Effectiveness and Safety of Intrathecal Ziconotide: Interim Analysis of the Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM).

BACKGROUND: The Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM) evaluated long-term effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intrathecal ziconotide treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management was an open-label, long-term, multicenter, observational study of adult patients with severe chronic pain. This interim analysis (data through July 10, 2015) of ziconotide as the first vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump included change from baseline in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; primary efficacy measure) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. RESULTS: Enrollment closed at 93 patients; data collection was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. Fifty-one patients (54.8%) received ziconotide as the first agent in pump (FIP+), whereas 42 (45.2%) did not (FIP-). Mean (SD) baseline NPRS scores were 7.4 (1.9) and 7.9 (1.6) in FIP+ and FIP- patients, respectively. Mean (SEM) percentage changes in NPRS scores were -29.4% (5.5%) in FIP+ patients (n = 26) and +6.4% (7.7%) in FIP- patients (n = 17) at month 6 and -34.4% (9.1%) in FIP+ patients (n = 14) and -3.4% (10.2%) in FIP- patients (n = 9) at month 12. Improvement from baseline, measured by PGIC score, was reported in 69.2% of FIP+ (n = 26) and 35.7% of FIP- (n = 14) patients at month 6 and 85.7% of FIP+ (n = 7) and 71.4% of FIP- (n = 7) patients at month 12. The most common adverse events (≥ 10% of patients overall as of the data cut) were nausea (19.6% vs. 7.1% of FIP+ vs. FIP- patients, respectively), confusional state (9.8% vs. 11.9%), and dizziness (13.7% vs. 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed when ziconotide was initiated as first-line intrathecal therapy vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump. The adverse event profile was consistent with the ziconotide prescribing information.

Intrathecal Therapy for Cancer-Related Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The increasing incidence of cancer survivorship has shifted treatment of cancer-related pain from short-term analgesia to long-term chronic pain management. As a result, alternatives to oral analgesics, such as intrathecal therapy, may be beneficial for patients with cancer-related pain. The authors review the use of intrathecal therapy in the management of cancer-related pain. METHODS: The Medline database was searched for English-language articles that included "ziconotide" or "morphine" AND ("cancer" OR "malignant") AND "intrathecal" in title or abstract. Available abstracts from scientific congresses in the areas of neuromodulation and oncology were also reviewed. RESULTS: Intrathecal therapy provides pain relief with reduced systemic concerns in patients with cancer-related pain. Patients should undergo multidisciplinary evaluation and, in most cases, drug trialing before intrathecal pump implantation. Morphine, an opioid ( Μ: -opioid receptor antagonist), and ziconotide, a nonopioid (selective N-type calcium channel inhibitor), are both approved for intrathecal analgesia; however, tolerance and safety concerns may deter the use of intrathecal morphine. Ziconotide has also shown efficacy for reduction of cancer-related pain; however, proper dosing and titration must be used to prevent adverse events. There is little information available on use of intrathecal therapies specifically in cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of cancer-related pain has shifted toward chronic pain management strategies, especially among cancer survivors. Intrathecal therapy provides an alternate route of administration of chronic pain medications (e.g., morphine and ziconotide) for cancer patients with and without active disease, although additional research is needed to support effectiveness in cancer survivors.