Budget impact and pharmacy costs with targeted use of oliceridine for postsurgical pain in patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine, a new class of µ-opioid receptor agonist, may be associated with fewer opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) due to its unique mechanism of action. Thus, it may provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional opioids such as morphine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a decision tree with a 24-hour time horizon, we calculated costs for medication and management of the three most common AEs (oxygen saturation <90%, vomiting, somnolence) following postoperative oliceridine or morphine in high-risk patients. Costs were enumerated as differences in cost of analgesics and resource utilization in the first 24 hours post-surgery. An economic model compared expected AEs and costs in a blended cohort where elderly/obese patients at higher risk for ORAEs received oliceridine while those presumed to be at lower risk received morphine with a cohort that received morphine alone. RESULTS: In high-risk patients, use of oliceridine resulted in overall savings of $363,944 (in 1,000 patients). Implementing a targeted approach of oliceridine utilization in patients with high risk for ORAEs can save a typical hospital system $122,296 in total cost of care. CONCLUSION: Use of oliceridine in postoperative care among patients at high risk provides a favorable health economic benefit compared to the use of morphine.

Oliceridine, a new class of opioid analgesics, administered directly into a vein, is a unique medication in that it provides pain relief equivalent to morphine and may have less costly side effects. It is given in a hospital/clinic or surgery center for the treatment of postoperative pain and can reduce costs compared to other opioid analgesics, possibly due to less side effects. An economic model was developed that compares morphine to oliceridine in patients more likely to experience sides effects due to traditional pain medications, comparing common side effects and pain relief following surgery. Although oliceridine costs more than morphine, in our economic model, the use of oliceridine resulted in cost savings ($363,944 US 2020 Dollars in 1,000 patients), and a positive return of investment of over 7 times, when compared to morphine.

Oliceridine Exhibits Improved Tolerability Compared to Morphine at Equianalgesic Conditions: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: In the management of postoperative acute moderate-to-severe pain, opioids remain an important component. However, conventional opioids have a narrow therapeutic index and are associated with dose-limiting opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) that can result in worse patient outcomes. Oliceridine, a new intravenous µ-opioid receptor agonist, is shown in nonclinical studies to be biased for G protein signaling (achieving analgesia) with limited recruitment of ß-arrestin (associated with ORAEs). In two phase 3 randomized controlled studies of patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain following hard or soft tissue surgery, in which analgesia was measured using Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID) from baseline over 48 and 24 h (SPID-48 and -24 respectively, oliceridine at demand doses of 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg was highly effective compared to placebo, with a favorable safety profile compared to morphine. This exploratory analysis was conducted to determine whether the safety benefits seen with oliceridine persisted when adjusted for equal levels of analgesia compared to morphine. METHODS: Presence of at least one treatment-emergent ORAE (based on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities [MedDRA]-coded events: hypoxemia, nausea, vomiting, sedation, pruritus, or dizziness) was used as the composite safety endpoint. A logistic regression model was utilized to compare oliceridine (pooled regimens) versus morphine, after controlling for analgesia (using SPID-48 or SPID-24 with pre-rescue scores carried forward 6 h). This analysis excluded patients receiving placebo and was repeated for each study and for pooled data. RESULTS: At a given level of SPID-48 or SPID-24, patients receiving oliceridine were less likely to experience the composite safety endpoint. Although not statistically significant at the 0.05 level in the soft tissue model, the odds ratio (OR) showed a consistent numerical trend for oliceridine, being approximately half that observed with morphine in both the hard (OR 0.499; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.255, 0.976; p = 0.042) and soft (OR 0.542; 95% CI 0.250, 1.175; p = 0.121) tissue studies. Results from the pooled data were consistent with those observed in the individual studies (OR 0.507; 95% CI 0.304, 0.844; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Findings from this exploratory analysis suggest that at comparable levels of analgesia, patients receiving oliceridine were less likely to experience the composite safety endpoint consisting of ORAEs compared to patients treated with morphine. Oliceridine Exhibits Improved Tolerability Compared to Morphine at Equianalgesic Conditions: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials- A Video (MP4 99188 kb).

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of oliceridine in the treatment of acute pain.

Aim: Oliceridine, a new class of µ-opioid receptor agonist, is selective for G-protein signaling (analgesia) with limited recruitment of ß-arrestin (associated with adverse outcomes) and may provide a cost-effective alternative versus conventional opioid morphine for postoperative pain. Patients & methods: Using a decision tree with a 24-h time horizon, we calculated costs for medication and management of three most common adverse events (AEs; oxygen saturation <90%, vomiting and somnolence) following postoperative oliceridine or morphine use. Results: Using oliceridine, the cost for managing AEs was US$528,424 versus $852,429 for morphine, with a net cost savings of $324,005. Conclusion: Oliceridine has a favorable overall impact on the total cost of postoperative care compared with the use of the conventional opioid morphine.

Lay abstract Oliceridine, a new class of opioid pain medication, given in a vein, is a unique medication in that it provides pain relief comparable to morphine and may have less costly side effects. It is given in a hospital or surgery center for the treatment of postoperative pain and can save money compared with other opioid pain medicines due to fewer side effects. An economic model was developed to compare morphine to oliceridine for common side effects and pain relief following surgery. Oliceridine use resulted in a cost saving (US$324,005; 2020 US dollars) when compared with morphine.

Low Incidence of Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression Observed with Oliceridine Regardless of Age or Body Mass Index: Exploratory Analysis from a Phase 3 Open-Label Trial in Postsurgical Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced age and obesity are reported to increase the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD). Oliceridine, an intravenous opioid, is a G-protein-biased agonist at the µ-opioid receptor that may provide improved safety. The recent phase 3 ATHENA open-label, multicenter study evaluated postoperative use of oliceridine in patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain. This exploratory analysis of the ATHENA data examined the incidence of OIRD in older (≥ 65 years) and/or obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) patients and analyzed risk factors of OIRD. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a score ≥ 4 on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) received IV oliceridine as needed via bolus dosing and/or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). OIRD occurring within 48 h of last dose of oliceridine was defined using two established definitions: (1) naloxone use, (2) respiratory rate < 10 breaths per minute and/or oxygen saturation < 90%. RESULTS: A total of 724 surgical patients with a mean age of 54.5 ± 15.9 years and a mean NRS score of 6.2 ± 2.1 were included in this analysis; 33.3% (241/724) were ≥ 65 years of age and 46.3% (335/724) had BMI (body mass index) ≥ 30 kg/m2. The overall OIRD incidence was 13.7% with no patients requiring naloxone. The OIRD incidence was similar in the elderly and younger adults' cohorts [10.8 vs. 15.1%, OR 0.68 (0.42, 1.1), p = 0.11], and in obese and non-obese groups [14.0 vs. 13.4%, OR 1.06 (0.69, 1.62), p = 0.80]. In patients that were both elderly and obese (n = 120), the incidence was 10.8%. The multivariate analysis identified baseline NRS ≥ 6 [OR 1.6 (1.0, 2.4), p = 0.0499], PCA administration [OR 1.9 (1.2, 3.1), p = 0.005], and concomitant use of benzodiazepines and/or gabapentinoids [OR 1.6 (1.0, 2.6), p = 0.045], as being associated with OIRD. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative oliceridine use in patients with advanced age and/or increased BMI was not associated with increased risk of OIRD.

Oliceridine is Associated with Reduced Risk of Vomiting and Need for Rescue Antiemetics Compared to Morphine: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Use of parenteral opioids is a major risk factor for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conventional opioids bind to µ-opioid receptors (MOR), stimulate both the G-protein signaling (achieving analgesia); and the ß-arrestin pathway (associated with opioid-related adverse effects). Oliceridine, a next-generation IV opioid, is a G-protein selective MOR agonist, with limited recruitment of ß-arrestin. In two randomized, placebo- and morphine-controlled phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy or abdominoplasty, oliceridine at demand doses of 0.1, 0.35, and 0.5 mg provided rapid and sustained analgesia vs. placebo with favorable gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability. In this exploratory analysis, we utilized a clinical endpoint assessing gastrointestinal tolerability, "complete GI response" defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetic to characterize the GI tolerability profile of oliceridine vs. morphine. METHODS: A logistic regression model was utilized to compare oliceridine (pooled regimens) vs. morphine, after controlling for analgesia (using the sum of pain intensity difference [SPID]-48/24 [bunionectomy/abdominoplasty] with pre-rescue scores carried forward for 6 h). This analysis excluded patients receiving placebo and was performed for each study separately and for pooled data from both studies. RESULTS: In the unadjusted analysis, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the placebo (76.4%), oliceridine 0.1 mg (68.0%), and 0.35 mg (46.2%) demand dose achieved complete GI response vs. morphine 1 mg (30.8%), p ≤ 0.005. In the adjusted analysis, after controlling for analgesia, the odds ratio of experiencing a complete GI response with oliceridine (pooled regimens) vs. morphine was 3.14 (95% CI: 1.78, 5.56; p < 0.0001) in bunionectomy study and 1.92 (95% CI: 1.09, 3.36; p = 0.024) in abdominoplasty study. CONCLUSIONS: When controlled for the analgesic effects (constant SPID-48/24), the odds ratio for complete GI response was higher with oliceridine than morphine, suggesting better GI tolerability with oliceridine.

Low Incidence of Postoperative Respiratory Depression with Oliceridine Compared to Morphine: A Retrospective Chart Analysis.

Background: Oliceridine, an investigational IV opioid, is a first-in-class G-protein selective agonist at the µ-opioid receptor. The G-protein selectivity results in potent analgesia with less recruitment of ß-arrestin, a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). In randomized controlled studies in both hard and soft tissue models yielding surgical pain, oliceridine provided effective analgesia with a potential for an improved safety and tolerability profile at equianalgesic doses to morphine. The phase 3, open-label, single-arm, multicenter ATHENA trial demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of oliceridine in moderate to severe acute pain in a broad range of patients undergoing surgery or with painful medical conditions warranting use of an IV opioid. This retrospective, observational chart review study compared respiratory depression events associated with oliceridine administration as found in the ATHENA trial to a control cohort treated with conventional opioids. Methods: Patients at 18 years of age or older, who underwent colorectal, orthopedic, cardiothoracic, bariatric, or general surgeries between June 2015 and May 2017 in 11 sites participating in the ATHENA trial who received postoperative analgesia either with IV oliceridine or with IV conventional opioids (e.g., morphine alone or in combination with other opioids) (CO cohort); and had a hospital stay >48 hours, were included in this retrospective analysis. Data from the ATHENA trial was used for the oliceridine cohort; and additional baseline characteristics were collected from medical charts. Data from medical charts were collected for all CO cohort patients. The two cohorts were balanced using an inverse probability weighting method. The primary outcome was the incidence of operationally defined opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) in the two cohorts. Secondary outcomes included between-group comparison of the incidence of OIRD events among a subset of high-risk patients. Results: OIRD was significantly less in the oliceridine cohort compared to the CO cohort (8.0% vs. 30.7%; odds ratio: 0.139) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.22; P < 0.0001). Likewise, the incidence of OIRD was lower among high-risk patients in the oliceridine cohort (9.1% vs. 34.7%; odds ratio: 0.136) (95% CI [0.09-0.22]; P < 0.0001) compared to the CO cohort. Conclusion: In this retrospective chart review study, patients receiving IV oliceridine for moderate to severe acute pain demonstrated a lower incidence of treatment emergent OIRD compared to patients who were treated with IV morphine either alone or with concomitant administration of other opioids.

Evaluating the Incidence of Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression Associated with Oliceridine and Morphine as Measured by the Frequency and Average Cumulative Duration of Dosing Interruption in Patients Treated for Acute Postoperative Pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) is a potentially fatal complication associated with conventional opioids. Currently, there is a paucity of validated endpoints available to measure respiratory safety. Oliceridine, an investigational intravenous (IV) opioid, is a G-protein selective µ-agonist with limited activity on ß-arrestin2, a signaling pathway associated with adverse events including OIRD. In controlled phase III trials, oliceridine 0.35 mg and 0.5 mg demand doses demonstrated comparable analgesia to morphine 1 mg with favorable improvements in respiratory safety. In this exploratory analysis, we report dosing interruption (DI) and average cumulative duration of DI (CDDI) for both oliceridine and morphine. METHODS: Patients requiring analgesia after bunionectomy or abdominoplasty were randomized to IV demand doses of placebo, oliceridine (0.1 mg, 0.35 mg, or 0.5 mg), or morphine (1 mg), administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), following a loading dose (oliceridine 1.5 mg, morphine 4 mg, volume-matched placebo) with a 6-min lockout interval. Certified nurse anesthetists monitored each patient and withheld study medication according to the patient's respiratory status. For each patient, the duration of all DIs was summed and reported as CDDI. A zero-inflated gamma mixture model was used to compute the mean CDDI for each treatment. RESULTS: Proportion of patients with DI was lower with oliceridine (0.1 mg: 3.2%, 0.35 mg: 13.9%, 0.5 mg: 15.1%) versus morphine (22%). The CDDI was also lower across all demand doses of oliceridine versus morphine. CONCLUSION: Using DI as a surrogate for OIRD indicates improved respiratory safety with oliceridine versus morphine that merits further investigation.

ATHENA: A Phase 3, Open-Label Study Of The Safety And Effectiveness Of Oliceridine (TRV130), A G-Protein Selective Agonist At The µ-Opioid Receptor, In Patients With Moderate To Severe Acute Pain Requiring Parenteral Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pain management with conventional opioids can be challenging due to dose-limiting adverse events (AEs), some of which may be related to the simultaneous activation of ß-arrestin (a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related AEs) and G-protein pathways. The investigational analgesic oliceridine is a G-protein-selective agonist at the µ-opioid receptor with less recruitment of ß-arrestin. The objective of this phase 3, open-label, multi-center study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability, of IV oliceridine for moderate to severe acute pain in a broad, real-world patient population, including postoperative surgical patients and non-surgical patients with painful medical conditions. METHODS: Adult patients with a score ≥4 on 11-point NRS for pain intensity received IV oliceridine either by bolus or PCA; multimodal analgesia was permitted. Safety was assessed using AE reports, study discontinuations, clinical laboratory and vital sign measures. RESULTS: A total of 768 patients received oliceridine. The mean age (SD) was 54.1 (16.1) years, with 32% ≥65 years of age. Most patients were female (65%) and Caucasian (78%). Surgical patients comprised the majority of the study population (94%), most common being orthopedic (30%), colorectal (15%) or gynecologic (15%) procedures. Multimodal analgesia was administered to 84% of patients. Oliceridine provided a rapid reduction in NRS pain score by 2.2 ± 2.3 at 30 mins from a score of 6.3 ± 2.1 (at baseline) which was maintained to the end of treatment. No deaths or significant cardiorespiratory events were reported. The incidence of AEs leading to early discontinuation and serious AEs were 2% and 3%, respectively. Nausea (31%), constipation (11%), and vomiting (10%) were the most common AEs. AEs were mostly of mild (37%) or moderate (25%) severity and considered possibly or probably related to oliceridine in 33% of patients. CONCLUSION: Oliceridine IV for the management of moderate to severe acute pain was generally safe and well tolerated in the patients studied. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02656875.

Effectiveness and safety of morphine sulfate extended-release capsules in patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of morphine sulfate extended-release capsules among primary care patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain using a universal precautions approach that assessed and monitored risk for opioid misuse and abuse. METHODS: This open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter, prospective study was conducted in primary care centers (n = 281) and included opioid-naïve and opioid-experienced patients with either a pain score ≥4 (0 = no pain, 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine), or with unacceptable side effects while taking opioids. The patients were treated with morphine sulfate extendedrelease capsules for up to four months. Patient-rated pain intensity (worst, least, average) over the past 24 hours (0-10 scale), pain interference with seven activities of daily living (0 = no interference, 10 = completely interferes), and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Of 1487 patients who filled at least one prescription, 561 (38%) completed the study. Patients were primarily white (87%) and female (57%); 92% had pain for more than one year; and 79% were opioid-experienced. Median age was 52 years. Decreases in mean (± standard deviation) average pain scores (baseline 6.2 ± 2.3) were -0.8 ± 2.2 at visit 2 (5-14 days later), and -1.6 ± 2.3 and -1.7 ± 2.2 at visits 3 and 4 (spaced 3-4 weeks apart), respectively, and -1.1 ± 2.4 at visit 5 (included patients withdrawn from the study who were no longer taking the study drug). A similar trend was observed for worst pain and least pain scores and for pain interference with activities. Fifty-one percent of the safety population patients and 81% in the completer population reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the study treatment. Most common adverse events were typical of opioids, ie, constipation (14%), nausea (11%), vomiting (5%), and somnolence (5%). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that pain outcomes improved in patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain receiving morphine sulfate extended-release capsules within the context of a structured universal precautions approach in the primary care setting.

Assessment, stratification, and monitoring of the risk for prescription opioid misuse and abuse in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate potential for and incidence of aberrant drug-related behaviors among patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain in a primary care setting and to determine investigator compliance with universal precautions (UP) approach to pain management. DESIGN: Open label, multicenter. SETTING: Primary care centers (N = 281) across the United States. PATIENTS: Opioid naïve and opioid experienced with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain (N = 1,487). INTERVENTIONS: Morphine sulfate extended-release capsules for < or = 4 months. Tools comprising UP approach were treatment agreement, card for obtaining/tracking prescriptions, Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised questionnaire, pill counts, pain-patient follow-up tool, investigator assessment/plan, and urine drug screens (UDSs). OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients at low, moderate, and high risk of opioid misuse/abuse based on prespecified criteria and investigator judgment, proportion of patients with aberrant drug-related behaviors, and proportion of investigators compliant with UP approach. RESULTS: Patients were primarily white (87 percent), women (57 percent); mean age, 53 years (range, 21-92years). At baseline, 47 percent were considered low risk for opioid misuse/abuse, 52 percent moderate, and 1 percent high. UDSs were positive for illicit/nonprescribed drugs in a proportion of patients throughout the study. Overall, 64 percent of investigators were compliant with major components of UP approach in > or = 75 percent of their patients. However, there was a tendency for investigators to assign risk levels for opioid misuse/abuse as lower than protocol specified. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients in these primary care study centers were categorized as at least moderate risk for opioid misuse/abuse at baseline. Most primary care investigators complied with the UP approach to pain management and risk assessment. The completion of the brief training and clinical use of the tools during the study led to retained behavior change, but there was a tendency for investigators to assign lower risk levels than those that were protocol-specified, suggesting a need for better understanding of factors influencing investigator decisions.