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

Effectiveness of Opioid Switching in Advanced Cancer Pain: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Opioid switching is a common practice of substituting one opioid for another to improve analgesia or adverse effects; however, it has limited evidence. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of opioid switching in advanced cancer. This multi-center prospective cohort study recruited patients assessed to switch opioids (opioid switch group) or to continue ongoing opioid treatment (control group). Clinical data (demographics, opioids) and validated instruments (pain and adverse effects) were collected over two timepoints seven days apart. Descriptive analyses were utilized. Non-parametric tests were used to determine differences. Fifty-four participants were recruited (23 control group, 31 switch group). At the follow-up, opioid switching reduced pain (worst, average, and now) (p < 0.05), uncontrolled breakthrough pain (3-fold reduction, p = 0.008), and psychological distress (48% to 16%, p < 0.005). The switch group had a ≥25% reduction in the reported frequency of seven moderate-to-severe adverse effects (score ≥ 4), compared to a reduction in only one adverse effect in the control group. The control group experienced no significant pain differences at the follow-up. Opioid switching is effective at reducing pain, adverse effects, and psychological distress in a population with advanced cancer pain, to levels of satisfactory symptom control in most patients within 1 week.

Tapentadol for the management of cancer pain in adults: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Tapentadol is the first of a new class of analgesics, having synergistic µ-opioid receptor agonist and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitory actions. It has been widely researched in many areas of pain, often in noninferiority studies against potent opioids. This review describes all randomized and recent nonrandomized studies of tapentadol in adults with cancer pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Tapentadol has been shown to be at least as effective as morphine and oxycodone in five randomized (two of which were multicenter and double-blind) and a range of nonrandomized trials, although caution is needed when interpreting these results. It is effective in both opioid-naive patients and those already taking opioids. By having a lower µ-opioid receptor binding affinity, it has fewer opioid-related toxicities such as constipation and nausea. A recent randomized trial comparing tapentadol to tapentadol plus duloxetine in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy shows similar improvement in both groups in a range of pain relieving and quality of life measures, with similar adverse effects.

SUMMARY

Tapentadol has been shown in a range of studies to be an effective analgesic and thus should be considered as an alternative to morphine and oxycodone, especially when opioid toxicities are an issue.

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

Tapentadol Safety and Patient Characteristics Associated with Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Therapy: A Retrospective Multicentre Study in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tapentadol has analgesic effects comparable to those of conventional opioids and is associated with fewer side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms, drowsiness, and dizziness, than other opioids. However, the safety of tapentadol in the Japanese population remains unclear; the present multicentre study aimed to examine the safety of tapentadol and the characteristics of patients likely to discontinue this treatment owing to adverse events.

METHODS

The safety of tapentadol was assessed retrospectively in patients with any type of cancer treated between August 18, 2014 and October 31, 2019 across nine institutions in Japan. Patients were examined at baseline and at the time of opioid discontinuation. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with tapentadol discontinuation owing to adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 906 patients were included in this study, and 685 (75.6%) cases were followed up until tapentadol cessation for any reason. Among patients who discontinued treatment, 119 (17.4%) did so because of adverse events. Among adverse events associated with difficulty in taking medication, nausea was the most common cause of treatment discontinuation (4.7%), followed by drowsiness (1.8%). Multivariate analysis showed that those who were prescribed tapentadol by a palliative care physician (odds ratio [OR] 2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-4.99, p = 0.004), patients switching to tapentadol due to side effects from previous opioids (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.05-4.56, p = 0.037), and patients who did not use naldemedine (OR 5.06, 95% CI 2.47-10.37, p < 0.0001) had an increased risk of treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the safety profile of tapentadol and the characteristics of patients likely to discontinue this treatment owing to adverse events in the Japanese population. Prospective controlled trials are required to evaluate the safety of tapentadol and validate the present findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN 000044282 (University Hospital Medical Information Network).

Tapentadol Versus Tramadol: A Narrative and Comparative Review of Their Pharmacological, Efficacy and Safety Profiles in Adult Patients

We conducted a narrative review of the literature to compare the pharmacological, efficacy and safety profiles of tapentadol and tramadol, and to assess the clinical interest of tapentadol in adult patients. Tapentadol and tramadol share a mixed mechanism of action, including both mu-agonist and monoaminergic properties. Tapentadol is approximately two to three times more potent than tramadol and two to three times less potent than morphine. It has no identified analgesically active metabolite and is not significantly metabolised by cytochrome P450 enzymes, thus overcoming some limitations of tramadol, including the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and interindividual variability due to genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes. The toxicity profiles of tramadol and tapentadol are similar; however tapentadol is likely to result in less exposure to serotoninergic adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, hypoglycaemia) but cause more opioid adverse effects (constipation, respiratory depression, abuse) than tramadol. The safety of tapentadol in real-world conditions remains poorly documented, particularly in at-risk patient subgroups and also in the ability to assess the risk associated with its residual serotonergic activity (serotonin syndrome, seizures). Because of an earlier market introduction, more real-world safety data are available for tramadol, including data from at-risk patient subgroups. The level of evidence on the efficacy of both tramadol and tapentadol for the treatment of chronic pain is globally low. The trials published to date show overall that tapentadol does not provide a clinically significant analgesic improvement compared to existing treatments, for which the safety profile is much better known. In conclusion, tapentadol is not a first-line opioid but represents an additional analgesic in the therapeutic choices, which some patients may benefit from after careful examination of their clinical situation, co-morbidities and co-medications.

Tapentadol and Sleepwalking: A Case Report

OBJECTIVE

This is a case report of a patient with sleepwalking likely caused by tapentadol ER secondary to higher than the recommended dose for the treatment of pain.

METHODS

This report presents the relevant patient history, laboratory data and literature review on possible causes of this patient's sleepwalking.

RESULTS

A 39-year-old female reported sleepwalking as the dose of tapentadol increased above the recommended maximum provided in the package insert. The mechanism of action of tapentadol involving norepinephrine reuptake inhibition affecting the central nervous system, higher dosage and drug interactions with other home medications likely contributed to her sleepwalking.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights the importance of adhering to the recommended dosage of a medication and if it is clinically warranted to exceed the maximum recommended dose, the importance of diligent monitoring for any adverse effects.

Safety of tapentadol compared with other opioids in chronic pain treatment: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled and withdrawal trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative safety of oral tapentadol PR and other opioid analgesics for moderate or severe chronic pain in adults, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized withdrawal trials of tapentadol with other WHO stage II and III opioid analgesics in patients with moderate or severe chronic pain. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane databases and trial registries. Feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for NMA. Outcomes assessed were overall AEs, overall serious adverse events, constipation, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, headache, and discontinuation due to AEs. Randomized withdrawal trials were analyzed separately to other RCTs.

RESULTS

Searches conducted in April 2019 identified 16,604 records. Following screening and feasibility assessment, 29 RCTs and 19 randomized withdrawal trials were identified and included in the NMA. Consistent with existing research, evidence from RCTs suggested that tapentadol is associated with relatively lower odds of adverse events occurring than most active comparators. The withdrawal trial data were less clear, with higher uncertainty around the results, and results that appear to contradict the RCT evidence. There are a number of trial design factors that may be affecting these results.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT evidence suggests that tapentadol can be a useful treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain and in need of an opioid analgesic. Opioids should be prescribed by a qualified physician only after other analgesics have been considered, taking side effects and misuse risk into account.

Pharmacokinetic Analysis, Analgesic Effects, and Adverse Effects of Tapentadol in Cancer Patients with Pain

In this study, we conducted a pharmacokinetic analysis of tapentadol (TP) in Japanese patients with cancer pain and identified covariates influencing pharmacokinetic parameters. In addition, the analgesic effects and adverse effects of TP were investigated. Data were collected from in-patients with cancer pain who had been administered TP as an extended-release formula. The median (range) estimated clearance (CL/F) and distribution volume (V_d/F) of TP were 86.7 (31.3-213.7) L/h and 1288 (189-6736) L, respectively. There was a strong negative correlation between CL/F and age, Child-Pugh score, and albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score. The subjects were further divided into two groups according to the factors highly correlated with CL/F. The CL/F of patients in the Child-Pugh B group was 0.46-times that of patients in the Child-Pugh A group. In addition, the CL/F of patients with an ALBI score > -2.40 was 0.56-times that of patients with ALBI scores ≤-2.40, and both differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The mean intensity of pain over 24 h was investigated daily from before starting TP for the first 7 d of the treatment. TP reduced pain in six of nine patients; the mean pain visual analogue scale score decreased significantly from 59.2 mm before administration to 42.5 mm at days 5-7. Overall, the Child-Pugh and ALBI scores significantly affected the clearance of TP, which was reduced in patients with impaired liver function. These results suggest that TP is an opioid with a sufficient analgesic effect for cancer patients.

Assessment of the efficacy of Chinese patent medicine on treating pain caused by prostate cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

INTRODUCTION

With the development of economy and the acceleration of population aging, Prostate cancer (PCa) has presented a situation of high morbidity and mortality worldwide. The recent studies have shown that Chinese patent medicine combined with endocrine therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer not only plays a synergistic role in enhancing the efficacy. This review hopes to adopt meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of pain caused by prostate cancer and provides evidence for its application in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for PubMed, Cochrane Library, AMED, EMbase, WorldSciNet; Nature, Science online and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature CD-ROM Database (CBM), and related randomized controlled trials included in the China Resources Database. The time is limited from the construction of the library to June 2019. We will use the criteria provided by Cochrane 5.1.0 for quality assessment and risk assessment of the included studies, and use the Revman 5.3 and Stata13.0 software for meta-analysis of the effectiveness, recurrence rate, and symptom scores of pain caused by prostate cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine for pain caused by prostate cancer. Because all of the data used in this systematic review and meta-analysis has been published, this review does not require ethical approval. Furthermore, all data will be analyzed anonymously during the review process Trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019131544.

Traditional Chinese medicine on treating pain caused by prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is a male malignant tumor disease with high prevalence in recent years. Patients with advanced prostate cancer are more likely to have bone metastasis and have strong bone pain, and even lead to pathological fracture, which has a serious impact on the quality of life of patients. Traditional Chinese medicine has good clinical efficacy in treating pain caused by prostate cancer .This review hopes to adopt meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of pain caused by prostate cancer and provide evidence for its application in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for PubMed, Cochrane Library, AMED, EMbase, WorldSciNet; Nature, Science online and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature CD-ROM Database (CBM), and related randomized controlled trials included in the China Resources Database. The time is limited from the construction of the library to June 2019.We will use the criteria provided by Cochrane 5.1.0 for quality assessment and risk assessment of the included studies, and use the Revman 5.3 and Stata13.0 software for meta-analysis of the effectiveness, recurrence rate, and symptom scores of pain caused by prostate cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM for pain caused by prostate cancer. Because all of the data used in this systematic review and meta-analysis has been published, this review does not require ethical approval. Furthermore, all data will be analyzed anonymously during the review process Trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019131544.

Outcomes Associated with Treatment of Chronic Pain with Tapentadol Compared with Morphine and Oxycodone: A UK Primary Care Observational Study

Introduction

This study compared adverse outcomes and resource use for patients with a diagnosis of pain treated with tapentadol prolonged-release (PR) versus those treated with morphine controlled-release (CR) and oxycodone CR.

Methods

Data were sourced from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a database derived from UK primary care. Patients prescribed tapentadol PR between May 2011 and December 2016 were selected and matched to two groups of controls treated with either morphine CR or oxycodone CR on gender, age, pain duration, pain site, pain aetiology, Charlson index and prior analgesia. Times to first adverse event (constipation or nausea/vomiting) were compared within a Cox proportional hazards model. Rates of primary care contacts, accident and emergency contacts and, for a subset of patients linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), inpatient admissions and outpatient contacts were compared using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) derived from Poisson regression.

Results

A total of 1907 patients prescribed tapentadol PR were identified and 1791 (93.9%) had a pain diagnosis. Of these 1246 (65.3%) were matched to morphine controls and 829 (43.4%) to oxycodone controls. Compared to controls, gastrointestinal adverse events with tapentadol PR treatment were reduced; aHR = 0.532 (0.402–0.703; p < 0.001) versus morphine CR and 0.517 (0.363–0.735; p < 0.001) versus oxycodone CR. Compared with morphine CR, primary care contacts [IRR = 0.831 (0.802–0.861)], accident and emergency attendance [0.739 (0.572–0.951)], outpatient contacts [0.917 (0.851–0.989)] and inpatients contacts [0.789 (0.664–0.938)] were reduced. For oxycodone, the respective figures were 0.735 (0.703–0.768), 0.971 (0.699–1.352), 0.877 (0.799–0.962) and 0.748 (0.601–0.932).

Conclusion

Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly fewer adverse gastrointestinal events than morphine CR and oxycodone CR in patients with a diagnosis of pain. There was also significantly reduced primary and secondary care resource use. As with all observational studies, potential bias due to residual confounding and confounding by indication should be considered.

Funding

Grünenthal Ltd.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00932-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tapentadol in the management of cancer pain: current evidence and future perspectives

Thanks to the progress in early diagnosis and treatment of cancer, the life expectancy of cancer patients has now increased. Patients are, therefore, more likely to experience their individual cancer pain as a chronic pain. As a consequence, long-term treatment of cancer-related pain and oncological therapy-related pain are a major need for all patients and a challenge to all healthcare professionals. Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic drug characterized by two synergistic mechanisms of action, since it acts at the µ-opioid receptor (MOR) and inhibits noradrenalin re-uptake (NRI). Therefore, tapentadol has been considered the first of a new class of drugs, MOR-NRI. Tapentadol has been tested in different populations of cancer patients (opioid-naive and -pretreated), such as those with pain of mixed etiology, patients with pain from hematological malignancies and patients experiencing pain conditions due to anticancer treatment. According to available evidence, tapentadol prolonged release was well tolerated and effective in cancer pain patients. In randomized, double-blind and active-controlled trials it proved non-inferior to standard opioids like morphine or oxycodone in the management of moderate-to-severe cancer pain, both in opioid-naive and in opioid-pretreated patients. The good analgesic efficacy may be partly due to the action of tapentadol on neuropathic pain components. Together with the low rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects and the overall favorable safety profile, tapentadol can be considered a good option in cancer pain patients, who can suffer frequently from nausea, vomiting, constipation or other events that further reduce their quality of life.

Tapentadol for neuropathic pain: a review of clinical studies

Neuropathic pain (NP) is an enormous burden for patients, caregivers and society. NP is a pain state that may develop after injury of the peripheral or central nervous system because of a wide range of diseases and traumas. A NP symptom component can be found also in several types of chronic pain. Many NP patients are substantially disabled for years. Due to its chronicity, severity and unpredictability, NP is difficult to treat. Tapentadol is a central-acting oral analgesic with combined opioid and noradrenergic properties, which make it potentially suitable for a wide range of pain conditions, particularly whenever a NP component is present or cannot be excluded. In randomized controlled trials, tapentadol has proved to be effective in relieving NP in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and in chronic low back pain. In observational studies, tapentadol reduced NP in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies, blood and solid cancers, and the NP component in neck pain and Parkinson's disease. This narrative review aims to provide clinicians with a broad overview of tapentadol effects on NP.

Acupuncture for pain caused by prostate cancer: Protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a male malignant tumor disease with high prevalence in recent years. Patients with advanced prostate cancer are more likely to have bone metastasis and strong bone pain, and even lead to pathological fracture, which has a serious impact on the quality of life of patients. Acupuncture has good clinical efficacy in treating pain caused by prostate cancer. This review hopes to adopt meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of pain caused by prostate cancer and provides evidence for its application in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for PubMed, Cochrane Library, AMED, EMbase, WorldSciNet, Nature, Science online and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature CD-ROM Database (CBM), and related randomized controlled trials included in the China Resources Database. The time is limited from the construction of the library to November 2018. We will use the criteria provided by Cochrane 5.1.0 for quality assessment and risk assessment of the included studies, and use the Revman 5.3 and Stata 13.0 software for meta-analysis of the effectiveness, recurrence rate, and symptom scores of epididymitis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for pain caused by prostate cancer. Owing to the fact that all of the data used in this systematic review and meta-analysis have been published, this review does not require ethical approval. Furthermore, all data will be anonymously analyzed during the review process trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42018111550.

Multiple effectiveness aspects of tapentadol for moderate-severe cancer-pain treatment: an observational prospective study

Background

Previous studies have shown the efficacy of tapentadol (TP) for chronic cancer pain. We evaluated multiple effectiveness aspects of TP prolonged release on moderate–severe cancer-related pain, neuropathic pain (NeP), patient satisfaction, and quality of life.

Methods

An observational prospective study was conducted on 80 cancer patients. Opioid-naïve patients received a starting dose of prolonged-release TP 50 mg twice daily, and opioid-experienced patients were switched to TP, not to exceed 500 mg/day. Treatment response was evaluated at 3, 6, 30–40, and 60–70 days through response rate, numeric rating-scale scoring, survival analysis (time to event for response), pain-intensity difference, TP escalation-index percentage, and effects on NeP. The drug-sparing effect on concomitant therapies was evaluated.

Results

Seventy of 80 patients (88%) were responders to treatment (95% CI 78%–94%). Compared to T₀, pain-intensity reductions were statistically significant for all intervals (P<0.01), with better results at T₃/T₄. NeP was significantly reduced at T₄ (P<0.01). The probability of response was low at the initial stages and increased during the study. Pain-intensity differences decreased during the study, though without significance. Two patients (2.5%) left the study for TP-induced side effects. A significant improvement in quality of life was observed after 30–40 days (P<0.01). The majority of patients were “satisfied”, “very satisfied”, or “extremely satisfied” (T₃–T₄).

Conclusion

TP was effective in terms of drug-sparing effect, response rate, TP escalation-index percentage, and NeP management. By comparing data from the survival analysis with the response rate and time to response (numeric rating scale from T₀ to T₄), we found that although TP induced a quick response, a longer period of therapy and higher doses were needed to improve the positive result.

Tapentadol Prolonged Release: A Review in Pain Management

Tapentadol prolonged release (tapentadol PR) [Palexia® SR in EU] is a long-acting tablet formulation of the strong central analgesic tapentadol, which acts as both a μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist and a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Tapentadol PR is approved for chronic pain in various countries, with its EU indication (severe chronic pain manageable only with opioid analgesics) being the focus here. Well-designed trials and clinical practice data support tapentadol PR use in this setting. Short term, tapentadol PR was an effective and generally well tolerated analgesic for moderate to severe pain of varying aetiologies, including neuropathic pain. It provided analgesia at least as good as that of conventional strong opioids and appeared more favourable in terms of gastrointestinal tolerability, likely due to less potent MOR binding. Severe back pain with a neuropathic component responded well to moderate-dose tapentadol PR in some patients, while for others, an increase to the maximum recommended tapentadol PR dosage provided analgesia at least as good as that of moderate-dose tapentadol PR plus pregabalin and appeared to have some CNS tolerability benefits. Data also support the use of tapentadol PR in opioid rotation, including when conventional opioids are intolerable. Longer-term data in musculoskeletal pain conditions indicate continued benefit over up to 2 years' treatment with tapentadol PR with no evidence of tolerance. Thus, tapentadol PR is a useful option for the management of severe chronic pain.

Opioid Rotation in Cancer Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND

Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.

RESULTS

9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.

CONCLUSION

Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.

The role of tapentadol as a strong opioid in cancer pain management: a systematic and critical review

AIM

The aim of this review was to assess the role of tapentadol given at medium-high doses in opioid-tolerant patients for cancer pain management in place of step-3 analgesics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was performed out of which six studies and one secondary analysis provided data regarding tapentadol used as a step-3 analgesic for this review. Tapentadol, when used at ≥60 mg of oral morphine equivalents in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain, or passing from step-2 doses to ≥60 mg of oral morphine equivalents, was well tolerated and effective and could be considered as a flexible drug to be used for the management of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. The limited occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects may be a great advantage in the context of a disease like cancer, where multiple causes contribute to nausea, vomiting, or constipation; however, studies of tapentadol given at doses equivalent to step-3 level have some weaknesses, as data from prospective observational studies are poorly generalizable due to a small number of participants, controlled studies do not clearly show a superiority of tapentadol with respect to other opioids, and the sample size is often small.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are necessary to confirm the role of tapentadol in cancer patients requiring strong opioids for their pain.

[Incidence of constipation in patients with outpatient opioid therapy]

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a common complication in patients with opioid therapy. Additionally, patient-related risk factors also contribute to the development of constipation and these factors have to be integrated into an individualized treatment plan.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of constipation in patients with opioid therapy in an outpatient setting and to analyze the risk factors that contribute to the development of constipation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two university affiliated outpatient departments at the Charité hospital in Berlin. The trial included all consecutively treated patients with opioid therapy of at least 4 weeks duration. The study was conducted from January 2013 to August 2013. Constipation was defined according to the Rome III criteria.

RESULTS

Out of 1166 screened patients, altogether 171 patients were included with a median duration of opioid therapy of 5 years. The most common diagnoses were back pain, musculoskeletal pain and neuropathic pain. In 14% of the treated patients symptoms of constipation were detected and another 35% needed laxatives for symptom control resulting in an overall incidence of constipation of 49%. The remaining 51% of the patients did not use any laxatives and did not experience symptoms of constipation. Age and dosing of opioid therapy significantly increased the risk of consipation but duration of opioid therapy was not related to the incidence of constipation.

DISCUSSION

The incidence of constipation in this population remains high although a relevant number of patients were intermittently free of symptoms without using laxatives. An individualized therapy plan and patient education seem to be important elements to control opioid-associated constipation.

Tapentadol for Cancer Pain Management: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pain is one of the most common symptoms in patients with cancer. The aim of this review is to summarize the most recent literature regarding tapentadol use in oncology patients and moderate or severe pain.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

We have conducted a review of the literature using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for all manuscripts published between 2008 and 2016, using the key words "tapentadol," "cancer," "pain," "tumor," and "malignant."

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (four randomized clinical trials and five prospective cohort studies). The scope of the literature was diverse, with 15 instruments used to measure different aspects of pain (intensity, health status, quality of life, psychometric and well-being, perception of change, and neuropathic pain). All these studies concluded that tapentadol is seemingly a well-tolerated and efficacious agent for moderate-severe cancer pain, with few typically mild adverse reactions. However, the most significant detected weaknesses of research were that (1) existing studies do not clearly show a superiority of tapentadol with respect to previous generation opioids, (2) low-to-moderate sample sizes prevent obtaining robust conclusions about effectiveness, (3) there was an absence of noninferiority trials comparing tapentadol vs. fentanyl or oxycodone-naloxone, and (4) there was scarce generalizability of prospective observational studies.

CONCLUSION

Tapentadol is seemingly an effective, well-tolerated alternative for moderate or severe cancer pain. Most prospective cohort studies have relatively small samples, are restricted to few research centers, and lack detailed subgroup information. More experience is required to draw valid generalizable conclusions.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2015

This paper is the thirty-eighth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2015 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

Transmission pathways and mediators as the basis for clinical pharmacology of pain

INTRODUCTION

Mediators in pain transmission are the targets of a multitude of different analgesic pharmaceuticals. This review explores the most significant mediators of pain transmission as well as the pharmaceuticals that act on them. Areas covered: The review explores many of the key mediators of pain transmission. In doing so, this review uncovers important areas for further research. It also highlights agents with potential for producing novel analgesics, probes important interactions between pain transmission pathways that could contribute to synergistic analgesia, and emphasizes transmission factors that participate in transforming acute injury into chronic pain. Expert commentary: This review examines current pain research, particularly in the context of identifying novel analgesics, highlighting interactions between analgesic transmission pathways, and discussing factors that may contribute to the development of chronic pain after an acute injury.

Direct conversion from tramadol to tapentadol prolonged release for moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour-related pain

Background

A recent randomized‐withdrawal, active‐ and placebo‐controlled, double‐blind phase 3 study showed that tapentadol prolonged release (PR) was effective and well tolerated for managing moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour‐related pain in patients who were opioid naive or dissatisfied with current treatment (Pain Physician, 2014, 17, 329–343). This post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol PR in patients who previously received and were dissatisfied with tramadol for any reason and who had a pain intensity ≥5 (11‐point numerical rating scale) before converting directly to tapentadol PR.

Methods

In the original study, eligible patients had been randomized (2:1) and titrated to their optimal dose of tapentadol PR (100–250 mg bid) or morphine sulphate‐controlled release (40–100 mg bid) over 2 weeks. The present report focuses on results during the titration period for a subgroup of patients randomized to tapentadol PR after having been on tramadol treatment prior to randomization in the study (n = 129). Results for this subgroup are compared with results for all 338 patients who received tapentadol PR during titration (overall tapentadol PR group).

Results

Responder rates (responders: completed titration, mean pain intensity <5 [0–10 scale] and ≤20 mg/day rescue medication during last 3 days) were slightly better for the tramadol/tapentadol PR subgroup (69.8% [90/129]) vs. the overall tapentadol PR group (63.9% [214/335]). Tolerability profiles were comparable for both groups.

Conclusions

Results of this subgroup analysis indicate that patients with cancer pain could safely switch from prior treatment with the weak centrally acting analgesic tramadol directly to the strong centrally acting analgesic tapentadol PR, for an improved analgesic therapy for severe pain.

What does this study add?

Results of this post hoc analysis show that patients who had received prior tramadol therapy could switch directly to tapentadol PR, with the majority (˜70%) experiencing improved efficacy.

Tolerability, Safety, and Quality of Life with Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Compared with Oxycodone/Naloxone PR in Patients with Severe Chronic Low Back Pain with a Neuropathic Component: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Phase 3b/4 Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate tolerability, safety, and quality-of-life outcomes in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component receiving tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR.

METHODS

Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale] ≥ 6; painDETECT positive/unclear ratings) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. Change in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) total score from baseline to final evaluation was a primary endpoint.

RESULTS

For the primary tolerability-related endpoint, the 97.5% exact repeated confidence interval for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR for the PAC-SYM total score was [-0.259, 0.121], showing noninferiority (upper limit < 0.7). Incidences of constipation and vomiting were significantly lower with tapentadol PR than oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.045). Confirmatory superiority based on formal noninferiority was shown for the primary effectiveness endpoint (change from baseline to final evaluation in pain intensity) for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (presented separately). Improvements in the Short Form-12 physical component summary and EuroQol-5 Dimension health status index and health state assessment were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol PR had a minimal impact on bowel function (noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR) and, along with superior effectiveness (presented separately), was associated with significantly lower incidences of constipation and vomiting and significant improvements in quality-of-life measures vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR.

Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Tapentadol Extended Release Following up to 2 Years of Treatment in Patients With Moderate to Severe, Chronic Pain: Results of an Open-label Extension Trial

PURPOSE

Tapentadol extended release (ER) has demonstrated efficacy and safety for the management of moderate to severe, chronic pain in adults. This study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of tapentadol ER in patients with chronic osteoarthritis or low back pain.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in this 1-year, open-label extension study after completing one of two 15-week, placebo-controlled studies of tapentadol ER and oxycodone controlled release (CR) for osteoarthritis knee pain (NCT00421928) or low back pain (NCT00449176), a 7-week crossover study between tapentadol immediate release and tapentadol ER for low back pain (NCT00594516), or a 1-year safety study of tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR for osteoarthritis or low back pain (NCT00361504). After titrating the drug to an optimal dose, patients received tapentadol ER (100-250 mg BID) for up to 1 year (after finishing treatment in the preceding studies); patients who were previously treated with tapentadol ER in the 1-year safety study received tapentadol ER continuously for up to 2 years in total.

FINDINGS

Of the 1,154 patients in the safety population, 82.7% were aged >65 years and 57.9% were female; 50.1% had mild baseline pain intensity. Mean (SD) pain intensity scores (11-point numerical rating scale) were 3.9 (2.38) at baseline (end of preceding study) and 3.7 (2.42) at end point, indicating that pain relief was maintained during the extension study. Improvements in measures of quality of life (eg, EuroQol-5 Dimension and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) health status questionnaires) achieved during the preceding studies were maintained during the open-label extension study. Tapentadol ER was associated with a safety and tolerability profile comparable to that observed in the preceding studies. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence ≥10%; n = 1154) were headache (13.1%), nausea (11.8%), and constipation (11.1%). Similar efficacy and tolerability results were shown for patients who received up to 2 years of tapentadol ER treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

Pain relief and improvements in quality of life achieved during the preceding studies were maintained throughout this extension study, during which tapentadol ER was well tolerated for the long-term treatment of chronic osteoarthritis or low back pain over up to 2 years of treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00487435.).

A pooled analysis evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol extended release for chronic, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Background and Objective

Data from two similarly designed studies of tapentadol extended release (ER) for managing neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN; NCT00455520, NCT01041859) in adults were pooled for this analysis, allowing a detailed evaluation of efficacy in patient subgroups and secondary endpoints.

Methods

In each study, patients were titrated to their optimal dose of open-label tapentadol ER [100–250 mg twice daily (bid)] over 3 weeks. Patients with ≥1-point improvement in average pain intensity [11-point numerical rating scale (NRS)] were randomized (1:1) to receive placebo or tapentadol ER during a 12-week, double-blind maintenance period.

Results

Mean (standard deviation [SD]) changes in pain intensity from baseline to week 12 of maintenance in the placebo (n = 343) and tapentadol ER (n = 360) groups, respectively, were 1.28 (2.41) and 0.08 (1.87) [least squares mean difference (LSMD): −1.14 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: −1.435, −0.838); P < 0.001, in favour of tapentadol ER]. Significant between-group differences were also observed in changes from the start of the double-blind treatment period to the double-blind endpoint for the Short Form-36 physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning and role-emotional subscale and physical component summary scores, and the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status index (all P < 0.05, in favour of tapentadol ER). No clinically relevant differences were observed in the efficacy of tapentadol ER across patient subgroups divided by age, sex, race, opioid experience and pain intensity. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were 56.0 % (192/343) with placebo and 74.7 % (269/360) with tapentadol ER during maintenance.

Conclusion

Results of this pooled analysis indicate that tapentadol ER was effective for managing DPN-related pain, and provided consistent analgesic efficacy across different patient subgroups.

Oral tapentadol for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of people with advanced cancer will experience moderate to severe pain. Tapentadol is a novel, centrally acting analgesic medicine acting at the μ-opioid receptor and inhibiting noradrenaline reuptake. The efficacy of tapentadol is stated to be comparable to morphine and oxycodone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of tapentadol for the relief of cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to July 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and review articles, and two clinical trial registries. Searches started from 2005 because this covered the period during which clinical trials were conducted. We contacted the manufacturer of tapentadol in the UK to find additional trials not identified by electronic searches. We did not restrict searches by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tapentadol compared with placebo or active controls in adults with moderate to severe cancer pain. Pain had to be measured using a validated assessment tool, and studies had to include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. We extracted available data on study design, participant details, interventions, and outcomes, including analgesic outcome measures, withdrawals, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with 1029 participants. All the studies used a parallel-group design, and included an initial titration phase to determine the maximum effective and tolerated dose, followed by a maintenance phase. Tapentadol medication was taken twice daily and doses ranged from 50 to 500 mg per day. Rescue medication (morphine or oxycodone immediate-release) was available to participants in all studies.Overall, 440 participants were randomised in classically designed RCTs, and 589 participants were enrolled in enriched-enrolment, randomised-withdrawal (EERW) trials. A total of 476 participants were randomised to titration with tapentadol and 338 participants took tapentadol throughout the maintenance phase of their trial.All studies used numerical rating scores, Patient Global Impression of Change scores, and use of rescue medication as measures of efficacy, and all reported on adverse events and withdrawals.All studies enrolled fewer than 200 participants per treatment arm and were therefore at risk of overestimating efficacy. One study was terminated early due to problems with supply of rescue medication, with fewer than 20 participants enrolled per treatment arm in the maintenance phase of the trial. We judged another study at high risk of bias due to an open-label design.There were insufficient data for pooling and statistical analysis. Response rates for pain intensity were comparable across treatment groups in each study. In one EERW study, response rates were high across both treatment and placebo arms during the maintenance phase (62% tapentadol, 69% morphine, 50% placebo). For pain relief, tapentadol is no more and no less effective than oxycodone or morphine (low quality evidence).Treatment emergent adverse event rates were high, approximately 50% to 90%. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, constipation) (low quality evidence). There was no advantage of tapentadol over morphine or oxycodone in terms of serious adverse events. The number of people experiencing effects on consciousness, appetite, or thirst was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information from RCTs on the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol was limited. The available studies were of moderate or small size and used different designs, which prevented pooling of data. Pain relief and adverse events were comparable between the tapentadol and morphine and oxycodone groups.

Effectiveness of Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Compared with Oxycodone/Naloxone PR for the Management of Severe Chronic Low Back Pain with a Neuropathic Component: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label, Phase 3b/4 Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component.

METHODS

Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3)] ≥6; painDETECT positive/unclear) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the change in NRS-3 from baseline to final evaluation; the exact repeated confidence interval (RCI) for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR was used to establish noninferiority (upper limit <1.3) and superiority (confirmatory analyses).

RESULTS

For the primary effectiveness endpoint, tapentadol PR was noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR (97.5% RCI: [-1.820, -0.184]; P < 0.001). This exact RCI also yielded evidence of superiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (significantly greater reduction in pain intensity; P = 0.003). Improvements (baseline to final evaluation) in painDETECT and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (all P ≤ 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The study was formally shown to be positive and demonstrated, in the primary effectiveness endpoint, the noninferiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. The effectiveness of tapentadol PR was superior to that of oxycodone/naloxone PR by means of clinical relevance and statistical significance (confirmatory evidence of superiority). Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly greater improvements in neuropathic pain-related symptoms and global health status than oxycodone/naloxone PR and with a significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability profile. Tapentadol PR may be considered a first-line option for managing severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component.

Tapentadol extended release in the management of peripheral diabetic neuropathic pain

Tapentadol, a μ-opioid agonist and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, has been found to be an effective medication for a wide variety of chronic pain conditions, including back pain, cancer-related pain, and arthritic pain. It has also been found to have fewer gastrointestinal side effects than more traditional opioid-based therapies. More recently, tapentadol extended release has been demonstrated to be effective in the management of painful diabetic neuropathy, an often debilitating condition affecting approximately one-third of all patients with diabetes. This review highlights the most up-to-date basic and clinical studies by focusing on the mechanisms of action of tapentadol and its clinical efficacy, especially with regard to painful diabetic neuropathy.

Tapentadol prolonged release for severe chronic cancer-related pain: effectiveness, tolerability, and influence on quality of life of the patients

Background

Clinical trials have shown the efficacy and good tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for severe chronic pain of different etiologies. This study investigated the influence of tapentadol PR on pain control and quality of life of patients with severe chronic cancer-related pain in routine clinical practice in Germany.

Patients and methods

During a 3-month observation period, 45 physicians (mainly palliative care specialists) documented dosage and tolerability of tapentadol PR, previous and concomitant analgesic treatment, pain intensity, pain-related restrictions of daily activities and quality of life, and general state of health of 123 patients with chronic cancer-related pain in the context of a prospective noninterventional study.

Results

All patients (mean age 63.9±13.2 years, 93.5% in constant pain) had received analgesic long-term treatment (42.3% strong opioids) prior to the start of tapentadol PR treatment. During the observation period, tapentadol PR significantly reduced the average pain intensity by 2.4 points (from a mean 6.1±1.7 to 3.7±2.0, P<0.001); half of the patients (52%) achieved a pain score ≤3 at the end of observation. At the same time, mental and emotional well-being, pain-related impairments of daily activities, sleep quality, and quality of life improved, while the overall intake of analgesic concomitant medication could be reduced. Improvements in general state of health were significant (P<0.001). Overall, tapentadol PR was well tolerated.

Conclusion

Good pain control with tapentadol PR was accompanied by markedly reduced pain-related mental and physical burden and quality of life improved. Overall, the general state of health of these patients with chronic cancer-related pain improved significantly despite the underlying illness.