Association between prolactin increasing antipsychotic use and the risk of breast cancer: a retrospective observational cohort study in a United States Medicaid population.

Introduction: Results of retrospective studies examining the relationship between prolactin increasing antipsychotics and incident breast cancer have been inconsistent. This study assessed the association between use of high prolactin increasing antipsychotics (HPD) and the incidence of breast cancer using best practices in pharmacoepidemiology. Methods: Using administrative claims data from the MarketScan Medicaid database, schizophrenia patients initiating antipsychotics were identified. Those initiating HPD were compared with new users of non/low prolactin increasing drugs (NPD). Two definitions of breast cancer, two at-risk periods, and two large-scale propensity score (PS) adjustment methods were used in separate analyses. PS models included all previously diagnosed conditions, medication use, demographics, and other available medical history. Negative control outcomes were used for empirical calibration. Results: Five analysis variants passed all diagnostics for sufficient statistical power and balance across all covariates. Four of the five variants used an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach. Between 4,256 and 6,341 patients were included in each group for the ITT analyses, and patients contributed approximately four years of follow-up time on average. There was no statistically significant association between exposure to HPD and risk of incident breast cancer in any analysis, and hazard ratios remained close to 1.0, ranging from 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.62 - 1.48) to 1.28 (0.40 - 4.07). Discussion: Using multiple PS methods, outcome definitions and at-risk periods provided robust and consistent results which found no evidence of an association between use of HPD and risk of breast cancer.

Comparative effectiveness study of paliperidone palmitate 6-month with a real-world external comparator arm of paliperidone palmitate 1-month or 3-month in patients with schizophrenia.

Background: The paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) long-acting injectable formulation is currently the longest dosing interval available for schizophrenia treatment. Objective: To compare treatment outcomes between a real-world external comparator arm (ECA; NeuroBlu database) and the PP6M open-label extension (OLE) clinical trial arm. Methods: The ECA comprised patients receiving PP 1-month (PP1M) or PP 3-month (PP3M) for ⩾12 months without a relapse. The PP6M OLE arm included patients with PP1M treatment prior to randomization who completed the 12-month double-blind PP6M study on either PP3M or PP6M relapse-free. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to study time-to-relapse (primary outcome) and change in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score (secondary outcome). Results: At 24 months, 3.9% (7/178) of patients in the PP6M cohort experienced a relapse versus 15.6% (26/167) in the ECA. Time-to-relapse was longer in the PP6M cohort versus the ECA at 12-, 18-, and 24-months across the different weighting methods; median time-to-relapse was not reached in both cohorts. Hazard ratio (HR) for relapse was significantly lower for the PP6M cohort versus the ECA throughout the duration of the study [HR at 24 months: 0.18 (95% CI: 0.08-0.42), p < 0.001]. At 24 months, change in CGI-S score for the PP6M cohort was 0.76 points lower than the ECA (p < 0.001). Results were similar in a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching (PSM); IPTW resulted in larger sample sizes in balanced dataset than PSM. Conclusion: Consistent findings across weighting and matching methods suggest PP6M efficacy in reducing and delaying relapses and long-term symptom control compared to PP1M/PP3M in usual-care settings. Additional confounds, such as greater illness severity and more frequent comorbidities and comedications in the ECA, were not fully controlled by the applied statistical methods. Future real-world studies directly comparing PP6M with PP3M/PP1M and adjusting for these confounders are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate 6-monthly long-acting injectable in reduction of relapses in patients with schizophrenia: An Asian subgroup analysis of phase 3, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluate efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate 6-monthly (PP6M) for patients with schizophrenia in the Asian subgroup of a global, multicenter, noninferiority phase-3 study (NCT03345342). METHODS: Patients received paliperidone palmitate 1-monthly (PP1M, 100/150 mg eq.) or paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M, 350/525 mg eq.) during the maintenance phase and entered a 12-month double-blind (DB) phase, wherein they were randomized (2:1) to PP6M (700/1000 mg. eq.) or PP3M (350/525 mg eq.). Subgroup analysis was performed for 90 (12.7%) patients from Asia region (India, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Korea). Primary endpoint was time-to-relapse during DB phase (Kaplan-Meier estimates). Secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale score. RESULTS: In Asian subgroup, 91.9% (82/90) of patients completed DB phase (PP6M: 54/62 [87%]; PP3M: 28/28 [100%]). Median time-to-relapse was "not-estimable" due to low relapse rates in both groups. Estimated difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) between relapse-free patients in PP6M and PP3M groups of Asian subgroup was -0.1% [-8.5%, 8.4%] (global study population: -2.9% [-6.8%, 1.1%]). Mean change from baseline in secondary efficacy parameters was comparable between both groups, similar to the global study population. The incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms was higher in the Asian subgroup than in the global study population. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the global study population, PP6M was noninferior to PP3M in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia from the Asia region. Findings suggest the possibility of switching from PP1M/PP3M to twice-yearly PP6M without loss of efficacy and with no unexpected safety concerns.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Paliperidone 6-Month Formulation: An Open-Label 2-Year Extension of a 1-Year Double-Blind Study in Adult Participants With Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) demonstrated noninferiority to paliperidone palmitate 3-month in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia in a phase 3 double-blind (DB) study (NCT03345342). Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety results from a 2-year single-arm, open-label extension (OLE; NCT04072575) of this DB study. METHODS: Participants who completed the DB study without relapse were enrolled and followed-up every 3 months up to 2 years. Participants received 4 PP6M gluteal injections (700/1000 mg eq.) at baseline, 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month visits. Efficacy endpoints included assessment of relapse, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, Personal and Social Performance score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale change from baseline. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), physical examinations, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Of 178 participants enrolled, 154 (86.5%) completed the OLE (mean age: 40.4 years, men: 70.8%; mean duration of PP6M exposure during OLE: 682.1 days). Overall, 7/178 (3.9%) participants relapsed between 20 and 703 days after enrolment. Mean (SD) changes from baseline to endpoint were as follows: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, 0.7 (8.22); Clinical Global Impression-Severity, 0.0 (0.51); and Personal and Social Performance Scale, 0.5 (7.47). Overall, 111/178 participants (62.4%) reported ≥1 TEAE; most common (>5%) TEAEs were headache (13.5%) and increased blood prolactin/hyperprolactinemia (18.0%); 8/178 (4.5%) participants experienced serious TEAEs, and 6/178 (3.4%) participants withdrew due to TEAEs. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The relapse rate observed with PP6M during the 2-year OLE was low (3.9%). Clinical and functional improvements demonstrated in the DB study were maintained during OLE, and no new safety concerns were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072575; EudraCT number: 2018-004532-30.

Efficacy and Safety of Paliperidone Palmitate 6-Month versus Paliperidone Palmitate 3-Month Long-Acting Injectable in European Patients with Schizophrenia: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Global Phase-3 Double-Blind Randomized Non-Inferiority Study.

Purpose: To examine efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate (PP) 6-month (PP6M) vs PP3-month (PP3M) long acting injectable (LAI) in patients with schizophrenia from European sites previously stabilized on PP3M or PP1-month (PP1M). Methods: This post-hoc subgroup analysis used data from a global phase-3 double-blind (DB) randomized non-inferiority study (NCT03345342). Patients were randomized (2:1, respectively) to receive dorsogluteal injections of PP6M (700 mg eq. or 1000 mg eq.) or PP3M (350 mg eq. or 525 mg eq.) in the 12-month DB phase. Primary endpoint was time-to-relapse during the DB phase, using a Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival estimate (non-inferiority margin 95% CI lower bound larger than prespecified as -10%). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), physical examinations, and laboratory tests were also evaluated. Results: A total of 384 patients who entered the DB phase were included in European sites (PP6M, n = 260; PP3M, n = 124) with a mean age similar in both groups (mean age [SD] years: PP6M, 40.0 [11.39]; PP3M, 38.8 [10.41]). Baseline characteristics were similar across both groups. The number of patients who experienced a relapse during DB phase were PP6M: 18 (6.9%) vs PP3M: 3 (2.4%) with percentage relapse-free difference of -4.9% (95% CI: -9.2%, -0.5%), thus achieving non-inferiority criteria. Secondary efficacy endpoints indicated comparable improvements. Incidence of TEAEs was similar between PP6M (58.8%) and PP3M (54.8%) groups. Nasopharyngitis, headache, increased weight, and injection-site pain were the most common TEAEs. Conclusion: The efficacy of PP6M was non-inferior to that of PP3M in preventing relapse in the European subgroup previously treated with PP1M or PP3M, which was consistent with the global study. No new safety signals were identified.

Cardiovascular outcomes among patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: A comparative safety study using US administrative claims data.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular conditions are the most prevalent comorbidity among patients with prostate cancer, regardless of treatment. Additionally, cardiovascular risk has been shown to increase following exposure to certain treatments for advanced prostate cancer. There is conflicting evidence on risk of overall and specific cardiovascular outcomes among men treated for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We, therefore, sought to compare incidence of serious cardiovascular events among CRPC patients treated with abiraterone acetate plus predniso(lo)ne (AAP) and enzalutamide (ENZ), the two most widely used CRPC therapies. METHODS: Using US administrative claims data, we selected CRPC patients newly exposed to either treatment after August 31, 2012, with prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We assessed incidence of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), ischemic stroke, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the period 30-days after AAP or ENZ initiation to discontinuation, outcome occurrence, death, or disenrollment. We matched treatment groups on propensity-scores (PSs) to control for observed confounding to estimate the average treatment effect among the treated (AAP) using conditional Cox proportional hazards models. To account for residual bias, we calibrated our estimates against a distribution of effect estimates from 124 negative-control outcomes. RESULTS: The HHF analysis included 2322 (45.1%) AAP initiators and 2827 (54.9%) ENZ initiators. In this analysis, the median follow-up times among AAP and ENZ initiators (after PS matching) were 144 and 122 days, respectively. The empirically calibrated hazard ratio (HR) estimate for HHF was 2.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32, 4.94). Corresponding HRs for AMI and ischemic stroke were 1.94 (95% CI: 0.90, 4.18) and 1.25 (95% CI: 0.54, 2.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study sought to quantify risk of HHF, AMI and ischemic stroke among CRPC patients initiating AAP relative to ENZ within a national administrative claims database. Increased risk for HHF among AAP compared to ENZ users was observed. The difference in myocardial infarction did not attain statistical significance after controlling for residual bias, and no differences were noted in ischemic stroke between the two treatments. These findings confirm labeled warnings and precautions for AAP for HHF and contribute to the comparative real-world evidence on AAP relative to ENZ.

The Effect of Longer Dosing Intervals for Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics on Outcomes in Schizophrenia.

Medication nonadherence in schizophrenia can have serious implications including relapses and hospitalization. Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics require fewer administrations, while ensuring sustained medication coverage. In this review, we summarize the expected real-world benefits of longer dosing intervals in the management of schizophrenia. LAIs are associated with improved clinical outcomes of less frequent relapses and reduced functional impairment, encouraging patients to regain control of their lives. Aripiprazole lauroxil and paliperidone palmitate three-monthly (PP3M) LAIs have longer dosing intervals of 2-3 months and provide improved outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. Paliperidone palmitate six-monthly (PP6M) LAI provides the longest dosing interval, twice-yearly dosing, among existing LAIs. Decreasing the frequency of LAI administrations has the potential to reduce occurrence of serious outcomes associated with poor medication adherence. By eliminating the need for daily oral antipsychotic dosing, LAIs could increase the likelihood of patient acceptance, decrease stigma, and promote self-esteem. Longer intervals of medication coverage may be desirable for patients with higher risk of relapse including adults with recent-onset schizophrenia, those living in circumstances that may deprive them of regular access (eg, homeless), those that are in transitions between care settings or to reduce interpersonal contact during public health emergencies (eg, COVID-19 pandemic).

Impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer and visceral metastases over four years of follow-up: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the LATITUDE study.

BACKGROUND: A post-hoc analysis of the phase-3 LATITUDE study assessed the impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA+P) on overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and visceral metastases (VM). METHODS: Newly diagnosed mCSPC patients were randomized (1:1) to AA+P and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or placebo+ADT. Patients with VM in liver or lungs with or without other soft tissue and bone metastases (based on CT/MRI) at baseline were analyzed, after 51.8 months' median follow-up. Co-primary endpoints, OS and rPFS, were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 1199 patients enrolled, 228 (19%) had VM at baseline (114 each in AA+P and placebo groups), of which 53 (23.2%; AA+P = 29, Placebo = 24) had liver metastases and 117 (51.3%; AA+P = 60, Placebo = 57) had lung metastases. In patients with VM, treatment with AA+P versus placebo showed an improvement in OS (median 55.4 vs 33.0 months; HR = 0.582; 95%CI = 0.406-0.835;P = 0.0029) and rPFS (median 30.7 vs 18.3 months; HR = 0.527; 95%CI = 0.366-0.759;P = 0.0005), comparable to that of patients without VM. AA+P versus placebo in lung metastases patients was associated with greater improvement in OS (HR = 0.60; 95%CI = 0.35-1.04;P = 0.0678) than in liver metastases patients (HR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.41-1.66;P = 0.5814). AA+P versus placebo showed improvement in rPFS in lung metastases patients (HR = 0.50; 95%CI = 0.29-0.89;P = 0.0157), but not in liver metastases patients (HR = 1.05; 95%CI = 0.53-2.09; P = 0.8970). CONCLUSION: AA+P treatment improved both rPFS and OS in men with mCSPC and visceral disease, especially those with lung metastases. Men with liver metastases had a poorer prognosis and their optimal treatment remains to be defined. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285.

Treatment Pattern and Outcomes in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Did Not Receive Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: A Real-World Observational Study : Treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe the treatment patterns among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who had not received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). It further compares the safety and clinical outcomes across different frontline regimens as well as explores whether treatment duration predicts outcomes. METHODS: Patients with MM (> 45 years) who had not received ASCT were retrospectively identified from the US SEER-Medicare (Jan 2007-Dec 2016) and Optum (Jan 2007-Sep 2018) databases. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare overall survival (OS) among bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone regimen (VRd), lenalidomide + dexamethasone regimen (Rd), cyclophosphamide + bortezomib + dexamethasone regimen (CyBorD), bortezomib + dexamethasone regimen (Vd), and other bortezomib-containing therapies based on propensity score matching. To address immortal time bias, time-fixed and time-dependent Cox models were employed to estimate the association of longer frontline treatment exposure with outcomes. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation; SD) age was 71 (9.8) years; and 49.51% were women. Bortezomib and lenalidomide-based combinations were the most common treatment modalities. After matching, the HR (95% CI) of OS by frontline therapies comparing VRd with Vd was 0.76 (0.66, 0.86), CyBorD was 0.87 (0.75, 1.05), for other bortezomib-based therapies was 0.56 (0.49, 0.64), Rd was 0.83 (0.73, 0.95), and for other therapies was 0.70 (0.61, 0.80). Longer frontline treatment duration was associated with better OS for overall frontline [HR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.82, 0.90)]; Vd [0.81 (0.74, 0.89)]; CyBorD [0.79 (0.64, 0.98)] and Rd [0.86 (0.78, 0.95)]. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated that the frontline therapies prescribed to most patients who did not receive ASCT for MM in the United States were consistent with the NCCN guideline recommendations. Longer frontline treatment duration was associated with improved OS.

Awareness of, and Compliance with, Domperidone Revised Labeling After a Risk-Minimization Activity in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Risk-minimization measures (RMM), including label revisions were implemented in Europe for domperidone because of evidence of increased incidence of cardiac arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. In accordance with the guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices, the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee requested to conduct two studies to evaluate the effectiveness of these risk minimization measures. METHODS: In Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and the UK, surveys were conducted to assess physicians' knowledge on the updated domperidone labeling information, and a drug-utilization study (DUS) was conducted using healthcare databases to assess domperidone prescribing patterns before and after the RMM. Four DUS sensitivity analyses (scenarios) evaluated uncertainty regarding domperidone treatment duration and indication. RESULTS: Among 1805 physicians participating in the survey, most were aware of the approved indication (nausea and vomiting, 80%), treatment duration (≤ 7 days, 70%), and maximum adult daily dose (10 mg three times daily, 84%). Only 33% selected the on-label indication from a list of indications for which they would prescribe domperidone. Awareness was low for medications contraindicated for concomitant use (26%) and contraindicated conditions (4%). In the DUS, under the optimistic scenario, a large improvement in labeling compliance from pre- to post-implementation period was observed in France (27% vs. 69%), while Belgium, Germany, Spain, and the UK showed small improvements (< 10%). In the other scenarios, there was little to no improvement in compliance with the revised labeling from the pre- to post-implementation periods in most countries. CONCLUSIONS: The survey findings documented that most physicians in all five countries were aware of the main aspects of the revised labeling. Results of the DUS were inconclusive regarding the effect of the RMM and compliance with the revised labeling for all countries except France.

Dose proportionality and pharmacokinetics of extended-release (OROS®) hydromorphone: a phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy Taiwanese subjects.

OBJECTIVES: Osmotic-controlled release oral delivery system (OROS®) hydromorphone - an extended-release preparation - is recommended long-term therapy for chronic pain patients. Dose proportionality of OROS hydromorphone has been shown in healthy Caucasian volunteers; however, no studies have been conducted in Asian populations. To determine whether ethnic differences affect the drug's pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, we evaluated the dose proportionality of OROS hydromorphone in healthy Taiwanese adults. METHODS: This 12-week, open-label, 4-way crossover, phase 1 study randomly assigned subjects to 1 of 4 treatment sequences - single oral dose OROS hydromorphone: 8 mg, 16 mg, 32 mg, or 64 mg - along with 50 mg naltrexone. Dose proportionality was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the slope of the regression line and its 90% CI for Cmax, AUC0-48h, and AUClast. Descriptive statistics measured plasma hydromorphone concentrations, PK parameters, laboratory analytes, and vital signs. RESULTS: 23 subjects completed the study; a single-dose of OROS hydromorphone increased plasma concentration steadily for 6 hours and sustained it at or near maximum levels for ~ 24 hours. After dose normalization to a 16 mg dose, all studied doses demonstrated dose proportionality for Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-48h,as the slopes of the regression lines for Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-48h were close to zero, and the 90% CIs within pre-specified limits. Adverse events were as expected for hydromorphone administered with concomitant naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Single doses of 8 mg, 16 mg, 32 mg, and 64 mg of OROS hydromorphone were found to be dose proportional for Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-48h and were generally safe and well-tolerated in healthy Taiwanese adults.

End-of-dose pain in chronic pain: does it vary with the use of different long-acting opioids?

A large percentage of patients with chronic pain on around-the-clock (ATC) opioids may experience increased pain occurring at the end of a scheduled dose, also known as end-of-dose pain. Despite the significant prevalence and impact of end-of-dose pain in patients using extended-release (ER) opioids, there are no detailed analyses examining how the frequency of end-of-dose pain is linked to the formulations of long-acting opioids. Consequently, we performed a systematic review to evaluate how many published studies on patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain identified end-of-dose pain. As only a few studies mentioned end-of-dose pain explicitly, we used breakthrough pain (BTP) as a surrogate parameter. We determined if any opioid formulation had a greater association with the frequency of BTP, the use of rescue medication for BTP, and the frequency of end-of-dose pain. Of the 39 studies entered in the final analysis, 14 studies across different formulations showed that ER opioids were effective in the prevention of BTP. The opioids most frequently studied were hydromorphone (26%), followed by morphine (23%), and transdermal buprenorphine (23%). Only 5% of the studies used immediate-release preparations. Overall, most studies showed that patients using ER preparations experienced fewer episodes of BTP compared with patients on placebo or an active comparator. This could reflect the favorable duration of action of these opioids compared with short-acting formulations. Future studies should examine the incidence of end-of-dose pain and use of rescue medicine in a longitudinal manner in patients with chronic pain taking short- vs. long-acting ATC opioids.

Complementary pharmacokinetic measures to further define the profile of once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER during single-dose and steady-state dosing.

Conventional measures such as maximum plasma concentration (C max ) and area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) may be insufficient to fully describe the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of extended-release (ER) formulations. A complementary measure, the half-value duration (HVD), corresponds to the period of time during a dosing cycle that plasma concentration is at or above half the value of the maximal concentration (i.e. ≥50% C max ). The current post-hoc analysis uses data from 2 previously published studies comparing the PK profiles and HVD of OROS hydromorphone ER (16 mg administered once daily) and immediate-release (IR) hydromorphone (4 mg administered every 6 hours), calculating single-dose and steady-state condition values. Bioequivalence was demonstrated between the 2 formulations. Mean steady-state once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER concentrations were elevated for most of the 24-hour dosing period and for significantly longer than with the dose-equivalent IR hydromorphone regimen. The duration of time spent ≥50% C max was, on average, 2.7 times longer at steady state for the ER formulation, which also maintained steady-state hydromorphone plasma concentrations, with 65% lower mean degree of fluctuation versus IR hydromorphone. Both formulations appeared to be well tolerated.

Sustained safety and efficacy of once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS® hydromorphone ER) compared with twice-daily oxycodone controlled-release over 52 weeks in patients with moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain.

Once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS(®) hydromorphone ER) and oxycodone controlled-release (CR) are semisynthetic, ER opioid analgesics with established efficacy. An open-label, randomized, 24-week, parallel group, flexible-dose study demonstrated noninferiority of OROS hydromorphone ER vs. twice-daily oxycodone CR in patients with chronic noncancer pain. In total, 112 patients were enrolled in a 28-week, open-label extension study; 60 patients received OROS hydromorphone ER and 52 received oxycodone CR. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to Weeks 38 and 52 in Brief Pain Inventory item "pain right now." Global assessments of efficacy, dosing convenience, and tolerability were secondary endpoints. Mean change in "pain right now" from baseline to Week 38 was -3.0 (OROS hydromorphone ER) vs. -2.8 (oxycodone CR), and from baseline to Week 52 was -2.9 vs. -2.8; these changes were similar to the changes in the core phase (-2.1 vs. -2.1). Similar improvements were demonstrated for secondary assessments, including pain, pain interference, and quality of life. At Week 52, global assessment of efficacy was rated as "very good" or "good" by the majority of patients (OROS hydromorphone ER, 91.7%; oxycodone CR, 86.5%). More patients in the OROS hydromorphone ER group (35.0% vs. 21.2%) assessed mode of drug intake as "very convenient." The majority of patients receiving OROS hydromorphone ER (88.3%) and oxycodone CR (88.5%) rated tolerability as "good" or "very good" at Week 52; few patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (1.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively). The effectiveness of OROS hydromorphone ER and oxycodone CR was maintained through 1 year.

Galantamine versus donepezil in Chinese patients with Alzheimer's disease: results from a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are considered standard of care for Alzheimer's disease in many countries. Galantamine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that may also act via allosteric modulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Therefore, it may provide benefits compared with other acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. The present study compared galantamine (n = 116) with donepezil (n = 117) in a double-blind trial at nine hospitals in China. METHODS: After washout of any previous acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease received galantamine or donepezil for 16 weeks. RESULTS: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog/11) scores improved significantly from baseline in both treatment arms, with a significant difference in favor of galantamine on the "language" functional area (P = 0.035). Significantly more galantamine-treated patients responded to treatment (defined as a reduction in ADAS-cog/11 score of >4, >7, or >10 points; all P < 0.05), and had an ADAS-cog/11 score < 20 at end point (P = 0.015). Both treatments were well tolerated, although fewer galantamine-treated patients experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with donepezil (30% versus 48%). CONCLUSION: Cognitive function improved significantly in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease treated with galantamine or donepezil, and both treatments were generally well tolerated. Significant benefits for galantamine over donepezil were observed for language and response to treatment.

Repeat-dose steady-state pharmacokinetic evaluation of once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS(®) hydromorphone ER) in patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the steady-state pharmacokinetic profile of hydromorphone extended-release (ER) in patients with chronic pain taking concomitant medications. METHODS: This open-label repeat-dose study enrolled 22 patients (mean age, 51.4 years; 81.8% female). All patients were receiving at least one concomitant medication; 86.4% were receiving at least two concomitant medications and 81.8% were receiving at least three. Patients receiving a stable dose of an opioid were converted to hydromorphone ER at a 5:1 ratio (morphine equivalent:hydromorphone). The dose was titrated to adequate analgesia over 3-14 days and stabilized between 8-48 mg. Oral morphine immediate-release was permitted for breakthrough pain. Area under the concentration-time curve from 0-24 hours (AUC(0-24)), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), trough plasma concentration (C(min)), average plasma concentration (C(avg)), and degree of fluctuation (100 × [(C(max) - C(min)) ÷ C(avg)]) were calculated based on data from 14 patients. RESULTS: Dose-normalized to 16 mg, mean pharmacokinetic parameter values were: AUC(0-24), 41.1 ng · h/mL; C(max), 2.6 ng/mL; C(min), 1.1 ng/mL; C(avg), 1.7 ng/mL; and the degree of fluctuation was 99.6%. The pharmacokinetic profile of hydromorphone ER was linear and consistent with dose proportionality. Mean pain intensity difference scores showed statistically significant improvement from 2-21 hours after dosing. Sixteen (72.7%) patients reported at least one adverse event (AE). The most common were constipation (31.8%), headache (22.7%), and vomiting (13.6%). One patient discontinued treatment due to vomiting. No deaths, serious AEs, or unexpected AEs occurred. CONCLUSION: These findings replicate and extend the steady-state pharmacokinetic profile of hydromorphone ER, previously characterized in healthy volunteers, to a population of chronic pain patients taking numerous concomitant medications.

How frequently are contraindicated or warned against combinations of drugs prescribed to patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain?

PURPOSE: To analyse the proportion of patients treated with an opioid for chronic pain who were prescribed concomitant medications that are warned against or contraindicated in the German summary of product characteristics to determine if warnings on drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are observed. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used longitudinal aggregated patient data from the Intercontinental Marketing Services Disease Analyzer in Germany. Patients with two or more prescriptions of morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone or tramadol from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008 were included; drugs prescribed within 30 days of an opioid prescription were identified as concomitant medications. The frequency of concomitant treatment with drugs warned against or contraindicated in the German opioid summary of product characteristics was determined. Concomitant treatment with drugs metabolised by CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers and CYP2D6 inhibitors was also considered. RESULTS: The Intercontinental Marketing Services database contained 13,405 eligible patients; 72% had concomitant diseases which may increase the risk for DDIs (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, renal glomerular disease or renal tubulointerstitial disease). Very few patients received concomitant prescriptions of an opioid with a contraindicated drug. Many patients were prescribed opioids concomitantly with drugs with potential for harmful safety-related DDIs or DDIs that alter the effectiveness of one or more of the opioids. A large proportion of all concomitant prescriptions with potential for DDIs were given to at-risk patients aged 65 years and older. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients that received an opioid for chronic pain were prescribed concomitant medications with the potential for safety-related DDIs or interactions that would alter the effectiveness of the opioid.

Randomized 5-treatment crossover study to assess the effects of external heat on serum fentanyl concentrations during treatment with transdermal fentanyl systems.

This randomized, open-label, 5-treatment, 5-sequence crossover study was designed to evaluate the effects of a heating pad on serum fentanyl concentrations with reservoir and matrix transdermal fentanyl systems. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 5 treatment sequences, receiving 5 fentanyl treatments (1 per period) for 36 hours: 25 µg/h reservoir without heat, 25 µg/h reservoir with heat, 25 µg/h matrix without heat, 25 µg/h matrix with heat, and a 50 µg/h reservoir without heat. The 25 µg/h systems with heat had a heating pad applied from 0 to 10 and 26 to 36 hours post application. Washout periods between treatments were 5 to 14 days. Naltrexone was given to block the opioid effects of fentanyl. Study results indicate that external heat had a similar effect on both matrix and reservoir systems, with heat applied during the first 10 hours of treatment increasing fentanyl exposure by approximately 61% to 81% at 10 hours (observed serum concentration at 10 hours) and overall exposure (area under the curve from 0 to 10 hours) by approximately 120% to 184%, but had minimal effect from 26 to 36 hours. The increased exposure observed with heat in both 25 µg/h systems, between 0 and 10 hours, was higher than that obtained with the 50 µg/h reservoir system applied without heat.

A Phase IIIb, Multicentre, Randomised, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of OROS Hydromorphone in Subjects with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Pain Induced by Osteoarthritis of the Hip or the Knee.

Background. Opioid analgesics are included in treatment guidelines for the symptomatic management of osteoarthritis (OA). Starting with a low dose of opioid and slowly titrating to a higher dose may help avoid intolerable side effects. Methods. Subjects aged ≥40 years, with moderate to severe pain induced by OA of the hip or knee not adequately controlled by previous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol treatment, were enrolled. Subjects received OROS hydromorphone 4 mg or placebo once-daily. The dose was titrated every 3-4 days in case of unsatisfactory pain control during the 4-week titration phase. A 12 week maintenance phase followed. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in "pain on average" measured on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scale from baseline to the end of the maintenance phase. Results. 139 subjects received OROS hydromorphone and 149 subjects received placebo. All efficacy endpoints showed similar improvements from baseline to end of study in the 2 groups. The safety results were consistent with the safety profile of OROS hydromorphone. Conclusion.The study did not meet the primary endpoint; although many subjects' pain was not adequately controlled at inclusion, their pain may have improved with continued paracetamol or NSAID treatment.

Cessation versus continuation of galantamine treatment after 12 months of therapy in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled withdrawal trial.

Galantamine improved symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients after 5 to 6 months of treatment. To examine long-term outcomes, this study assessed if continuing of galantamine treatment beyond 12 months delayed further cognitive deterioration. It consisted of two phases: an open label (OL) phase (12 months), followed by a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled withdrawal phase (up to 24 months). Subjects with mild to moderate AD were included in the study and titrated up to 16 mg/day of galantamine. Subjects were eligible to enter the double blind phase if a cognitive decline of <4 points on AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog)/11 was recorded at the end of the OL phase. The differences between galantamine and placebo in time to dropout were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model. 47.4% of galantamine and 31.7% of placebo subjects completed the double blind phase. Placebo subjects were more likely to discontinue prematurely than galantamine subjects for any reason (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-2.81, p = 0.02), or lack of efficacy (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.02-3.18, p = 0.04); no statistically significant difference was seen for a change in ADAS-cog ≥ 4 between treatment groups (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.78-3.54, p = 0.19). Subjects who responded to 12 months of galantamine treatment benefited from continued drug therapy for up to 36 months. Galantamine was effective in delaying time to cognitive deterioration in subjects with mild to moderate AD. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated.