A randomized, double-blind, 8-week crossover study of once-daily controlled-release tramadol versus immediate-release tramadol taken as needed for chronic noncancer pain

Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Versus Oral Opioid to Maintain Analgesia for Severe Cancer Pain: A Randomized Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal analgesic maintenance for severe cancer pain is unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IPCA) with continuous infusion plus rescue dose or bolus-only dose versus conventional oral extended-release morphine as a background dose with normal-release morphine as a rescue dose to maintain analgesia in patients with severe cancer pain after successful opioid titration.

METHODS

Patients with persistent severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on the 11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment arms: (A1) IPCA hydromorphone with bolus-only dose where dosage was 10% to 20% of the total equianalgesic over the previous 24 hours (TEOP24H) administered as needed, (A2) IPCA hydromorphone with continuous infusion where dose per hour was the TEOP24H divided by 24 and bolus dosage for breakthrough pain was 10% to 20% of the TEOP24H, and (B) oral extended-release morphine based on TEOP24H/2 × 75% (because of incomplete cross-tolerance) every 12 hours plus normal-release morphine based on TEOP24H × 10% to 20% for breakthrough pain. After randomization, patients underwent IPCA hydromorphone titration for 24 hours to achieve pain control before beginning their assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was NRS over days 1 to 3.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients from 9 oncology study sites underwent randomization: 30 into arm A1, 32 into arm A2, and 33 into arm B. Arm B produced a significantly higher NRS over days 1 to 3 compared with arm A1 or A2 (P<.001). Daily NRS from day 1 to day 6 and patient satisfaction scores on day 3 and day 6 were worse in arm B. Median equivalent-morphine consumption increase was significantly lower in A1 (P=.024) among the 3 arms. No severe adverse event occurred in any arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with oral morphine maintenance, IPCA hydromorphone for analgesia maintenance improves control of severe cancer pain after successful titration. Furthermore, IPCA hydromorphone without continuous infusion may consume less opioid.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Systematic review of guideline-recommended medications prescribed for treatment of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.

RESULTS

316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.

A comprehensive review of partial opioid agonists for the treatment of chronic pain

Chronic pain is a common condition that is being increasingly recognized, diagnosed, and treated in a variety of settings. Opioids can be used to treat chronic pain but at the cost of adverse effects and risk of dependence. Recently, there has been a movement to improve analgesic care in the setting of the opioid epidemic and the overprescribing of opioids, causing over-accessibility, dependence, and large numbers of overdose deaths. Opioid-specific receptors, including the μ, δ, κ, and opioid receptor like-1 (ORL-1) receptors, are each 7-transmembrane spanning proteins, which affect the G-protein and β-arrestin cascades. Each opioid class can act differently on the receptors, resulting in full, partial, or antagonizing effects. This comprehensive review looks at different agents in major classes, nonselective and mixed/partial agonists/antagonists, including the nonselective partial agonists, levorphanol and tramadol. Mixed partial agonists/antagonists include buprenorphine, pentazocine, nalbuphine, and butorphanol. Oliceridine is the only current selective partial agonist that agonizes specific pathways to promote analgesic effects and discourage adverse effects.

Pharmacokinetics of Tramadol and O-Desmethyltramadol Enantiomers Following Administration of Extended-Release Tablets to Elderly and Young Subjects

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is frequently used in geriatric patients; however, pharmacokinetic (PK) publications on tramadol and O-desmethyltramadol (ODM) in elderly patients are rare.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to characterize the PK of tramadol and ODM, including absorption processes and covariates for tramadol, in elderly and young subjects after single-dose administration of 200-mg extended-release tablets.

METHODS

We conducted a PK study in 15 elderly (aged ≥75 years) subjects with mild renal insufficiency and 20 young (18-40 years) subjects; blood and urine samples were collected for 48 h post-dose. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) of each tramadol and ODM enantiomer included area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), terminal elimination rate (k el), total body clearance, volume of distribution (V area/ F), and renal clearance (Clr0-48). A one-compartment population model of total tramadol concentration was parameterized with clearance (CL/F), volume of distribution (V/F), and mixed order absorption (first-order and zero-order absorption rate constants with lag times).

RESULTS

NCA demonstrated comparable maximum plasma concentration (C max) and AUC between age groups for tramadol enantiomers, but significant differences in V area/ F (mean 34% higher) and k el (mean 28% lower) in the elderly. PK of ODM were significantly different in the elderly for AUC0-inf (mean 35% higher), Clr0-48 (mean 29% lower), and k el (mean 33% lower). The population analysis identified age as a covariate of V/F (young 305 L; elderly 426 L), with a 50% longer mean elimination half-life in the elderly. No differences in absorption processes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Tramadol exposure was similar between the age groups; exposure to ODM was higher in elderly subjects.

Dose proportionality of a hydrocodone extended-release tablet formulated with abuse-deterrence technology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This open-label, crossover study evaluated the dose proportionality of a hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablet employing the CIMA(®) Abuse-Deterrence Technology platform.

METHODS

Healthy volunteers were randomized to receive single doses of hydrocodone ER 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 mg separated by a minimum 14-day washout. Subjects received naltrexone to minimize opioid-related adverse events (AEs). Blood samples were collected for 72 h after each hydrocodone administration. Pharmacokinetic measures included maximum observed plasma hydrocodone concentration (C max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞). Dose proportionality was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) of the slope of the regression line for C max and AUC∞ versus dose fell within 0.875-1.125.

RESULTS

In total, 60 subjects were evaluable for pharmacokinetics. The mean C max was 12.6, 20.7, 30.3, 41.2, and 62.5 ng/mL and the mean AUC∞ was 199, 382, 592, 766, and 1189 ng.h/mL for hydrocodone ER 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 mg, respectively. C max and AUC∞ increased linearly with increasing dose. The 90 % CIs of the slope of the regression line for C max (0.880-0.922) and AUC∞ (0.984-1.026) indicated systemic exposure to hydrocodone increased in a dose-proportional manner. In these naltrexone-blocked subjects, no increased incidence of AEs was apparent with increasing dose.

CONCLUSION

Hydrocodone exposure increased in a dose-proportional manner after administration of hydrocodone ER 15-90 mg tablets in healthy, naltrexone-blocked subjects.

Single-Dose Pharmacokinetic Study of Tramadol Extended-Release Tablets in Children and Adolescents

Combined analyses from 2 open-label, phase-1 studies-the pharmacokinetic profile of tramadol and its metabolite (M1) following a single oral dose of tramadol extended release (ER) (25 to 100 mg) in children (7 to 11 years old; study 1: n = 37) and adolescents (12 to 17 years old; study 2: n = 38) with painful conditions-were historically compared with that of healthy adults following similar dosing. The dose-normalized area under the curve (DN AUC0-24h ) and maximum concentration (DN Cmax ) of tramadol and of M1 in children and in adolescents were lower than those in adults (children vs adults: tramadol, DN AUC0-24h 82.19%; DN Cmax 80.38%, P = .0031; M1, DN AUC0-24h 51.19%, DN Cmax 52.68%, P < .0001; adolescents vs adults: tramadol, DN AUC0-24h 89.56%, DN Cmax 84.01%; M1, DN AUC0-24h 85.28%, DN Cmax 83.03%, P = .0004). The arithmetic mean terminal elimination t1/2 of tramadol in children and adolescents was comparable to that in adults (children 8.4 hours; adolescents 8.5 hours; adults 7.9 hours). The most frequently reported (≥5% of participants) treatment-emergent adverse events in children included headache, upper abdominal pain and constipation, and in adolescents were headache, nausea, dizziness, and stomach discomfort. Multiple factors may have contributed to these observations, including a higher proportion of children (56%) who may have a lower activity of CYP2D6, resulting in reduced clearance of tramadol.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic studies of tramadol immediate-release tablets in children and adolescents

In these combined analyzes from 3 open-label, phase-1 studies, the pharmacokinetic profile of tramadol and its metabolite (M1) following administration of tramadol immediate-release (IR) tablets in children and adolescents, 7-16 years old (studies 1 and 2: n = 38; study 3: n = 21) with painful conditions following single oral dose of tramadol IR (25-100 mg) (studies 1 and 2) or multiple oral doses of tramadol IR tablets every 6 hours for 3 days (study 3) were compared with that of healthy adults following similar treatment. Area under the curve of tramadol and its metabolite M1 in children and adolescents was lower compared with adults (Dose-normalized [DN] AUC, h ng/mL: tramadol: 1316.87 [children]; 1418.02 [adolescents];1838.29 [adults]; M1: 342.56 [children]; 475.4 [adolescents]; 636.13 [adults]) while the Cmax remained similar (DN Cmax , ng/mL: tramadol: 203.75 [children]; 165.35 [adolescents]; 226.92 [adults]; M1: 34.93 [children]; 38.42 [adolescents]; 52.14 [adults]). The DN AUC was further lower in children and adolescents with a lower body weight (<50 kg). The weight normalized oral clearance of tramadol was higher in children and adolescents compared with adults (CL/F, mL/min/kg: 12.66 [children]; 11.75 [adolescents]; 9.06 [adults]). No new safety findings emerged. Tramadol was generally safe and well-tolerated by children and adolescents with painful conditions.

Long- or short-acting opioids for chronic non-malignant pain? A qualitative systematic review

In selected patients with chronic non-malignant pain, chronic opioid therapy is indicated. Published guidelines recommend long-acting over short-acting opioids in these patients. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether long-acting opioids in chronic non-malignant pain are superior to short-acting opioids in pain relief, physical function, sleep quality, quality of life or adverse events. This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant trials up to July 2012. Reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews were in addition searched by hand. Of the 1168 identified publications, 6 randomised trials evaluating efficacy and safety filled the criteria for inclusion. None of them found a significantly better pain relief, significantly less consumption of rescue analgesia, improved quality of sleep or improved physical function from long-acting opioids. None of the trials investigated quality of life. None of the trials investigated adverse events properly nor addiction, tolerance or hyperalgesia. Three trials in healthy volunteers with a recreational drug use, found no difference in abuse potential between long- and short-acting opioids. While long term, comparative data are lacking, there is fair evidence from short-term trials that long-acting opioids provide equal pain relief compared with short-acting opioids. Contrary to several guidelines, there is no evidence supporting long-acting opioids superiority to short-acting ones in improving functional outcomes, reducing side effects or addiction.

Review of extended-release formulations of Tramadol for the management of chronic non-cancer pain: focus on marketed formulations

Patients with chronic non-malignant pain report impairments of physical, social, and psychological well-being. The goal of pain management should include reducing pain and improving quality of life. Patients with chronic pain require medications that are able to provide adequate pain relief, have minimum dosing intervals to maintain efficacy, and avoid breakthrough pain. Tramadol has proven efficacy and a favourable safety profile. The positive efficacy and safety profile has been demonstrated historically in numerous published clinical studies as well as from post-marketing experience. It is a World Health Organization “Step 2” opioid analgesic that has been shown to be effective, well-tolerated, and valuable, where treatment with strong opioids is not required. A number of extended release formulations of Tramadol are available in Canada and the United States. An optimal extended release Tramadol formulation would be expected to provide consistent pain control with once daily dosing, few sleep interruptions, flexible dosing schedules, and no limitation on taking with meals. Appropriate treatment options should be based on the above proposed attributes. A comparative review of available extended release Tramadol formulations shows that these medications are not equivalent in their pharmacokinetic profile and this may have implications for selecting the optimal therapy for patients with pain syndromes where Tramadol is an appropriate analgesic agent. Differences in pharmacokinetics amongst the formulations may also translate into varied clinical responses in patients. Selection of the appropriate formulation by the health care provider should therefore be based on the patient’s chronic pain condition, needs, and lifestyle.

A Model-Based Meta-analysis to Compare Efficacy and Tolerability of Tramadol and Tapentadol for the Treatment of Chronic Non-Malignant Pain

Introduction

Pain is a major symptom in many medical conditions which can be relieved thanks to analgesics. The goal of this work was to present an indirect comparison of efficacy and tolerability profiles of two analgesics, tramadol and tapentadol, in patients with chronic non-malignant pain.

Methods

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison between these two opioid drugs, model-based meta-analyses were used to characterize the pain intensity time dynamics and evaluate the proportions of most frequent adverse events (constipation, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and somnolence) and drop-outs (due to adverse event, as well as due to lack of efficacy) in each treatment group. Using these models, the investigational treatments were compared on the basis of Monte Carlo simulation outcomes.

Results

Data were extracted from 45 Phase II and Phase III studies representing a total of 81 treatment arms, i.e., approximately 13,000 patients. The pain intensity model shows, that after having adjusted for differences in baseline pain intensity and placebo effects, tramadol 300 mg once daily (qd) was slightly more effective in reducing pain than tapentadol 100–250 mg twice daily (bid), with a 46% change from baseline for the former versus 36% for the latter. From a tolerability standpoint, both drugs showed, as expected, increased risks of adverse events compared to placebo. Yet, tapentadol was associated with slightly lower risks of constipation, and nausea than tramadol.

Conclusion

Overall, the analysis showed that the benefit–risk profiles of tramadol 300 mg qd and tapentadol 100–250 mg bid were approximately even. The amount of data to characterize dose–response relationships was sufficient only in the tramadol group; public access to tapentadol efficacy and tolerability readouts across a wide dose range in chronic non-malignant pain would allow a comparison of therapeutic indices, a straight quantitation of the benefit–risk ratio. Knowing that their side-effects have been identified as potential hindrance to prescription, a broad and open access to clinical trial data in this indication is encouraged in order to facilitate the evaluation of the opiate analgesics clinical utility.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40122-014-0023-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of prescription opioids, including abuse-deterrent formulations, in non-cancer pain management

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between opioids formulated with technologies designed to deter or resist tampering (i.e., abuse-deterrent formulations [ADFs]) and non-ADFs for commonly prescribed opioids for treatment of non-cancer pain in adults.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for opioid publications between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2011, and pivotal clinical trials from all years; abstracts from key pain conferences (2010-2011) were also reviewed. One hundred and ninety-one publications were initially identified, 68 of which met eligibility criteria and were systematically reviewed; a subset of 16 involved a placebo group (13 non-ADFs vs placebo, 3 ADFs vs placebo) and reported both efficacy and safety outcomes, and were included for a meta-analysis. Summary estimates of standardized difference in mean change of pain intensity (DMCPI), standardized difference in sum of pain intensity difference (DSPID), and odds ratios (ORs) of each adverse event (AE) were computed through random-effects estimates for ADFs (and non-ADFs) vs placebo. Indirect treatment comparisons were conducted to compare ADFs and non-ADFs.

RESULTS

Summary estimates for standardized DMCPI and for standardized DSPID indicated that ADFs and non-ADFs showed significantly greater efficacy than placebo in reducing pain intensity. Indirect analyses assessing the efficacy outcomes between ADFs and non-ADFs indicated that they were not significantly different (standardized DMCPI [0.39 {95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-0.76}]; standardized DSPID [-0.22 {95% CI -0.74 to 0.30}]). ADFs and non-ADFs both were associated with higher odds of AEs than placebo. Odds ratios from indirect analyses comparing AEs for ADFs vs non-ADFs were not significant (nausea, 0.87 [0.24-3.12]; vomiting, 1.54 [0.40-5.97]; dizziness/vertigo, 0.61 [0.21-1.76]; headache, 1.42 [0.57-3.53]; somnolence/drowsiness, 0.47 [0.09-2.58]; constipation, 0.64 [0.28-1.49]; pruritus 0.41 [0.05-3.51]).

CONCLUSION

ADFs and non-ADFs had comparable efficacy and safety profiles, while both were more efficacious than placebo in reducing pain intensity.

Opioids compared to placebo or other treatments for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

The use of opioids in the long-term management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) has increased dramatically. Despite this trend, the benefits and risks of these medications remain unclear. This review is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of opioids in adults with CLBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Back Review Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2006 to October 2012. We checked the reference lists of these trials and other relevant systematic reviews for potential trials for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of opioids (as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies) in adults with CLBP that were at least four weeks in duration. We included trials that compared non-injectable opioids to placebo or other treatments. We excluded trials that compared different opioids only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data onto a pre-designed form. We pooled results using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.2. We reported on pain and function outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% CI to report adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials (5540 participants). Tramadol was examined in five trials (1378 participants); it was found to be better than placebo for pain (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44; low quality evidence) and function (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07; moderate quality evidence). Transdermal buprenorphine (two trials, 653 participants) may make little difference for pain (SMD -2.47, 95%CI -2.69 to -2.25; very low quality evidence), but no difference compared to placebo for function (SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.53 to 0.25; very low quality evidence). Strong opioids (morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tapentadol), examined in six trials (1887 participants), were better than placebo for pain (SMD -0.43, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.33; moderate quality evidence) and function (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15; moderate quality evidence). One trial (1583 participants) demonstrated that tramadol may make little difference compared to celecoxib (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; very low quality evidence) for pain relief. Two trials (272 participants) found no difference between opioids and antidepressants for either pain (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.45; very low quality evidence), or function (SMD -0.11, 95% -0.63 to 0.42; very low quality evidence). The included trials in this review had high drop-out rates, were of short duration, and had limited interpretability of functional improvement. They did not report any serious adverse effects, risks (addiction or overdose), or complications (sleep apnea, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, hypogonadism). In general, the effect sizes were medium for pain and small for function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence (very low to moderate quality) for short-term efficacy (for both pain and function) of opioids to treat CLBP compared to placebo. The very few trials that compared opioids to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or antidepressants did not show any differences regarding pain and function. The initiation of a trial of opioids for long-term management should be done with extreme caution, especially after a comprehensive assessment of potential risks. There are no placebo-RCTs supporting the effectiveness and safety of long-term opioid therapy for treatment of CLBP.

Miotic and subject-rated effects of therapeutic doses of tapentadol, tramadol, and hydromorphone in occasional opioid users

RATIONALE

Tapentadol is a novel analgesic that activates mu-opioid receptors and blocks norepinephrine reuptake. There is very little information available regarding the non-analgesic pharmacodynamic effects of tapentadol.

OBJECTIVES

This outpatient study evaluated the physiological, subject-rated, and performance effects of therapeutic doses of tapentadol compared to two control drugs in humans.

METHODS

This double-blind, within-subject study examined the effects of oral placebo, tapentadol (25, 50, and 75 mg), tramadol (50, 100, and 150 mg), and hydromorphone (2, 4, and 6 mg). Nine occasional opioid users completed the study. Pharmacodynamic drug effects were measured before and for 6 h after drug administration.

RESULTS

All three doses of the tested drugs produced comparable, time-dependent decreases in pupil diameter, but the effects were generally not dose dependent. The high dose of tapentadol, as well as all three doses of tramadol and hydromorphone, increased positive subject-rated effects (e.g., "Good Effects" and "Like the Drug") as a function of time. Only tramadol increased negative subject-rated effects (e.g., "Bad Effects" and "Nauseous"); however, these were of low magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

The highest tested dose of tapentadol produced a profile of positive effects comparable to that of hydromorphone, whereas tramadol produced positive and negative subject-rated effects. The mixed findings for tramadol are consistent with previous findings indicating that it has a distinct profile of effects relative to prototypic opioids. Future research should examine the effects of higher tapentadol doses, as well as the factors contributing to the different subject-rated profile of effects observed for tramadol relative to tapentadol and hydromorphone.

Controlled-release oxycodone and naloxone in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a placebo-controlled, randomized study

BACKGROUND

For Canadian regulatory purposes, an analgesic study was required to complement previously completed, pivotal studies on bowel effects and analgesia associated with controlled-release (CR) oxycodone⁄CR naloxone.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Patients requiring opioid therapy underwent a two- to seven-day opioid washout before being randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg⁄5 mg CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone or placebo every 12 h, titrated weekly according to efficacy and tolerability to 20 mg⁄10 mg, 30 mg⁄15 mg or 40 mg⁄20 mg every 12 h. After four weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative treatment for an additional four weeks. Acetaminophen⁄codeine (300 mg⁄30 mg every 4 h to 6 h as needed) was provided as rescue medication.

RESULTS

Of the 83 randomized patients, 54 (65%) comprised the per-protocol population. According to per-protocol analysis, CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone resulted in significantly lower mean (± SD)pain scores measured on a visual analogue scale (48.6 ± 23.1 mm versus 55.9 ± 25.4 mm; P=0.0296) and five-point ordinal pain intensity scores (2.1 ± 0.8 versus 2.4 ± 0.9; P=0.0415) compared with placebo. After the double-blinded phase, patients and investigators both preferred CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone over placebo. These outcomes continued in the 79% of patients who chose to continue receiving CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone in a six-month, open-label evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients complying with treatment as per protocol, CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone was effective for the management of chronic low back pain of moderate or severe intensity.

The Pain and Sleep Questionnaire three-item index (PSQ-3): a reliable and valid measure of the impact of pain on sleep in chronic nonmalignant pain of various etiologies

BACKGROUND

Sleep disturbance is among the more common complaints reported by chronic pain patients. Because pain-related sleep disturbance may serve as a marker for the assessment of responses to treatment for chronic pain, inclusion of a measure designed to assess the impact of pain on sleep in clinical trial protocols is important, if not necessary. Measures typically used for this purpose lack scales specifically designed for the assessment of the impact of pain on sleep or are based on a single item. Single-item scales lack reliability and, therefore, validity.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the psychometric properties of the five-item Pain and Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ) Index, which is embedded in the eight-item inventory, by applying an accepted methodology using retrospective analyses in controlled clinical trials in which the measure had been administered among patients with chronic nonmalignant pain.

METHODS

Data were pooled from nine independent, single-site, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials conducted over a period of approximately 10 years, the majority of which were cross-over designs. A cross-validation approach was adopted with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted to evaluate the underlying structure and dimensionality of the measure. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Mean score differences were used to assess the ability of the index to detect important treatment changes. Correlation coefficients were calculated between index scores and scores from other health-related outcome measures to evaluate the criterion validity of the index. Finally, predictive validity was assessed using multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Pooling the data resulted in a sample of 605 patients (65.5% female; mean age 55.7 years). Findings suggested a revised three-item PSQ Index (PSQ-3). The PSQ-3 demonstrated high internal consistency across samples (ranging from 0.82 to 0.93) and was sensitive to detecting meaningful treatment effects within different chronic pain categories. Moderate to strong correlations (r>0.40) between the PSQ-3 and other health-related outcome measures provided preliminary evidence for criterion-related validity. Results of multiple regression analyses demonstrated that the PSQ-3 accounted for between 29% and 40% of the variance in scores from other health-related outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the scoring of a revised three-item index for the assessment of the impact of pain on sleep. The revised index demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency and preliminary support for the structural, criterion-related and predictive validity of the index was achieved.

Opioid analgesics and the risk of fractures in older adults with arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the risk of fracture associated with initiating opioids with that of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the variation in risk according to opioid dose, duration of action, and duration of use.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two statewide pharmaceutical benefit programs for persons aged 65 and older.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve thousand four hundred thirty-six initiators of opioids and 4,874 initiators of NSAIDs began treatment between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2006. Mean age at initiation of analgesia was 81; 85% of participants were female, and all had arthritis.

MEASUREMENTS

Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for several potential confounders, quantified fracture risk. Study outcomes were fractures of the hip, humerus or ulna, or wrist, identified using a combination of diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) and procedure (Common Procedural Terminology) codes.

RESULTS

There were 587 fracture events among the participants initiating opioids (120 fractures per 1,000 person-years) and 38 fracture events among participants initiating NSAIDs (25 fractures per 1,000 person-years) (hazard ratio (HR)=4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI)=3.5-6.9). Fracture risk was greater with higher opioid dose. Risk was greater for short-acting opioids (HR=5.1, 95% CI=3.7-7.1) than for long-acting opioids (HR=2.6, 95% CI=1.5-4.4), even in participants taking equianalgesic doses, with differential fracture risk apparent for the first 2 weeks after starting opioids but not thereafter.

CONCLUSION

Older people with arthritis who initiate therapy with opioids are more likely to experience a fracture than those who initiate NSAIDs. For the first 2 weeks after initiating opioid therapy, but not thereafter, short-acting opioids are associated with a greater risk of fracture than are long-acting opioids.

Extended-release formulations of tramadol in the treatment of chronic pain

INTRODUCTION

Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic available throughout the world. Its dual opioid and non-opioid mechanisms of action, favorable efficacy and safety clinical profiles and non-controlled regulatory status in most markets contribute to its widespread use. A drawback of the immediate-release formulation of tramadol (four-times-a-day dosing) might be addressed by an extended-release formulation. Extended-release formulations also can offer advantages in the management of chronic pain: convenience, reduced pill burden (possibly leading to improved compliance) and the attenuation of peaks and troughs in serum concentration (possibly leading to reduced adverse effects).

AREAS COVERED

The authors review tramadol's mechanisms of action and the clinical literature regarding the use of tramadol extended-release formulations for the management of conditions involving chronic pain, such as neuropathic pain syndromes, osteoarthritis and cancer pain.

EXPERT OPINION

Based on the literature cited, extended-release formulations of tramadol seem to offer a rational and important addition to the analgesic armamentarium. As is true for all such options, the benefits and risks must be assessed for each patient.

A comparison of long- and short-acting opioids for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain: tailoring therapy to meet patient needs

Management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) requires a comprehensive assessment of the patient, the institution of a structured treatment regimen, an ongoing reassessment of the painful condition and its response to therapy, and a continual appraisal of the patient's adherence to treatment. For many patients with CNCP, the analgesic regimen will include opioids. Physicians should consider the available evidence of efficacy, the routes of administration, and the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the various formulations as they relate to the temporal characteristics of the patient's pain. When making initial decisions, physicians should decide whether to prescribe a short-acting opioid (SAO) with a relatively quick onset of action and short duration of analgesic activity, a long-acting opioid (LAO) with a longer duration of analgesic action but a potentially longer onset of action, or both. Studies suggest that SAOs and LAOs are both effective for most types of CNCP. A review of published studies found no data to suggest that either SAOs or LAOs are generally more efficacious for treating any particular CNCP condition. The LAOs may provide more stable analgesia with less frequent dosing; however, opioid therapy should be tailored to the pain state and the individual patient, and SAOs may be appropriate for some patients with CNCP. MEDLINE and PubMed searches were conducted to locate relevant studies published from January 1975 to April 2008 using the following search terms: opioids, short-acting opioids, long-acting opioids, chronic pain, chronic pain AND opioids, and narcotics. English-only randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies were considered.

Influence of alcohol on the release of tramadol from 24-h controlled-release formulations during in vitro dissolution experiments

Recent warnings by regulatory bodies and a product recall by the FDA have generated much interest in the area of dose dumping from controlled-release opioid analgesic formulations when coingested with alcohol. It was the aim of this study to address this issue and in doing so, gain understanding on how alcohol-induced effects may be avoided. In this study, tramadol release from Ultram ER tablets and T-long capsules was significantly increased in the presence of ethanol. Conversely, a decrease in the rate of tramadol release was seen from Tridural extended-release tablets in the presence of alcohol.

A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of the efficacy and safety of oral controlled-release tramadol and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release (CR) tramadol (Zytram XL, Purdue Pharma, Canada) and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Patients underwent analgesic washout for two to seven days before random assignment to 150 mg daily of CR tramadol or placebo, and were titrated weekly to 200 mg, 300 mg or a maximum of 400 mg once daily. After four weeks, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment for another four weeks. Plain acetaminophen was provided as a rescue analgesic. All patients who completed the crossover study were eligible to receive open label CR tramadol for six months.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven of 100 randomly assigned patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR tramadol resulted in significantly lower visual analogue scale pain intensity scores (37.4+/-23.9 versus 45.1+/-24.3, P=0.0009). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index subscale scores for pain (189.0+/-105.0 versus 230.0+/-115.4; P=0.0001) and physical function (632.4+/-361.3 versus 727.4+/-383.4; P=0.0205) were significantly better with CR tramadol. Total pain and disability (22.8+/-14.5 versus 27.2+/-14.8; P=0.0004), and overall pain and sleep (104.7+/-98.0 versus 141.0+/-108.2; P=0.0005) scores in the Pain and Sleep Questionnaire were significantly lower for CR tramadol. Short-form 36 Health Survey scores were significantly better during CR tramadol treatment for the pain index (38.8+/-10.8 versus 35.6+/-9.0; P=0.0100), general health perception (46.5+/-11.2 versus 44.4+/-11.6; P=0.0262), vitality (43.1+/-13.2 versus 40.2+/-13.7; P=0.0255) and overall physical components (40.8+/-8.9 versus 37.8+/-7.7; P=0.0002). CR tramadol treatment was preferred by 55.8% of patients (P=0.0005) versus 20.8% and 23.4% of patients who chose placebo or had no preference, respectively. These improvements were sustained for up to six months, and 86.5% of patients reported at least moderate benefit from CR tramadol during long-term treatment.

CONCLUSION

CR tramadol is effective for the management of painful osteoarthritis.

Once-daily, controlled-release tramadol and sustained-release diclofenac relieve chronic pain due to osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The present study was a randomized, parallel, double-blind comparison between controlled-release (CR) tramadol and sustained-release (SR) diclofenac in patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hips and/or knees.

METHODS

Patients with at least moderate pain intensity, and having received analgesics over the past three months, underwent a two- to seven-day washout of current analgesics before initiation of 200 mg CR tramadol or 75 mg SR diclofenac. During the eight-week study, patients returned to the clinic biweekly. CR tramadol doses were titrated to a maximum of 200 mg, 300 mg or 400 mg per day. SR diclofenac doses were titrated to 75 mg or 100 mg once daily, or 75 mg twice a day based on pain relief and the presence of side effects. For rescue analgesic, patients took acetaminophen as needed, up to 650 mg three times a day.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients on CR tramadol and 52 patients on SR diclofenac were evaluable. Significant improvements from prestudy treatment were shown for visual analogue scale pain (P=0.0001), stiffness (P<0.0005) and physical function (P=0.0001) scores for both treatments. There were no significant differences between the two treatments in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities subscales, overall pain, pain and sleep, or the clinical effectiveness evaluation. Overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups, with more opioid-related adverse events with CR tramadol, and two serious adverse events occurring with the use of SR diclofenac.

CONCLUSIONS

CR tramadol is as effective as SR diclofenac in the treatment of pain due to knee or hip osteoarthritis, with the potential for fewer of the serious side effects that characterize nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.

Adverse drug interactions involving common prescription and over-the-counter analgesic agents

BACKGROUND

Eight analgesic preparations with approved indications for acute pain were among the top 200 drugs prescribed in the United States in 2006. In addition, an estimated 36 million Americans use over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics daily. Given this volume of use, it is not surprising that a number of drug interactions involving analgesic drugs have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

This article examines the pharmacologic factors that enhance the clinical relevance of potential drug interactions and reviews the literature on drug interactions involving the most commonly used analgesic preparations in the United States.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted for English-language articles published between January 1967 and July 2007. Among the search terms were drug interactions, acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, NSAIDs, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, tramadol, OTC analgesics, alcohol, ethanol, antihypertensive drugs, methotrexate, warfarin, SSRIs, paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, serotonin syndrome, MAOIs, and overdose. Controlled clinical trials, case-control studies, and case reports were included in the review.

RESULTS

A number of case reports and well-controlled clinical trials were identified that provided evidence of the relatively well known drug-drug interactions between prescription/OTC NSAIDs and alcohol, antihypertensive drugs, high-dose methotrexate, and lithium, as well as between frequently prescribed narcotics and other central nervous system depressants. In contrast, the ability of recent alcohol ingestion to exacerbate the hepatotoxic potential of therapeutic doses of acetaminophen is not supported by either case reports or clinical research. Use of ibuprofen according to OTC guidelines in patients taking cardioprotective doses of aspirin does not appear to interfere with aspirin's antiplatelet activity, whereas chronic prescription use of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs may interfere. Low-dose aspirin intake appears to abolish the gastroprotective effects of cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors, including celecoxib. There is evidence of other less well known and potentially clinically significant drug-drug interactions, including the ability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to inhibit the analgesic activity of tramadol and codeine through inhibition of their metabolic activation, to induce serotonin syndrome when used chronically in the presence of high doses of tramadol through synergistic serotonergic action, and to increase the potential for gastrointestinal bleeding associated with NSAID therapy through additive or supra-additive antiplatelet activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the widespread use of analgesic agents, the overall incidence of serious drug-drug interactions involving these agents has been relatively low. The most serious interactions usually involved other interacting drugs with low therapeutic indices or chronic and/or high-dose use of an analgesic and the interacting drug.