Emerging drugs for cancer-related pain

Factors associated with non-response to naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: A subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most common adverse events of opioid therapy and can severely reduce quality of life (QOL). Naldemedine is the orally available peripheral-acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist approved for OIC treatment. However in daily clinical practice, some cancer patients show insufficient control of OIC even while receiving naldemedine.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with non-response to naldemedine in cancer patients.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 127 cancer patients prescribed naldemedine at Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital in Japan between November 2016 and June 2021. For the regression analysis of factors associated with OIC, variables were extracted manually from electronic medical records. Naldemedine had been prescribed by the attending physician after the presence of OIC had been defined with reference to Rome IV diagnostic criteria. Naldemedine was evaluated as "effective" in cases where the number of defecations increased at least once in the first 3 days after starting naldemedine. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with non-response to naldemedine. The data used were from the group of patients who received naldemedine in our previous study.

RESULTS

Factors significantly associated with non-response to naldemedine included chemotherapy with taxanes within 1 month of evaluation of naldemedine effect (odds ratio [OR] = 0.063; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.007-0.568), and addition of or switching to naldemedine due to insufficient efficacy of prior laxatives (OR = 0.352, 95% CI = 0.129-0.966).

CONCLUSION

The identification of factors associated with non-response to naldemedine prescribed for OIC may help improve QOL among cancer patients.

Risk factors for opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: a single-institution, retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors for opioid-induced constipation (OIC).

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 175 advanced cancer patients who were receiving pain treatment with opioids and were newly prescribed laxatives for OIC at Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital between November 2016 and June 2021. For the regression analysis of factors associated with OIC, variables were extracted manually from clinical records. The effect of newly prescribed laxatives for OIC was evaluated as "effective" in cases where the number of spontaneous bowel movements increased at least once in the first 3 days. The OIC was defined based on Rome IV diagnostic criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for OIC. Optimal cutoff thresholds were determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Values of P < 0.05 (two-tailed) were considered significant.

RESULTS

Significant factors identified included body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.141, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.027-0.733; P = 0.020), chemotherapy with taxane within 1 month of evaluation of laxative effect (OR = 0.255, 95% CI = 0.068-0.958; P = 0.043), use of naldemedine (OR = 2.791, 95% CI = 1.220-6.385; P = 0.015), and addition or switching due to insufficient prior laxatives (OR = 0.339, 95% CI = 0.143-0.800; P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

High BMI, chemotherapy including a taxane within 1 month of evaluation of laxative effect, no use of naldemedine, and addition or switching due to insufficient prior laxatives were identified as risk factors for OIC in advanced cancer patients with cancer pain.

Incidence of opioid-induced constipation in Japanese patients with cancer pain: A prospective observational cohort study

This multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study assessed opioid induced constipation (OIC) in Japanese patients with cancer. Eligible patients had stable cancer and an ECOG PS of 0-2. OIC incidence based on the Rome IV diagnostic criteria was determined by patient diary entries during the first 14 days of opioid therapy. The proportion of patients with OIC was calculated for each 1-week period and the overall 2-week study period. Secondary measurements of OIC included the Bowel Function Index (BFI) score (patient assessment administered by physician), spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week (patient assessment), and physician assessments. Medication for constipation was allowed. Two hundred and twenty patients were enrolled. The mean morphine-equivalent dose was 22 mg/day. By Rome IV criteria, the cumulative incidence of OIC was 56% (95% CI: 49.2%-62.9%); week 1, 48% (95% CI: 40.8%-54.6%); week 2, 37% (95% CI: 30.1%-43.9%). The cumulative incidence of OIC was lower in patients who received prophylactic agents for constipation (48% [95% CI: 38.1%-57.5%]) than in patients who did not (65% [95% CI: 55.0%-74.2%]). The cumulative incidences of OIC were 59% (95% CI: 51.9%-66.0%), 61% (95% CI: 54.3%-68.1%), and 45% (95% CI: 38.0%-51.8%) based on BFI scores, physician assessments, and SBM frequency, respectively. Frequency of BMs/week before starting opioids was the most influential factor for the occurrence of OIC. Utilization of prophylactic agents for constipation was associated with a modest effect on reducing the incidence of OIC. The incidences of OIC reported were variable depending on the diagnostic tool involved.

Ready conversion of patients with well-controlled, moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain on other opioids to tapentadol extended release

Background and Objectives

The effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol extended release (ER), a centrally acting analgesic with μ-opioid receptor agonist and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor activities, have been demonstrated in patients with chronic pain, including those switching directly from prior opioid therapy. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of conversion to oral tapentadol ER (50–250 mg twice daily) from previous around-the-clock strong opioid therapy in patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor–related cancer pain that was well-controlled.

Methods

This randomized, open-label, phase III study, which was conducted in Japan, included a 1- to 2-week screening period (on previous opioid) and an 8-week, open-label treatment period. Eligible patients, who were taking a strong opioid analgesic and had a mean pain intensity score <4 during the 3 days prior to randomization (adequate pain control on previous strong opioid), were randomized (1:1) to receive twice-daily treatment with tapentadol ER (100–500 mg/day) or morphine sustained release (SR; 20–140 mg/day; reference for assay sensitivity). Initial doses were estimated based on the conversion ratio of tapentadol ER:oxycodone:morphine:fentanyl = 10:2:3:0.03. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained pain control [change from baseline in mean pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) less than +1.5 for 3 consecutive days and no more than two doses of rescue medication per day for 3 consecutive days) during the first week of open-label treatment.

Results

In the tapentadol ER group (n = 50), 84.0 % of patients (42/50; 95 % CI, 70.89–92.83) maintained pain control during Week 1. On the Patient Global Impression of Change, 2.1 % (1/48), 2.1 % (1/48), 22.9 % (11/48), and 50.0 % (24/48) of patients in the tapentadol ER group reported that their overall condition was “very much improved,” “much improved,” “minimally improved,” and “not changed,” respectively, at Week 1 compared with 0 %, 10.7 % (3/28), 28.6 % (8/28), and 53.6 % (15/28) reporting these ratings at Week 8. The sensitivity of effectiveness analyses was validated based on results using morphine SR; 98.0 % (49/50; 95 % CI, 89.35–99.95) of patients in the morphine SR group maintained pain control after 1 week of treatment. The overall safety profile was similar to that demonstrated in previous studies; tapentadol ER was associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events than morphine SR [38.0 % (19/50) vs. 54.0 % (27/50)], including constipation [12.0 % (6/50) vs. 20.0 % (10/50)] and vomiting [6.0 % (3/50) vs. 26.0 % (13/50)].

Conclusions

Overall, results indicate that conversion from previous strong opioids to tapentadol ER (50–250 mg twice daily) was successful and resulted in safe and effective pain control with improved gastrointestinal tolerability versus morphine SR in patients with moderate to severe cancer-related pain that was well-controlled on their previous opioid.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40261-014-0204-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nonopioid Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer Pain

The WHO analgesic ladder for the treatment of cancer pain provides a three-step sequential approach for analgesic administration based on pain severity that has global applicability. Nonopioids were recommended for mild pain, with the addition of mild opioids for moderate pain and strong opioids for severe pain. Here, we review the evidence for the use of nonopioid analgesic agents in patients with cancer and describe the mode of action of the main drug classes. Evidence supports the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as acetaminophen/paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild cancer pain. Adding an NSAID to an opioid for stronger cancer pain is efficacious, but the risk of long-term adverse effects has not been quantified. There is limited evidence to support using acetaminophen with stronger opioids. Corticosteroids have a specific role in spinal cord compression and brain metastases, where improved analgesia is a secondary benefit. There is limited evidence for adding corticosteroids to stronger opioids when pain control is the primary objective. Systematic reviews suggest a role for antidepressant and anticonvulsant medications for neuropathic pain, but there are methodologic issues with the available studies. Bisphosphonates improve pain in patients with bony metastases in some tumor types. Denosumab may delay worsening of pain compared with bisphosphonates. Larger studies of longer duration are required to address outstanding questions concerning the use of nonopioid analgesia for stronger cancer pain.

Cancer pain therapy with a fixed combination of prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone: results from a non-interventional study

BACKGROUND

Strong opioids, including oxycodone, are the most effective analgesics used to combat moderate to severe cancer pain, but opioid-induced bowel dysfunction is a relevant problem associated with the therapy. Clinical studies have demonstrated equivalent analgesic efficacy and improved bowel function in treatment with a fixed combination of prolonged-release (PR) oxycodone and PR naloxone compared to oxycodone alone in patients with nonmalignant pain. Here, we report of a prospective, non-interventional study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of PR oxycodone/PR naloxone in a subgroup of patients with severe cancer pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Within the non-interventional multicenter study, 1,178 cancer patients with severe chronic pain received PR oxycodone/PR naloxone, dosed according to pain intensity, for 4 weeks. Recorded variables included pain intensity, patient-reported bowel function (Bowel Function Index), and pain-related functional impairment as a measure of quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

During treatment with PR oxycodone/PR naloxone, clinically relevant improvements in pain intensity were observed in opioid-naïve patients and in patients pretreated with weak or strong opioids, as reflected by reductions in pain scores of 51%, 53%, and 33%, respectively. Improvement in analgesia was paralleled by a significant reduction of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in opioid-pretreated patients. The reductions in the mean Bowel Function Index of -20.5 and -36.5 in patients pretreated with weak and strong opioids, respectively, represent clinically relevant improvements in bowel function. Pain-related functional impairment decreased consistently across all seven domains, which is equivalent to a substantial improvement in QoL.

CONCLUSION

This subgroup analysis of cancer patients within a large non-interventional study demonstrates that treatment with PR oxycodone/PR naloxone provides effective analgesia with minimization of bowel dysfunction and improved QoL. These data extend our knowledge of the effectiveness and tolerability of PR oxycodone/PR naloxone to the population of patients with cancer under real-life conditions.

Efficacy and safety of oral tapentadol extended release in Japanese and Korean patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain

OBJECTIVE

This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release (ER) compared with oxycodone controlled release (CR) for the management of moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related cancer pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study included Japanese and Korean patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive oral tapentadol ER (25-200 mg bid) or oral oxycodone HCl CR (5-40 mg bid) for 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01165281.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This study was designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of the efficacy provided by tapentadol ER versus oxycodone CR, based on the mean change in average pain intensity (11 point numerical rating scale) from baseline to the last 3 days of study drug administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded throughout the study.

RESULTS

Of the 374 patients who were screened, 343 were randomized and 236 completed treatment. The least-squares mean difference in the change in pain intensity from baseline to the last 3 days of study treatment between tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR was -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.506 to 0.383). The upper limit of the 95% CI was <1 (the predefined threshold value for non-inferiority), indicating that tapentadol ER provided analgesic efficacy that was non-inferior to that of oxycodone CR. The percentage of patients reporting at least one TEAE was similar in the tapentadol ER (87.5% [147/168]) and oxycodone CR (90.1% [155/172]) treatment groups, but the incidence of gastrointestinal TEAEs was lower in the tapentadol ER group (55.4% [93/168]) than in the oxycodone CR group (67.4% [116/172]).

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol ER (25-200 mg bid) provides analgesic efficacy that is non-inferior to that provided by oxycodone HCl CR (5-40 mg bid) for the management of moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain, and is well tolerated overall, with a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile than oxycodone CR.

Spider peptide Phα1β induces analgesic effect in a model of cancer pain

The marine snail peptide ziconotide (ω-conotoxin MVIIA) is used as an analgesic in cancer patients refractory to opioids, but may induce severe adverse effects. Animal venoms represent a rich source of novel drugs, so we investigated the analgesic effects and the side-effects of spider peptide Phα1β in a model of cancer pain in mice with or without tolerance to morphine analgesia. Cancer pain was induced by the inoculation of melanoma B16-F10 cells into the hind paw of C57BL/6 mice. After 14 days, painful hypersensitivity was detected and Phα1β or ω-conotoxin MVIIA (10-100 pmol/site) was intrathecally injected to evaluate the development of antinociception and side-effects in control and morphine-tolerant mice. The treatment with Phα1β or ω-conotoxin MVIIA fully reversed cancer-related painful hypersensitivity, with long-lasting results, at effective doses 50% of 48 (32-72) or 33 (21-53) pmol/site, respectively. Phα1β produced only mild adverse effects, whereas ω-conotoxin MVIIA induced dose-related side-effects in mice at analgesic doses (estimated toxic dose 50% of 30 pmol/site). In addition, we observed that Phα1β was capable of controlling cancer-related pain even in mice tolerant to morphine antinociception (100% of inhibition) and was able to partially restore morphine analgesia in such animals (56 ± 5% of inhibition). In this study, Phα1β was as efficacious as ω-conotoxin MVIIA in inducing analgesia in a model of cancer pain without producing severe adverse effects or losing efficacy in opioid-tolerant mice, indicating that Phα1β has a good profile for the treatment of cancer pain in patients.

Combined oral prolonged-release oxycodone and naloxone in chronic pain management

INTRODUCTION

The use of opioids is associated with unwanted adverse effects, particularly opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The adverse effects of opioids on gastrointestinal function are mediated by the interaction with opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract. The most common drugs used for relieving OIC are laxatives, which do not address the opioid receptor-mediated bowel dysfunction and do not provide sufficient relief.

AREAS COVERED

This paper discusses the role of a combination of prolonged-release formulation of oxycodone (OX) and naloxone (N) in the prevention and management of OIC, reporting efficacy and safety outcome of controlled studies. In a therapeutic area of great unmet need, the combination tablet of prolonged release of OX and N (PR OXN) could offer patients effective analgesia, while improving opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

EXPERT OPINION

PR OXN offers a unique and specific mechanism to control OIC in patients receiving chronic opioid therapy. This combination has the potential advantage of preventing OIC, particularly in subgroups of population, like elderly or advanced cancer patients. This approach can decrease the use of laxatives and additional medications, which represent a burden for patients presenting comorbidities requiring multiple medications.