Safety and Tolerability of Once-Daily OROS(®) hydromorphone extended-release in opioid-tolerant adults with moderate-to-severe chronic cancer and noncancer pain: pooled analysis of 11 clinical studies

Review of Opioid Abuse-Deterrent Formulations: Impact and Barriers to Access

The misuse and abuse of opioid analgesics continue to pose a serious public health concern, but for some patients, opioids remain an important analgesic option. Extended-release (ER) opioid formulations are effective for treating chronic pain and are supported by multiple 12-week efficacy studies. ER opioids often contain a high opioid content, and similar to immediate-release (IR) formulations, are subject to abuse, misuse, and diversion. Unintentional misuse may also occur when ER formulations are manipulated for medicinal administration, such as crushing a dose for easier oral intake. As part of a multipronged strategy designed to fight the opioid epidemic, abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) were developed to deter misuse, abuse, and diversion of opioids by making manipulation more difficult and nonoral routes of administration less rewarding. Although ADF opioids have been shown to decrease rates of abuse and diversion, they are not equally effective in terms of deterring manipulation for abuse or misuse. Xtampza ER utilizes DETERx technology, which allows it to retain ER characteristics when chewed or crushed, making it the only ER opioid without a boxed warning against these types of manipulation. OxyContin was also developed as an ADF but uses RESISTEC technology, making the tablet hard to crush and viscous in aqueous solutions. ADF utilization has been hampered by patient access issues, including high prices due to lack of insurance coverage. Postmarket real-world studies demonstrate lower rates of abuse, misuse, and diversion for ADF ER opioids compared with non-ADF formulations. However, similar studies comparing abuse-related effectiveness and health care costs for ADF opioids are warranted if clinicians are expected to utilize these potentially safer opioid formulations. These studies would support further education surrounding the benefits and utilization of ADFs and manipulation potential of different ADFs.

Abuse Deterrent Formulations in Constraining the Abuse Potential of Prescription Medicines: A Myth or Truth

BACKGROUND

Diverse pain killers used for the management of varied categories of pain are being misused in order to have extreme pleasant effect by a large number of populations. To overcome the misuse of prescription drugs, regulatory bodies have given stress on development of abuse resistance.

METHODS

We studied numerous literatures: (1) Research and review papers including the guidelines for pain management, abuse, and abuse deterrence; (2) Description and categorization of pain along with the management approaches; (3) advantages and disadvantages of the abuse deterrent formulations were described.

RESULTS

Abuse deterrent formulations are the contemporary remedial treatment for pain with reduced prospects of being abused. But these comprise the huge expense in contrast to the generic drugs as well as the non-deterrent branded equivalents.

CONCLUSION

Many challenges are faced throughout the development of abuse deterrent formulations. These formulations displayed substantial drop in abuse incidences but it may lead to other modes of abuse which may prove more harmful for the users.

Drug Formulation Advances in Extended-Release Medications for Pain Control

Prescription opioid abusers frequently tamper with opioid tablets in order to either accelerate the delivery of the euphoria-inducing agent or to alter the route of delivery, such that it may be delivered intranasally or intravenously. As one strategy to combat the opioid epidemic in the USA, drug manufacturers have begun to explore formulations which resist such tampering by abusers. Techniques to prevent tampering consist of physical barriers to crushing, chewing, and drug extraction, or aversive or antagonistic agents, incorporated within the formulation itself. Recent years have seen the development of numerous extended-release opioid agents, which are described in this review. This article provides a comprehensive summary of the pharmacology, benefits, risks, and processes behind the development of currently available extended-release opioid drugs, as well as a glimpse into promising future formulations.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of people with cancer categorise their pain as moderate to severe, with between 75% and 90% of people with cancer experiencing pain that they describe as having a major impact on their daily life. Epidemiological studies suggest that approximately 15% of people with cancer pain fail to experience acceptable pain relief with conventional management. Uncontrolled pain can lead to physical and psychological distress and can, consequently, have a drastic effect on people's quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 2016. There were no language, document type or publication status limitations applied in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo or other active pain medication for cancer pain in both adults and children. The four main outcomes selected have previously been identified as important to people with cancer; pain no worse than mild pain, and the impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite and thirst. We did not consider physician-, nurse- or carer-reported measures of pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We used a random-effects model and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. A meta-analysis was not completed on any of the primary outcomes in this review due to the lack of data. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (604 adult participants), which compared hydromorphone to oxycodone (two studies) or morphine (two studies). Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, rated unclear due to unknown status of blinding of outcome assessment; we rated three studies at high risk of bias for potential conflict of interest. Data for 504 participants were available for analysis. We collected data on endpoint participant-reported pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean ± standard deviation (SD): hydromorphone 28.86 ± 17.08, n = 19; oxycodone 30.30 ± 25.33, n = 12; scale from 0 to 100 with higher score indicating worse pain), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24 hours worst pain subscale (mean ± SD: hydromorphone 3.5 ± 2.9, n = 99; morphine 4.3 ± 3.0, n = 101, scale from 0 to 10 with higher score indicating worse pain). The data demonstrated a similar effect between groups with both comparisons. The pain intensity data showed that participants in all four trials achieved no worse than mild pain. There were several adverse events: some were the expected opioid adverse effects such as nausea, constipation and vomiting; others were not typical opioid adverse effects (for example, decreased appetite, dizziness and pyrexia, as shown in Table 1 in the main review), but generally showed no difference between groups. There were three deaths in the morphine group during the trial period, considered to be due to disease progression and unrelated to the drug. Three trials had over 10% dropout, but the reason and proportion of dropout was balanced between groups. The overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. There were no data available for children or for several participant-important outcomes, including participant-reported pain relief and treatment impact on consciousness, appetite or thirst.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicated little difference between hydromorphone and other opioids in terms of analgesic efficacy. Data gathered in this review showed that hydromorphone had a similar effect on participant-reported pain intensity as reported for oxycodone and morphine. Participants generally achieved no worse than mild pain after taking hydromorphone, which is comparable with the other drugs. It produced a consistent analgesic effect through the night and could be considered for use in people with cancer pain experiencing sleep disturbance. However, the overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. This review only included four studies with limited sample size and a range of study designs. Data for some important outcomes, such as impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite or thirst, were not available. Therefore, we were unable to demonstrate superiority or inferiority of hydromorphone in comparison with other analgesics for these outcomes. We recommend that further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

The Clinical Applications of Extended-Release Abuse-Deterrent Opioids

Opioids are the mainstay for treatment of acute pain and cancer pain, and also have a role in the treatment of chronic non-malignant pain. There has been, however, a growing public health problem stemming from the misuse of opioid analgesics leading to serious consequences. To deter abuse, new formulations of extended-release opioid analgesics and tamper-resistant opioids have recently been developed. The concept of abuse-deterrent extended-release opioids is relatively new and, although abuse may not be completely prevented, the utilization of such abuse-deterrent extended-release opioids could reduce this risk. Extended-release abuse-deterrent opioids have been found to have important clinical applications in cancer, acute pain, and chronic non-malignant pain for analgesia control with decreased incidence of tampering and abuse. In this review, different extended-release formulations of opioids available for clinical applications are presented with descriptions of the formulations, their physical properties, and the clinical studies performed to provide physicians with a better understanding of their uses.

Clinical Usefulness of Hydromorphone-OROS in Improving Sleep Disturbances in Korean Cancer Patients: A Multicenter, Prospective, Open-Label Study

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of hydromorphone-OROS (HM-OROS) in reducing sleep disturbance and relieving cancer pain.

Materials and Methods

One hundred twenty cancer patients with pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] ≥ 4) and sleep disturbance (NRS ≥ 4) were evaluated. The initial HM-OROS dosing was based on previous opioid dose (HM-OROS:oral morphine=1:5). Dose adjustment of the study drug was permitted at the investigator’s discretion. Pain intensity, number of breakthrough pain episodes, and quality of sleep were evaluated.

Results

A total of 120 patients received at least one dose of HM-OROS; 74 of them completed the final assessment. Compared to the previous opioids, HM-OROS reduced the average pain NRS from 5.3 to 4.1 (p < 0.01), worst pain NRS from 6.7 to 5.4 (p < 0.01), sleep disturbance NRS from 5.9 to 4.1 (p < 0.01), incidence of breakthrough pain at night from 2.63 to 1.53 times (p < 0.001), and immediate-release opioids use for the management of breakthrough pain from 0.83 to 0.39 times per night (p = 0.001). Of the 74 patients who completed the treatment, 83.7% indicated that they preferred HM-OROS to the previous medication. The adverse events (AEs) were somnolence, asthenia, constipation, dizziness, and nausea.

Conclusion

HM-OROS was efficacious in reducing cancer pain and associated sleep disturbances. The AEs were manageable.