Rusfertide, a Hepcidin Mimetic, for Control of Erythrocytosis in Polycythemia Vera.

BACKGROUND: Polycythemia vera is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by erythrocytosis. Rusfertide, an injectable peptide mimetic of the master iron regulatory hormone hepcidin, restricts the availability of iron for erythropoiesis. The safety and efficacy of rusfertide in patients with phlebotomy-dependent polycythemia vera are unknown. METHODS: In part 1 of the international, phase 2 REVIVE trial, we enrolled patients in a 28-week dose-finding assessment of rusfertide. Part 2 was a double-blind, randomized withdrawal period in which we assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive rusfertide or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a response, defined by hematocrit control, absence of phlebotomy, and completion of the trial regimen during part 2. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed by means of the modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) patient diary (scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms). RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled in part 1 of the trial, and 59 were assigned to receive rusfertide (30 patients) or placebo (29 patients) in part 2. The estimated mean (±SD) number of phlebotomies per year was 8.7±2.9 during the 28 weeks before the first dose of rusfertide and 0.6±1.0 during part 1 (estimated difference, 8.1 phlebotomies per year). The mean maximum hematocrit was 44.5±2.2% during part 1 as compared with 50.0±5.8% during the 28 weeks before the first dose of rusfertide. During part 2, a response was observed in 60% of the patients who received rusfertide as compared with 17% of those who received placebo (P = 0.002). Between baseline and the end of part 1, rusfertide treatment was associated with a decrease in individual symptom scores on the MPN-SAF in patients with moderate or severe symptoms at baseline. During parts 1 and 2, grade 3 adverse events occurred in 13% of the patients, and none of the patients had a grade 4 or 5 event. Injection-site reactions of grade 1 or 2 in severity were common. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with polycythemia vera, rusfertide treatment was associated with a mean hematocrit of less than 45% during the 28-week dose-finding period, and the percentage of patients with a response during the 12-week randomized withdrawal period was greater with rusfertide than with placebo. (Funded by Protagonist Therapeutics; REVIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04057040.).

Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of IPX203 in Patients With Advanced Parkinson Disease: A Comparison With Immediate-Release Carbidopa-Levodopa and With Extended-Release Carbidopa-Levodopa Capsules.

OBJECTIVE: IPX203 is an investigational oral extended-release capsule formulation of carbidopa-levodopa (CD-LD). The aim of this study was to characterize the single-dose pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and safety of IPX203 in subjects with advanced Parkinson disease compared with immediate-release (IR) CD-LD and extended-release CD-LD (Rytary). METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, rater-blinded, multicenter, single-dose crossover study. Blinded clinicians assessed subject's motor state and Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III scores for up to 10 hours postdose. Duration of effect was determined using improvement thresholds in the MDS-UPDRS part III. RESULTS: Levodopa concentrations increased rapidly and similarly across all 3 treatments and were sustained for a longer duration after IPX203 dosing. All treatments exhibited a rapid onset of pharmacodynamic effect, whereas IPX203 had a significantly longer duration of effect based on MDS-UPDRS part III scores compared with IR CD-LD (P < 0.0001) and Rytary (P ≤ 0.0290). IPX203 had a 2.7-hour advantage over IR CD-LD (P < 0.0001) and a 0.9-hour advantage over Rytary in "off" time (P = 0.023) and in "good on" time (2.6 hours more than IR CD-LD, P < 0.0001; 0.9 hours more than Rytary, P = 0.0259) as measured by the Investigator Assessment of Subject's Motor State. Subjects were 77% more likely to require rescue following IR CD-LD treatment compared with IPX203 (hazard ratio, 0.23; P < 0.0001). More subjects reported treatment-emergent adverse effects during IR CD-LD (28.0%) and IPX203 (19.2%) than during Rytary (8.0%) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Rytary and IR CD-LD, IPX203 had a longer pharmacodynamic effect consistent with LD pharmacokinetics for the 3 treatments. The safety and tolerability of IPX203 were similar to those of IR CD-LD and Rytary.

Dosing Patterns during Conversion to IPX066, Extended-Release Carbidopa-Levodopa (ER CD-LD), in Parkinson's Disease with Motor Fluctuations.

BACKGROUND: IPX066 is an extended-release (ER) oral formulation of carbidopa-levodopa (CD-LD). Following an initial peak at about one hour, plasma LD concentrations are maintained for about 4-5 hours. OBJECTIVE: To present dosing factors that may affect the successful conversion to ER CD-LD from other LD formulations. METHODS: Two-phase 3 studies of ER CD-LD vs. immediate-release (IR) CD-LD (ADVANCE-PD) and vs. CD-LD + entacapone (CLE; ASCEND-PD) in subjects with advanced PD included a 6-week, open-label conversion to ER CD-LD prior to treatment randomization. The "converted" daily LD dose ratio and dose frequency for ER CD-LD were compared to the prior LD treatment regimens at study entry. RESULTS: The average daily LD dose ratio at the end of dose conversion to ER CD-LD was approximately 2.1 for IR CD-LD and 2.8 for CLE. The final dose ratios tended to be slightly higher for participants taking lower LD doses at study entry but independent of dose frequency. ER CD-LD dose frequency increased with increasing LD dose and dose frequency at study entry. Participants on higher baseline LD doses ≥800 mg and dose frequencies ≥6 tended to have higher rates of discontinuation during conversion to ER CD-LD. CONCLUSIONS: Converting participants from other LD formulations to ER CD-LD is based on their current LD regimen. For the most common daily doses (≤1250 mg) and dose frequencies (<7) of LD, final mean dose ratios were within tight ranges of 2.1 to 2.4 for IR CD-LD (ADVANCE-PD) and 2.4 to 2.8 for CLE (ASCEND-PD) and were generally independent of the LD dosing frequency at study entry. These trials are registered with NCT00974974, NCT01130493.

Onset and duration of effect of extended-release carbidopa-levodopa in advanced Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), oral dosing of extended-release carbidopa-levodopa (Rytary, IPX066 [ER CD-LD]) achieves peak levodopa plasma concentrations within 1 hour and maintains them for 4-6 hours. AIMS: To compare the onset and duration of ER CD-LD benefit with those of immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa (IR CD-LD) in PD patients with motor fluctuations, using crossover data, and to evaluate which threshold values of improvement in finger-tapping and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores yield results most similar to those for trained raters' "on"/"off" assessments. METHODS: Patients underwent serial "on"/"off" rating and provided serial finger-tapping and UPDRS motor scores after receiving, in an "off" state, their usual morning IR dose or an ER dose designed to produce a similar levodopa peak concentration. Predefined improvement thresholds for analysis were 10%, 15%, and 20% increases in finger-tapping score and 2.5, 5, 7, and 11-point decreases in UPDRS motor score. Serial plasma samples were assayed for levodopa. RESULTS: Among 27 patients, mean time to onset of an "on" state was similar for ER compared with IR CD-LD (0.83 vs 0.81 hour), but mean duration was significantly longer for ER CD-LD than for IR CD-LD (5.56 vs 2.69 hours; P<0.0001). Duration was best matched by a $20% improvement in finger-tapping, a $11-point improvement in UPDRS motor score, and a levodopa plasma concentration $1,000 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: For ER CD-LD, observer assessments of "on" state were corroborated by sustained treatment effects. Correlations among "on"-state duration, finger-tapping score, and UPDRS motor score may suggest clinically relevant thresholds for acute assessment of treatment benefit.

Effect of Concomitant Medications on the Safety and Efficacy of Extended-Release Carbidopa-Levodopa (IPX066) in Patients With Advanced Parkinson Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Extended-release (ER) carbidopa-levodopa (CD-LD) (IPX066/RYTARY/NUMIENT) produces improvements in "off" time, "on" time without troublesome dyskinesia, and Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale scores compared with immediate-release (IR) CD-LD or IR CD-LD plus entacapone (CLE). Post hoc analyses of 2 ER CD-LD phase 3 trials evaluated whether the efficacy and safety of ER CD-LD relative to the respective active comparators were altered by concomitant medications (dopaminergic agonists, monoamine oxidase B [MAO-B] inhibitors, or amantadine). METHODS: ADVANCE-PD (n = 393) assessed safety and efficacy of ER CD-LD versus IR CD-LD. ASCEND-PD (n = 91) evaluated ER CD-LD versus CLE. In both studies, IR- and CLE-experienced patients underwent a 6-week, open-label dose-conversion period to ER CD-LD prior to randomization. For analysis, the randomized population was divided into 3 subgroups: dopaminergic agonists, rasagiline or selegiline, and amantadine. For each subgroup, changes from baseline in PD diary measures ("off" time and "on" time with and without troublesome dyskinesia), Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Parts II + III scores, and adverse events were analyzed, comparing ER CD-LD with the active comparator. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant dopaminergic agonist or MAO-B inhibitor use did not diminish the efficacy (improvement in "off" time and "on" time without troublesome dyskinesia) of ER CD-LD compared with IR CD-LD or CLE, whereas the improvement with concomitant amantadine failed to reach significance. Safety and tolerability were similar among the subgroups, and ER CD-LD did not increase troublesome dyskinesia. For patients on oral LD regimens and taking a dopaminergic agonist, and/or a MAO-B inhibitor, changing from an IR to an ER CD-LD formulation provides approximately an additional hour of "good" on time.

Conversion to carbidopa and levodopa extended-release (IPX066) followed by its extended use in patients previously taking controlled-release carbidopa-levodopa for advanced Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: IPX066 (Rytary®; carbidopa and levodopa [CD-LD] extended-release capsules) was designed to achieve therapeutic LD plasma concentrations within 1h of dosing and maintain LD concentrations for a prolonged duration in early or advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: In this open-label study, patients underwent 6weeks of conversion to IPX066 from their prior controlled-release (CR)±immediate-release (IR) CD-LD therapy and 6months of maintenance (with an additional 6months of IPX066 at some sites). Clinical utility was assessed at both the end of conversion and maintenance. RESULTS: Among 43 patients initiated on IPX066, 33 completed conversion. The mean LD conversion ratio was 1.8 among 30 patients previously on CR plus IR (and 1.5 among 3 previously taking CR alone). The mean IPX066 dosing frequency was 3.5times/day compared with 2.6times/day for CR plus 4.6times/day for IR previously (and 4.7times/day for CR alone). By patient and clinician global improvement ratings after 6-month maintenance, ≥43.8% of patients were much or very much improved from their previous treatment, and ≥68.8% were at least minimally improved. Adverse events were consistent with those reported in prior IPX066 studies. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that advanced PD patients using CR CD-LD±IR can be safely converted to IPX066, with high likelihood of achieving a stable regimen, less frequent LD dosing, and improved overall clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT01411137.

Conversion to IPX066 from Standard Levodopa Formulations in Advanced Parkinson's Disease: Experience in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Due to the short half-life of levodopa, immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa (IR CD-LD) produces fluctuating LD concentrations, contributing to a risk of eventual motor complications. IPX066 was designed to rapidly attain therapeutic LD concentrations and maintain them to allow a dosing interval of ∼6 hours. OBJECTIVE: To extensively analyze the dosing data collected in IPX066 studies during open-label conversions from IR CD-LD alone or with entacapone (CLE) and identify patterns relevant for managing conversion in the clinical setting. METHODS: Patients had ≥2.5 hours/day of "off" time despite a stable IR or CLE regimen. Suggested initial dosing conversion tables based on prior LD daily dosage were provided. RESULTS: Of 450 patients previously treated with IR CD-LD and 110 with CLE, 87.3% and 82.7% completed conversion to IPX066, respectively. At the end of conversion, average IPX066 LD daily dosages were higher than pre-conversion dosages, with a mean conversion ratio of 2.1±0.6 for IR CD-LD and 2.8±0.8 for CLE; >90% of patients took IPX066 3 or 4 times/day, compared with a median of 5 times/day at baseline in both studies. After conversion, daily "off" time significantly decreased, with no significant increase in troublesome dyskinesia. The most common adverse event reported during conversion was nausea, with an incidence of 5.3% for conversion from IR and 7.3% from CLE. CONCLUSIONS: Among PD patients with substantial "off" time, a majority were safely converted to IPX066. The sustained LD profile from the IPX066 formulation allowed an increase in LD dose accompanied by improved motor functions, without increased troublesome dyskinesia.

Long-Term Treatment with Extended-Release Carbidopa-Levodopa (IPX066) in Early and Advanced Parkinson's Disease: A 9-Month Open-Label Extension Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: IPX066 is a multiparticulate extended-release formulation of carbidopa-levodopa, designed to produce prolonged therapeutic levodopa plasma concentrations. This 9-month open-label extension study assessed its long-term safety and clinical utility in early and advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Participants were enrolled from two phase III IPX066 studies and one open-label phase II study. Early PD patients were titrated to an appropriate dosing regimen while advanced patients started with regimens established in the antecedent studies. Adjustment was allowed throughout the extension. Clinical utility measures included the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and Patient Global Impression (PGI) ratings. RESULTS: Among 268 early PD patients, 53.4 % reported adverse events (AEs) and 1.1 % (three patients) discontinued due to AEs; the most frequent AEs were nausea (5.6 %) and insomnia (5.6 %). Among 349 advanced patients, 60.2 % reported AEs and 3.7 % (13 patients) discontinued due to AEs; the most frequent AEs were dyskinesia (6.9 %) and fall (6.6 %). At month 9 (or early termination), 78.3 % of early patients were taking IPX066 three times daily (median: 720 mg/day) and 87.7 % of advanced patients were taking IPX066 three or four times daily (median: 1450 mg/day). Adjusting for 70 % bioavailability relative to immediate-release (IR) carbidopa-levodopa, the median dosages correspond to ~500 and ~1015 mg/day of IR levodopa in early and advanced PD, respectively. Based on the plasma profiles previously observed in PD patients, the IPX066 regimens in the extension can be estimated to provide a levodopa Cmax (maximum plasma drug concentration) similar to or lower than that provided by IR regimens during the antecedent trials. UPDRS and PGI findings showed sustained treatment effects throughout the extension. CONCLUSION: During 9 months of extended use, IPX066 exhibited a safety/tolerability profile consistent with dopaminergic PD therapy.

Comparison of IPX066 with carbidopa-levodopa plus entacapone in advanced PD patients.

BACKGROUND: IPX066, an investigational extended-release carbidopa-levodopa (CD-LD) preparation, has demonstrated a rapid attainment and prolonged maintenance of therapeutic LD plasma concentrations in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). This phase-3 crossover study assessed its efficacy and safety vs. CD-LD plus entacapone (CL + E). METHODS: At baseline, all patients had motor fluctuations despite a stable regimen of CL + E or CD-LD-entacapone combination tablets (CLE). The study included a 6-week conversion from CL + E or CLE to IPX066, followed by two 2-week, double-blind crossover treatment periods in randomized order, one on IPX066 (and placebo CL + E), the other on CL + E (and placebo IPX066), separated by 1-week open-label IPX066 treatment. The primary efficacy measure was mean percent daily "off" time during waking hours (from patient diaries). RESULTS: Of 91 randomized patients, 84 completed the study. Their median daily LD dosage was 1495 mg from IPX066 and 600 mg from CL + E, corresponding, after correction for bioavailability, to an approximately 22% higher LD exposure on IPX066. Compared with CL + E, IPX066 demonstrated a lower percent "off" time (24.0% vs. 32.5%; p < 0.0001), lower "off" time (3.8 vs. 5.2 h/day; p < 0.0001), and higher "on" time without troublesome dyskinesia (11.4 vs. 10.0 h/day; p < 0.0001). Other endpoints, including patient-reported treatment preference, also favored IPX066 (p < 0.05). During double-blind treatment, 20.2% and 13.6% of patients reported adverse events on IPX066 and CL + E, respectively. The most common were dyskinesia (4 patients), insomnia (3), and confusional state (3) for IPX066, and fall (2) for CL + E. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced PD, IPX066 showed improved efficacy, compared with CL + E, and appeared to be well tolerated.

Evaluation of the abuse potential of extended release hydromorphone versus immediate release hydromorphone.

Immediate release (IR) hydromorphone has experienced significant misuse and abuse. An extended release (ER) hydromorphone formulation has been developed to provide sustained pain relief and may reduce the likelihood for abuse by delaying absorption. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 2-part crossover study, the abuse potential of single oral doses of hydromorphone ER (intact: 16-, 32-, and 64-mg; milled: 8-mg) was compared with 8-mg hydromorphone IR and placebo. After drug administration, subjects with a history of recreational opioid use completed a series of assessments, including subjective effects visual analog scales (eg, drug liking) and Addiction Research Center Inventory With Cole Modification, at several timepoints up to 48 hours postdose. Independent of formulation, maximum at-the-moment drug liking was higher for hydromorphone versus placebo. Maximum drug liking occurred earlier and was higher for 8-mg IR versus 16-mg ER but similar to 32- and 64-mg ER. Most positive effects were lower after 16-mg ER compared with other doses, including 8-mg IR. Bad drug effects were higher for hydromorphone ER, particularly the 64-mg dose. Milled 8-mg ER produced similar subjective effects to 8-mg IR. Comparison of scores after administration of 8-mg IR on 2 separate occasions showed that most assessments exhibited good test-retest reliability, although some scores declined marginally between test and retest. Delayed onset of good drug effects and prominent bad drug effects of hydromorphone ER suggest that, when administered intact, this formulation may have lower abuse potential than hydromorphone IR.

Long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of OROS hydromorphone in patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of long-term repeated dosing of OROS hydromorphone in chronic pain patients. DESIGN: This multicenter, open-label extension trial enrolled patients from three short-term OROS hydromorphone trials. SETTING: Fifty-six centers in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Adults with chronic cancer pain or chronic nonmalignant pain who were receiving stable doses of OROS hydromorphone (> or = 8 mg/day). Three hundred and eighty-eight patients were enrolled, 106 patients completed at least 12 months of therapy. INTERVENTIONS: OROS hydromorphone (individualized doses) was administered once daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety and efficacy (Brief Pain Inventory and patient and investigator global evaluations) were assessed at monthly visits. RESULTS: The median duration of extended OROS hydromorphone therapy was 274 days. The median daily dose of study medication was 32.0 mg at extension-study baseline, 40.0 mg at month 3, and 48.0 mg at months 6, 9, and 12, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (n = 93, 24.0 percent) and constipation (n = 75, 19.3 percent). The analgesic effects of OROS hydromorphone, assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory, were maintained throughout the extension. At 12 months, 72.4 percent of patients and 75.9 percent of investigators rated overall treatment as good, very good, or excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily OROS hydromorphone is an osmotically driven, controlled-release preparation that may be particularly well suited to long-term use, because it provides consistent plasma concentrations and sustained around-the-clock analgesia. In this study, the benefits of OROS hydromorphone attained in short-term studies were maintained in the long-term when daily administration was continued.

Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily OROS hydromorphone and twice-daily extended-release oxycodone in patients with chronic, moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain: results of a 6-week, randomized, open-label, noninferiority analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily controlled-release formulation of hydromorphone (OROS) hydromorphone, Janssen-Cilag, Beerse, Belgium) and twice-daily extended-release (ER) oxycodone in patients with chronic, moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) pain. OROS hydromorphone is currently available only in Europe. METHODS: Adults who met American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria for OA of the knee or hip with moderate to severe mean daily pain intensity despite chronic use of stable doses of NSAIDs or other nonsteroidal, nonopioid therapies were eligible for participation in this randomized, open-label study. The study consisted of a 14-day dose-titration and stabilization phase and a 28-day maintenance phase. OROS hydromorphone and ER oxycodone were initiated at dosages of 8 mg QD and 10 mg BID, respectively. Patients maintained diaries in which they rated their pain (from 0 = none to 3 = severe) and pain relief (from 0 = no relief to 4 = complete relief). Other assessments completed every 14 days included patient and investigator global evaluations of treatment effectiveness (scale from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, and the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale. Adverse events (whether observed by study personnel, identified in response to questioning, or spontaneously reported) and vital signs were monitored throughout the study. The primary efficacy measures were the mean pain relief score at end point and the time from initiation of treatment to the third day of moderate to complete pain relief, as reported in the patient diary. Noninferiority analyses were conducted on all primary and secondary efficacy variables. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients (71 OROS hydromorphone, 67 ER oxycodone) received treatment (safety population), and 83 (60.1%) completed the study. Data from 124 patients were included in the efficacy analyses; the majority of these patients were white (85.5%) and female (69.4%), with a mean age of 63.6 years. The most commonly affected joint was the knee (79.8 %). At end point, the OROS hydromorphone group had a mean pain relief score of 2.3 (median, 2.0) and the ER oxycodone group had a mean pain relief score of 2.3 (median, 2.3) (95% CI, -0.30 to infinity). The mean time to the third day of moderate to complete pain relief was 6.2 days (median, 4.0) in the OROS hydromorphone group and 5.5 days (median, 5.0) in the ER oxycodone group (95% CI, -0.31 to infinity). Mean pain intensity decreased from baseline to end point by 0.6 point in the OROS hydromorphone group and by 0.4 point in the ER oxycodone group. Mean scores on the patient global evaluation improved by a respective 1.2 and 1.0 points (median, 1 in both groups). Approximately two thirds of patients in each group (67.2% and 66.7%) rated the overall effectiveness of treatment as good to excellent at end point. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in total WOMAC scores at end point, and similar improvements from baseline in the WOMAC physical function, stiffness, and pain scales were observed in both groups. Whereas MOS sleep outcomes scores improved from baseline in both groups, OROS hydromorphone was associated with a significantly greater improvement on the MOS Sleep Problems Index I compared with ER oxycodone (P < 0.045). Adverse events were comparable in both groups; the most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (35.2% and 29.9%), constipation (29.6% and 25.4%), somnolence (25.4% and 17.9%), vomiting (16.9% and 11.9%), and dizziness (14.1% and 22.4%). Adverse events led to study discontinuation in 35.2% (25/71) of patients in the OROS hydromorphone group and 32.8% (22/67) in the ER oxycodone group. Discontinuations due to adverse events during the titration phase were numerically greater in the OROS hydromorphone group (29.6% [21/71]) than in the ER oxycodone group (19.4% [13/67]). Only 1 serious adverse event (diarrhea in a patient receiving OROS hydromorphone) was considered possibly related to study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily OROS hydromorphone and twice-daily ER oxycodone provided similar pain relief in these patients with OA of the knee or hip. The tolerability profiles of the 2 agents were similar.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of once-daily OROS hydromorphone in patients with chronic low back pain: a pilot open-label study (DO-127).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of once-daily osmotic controlled-release oral delivery system (OROS) hydromorphone in patients with chronic low back pain of moderate-to-severe intensity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 6-week, multicenter, nonrandomized, noncomparative, open-label, repeat-dose study of chronic (> or = 6 weeks) low back pain. The study comprised three periods: prior opioid stabilization (2-7 days); OROS hydromorphone conversion, titration, and stabilization (3-14 days); and OROS hydromorphone maintenance (28 days). Patients were evaluated weekly. Baseline pain assessment was performed at the end of prior opioid stabilization. For pain relief rating, endpoint was defined as the mean pain relief score from the last 2 nonmissing days before study termination. For other assessments, endpoint was defined as the last post-baseline evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 207 patients who received the study drug, 131 completed the trial. Scores (mean +/- SD) for Brief Pain Inventory 'worst pain in the last 24 hours' decreased significantly from baseline to endpoint (-0.8 +/- 2.06, p < 0.0001). The proportions of patients and investigators rating the global effectiveness as good, very good, or excellent increased from 31.6% at baseline while patients were on prior opioids to 63.2% at endpoint while patients received OROS hydromorphone, and from 29.8% at baseline while patients were on prior opioids to 65.8% at endpoint while patients received OROS hydromorphone, respectively. Daily pain relief ratings also increased significantly (+0.26 +/- 1.084, p = 0.0008). Significant improvements in health-related quality of life and sleep problems were observed. Adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; the most common of these were constipation, nausea, headache, and somnolence. The limitations of this study include its pilot-type design and the lack of comparison of OROS hydromorphone with a placebo or another drug. Additional comparative and longer-term studies are needed to confirm these findings. CONCLUSIONS: OROS hydromorphone may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain of moderate-to-severe intensity. Adverse events were typical of those associated with opioid therapy.

Patient-controlled transdermal fentanyl hydrochloride vs intravenous morphine pump for postoperative pain: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine is commonly used to provide acute postoperative pain control after major surgery. The fentanyl hydrochloride patient-controlled transdermal system eliminates the need for venous access and complicated programming of pumps. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of an investigational patient-controlled iontophoretic transdermal system using fentanyl hydrochloride compared with a standard intravenous morphine patient-controlled pump. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective randomized controlled parallel-group trial conducted between September 2000 and March 2001 at 33 North American hospitals, enrolling 636 adult patients who had just undergone major surgery. INTERVENTIONS: In surgical recovery rooms, patients were randomly assigned to intravenous morphine (1-mg bolus every 5 minutes; maximum of 10 mg/h) by a patient-controlled analgesia pump (n = 320) or iontophoretic fentanyl hydrochloride (40- microg infusion over 10 minutes) by a patient-controlled transdermal system (n = 316). Supplemental analgesia (morphine or fentanyl intravenous boluses) was administered as needed before and for the first 3 hours after activation of the PCA treatments. Patients then used the PCA treatments without additional analgesics for up to 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy variable was patient global assessment of the method of pain control during the first 24 hours. Additional efficacy measures were the proportion of patients discontinuing the study because of inadequate analgesia for any reason, patient-reported pain intensity scores on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), and patient global assessments at 48 and 72 hours. Adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: Ratings of good or excellent after 24 hours of treatment for the method of pain control were given by 73.7% of patients (233/316) who used transdermal fentanyl PCA and 76.9% of patients (246/320) who used intravenous morphine PCA; treatment difference was -3.2% (95% confidence interval, -9.9% to 3.5%; P =.36). Early patient discontinuations (25.9% fentanyl vs 25.0% morphine; P =.78) and last pain intensity scores (32.7 fentanyl vs 31.1 morphine on the VAS; P =.45) were not different between the 2 treatments. With continued treatment for up to 48 or 72 hours, more than 80% of patient assessments in each treatment group were good or excellent. The incidence of opioid-related adverse events was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: An investigational PCA transdermal system using iontophoresis to deliver fentanyl provided postsurgical pain control equivalent to that of a standard intravenous morphine regimen delivered by a PCA pump.