Efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (STARDOM2)

Safety of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) in Patients with Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain: Pooled Analysis of Three Phase 3 Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

Multi-modal analgesia is desirable for the management of acute pain since it can provide effective pain relief at lower doses, thereby aiding tolerability. Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) provides effective analgesia in models of acute pain. Co-crystallization can alter the pharmacokinetics of individual components, potentially improving tolerability. We sought to better understand the safety and tolerability of CTC in patients with acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled analysis of safety data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials in adults with acute moderate-to-severe pain following oral surgery, bunionectomy, and elective abdominal hysterectomy. We present data for CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) and its comparators: tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID) (one trial), tramadol 100 mg QID (two trials), celecoxib 100 mg BID (two trials), and placebo (three trials).

RESULTS

In total, n = 551 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, n = 183 received tramadol 50 mg QID, n = 368 received tramadol 100 mg QID, n = 388 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and n = 274 received placebo. The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to study drug up to 48 h was numerically lower with CTC 200 mg BID (35.9%) than with tramadol 50 mg QID (47.5%) and 100 mg QID (44.8%) but greater than with celecoxib 100 mg BID (12.4%) and placebo (20.4%). The most frequent AEs related to study drug up to 48 h were somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting, which occurred more frequently in patients receiving tramadol 100 mg QID than in those receiving CTC 200 mg BID.

CONCLUSION

CTC 200 mg BID appears to be better tolerated than tramadol 100 mg QID, possibly because of reduced total exposure to tramadol. This may contribute to a more favorable benefit-risk profile for CTC versus individual components, making it a promising treatment for acute pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03108482, NCT02982161 (EudraCT: 2016-000592-24), NCT03062644 (EudraCT: 2016-000593-38).

Multimodal Analgesia Approach in Acute Low Back Pain Management: A Phase III Study of a Novel Analgesic Combination of Etoricoxib/Tramadol

INTRODUCTION

Pain and disability management are crucial for a speedy recovery. Combining analgesics with different mechanisms of action provides greater pain relief with lower doses, promoting efficient multimodal analgesia. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety between two fixed-dose combinations (FDC): etoricoxib/tramadol compared to paracetamol/tramadol for the management of acute low back pain (LBP) in a 7-day treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a phase IIIb, prospective, randomized, and multicenter study in patients with acute LBP treated with etoricoxib 90 mg/tramadol 50 mg (one packet of granules diluted in 100 ml of water, once a day [QD], for 7 days) or paracetamol 975 mg/tramadol 112.5 mg (one tablet of 325 mg/37.5 mg, three times a day [TID], for 7 days) to assess the efficacy (in terms of pain and disability improvement) and safety.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four patients were randomized to receive either etoricoxib/tramadol QD (n = 61) or paracetamol/tramadol TID (n = 63). From the magnitude of change in pain evaluations, differences were observed between the treatment groups at 3 [p = 0.054, CI 95% - 0.648 (- 0.010 to 1.306)] and 5 days (p = 0.041). The proportion of patients with a 30% reduction in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was statistically significant when comparing the treatment groups on the third day of follow-up [p = 0.008, CI 95% 0.241 (0.061-0.421)]. An improvement in LBP's disability to perform activities of daily routine (Oswestry and Roland-Morris questionnaires) was observed in both treatment groups. A total of 79 adverse events (AEs) (38 [48.1%] with etoricoxib/tramadol and 41 [51.9%] with paracetamol/tramadol) were reported. The most frequent AEs were nausea (17.7%) and dizziness (16.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show the clinical benefits of etoricoxib/tramadol FDC, such as the sparing effect of tramadol dose per day, early therapeutic response rate compared with paracetamol/tramadol; which translates into faster pain relief, better adherence, less tramadol drug dependency, and a reduction of related AEs incidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04968158.

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: Secondary analyses by baseline pain intensity and use of rescue medication of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the randomized, phase 3, SUSA-301 trial, celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) provided significantly greater analgesia compared with celecoxib, tramadol, or placebo in adults with acute, moderate-to-severe, postoperative pain. This post hoc, secondary analysis further evaluated the use of rescue medication and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

METHODS

Patients (N = 637) were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive oral CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID; n = 184), tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID; n = 183), celecoxib 100 mg BID (n = 181), or placebo QID (n = 89). Post hoc analyses were conducted on the use of rescue medications up to 4 and 48 h post-study drug dose, stratified by baseline pain intensity (moderate/severe), and on the incidence of TEAEs, stratified by rescue medication use.

RESULTS

A significantly lower proportion of patients received any rescue medication within 4 h post-study dose with CTC (49.5%) versus tramadol (61.7%, p = 0.0178), celecoxib (65.2%, p = 0.0024), and placebo (75.3%, p = 0.0001); this was also seen for oxycodone use. Fewer patients in the CTC group received ≥3 doses of rescue medication compared with the other groups, irrespective of baseline pain intensity. In patients who did not receive opioid rescue medication, CTC was associated with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting TEAEs versus tramadol alone. In patients who received rescue oxycodone, the incidence of nausea was similar in the CTC and tramadol groups, and higher versus celecoxib and placebo.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal was associated with reduced rescue medication use and an acceptable tolerability profile compared with tramadol or celecoxib alone in adults with acute, moderate-to-severe, postoperative pain.

Efficacy of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) in Patients with Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain: A Pooled Analysis of Data from Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

New acute pain medications are needed that provide effective analgesia while minimizing side effects and opioid exposure. Clinical trials of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) have demonstrated an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol or celecoxib alone. We pooled data from two phase 3 clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) in acute moderate-to-severe pain.

METHODS

Efficacy data were pooled from STARDOM1 [acute pain following oral surgery (NCT02982161)] and ESTEVE-SUSA-301 [acute pain following bunionectomy (NCT03108482)]. The primary efficacy outcome was sum of pain intensity difference from 0 to 48 h (SPID0-48).

RESULTS

A total of 344 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, 342 received tramadol 50 or 100 mg four times a day, 181 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and 172 received placebo. The least-squares mean difference in SPID0-48 was -21.8 (p = 0.002) for CTC versus tramadol and -72.8 (p < 0.001) for CTC versus placebo. A similar pattern of SPID0-48 was observed with CTC versus comparator whether patients had moderate or severe pain at baseline. Reduction in pain intensity was faster and reached mild intensity earlier with CTC versus comparators. Patients were significantly (p ≤ 0.005) less likely to receive rescue medication within 4 or 48 h with CTC compared with tramadol or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis reinforces the efficacy profile of CTC versus tramadol and, given that CTC permits lower daily tramadol dosing and thereby reduces unnecessary opioid use, this highlights its improved benefit/risk profile and its potential for the management of moderate-to-severe pain.

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1)

INTRODUCTION

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal.

METHODS

Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score.

RESULTS

All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) for acute moderate-to-severe pain

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review aims to provide a clinical perspective on the potential role of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in the management of acute moderate-to-severe pain by synthesizing the available preclinical and clinical data, with emphasis on phase 3 trials.

METHODS

A non-systematic literature review was performed using a targeted PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2000, and May 2, 2023; all publication types were permitted, and selected articles were limited to those published in English. Search results were manually reviewed to identify references based on their preclinical and clinical relevance to CTC and management of acute moderate-to-severe pain.

RESULTS

The crystalline structure of CTC alters the physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib, modifying their pharmacokinetics. If taken in a free combination, tramadol reduces absorption of celecoxib. Conversely, administration of CTC slows tramadol absorption and lowers its maximum plasma concentration, while increasing celecoxib plasma concentration through its enhanced release. In clinical studies across models of acute moderate-to-severe pain, CTC demonstrated an early onset of analgesia, with improved efficacy and lower rescue medication use, compared with either agent alone. CTC's safety profile was in line with that expected for the individual components; no additive effects were observed. CTC exhibited tramadol-sparing effects, with efficacy seen at lower daily/cumulative opioid doses vs. tramadol alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from phase 3 trials suggest that the modified physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib in CTC translate into an improved clinical benefit-risk profile, including fewer opioid-related adverse effects due to lower overall opioid dosing.

Combination Drug Therapy for the Management of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is an increasingly prevalent disease and leading cause of disability which is challenging to treat. Several distinct classes of drugs are currently used for the treatment of chronic NP, but each drug targets only narrow components of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, bears limited efficacy, and comes with dose-limiting side effects. Multimodal therapies have been increasingly proposed as potential therapeutic approaches to target the multiple mechanisms underlying nociceptive transmission and modulation. However, while preclinical studies with combination therapies showed promise to improve efficacy over monotherapy, clinical trial data on their efficacy in specific populations are lacking and increased risk for adverse effects should be carefully considered. Drug-drug co-crystallization has emerged as an innovative pharmacological approach which can combine two or more different active pharmaceutical ingredients in a single crystal, optimizing pharmacokinetic and physicochemical characteristics of the native molecules, thus potentially capitalizing on the synergistic efficacy between classes of drugs while simplifying adherence and minimizing the risk of side effects by reducing the doses. In this work, we review the current pharmacological options for the treatment of chronic NP, focusing on combination therapies and their ongoing developing programs and highlighting the potential of co-crystals as novel approaches to chronic NP management.

Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review

Acute low back pain (LBP) stands as a leading cause of activity limitation and work absenteeism, and its associated healthcare expenditures are expected to become substantial when acute LBP develops into a chronic and even refractory condition. Therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent progression to chronic pain, for which the management is particularly challenging and the most effective pharmacological therapy is still controversial. Current guideline treatment recommendations vary and are mostly driven by expertise with opinion differing across different interventions. Thus, it is difficult to formulate evidence-based guidance when the relatively few randomized clinical trials have explored the diagnosis and management of LBP while employing different selection criteria, statistical analyses, and outcome measurements. This narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current acute LBP management by discussing the unmet needs and areas of improvement from bench-to-bedside, and proposes multimodal analgesia as the way forward to attain an effective and prolonged pain relief and functional recovery in patients with acute LBP.