Long-term efficacy and safety of oxycodone-naloxone prolonged-release formulation (up to 180/90 mg daily) - results of the open-label extension phase of a phase III multicenter, multiple-dose, randomized, controlled study

ENhANCE trial protocol: A multi-centre, randomised, phase IV trial comparing the efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release (OXN PR) versus oxycodone prolonged release (Oxy PR) tablets in patients with advanced cancer

Background

Oxycodone is a frequently used opioid in cancer. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is common. Oxycodone/Naloxone Prolonged Release (OXN PR) contains naloxone, which mitigates OIC. Trials have either focused on non-cancer pain, or conducted before significant experience of using OXN PR. This trial aims to: demonstrate (1) analgesic equivalence between OXN PR and Oxycodone Prolonged Release (Oxy PR), and (2) superiority of constipation outcomes in OXN PR compared to Oxy PR in cancer pain. Unlike other trials, it will only include patients with at least moderate pain scores (≥4/10), allow usual laxatives, and exclude potential liver dysfunction.

Methods

This is a multi-centre, open-label, randomised, phase IV study of OXN PR vs Oxy PR in patients with cancer-related pain. The primary outcome is pain difference on Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes are comparison of other pain outcomes (BPI-SF) and neuropathic pain measures (Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms & Signs (S-LANNS)), constipation (Bowel Function Index (BFI)), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), rescue analgesia use, total opioid dose, and total laxative dose over 5 weeks.

Conclusion

The comparison of analgesic efficacy between both arms, and superiority of constipation in the OXN PR arm will add new knowledge on the comparisons of both agents, and oxycodone independently. This trial will extend knowledge of the effectiveness, safety, and adverse effect profiles of both drugs in terms of pain, constipation, quality of life outcomes for patients with cancer pain, and provide clinicians with high quality data to guide decision making.

Trial registration

Name of the registry: ANZCTR

Trial registration number

ACTRN12619001282178

Date of registration

17/09/2019

URL of trial registry record

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377673&isReview=true

Protocol version 2.1_28 August 2020

•

Opioid-induced constipation is the commonest side effect in cancer pain management.

•

Oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release aims to reduce opioid-induced constipation.

•

Trials have little focus on cancer pain, concurrent liver impairment, and laxatives.

•

This trial evaluates these key problems practically to guide decision making.

Mu-opioid antagonists for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported.  Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence).  Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.

Oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate-to-severe, chronic cancer pain: Challenges in the context of hepatic impairment

Opioids such as oxycodone are recommended in the management of moderate-to-severe, chronic cancer pain. All opioids can potentially cause constipation, which may be a significant barrier to their use. Multiple randomised clinical trials have shown that the use of naloxone as a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, in combination with oxycodone can prevent or reduce opioid-induced constipation while having equivalent analgesic efficacy to oxycodone alone. However, clinical experience has shown that unexpected events may occur in some patients when unrecognized liver impairment is present. We describe the underlying biological reasons and propose simple, but effective steps to avoid this unusual but potentially serious occurrence. In healthy individuals, naloxone undergoes extensive hepatic first pass metabolism resulting in low systemic bioavailability. However, in patients with hepatic impairment, porto-systemic shunting can increase systemic bioavailability of naloxone, potentially compromising the analgesic efficacy of oral naloxone-oxycodone combinations. This reduced first pass effect can occur in a range of settings that may not always be apparent to the treating clinician, including silent cirrhosis, non-cirrhotic portal hypertension and disruption of liver internal vasculature by metastases. Hepatic function test results correlate poorly with presence and extent of liver disease, and are not indicative of porto-systemic shunting. Presence of hepatic impairment should thus be considered when medication-related outcomes with oxycodone-naloxone combination are not as expected, even if liver function test results are normal.

Interpol review of controlled substances 2016-2019

This review paper covers the forensic-relevant literature in controlled substances from 2016 to 2019 as a part of the 19th Interpol International Forensic Science Managers Symposium. The review papers are also available at the Interpol website at: https://www.interpol.int/content/download/14458/file/Interpol%20Review%20Papers%202019.pdf.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2017

This paper is the fortieth consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2017 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

The prescription opioid conundrum: 21st century solutions to a millennia-long problem

Health-care professionals are faced with a daunting task: balancing appropriate care for chronic pain with their responsibility to keep patients and others safe from treatment-related harm. Whereas opioids have historically been considered an effective tool in the analgesic armamentarium, the rise of opioid abuse has caused the pendulum to swing away from prescribing opioids to an emphasis on safety. This paradigm shift risks neglecting the very real consequences of untreated/undertreated pain. Using data from the medical literature, this review examines influences on the real and perceived benefit-to-risk ratio for opioids and provides clinicians with a practical approach to prescribing opioids that minimizes the risk for abuse/misuse. There is appreciable clinical trial and observational evidence of efficacy/effectiveness with opioids used for pain management over the short or long term when considered in the context of pharmacologic alternatives. Enhancing the relative safety and minimizing the risk for abuse/misuse may be achieved through proactive prescription practices that include careful patient selection, risk assessment, individualized and multimodal treatment plans with established goals, initiating opioid treatment cautiously with an exit plan in place, ongoing assessments of response to therapy, and routine patient monitoring. Additionally, prescribing opioids with a lower potential for abuse or misuse (e.g. abuse-deterrent formulations) may provide a benefit. Using a pragmatic approach to prescribing practices, we postulate that the balance between benefit and risk can be favorable for opioid therapy in select patients, even for long-term treatment of chronic pain.

The role of oxycodone/naloxone in the management of patients with pain and opioid-induced constipation

INTRODUCTION

Common opioid adverse effects (AE) of the gastrointestinal tract include opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) with traditional laxatives being of limited efficacy, having AEs and not addressing the pathophysiology of OIC or OIBD. Targeted treatment comprises of PAMORA (peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists) and a combination of an opioid receptor agonist with its antagonist, namely prolonged-release oxycodone with prolonged-release naloxone (OXN) tablets at a fixed ratio of 2:1. Oxycodone provides analgesia, whereas naloxone prevents binding or displaces it from opioid receptors located in the gut wall. Areas covered: The authors review the role of OXN in the management of patients with pain and OIC. A literature search was performed using the search terms 'oxycodone/naloxone' and 'opioid-induced constipation' using the PubMed database up to October 2018. Expert opinion: OXN delivers analgesia comparable (or superior versus placebo and in observational studies) to oxycodone alone and other opioids with a limited or decreased disturbing effect on bowel function. OXN in daily doses of up to 160 mg/80 mg provides effective analgesia with little negative impact on bowel function. OXN may be successfully used in patients with chronic pain, to prevent or treat symptoms of OIC and OIBD.

Oxycodone/Naloxone Prolonged Release: A Review in Severe Chronic Pain

Oral oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release (PR) [Targin^®, Targinact^®, Targiniq^®] is a 12-hourly opioid receptor agonist and opioid receptor antagonist fixed-dose combination product that is approved in countries in the EU for the management of severe pain (adequately manageable only with opioid analgesics) in adults. Oral naloxone prevents oxycodone from binding to μ-receptors in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, thereby counteracting opioid-induced constipation (OIC). In short-term (5- to 12-week) clinical trials of adults with moderate to severe, chronic pain and OIC (OXN3001, OXN3006, OXN3506), oxycodone/naloxone PR significantly improved OIC while providing noninferior analgesia relative to oxycodone PR; results were consistent between cancer and non-cancer patients in OXN3506. Analgesia and improvements in bowel function were sustained with an additional 24-52 weeks of oxycodone/naloxone PR treatment in long-term extension studies. Results in real-world studies were consistent with those in clinical trials. Oxycodone/naloxone PR was generally well tolerated, with nausea, hyperhidrosis, and diarrhoea (generally transient) reported as the most commonly occurring adverse events. Thus, oxycodone/naloxone PR is a useful treatment option to consider in adults with severe chronic pain that can be adequately managed only with opioid analgesics, particularly in those with OIC.

Prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone reduces opioid-induced constipation and improves quality of life in laxative-refractory patients: results of an observational study

Background

Opioids are an effective treatment for moderate-to-severe pain. However, they are associated with a number of gastrointestinal side effects, most commonly constipation. Laxatives do not target the underlying mechanism of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), so many patients do not have their symptoms resolved. Fixed-dose prolonged-release (PR) oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets contain the opioid agonist oxycodone and the opioid antagonist naloxone. Nal-oxone blocks the action of oxycodone in the gut without compromising its analgesic effects.

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of PR OXN in patients with severe pain who had laxative-refractory OIC with their previous opioid.

Methods

The study was carried out in 13 centers across the UK and Ireland, using a bespoke online tool to capture patients’ data. Patients were reviewed according to normal clinical practice of each center and rated any changes in their constipation and quality of life (QoL) since starting PR OXN. Any change in patients’ laxative use was also recorded.

Results

One hundred and seven patients were entered into the database, and 81 went on to attend at least one review. Of these, 54 (66.7%) reported an improvement in constipation and 50 (61.7%) reported an improvement in QoL since starting PR OXN. Fifty-seven patients (70.4%) said they had reduced laxative intake; 48 (59.3%) only needed laxatives as required.

Conclusion

PR OXN reduced symptoms of constipation, improved QoL and reduced laxative intake in patients with OIC. It has a potential place early in any treatment strategy for severe pain in patients using opioids, particularly in patients who may be predisposed to constipation.

SEOM clinical guideline for treatment of cancer pain (2017)

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. Despite therapeutic advances and well-accepted treatment guidelines, a percentage of patients with pain are under-treated. Currently, it has been recognized that several barriers in pain management still exist and, in addition, there are new challenges surrounding complex subtypes of pain, such as breakthrough and neuropathic pain, requiring further reviews and recommendations. This is an update of the guide our society previously published and represents the continued commitment of SEOM to move forward and improve supportive care of cancer patients.