone/Naloxone Improves Bowel Function Compared with Oxycodone PR and Provides Effective Analgesia in Chinese Patients with Non-malignant Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN PR), combining an opioid analgesic with selective blockade of enteric µ-opioid receptors, provided effective analgesia and improved bowel function in patients with moderate-to-severe pain and opioid-induced constipation in clinical trials predominantly conducted in Western countries. This double-blind randomized controlled trial investigated OXN PR (N = 116) versus prolonged-release oxycodone (OXY PR, N = 115) for 8 weeks at doses up to 50 mg/day in patients with moderate-to-severe, chronic, non-malignant musculoskeletal pain and opioid-induced constipation recruited in China. METHODS: A total of 234 patients at least 18 years of age with non-malignant musculoskeletal pain for more than 4 weeks that was moderate-to-severe in intensity and required round-the-clock opioid therapy were randomized (1:1) to OXN PR or OXY PR. The primary endpoint was bowel function using the Bowel Function Index (BFI). Secondary endpoints included safety, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), use of analgesic and laxative rescue medication, and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D). RESULTS: While BFI scores were comparable at baseline, at week 8 improvements were greater with OXN PR vs OXY PR (least squares mean [LSM] difference (95% CI) - 9.1 (- 14.0, - 4.2); P < 0.001. From weeks 2 to 8, mean BFI scores were in the range of normal bowel function (≤ 28.8) with OXN PR but were in the range of constipation (> 28.8) at all timepoints with OXY PR. Analgesia with OXN PR was similar and non-inferior to OXY PR on the basis of modified BPI-SF average 24-h pain scores at week 8: LSM difference (95% CI) - 0.3 (- 0.5, - 0.1); P < 0.001. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were nausea (OXN PR 5% vs OXY PR 6%) and dizziness (4% vs 4%). CONCLUSION: OXN PR provided clinically meaningful improvements in bowel function and effective analgesia in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe musculoskeletal pain and pre-existing opioid-induced constipation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01918098.

Efficacy and tolerability of liposomal polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine hydrogel for the localized treatment of chronic infective, inflammatory, dermatoses: an uncontrolled pilot study.

Infection is common in many chronic, inflammatory skin conditions but is often difficult to treat, in part due to growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Liposomal polyvinyl-pyrrolidone (PVP)-iodine hydrogel has a unique mode of action, combining the antiseptic and anti-inflammatory actions of PVP-iodine with the drug delivery and moisturizing properties of liposomes. We investigated the utility of liposomal PVP-iodine to treat infective dermatoses. In this prospective, single-arm (uncontrolled), open-label Phase II pilot study, patients with acne vulgaris (n=30), atopic dermatitis (n=20), impetigo contagiosa (n=10), and rosacea (n=10) received PVP-iodine (3%) hydrogel for ≤4 weeks. Global Clinical Severity score improved for all dermatoses (range: 0.5 for acne vulgaris [p<0.001] to 1.0 for impetigo contagiosa [p=0.011]). Improvements in pain, quality of life, (Freiburg Life Quality Assessment), and Eczema Area and Severity Index scores were also seen. Treatment was well tolerated; most frequent adverse events were burning (14%) or itching (9%) sensations. Thus, liposomal PVP-iodine hydrogel has potential utility as an effective treatment for inflammatory skin conditions associated with bacterial colonization.

Efficacy of Conventional and Liposomal Povidone-Iodine in Infected Mesh Skin Grafts: An Exploratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: Infection is a major threat to wound healing and a leading cause of graft loss in patients undergoing meshed skin grafts (MSGs). Therefore, topical antisepsis is important in the overall treatment scheme. METHODS: An exploratory satellite group of 14 patients with infected MSGs were enrolled as part of a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, pilot Phase II study that investigated the efficacy and tolerability of 3% liposomal povidone-iodine hydrogel (PVP-ILH, Repithel®; RepiGel®) versus chlorhexidine gauze in non-infected MSGs. The satellite group included both patients with infected wound beds prior to grafting and patients with infection of a previously placed graft, with MSG sizes ranging from 50 to 1000 cm2, who were randomized to treatment with (PVP-ILH) or 10% povidone-iodine ointment (Betaisodona®; BETADINE®). Medication was applied in a 2-mm layer and dressing changes with identical application of study medication took place daily. Wounds were evaluated by photoplanimetry, microbiologically and subjectively by patients and physicians. RESULTS: The results for the main study group have been reported previously. In the satellite group, both PVP-ILH and povidone-iodine ointment performed remarkably well with respect to lowering the bacterial count and restoring wound healing, with different emphasis. Povidone-iodine ointment showed excellent antibacterial efficacy with no detectable microorganisms by Day 10, and rapid re-epithelialization (mean 90% by Day 6). PVP-ILH also demonstrated rapid re-epithelialization (mean 72% by Day 6) with a trend towards improved subjective measures of wound healing quality. Four patients (40%) receiving PVP-ILH experienced partial graft loss (10-15% of total MSG area); no patients in the povidone-iodine ointment group experienced graft loss. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that povidone-iodine ointment has a strong role in managing infected wounds, especially when a high concentration of povidone-iodine may be warranted, while PVP-ILH indicated similar beneficial results on markers of wound healing quality in larger infected wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was conducted prior to mandatory registration of drug products, PVP-ILH represents a medicated device in the EU and many other countries. FUNDING: Mundipharma Research GmbH & Co. KG.

Modified-release prednisone for polymyalgia rheumatica: a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of modified-release (MR) versus immediate-release (IR) prednisone in newly diagnosed glucocorticoid (GC)-naïve patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). METHODS: Patients were randomised to double-blind MR prednisone (taken at approximately 22:00) or IR prednisone (taken in the morning), 15 mg/day for 4 weeks. The primary end point was complete response rate (≥70% reduction in PMR visual analogue scale, duration of morning stiffness and C reactive protein (CRP) (or CRP <2× upper limit of normal (ULN))) at week 4. Non-inferiority was decided if the lower 95% confidence limit (MR vs IR prednisone) was above -15%. 400 patients were planned but only 62 were enrolled due to difficulties in recruiting GC-naïve patients with PMR with CRP ≥2×ULN. RESULTS: The percentage of complete responders at week 4 was numerically greater for MR prednisone (53.8%) than for IR prednisone (40.9%). Non-inferiority of MR versus IR prednisone was not proven in the primary analysis on the per protocol population (N=48; treatment difference: 12.22%; 95% CI -15.82% to 40.25%). However, sensitivity analysis on the full analysis population showed an evident trend favouring MR prednisone (N=62; treatment difference: 15.56%; 95% CI -9.16% to 40.28%). Adverse events were generally mild and transient with no unexpected safety observations. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed a clear trend for favourable short-term efficacy of MR prednisone versus IR prednisone in early treatment of PMR. Further studies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2011-002353-57; Results.

Sleep and Quality of Life Under Prolonged Release Oxycodone/Naloxone for Severe Restless Legs Syndrome: An Analysis of Secondary Efficacy Variables of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study with an Open-Label Extension.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the effects of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN PR) on sleep and quality of life (QoL) in patients with severe restless legs syndrome (RLS) refractory to first-line dopaminergic RLS treatment. METHODS: Sleep and QoL data from a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with subsequent 40-week, open-label extension were analyzed. Instruments included the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) sleep scale, RLS-6 rating scale, and RLS-QoL questionnaire. RESULTS: The full analysis population included 132 OXN PR and 144 placebo patients. After 12 treatment weeks, improvements in the MOS domains 'sleep disturbance' [-18.6; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -24.4 to -12.9; p < 0.0001], 'sleep adequacy' (14.9; 95 % CI 7.9-21.9; p < 0.0001), and 'sleep quantity' (0.77 h; 95 % CI 0.43-1.11; p < 0.0001) were significantly greater under OXN PR than under placebo. OXN PR also reduced symptom severity (when falling asleep and during the night) and daytime tiredness, and increased sleep satisfaction to a significantly greater extent than placebo (all p < 0.001; RLS-6). QoL improved in both treatment arms, with a significant difference of -9.02 (95 % CI -12.85 to -5.19; p < 0.001) in the mean sum score in favor of OXN PR. All sleep and QoL aspects also improved under 40 weeks of open-label OXN PR treatment. CONCLUSIONS: OXN PR improved RLS symptom severity and sleep quantity and adequacy, resulting in greater sleep satisfaction, less daytime tiredness, and improved QoL. In appropriate patients, OXN PR should be considered as an alternative treatment option for severe RLS that cannot be controlled by first-line dopaminergic medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01112644) and EudraCT (2009-011107-23).

Prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone for treatment of severe pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PANDA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease. We investigated the analgesic efficacy of prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN PR) in patients with Parkinson's disease and chronic, severe pain. METHODS: We did this phase 2 study in 47 secondary care centres in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the UK. We enrolled patients with Hoehn and Yahr Stage II-IV Parkinson's disease, at least one type of severe pain, and an average 24-h pain score of at least 6 (assessed on an 11-point rating scale from 0=no pain to 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) with a validated automated system (block size four) to either oral OXN PR or placebo for 16 weeks (starting dose oxycodone 5 mg, naloxone 2·5 mg, twice daily). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2011-002901-31) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01439100). FINDINGS: We enrolled 202 patients; 93 were assigned to OXN PR and 109 to placebo; the full analysis population consisted of 88 patients versus 106 patients. Least squares mean average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population was 5·0 (95% CI 4·5 to 5·5) in the OXN PR group versus 5·6 (5·1 to 6·0) in the placebo group (difference -0·6, 95% CI -1·3 to 0·0; p=0·058). Similar proportions of patients in each group had adverse events (60/92 [65%] vs 76/109 [70%]), treatment-related adverse events (52/92 [57%] vs 62/109 [57%]), and serious adverse events (5/92 [5%] vs 7/109 [6%]). Treatment-related nausea was more common in the OXN PR group than in the placebo group (16/92 [17%] vs 10/109 [9%]), as was treatment-related constipation (16/92 [17%] vs 6/109 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint, based on the full analysis population at week 16, was not significant. Nonetheless, the results of this study highlight the potential efficacy of OXN PR for patients with Parkinson's disease-related pain and might warrant further research on OXN PR in this setting. FUNDING: Mundipharma Research.

Long-term safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic cancer pain.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN PR) and its impact on quality of life (QoL), in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain. METHODS: This was an open-label extension (OLE) of a 4 week, randomized, double-blind (DB) study in which patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain had been randomized to OXN PR or oxycodone PR (OxyPR). During the OLE phase, patients were treated with OXN PR capsules (≤ 20/60 mg/day) for ≤ 24 weeks. Outcome measures included safety, efficacy and QoL. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight patients entered the OLE, average pain scores based on the modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form were low and stable over the 24-week period. The improvement in bowel function and constipation symptoms as measured by the Bowel Function Index and patient assessment of constipation in patients treated with OXN PR during the 4-week DB study was maintained. In patients treated with OxyPR during the DB phase, bowel function and constipation symptoms were improved during the OLE. In the DB and in the OLE, health status and QoL were similar for patients treated with OXN PR and OxyPR. There were no unexpected safety or tolerability issues. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, long-term use of OXN PR is well tolerated and effective, resulting in sustained analgesia, improved bowel function and improved symptoms of constipation.

Hair for brain trade-off, a metabolic bypass for encephalization.

Hair loss in humans is perplexing and raises many hypothetical explanations. This paper suggests that hair loss in humans is metabolically related to encephalization; and that hair covered hominids would have been unable to evolve large brains because of a dietary restriction of several amino acids which are essential for hair and brain development. We use simulations to imply that hair loss must have preceded increase in brain size & volume. In this respect we see hair loss as a major force in human evolution. We assume that hair reduction required favorable climatic conditions and must have been quick. Using evolutionary and ecological time scales, we pinpoint hair loss to a period around 2.2-2.4 million years ago. The dating is further supported by a rapid selection at that time of the sialic acid deletion mutation which may have protected growing human brains against calcium ion flux. In summary we view encephalization, in part, as a metabolic trade-off between hair and brain. Other biochemical changes may have intervened in the process too; and the deletion mutation of sialic acid hydroxylation may have been involved as well.

Prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone for treatment of severe restless legs syndrome after failure of previous treatment: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label extension.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a potential new treatment for severe restless legs syndrome. We investigated the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone for patients with severe restless legs syndrome inadequately controlled by previous, mainly dopaminergic, treatment. METHODS: This multicentre study consisted of a 12-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and 40-week open-label extension phase done at 55 sites in Austria, Germany, Spain, and Sweden. Patients had symptoms for at least 6 months and an International RLS Study Group severity rating scale sum score of at least 15; patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or a history of sleep apnoea syndrome were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either study drug or matched placebo with a validated interactive response technology system in block sizes of four. Study drug was oxycodone 5·0 mg, naloxone 2·5 mg, twice per day, which was up-titrated according to investigator's opinion to a maximum of oxycodone 40 mg, naloxone 20 mg, twice per day; in the extension, all patients started on oxycodone 5·0 mg, naloxone 2·5 mg, twice per day, which was up-titrated to a maximum of oxycodone 40 mg, naloxone 20 mg, twice per day. The primary outcome was mean change in severity of symptoms according to the International RLS Study Group severity rating scale sum score at 12 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01112644) and with EudraCT (number 2009-011107-23). FINDINGS: We screened 495 patients, of whom 306 were randomly assigned and 276 included in the primary analysis (132 to prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone vs 144 to placebo). 197 patients participated in the open-label extension. Mean International RLS Study Group rating scale sum score at randomisation was 31·6 (SD 4·5); mean change after 12 weeks was -16·5 (SD 11·3) in the prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone group and -9·4 (SD 10·9) in the placebo group (mean difference between groups at 12 weeks 8·15, 95% CI 5·46-10·85; p<0·0001). After the extension phase, mean sum score was 9·7 (SD 7·8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 109 of 150 (73%) patients in the prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone group and 66 of 154 (43%) in the placebo group during the double-blind phase; during the extension phase, 112 of 197 (57%) had treatment-related adverse events. Five of 306 (2%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events when taking prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone (vomiting with concurrent duodenal ulcer, constipation, subileus, ileus, acute flank pain). INTERPRETATION: Prolonged release oxycodone-naloxone was efficacious for short-term treatment of patients with severe restless legs syndrome inadequately controlled with previous treatment and the safety profile was as expected. Our study also provides evidence of open-label long-term efficacy of this treatment. Opioids can be used to treat patients with severe restless legs syndrome who have had no benefit with first-line drugs. FUNDING: Mundipharma Research.

Low absolute bioavailability of oral naloxone in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the absolute bioavailability of naloxone from oral doses ranging from 5 mg to 120 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label study, 28 healthy subjects received naloxone 1 mg (0.4 mg/ml) as an intravenous infusion (reference treatment), and the following oral doses as prolonged release (PR) naloxone tablets: 5 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 120 mg. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of 40 mg administered per rectum were also investigated. Each subject received five of the seven treatments as single doses with a 7 day washout between doses. Pharmacokinetic blood sampling and safety monitoring were performed for 24 h after the intravenous dose, and 72 h after the oral and rectal doses. RESULTS: The mean absolute bioavailability of naloxone from the orally administered PR tablets was very low, ranging from 0.9% for the 5 mg dose to 2% for the 40, 80 and 120 mg doses, based on AUC(t) values. The pharmacokinetics of naloxone were linear across the range of oral doses. Where AUC(inf) values were calculated, these confirmed the results based on AUC(t) values (mean absolute bioavailability ranging from 1.9% to 2.2% for the 20 mg to 120 mg oral doses). The absolute bioavailability of naloxone was higher following rectal administration compared with oral administration, but was still low at 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The mean oral absolute bioavailability of naloxone in this study was ≤ 2% at doses ranging from 5 mg to 120 mg.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study to determine the safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate/severe, chronic cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: An examination of whether oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets (OXN PR) can improve constipation and maintain analgesia, compared with oxycodone prolonged-release tablets (OxyPR) in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study in which 185 patients were randomized to receive up to 120 mg/day of OXN PR or OxyPR over 4 weeks. Efficacy assessments included Bowel Function Index (BFI), Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form (BPI-SF), laxative and rescue medication use. Quality of life (QoL) and safety assessments were conducted. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, mean BFI score was significantly lower with OXN PR; mean total laxative intake was 20% lower with OXN PR. Mean BPI-SF scores were similar for both treatments and the average rate of analgesic rescue medication use was low and comparable. QoL assessments were stable and comparable with greater improvements in constipation-specific QoL assessments with OXN PR. Overall, rates of adverse drug reactions were similar. CONCLUSIONS: OXN PR provides superior bowel function in cancer pain patients, compared with OxyPR, without compromising analgesic efficacy or safety. This study confirms that OXN PR is well tolerated and efficacious in cancer pain patients and results are in line with those seen in non-malignant pain patients.

Naloxone as part of a prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone combination reduces oxycodone-induced slowing of gastrointestinal transit in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study in healthy volunteers investigated the effect of single doses of oxycodone on gastrointestinal (GI) transit time and the degree to which a single dose of naloxone reverses the oxycodone-induced effect. METHODS: Fifteen healthy male volunteers received: oxycodone 10 and2 0 mg, oxycodone/naloxone 10/5 and 20/10 mg (all as prolonged release tablets) and placebo. Each dose was radiolabelled and administered with a capsule containing radiolabelled resin (surrogate for GI contents). RESULTS: Scintigraphic analysis showed that 20 mg oxycodone significantly increased colon arrival time (mean 7.19 vs 5.15 h for placebo, p = 0.0159). Mean colon arrival time for oxycodone/naloxone 20/10 mg (5.16 h) was similar to placebo, although the difference between oxycodone/naloxone 20/10 mg versus oxycodone 20 mg was not significant (p = 0.0653). Colonic geometric centre analysis showed a significant increase in mean time for the resin to reach the colon following oxycodone 10 and 20 mg compared with placebo (increases of 5.3 and 8.8 h). There was no significant effect of naloxone at the lower dose; however, oxycodone/naloxone 20/10 mg significantly reduced mean colonic transit time by 2.1 h (p = 0.0376). CONCLUSION: A single dose of oxycodone 20 mg significantly prolonged GI transit time but this effect was reduced by co-administration of naloxone.

Efficacy and safety of combined prolonged-release oxycodone and naloxone in the management of moderate/severe chronic non-malignant pain: results of a prospectively designed pooled analysis of two randomised, double-blind clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Two randomised 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter studies comparing oxycodone PR/naloxone PR and oxycodone PR alone on symptoms of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in patients with moderate/severe non-malignant pain have been conducted. METHODS: These studies were prospectively designed to be pooled and the primary outcome measure of the pooled data analysis was to demonstrate non-inferiority in 12-week analgesic efficacy of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR versus oxycodone PR alone. Patients with opioid-induced constipation were switched to oxycodone PR and then randomised to fixed doses of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR (n = 292) or oxycodone PR (n = 295) for 12 weeks (20-80 mg/day). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy were observed for the two treatments (p = 0.3197; non-inferiority p < 0.0001; 95% CI -0.07, 0.23) and there was no statistically significant difference in frequency of analgesic rescue medication use. Improvements in Bowel Function Index score were observed for oxycodone PR/naloxone PR by Week 1 and at every subsequent time point (-15.1; p < 0.0001; 95% CI -17.3, -13.0). AE incidence was similar for both groups (61.0% and 57.3% of patients with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR and oxycodone PR alone, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pooled analysis confirm that oxycodone PR/naloxone PR provides effective analgesia and suggest that oxycodone PR/naloxone PR improves bowel function without compromising analgesic efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412100 and NCT00412152.

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in cancer-related pain: causes, consequences, and a novel approach for its management.

Opioids are the mainstay of management for patients with cancer-related pain. Although the analgesic efficacy of opioid therapy is well documented, the recent European Pain in Cancer survey demonstrated that the management of moderate-to-severe pain in patients with cancer is far from optimal. Bowel dysfunction, and importantly constipation, is a common side effect and has a significant impact on the patient's morbidity and quality of life. Nonpharmacological strategies and laxatives are often not effective in the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), making it necessary to search for new strategies for the treatment of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. One promising strategy is the prevention of OIC with peripherally acting opioid antagonists that specifically target the underlying cause of this condition, without affecting centrally mediated analgesia. In recent studies, the novel combination of prolonged-release oral oxycodone and prolonged-release oral naloxone provided effective analgesia with improved bowel function in patients suffering from severe cancer-related and noncancer-related pain. The combination has the potential to improve the quality of pain management significantly in these patients.

Meeting the challenges of opioid-induced constipation in chronic pain management - a novel approach.

Opioid analgesics are the cornerstone of pain management for moderate-to-severe cancer pain and, increasingly, chronic noncancer pain. Despite proven analgesic efficacy, the use of opioids is commonly associated with frequently dose-limiting constipation that seriously impacts on patients' quality of life. Agents currently used to manage opioid-induced constipation (OIC), such as laxatives, do not address the underlying opioid receptor-mediated cause of constipation and are often ineffective. A significant need therefore exists for more effective treatment options. A novel approach for selectively and locally antagonizing the gastrointestinal effects of opioids involves the coadministration of a mu-opioid receptor antagonist with negligible systemic availability, such as oral naloxone. Combination therapy with prolonged-release (PR) oxycodone plus PR naloxone has been shown to provide effective analgesia while preventing or reducing constipation. The current article highlights this novel strategy in its potential to significantly improve the quality of life of patients suffering from chronic pain, affording patients the benefit of full analgesia, without the burden of OIC.

A randomised controlled trial with prolonged-release oral oxycodone and naloxone to prevent and reverse opioid-induced constipation.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced constipation can have a major negative impact on patients' quality of life. This randomised, double-blinded study evaluated the analgesic efficacy of prolonged-release (PR) oral oxycodone when co-administered with PR oral naloxone, and its impact on opioid-induced constipation in patients with severe chronic pain. Another objective was to identify the optimal dose ratio of oxycodone and naloxone. METHODS: A total of 202 patients with chronic pain (mainly non-cancer related, 2.5% of patients had cancer-related pain) under stable oral oxycodone therapy (40, 60 or 80 mg/day) were randomised to receive 10, 20, 40 mg/day naloxone or placebo. After a 4-week maintenance phase, patients received oxycodone only for 2 weeks. Pain intensity was evaluated using a numerical analogue scale and bowel function was assessed using the bowel function index. RESULTS: No loss of analgesic efficacy with naloxone was observed. Mean pain intensity scores on randomisation were comparable for placebo, 10mg, 20mg and 40 mg naloxone dose, and remained unchanged during treatment. Bowel function improved with increasing naloxone dose. Naloxone 20mg and 40 mg significantly improved bowel function at the end of the maintenance phase compared with placebo (p<0.05). Overall, the combination was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events. There was a trend towards an increased incidence of diarrhoea with higher doses of naloxone. The 2:1 oxycodone/naloxone ratio was identified as the most suitable for further development. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of PR oral naloxone and PR oral oxycodone is associated with a significant improvement in bowel function compared with PR oral oxycodone alone, with no reduction in the analgesic efficacy of oxycodone.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic evaluation of oxycodone and naloxone in an opioid agonist/antagonist prolonged-release combination in healthy adult volunteers.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing body of evidence supporting the need for prophylactic management of the adverse events (AEs) associated with long-term opioid use in patients with chronic pain. Symptoms of bowel dysfunction, such as constipation, may have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life and willingness to continue opioid therapy, and therefore should be managed proactively to ensure that the patient can continue effective pain management. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) prolonged-release (PR) oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) may be an effective therapeutic approach to delivering analgesia, with a reduced risk for opioid-induced constipation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to report the pharmacokinetic results from a single-dose study and a multiple-dose bioequivalence study of OXN versus separate formulations of oxycodone PR and naloxone PR administered concurrently in healthy subjects. METHODS: Both studies were open-label, randomized crossover studies in healthy adult male and female subjects. In the single-dose study, subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: OXN FDC (44 x 10/55-mg, 2 x 20/110-mg, or 1 x 40/20-mg dose strength [each given at a total combined dose of 40/220 mg]) or oxycodone PR 40 mg + naloxone PR 20 mg given in separate formulations. In the multiple-dose study, 34 subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OXN FDC 40/20 mg, oxycodone PR 40 mg, or naloxone PR 20 mg. Treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for relative bioavailability calculations fell within a predetermined range of 80% to 125%. AEs were assessed by the investigator at each study visit. RESULTS: The single-dose study included 28 subjects (22 men, 6 women; mean [SD] age, 32.3 [5.44] years; weight, 75.5 [9.3] kg; and body mass index [BMI], 24.2 [2.5] kg/mm(2)). The mean plasma oxycodone concentration-time curves for OXN and oxycodone PR + naloxone PR were similar. With oxycodone, the mean (SD) AUC(t) values with OXN 10/5, 20/10, and 40/20 mg and oxycodone PR + naloxone PR were 473.49 (72.16), 491.22 (82.18), 488.89 (91.04), and 502.28 (84.13) ng . h/mL, respectively; mean C(max) values were 34.91 (4.36), 35.73 (4.93), 34.46 (5.03), and 40.45 (4.71) ng/mL. For naloxone-3-glucuronide (the primary analyte of naloxone), the mean (SD) AUC(t) values with OXN 10/5, 20/10, and 40/20 mg and oxycodone PR + naloxone PR were 539.93 (142.24), 522.45 (128.57), 520.10 (133.18), and 523.37 (119.75) ng . h/mL, respectively; mean C(max) values were 62.01 (15.96), 63.62 (19.51), 61.95 (18.37), and 63.55 (16.75) ng/mL. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatments, and each of the treatment comparisons resulted in 90% CIs within the range for bioequivalence. The multiple-dose steady-state bioequivalence study included 34 subjects (28 men, 6 women; mean [SD] age, 36 [9.4] years; weight,78.9 [11.7] kg; and BMI, 24.6 [1.9] kg/m(2)). No significant differences were observed between the treatments, with the exception of naloxone-3-glucuronide C(min,ss) values. Mean C(min,ss) values of 22.6 and 24.0 ng/mL were obtained for the OXN combination and naloxone PR tablet, respectively. In the multiple-dose study, the most frequently reported AEs with OXN,oxycodone PR, and naloxone PR were headache (7%, 26%, and 17%, respectively), anorexia (10%, 16%, and 13%), and nausea (10%, 13%, and 7%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the single-dose study were consistent with the regulatory definition of bioequivalence of the FDCs and single components across the range of doses administered. The pharmacokinetic properties of the OXN FDC were similar to those of oxycodone PR + naloxone PR given as separate formulations, based on the regulatory definition. These findings were consistent with the results of the multiple-dose steady-state bioequivalence study. In this population of healthy volunteers, the pharmacokinetic properties of oxycodone apparently were not significantly influenced by administering oxycodone in a combination product, and the availability of naloxone-3-glucuronide from OXN was similar to that from the naloxone PR tablet. These findings suggest that the coadministration of oxycodone PR and naloxone PR in an FDC would not significantly affect the bioavailability of either of its constituents in these subjects.

Analgesic efficacy and safety of oxycodone in combination with naloxone as prolonged release tablets in patients with moderate to severe chronic pain.

UNLABELLED: This randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group study was designed to demonstrate the superiority of oxycodone in combination with naloxone in a prolonged release (PR) formulation over placebo with respect to analgesic efficacy. The active control group was included for sensitivity and safety analyses, and furthermore to compare the analgesic efficacy and bowel function of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR with oxycodone PR alone. The analgesic efficacy was measured as the time from the initial dose of study medication to multiple pain events (ie, inadequate analgesia) in patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. The full analysis population consisted of 463 patients. The times to recurrent pain events were significantly longer in the oxycodone PR/naloxone PR group compared with placebo (P < .0001-.0003); oxycodone PR/naloxone PR reduced the risk of pain events by 42% (P < .0001; full analysis population). The appearance of pain events was comparable for oxycodone PR/naloxone PR versus oxycodone PR, confirming that the addition of naloxone PR to oxycodone PR in a combination tablet did not negatively affect analgesic efficacy of the opioid. Furthermore, oxycodone PR/naloxone PR offers benefits in terms of an improvement in bowel function. In a therapeutic area of great unmet need, therefore, the combination tablet of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR offers patients effective analgesia while improving opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. Taken together with the observation that the safety profile of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR is consistent with that expected from other opioid analgesics except opioid-induced constipation, these findings indicate that the addition of naloxone to oxycodone in a PR combination tablet offers improved tolerability. Oxycodone PR/naloxone PR is therefore a promising new treatment approach for the management of chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: This study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of the combination of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR in chronic nonmalignant pain. Opioids are often reduced in dosage or even discontinued as a result of impaired bowel function, leading to insufficient pain treatment. Not only does oxycodone PR/naloxone PR demonstrate analgesic efficacy comparable with oxycodone PR, but it also improves opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, and may therefore improve the acceptability of long-term opioid treatment for chronic pain.

A liposome hydrogel with polyvinyl-pyrrolidone iodine in the local treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds.

Local treatment of burn injuries with conventional anti-infective preparations does not provide the moist environment that promotes fast wound healing. In a randomized controlled trial the effects of liposome polyvinyl-pyrrolidone-iodine (PVP-I) hydrogel, a novel formulation of PVP-I in a liposome hydrogel with high water-binding capacity, were investigated in 43 patients with partial-thickness burn wounds in an intraindividual comparison with a conventional silver-sulfadiazine cream. Treatment with liposome PVP-I hydrogel resulted in significantly faster complete healing of the burn wounds compared with silver-sulfadiazine cream (9.9 +/- 4.5 days versus 11.3 +/- 4.9; P < 0.015). The cosmetic result (smoothness, elasticity, appearance) was rated as excellent for 37.0% of study wounds with liposome PVP-I hydrogel compared with 13.0% of wounds treated with silver-sulfadiazine cream. Local tolerability was good; handling and change of dressing were rated as easy. Local treatment with liposome PVP-I hydrogel thus provides fast wound healing with a favorable cosmetic result.