Oxymorphone Extended-Release Tablets Relieve Moderate to Severe Pain and Improve Physical Function in Osteoarthritis: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled Phase III Trial

Narcotic analgesics

There is documentation of the use of opium derived products in the ancient history of the Assyrians: the Egyptians; in the sixth century AD by the Roman Dioscorides; and by Avicenna (980-1037). Reference to opium like products is made by Paracelsus and by Shakespeare. Charles Louis Derosne and Fredrich Wilhelm Adam Serturner isolated morphine from raw opium in 1802 and 1806 respectively, and it was Sertürner who named the substance morphine, after Morpheus, the Greek God of dreams. By the middle 1800s, Opium and related opioid derived products were the source of a major addiction in USA, and to some extent in the United Kingdom. Opioid products are of major therapeutic value in the treatment of pain from injury, post surgery, intractable pain conditions, and some forms of terminal cancer.

Effects of Analgesics on Self-Reported Physical Function and Walking Ability in People With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hip and knee osteoarthritis are among the leading causes of global disability, and one of the main aims of the management is to improve physical function. The objective of this review was to investigate the effect of analgesics on physical function (self-reported physical function and walking ability).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the findings were performed. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of analgesics on self-reported physical function and walking ability were included. Analgesics were orally administered acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or opioids. Data were pooled in a random-effects model, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was calculated (SMDs: 0.2-0.4 = small, 0.5-0.7 = medium, and ≥0.8 = large effect sizes). The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

A total of 1454 studies were identified, of which 33 were included. On self-reported physical function, the results showed low- to moderate-quality evidence for a small beneficial effect of acetaminophen (SMD = -0.13 [95% CI = -0.26 to 0.00]), NSAIDs (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI = -0.37 to -0.27]), or opioids (SMD = -0.20 [95% CI = -0.32 to -0.09]). There was moderate-quality evidence for a small effect of NSAIDs on pain during walking (SMD = -0.34 [95% CI = -0.45 to -0.23]).

CONCLUSION

In people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence for small beneficial effects of analgesics on physical function and walking ability.

IMPACT

Analgesics may improve physical function by reducing pain during exercise and walking.

The STAR care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective intervention found to improve pain outcomes over one year for people with chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). We followed up STAR trial participants to evaluate the longer-term clinical- and cost-effectiveness of this care pathway.

METHODS

Participants who remained enrolled on the trial at one year were contacted by post at a median of four years after randomisation and invited to complete a questionnaire comprising the same outcomes collected during the trial. We captured pain (co-primary outcome using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales; scored 0-10, best to worst), function, neuropathic characteristics, emotional aspects of pain, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction. Electronic hospital informatics data on hospital resource use for the period of one to four years post-randomisation were collected from participating hospital sites. The economic evaluation took an National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective, with a four-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Overall, 226/337 (67%) of participants returned completed follow-up questionnaires, yielding adjusted between-group differences in BPI means of -0.42 (95% confidence interval, CI (-1.07, 0.23); p = 0.20) for pain severity and - 0.64 (95% CI -1.41, 0.12); p = 0.10) for pain interference. Analysis using a multiple imputed data set (n = 337) showed an incremental net monetary benefit in favour of the STAR care pathway of £3,525 (95% CI -£990 to £8,039) at a £20,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, leading to a probability that the intervention was cost-effective of 0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of the longer-term benefits of the STAR care pathway are uncertain due to attrition of trial participants; however, there is a suggestion of some degree of sustained clinical benefit at four years. The care pathway remained cost-effective at four years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 92,545,361.

Discontinuation and nonpublication analysis of chronic pain randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain.

Methods

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered.

Results

In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]).

Conclusion

The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.

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.

Conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A review of the literature

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common chronic debilitating disease with an estimated prevalence of 23.9% in the general adult population. The condition is characterised by joint pain, functional impairment and significant reduction in quality of life. Management for KOA can generally be divided into conservative (non-operative) and surgical (operative) measures. Conservative management broadly compromises pharmacological and non-pharmacological options and is conventionally the first line treatment to avoid or delay the need for surgical management. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the current recommendations, efficacy and safety profile of different conservative treatments through a review of the literature.

To what extent are we confident that tapentadol induces less constipation and other side effects than the other opioids in chronic pain patients? a confidence evaluation in network meta-analysis

Background

A confidence evaluation helps to make informed decisions about the results of meta-analyses. The goal of this work is to perform a confidence evaluation of results of a network meta-analysis (NMA) on the digestive side effects of tapentadol in patients with chronic pain.

Methods

An updated search in PubMed/Medline and Web of Science search until March 2020 was done to perform pairwise meta-analyses with NMA using random-effect models and confidence in network meta-analysis (CiNeMA) for the confidence analysis.

Results

Twenty-five studies were included in the final analyses. Pairwise and indirect comparisons showed a reduced risk of constipation with tapentadol compared to oxycodone. The confidence evaluation did not raise any concerns in terms of confidence for the oxycodone versus tapentadol comparisons. The oxycodone-naloxone versus tapentadol comparisons showed some concerns, particularly in terms of imprecision and incoherence. Regarding the overall risk of any side effects, the confidence evaluation showed a major concern regarding imprecision, but not for the comparison between tapentadol and oxycodone. However, this comparison showed a major heterogeneity.

Discussion and conclusions

A confidence evaluation in meta-analysis on the effect of tapentadol compared to other opioids in chronic pain showed possible imprecision, heterogeneity and/or incoherence. However, with a high level of confidence, tapentadol was associated with a lower incidence of constipation than oxycodone. Confidence analyses can help to get more information from meta-analyses.

Is There Any Role for Opioids in the Management of Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Opioids have long been prescribed for chronic pain conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). However, there is little information about their temporal efficacy, or differences in efficacy and safety between opioids with strong versus weak/intermediate μ opioid receptor-binding affinity. To explore these research questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with knee and/or hip OA.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2019 and sought unpublished data. Placebo-controlled RCTs of oral opioids in patients with knee and/or hip OA were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for pain and function at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Subgroup analyses for strong and weak/intermediate opioids were conducted. Meta-regression was performed to assess the impact of dosage (morphine equivalency) on pain relief. Risk ratios were calculated for safety at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs (9,283 participants) were included. Opioids demonstrated small benefits on pain at each time point, with SMDs ranging from -0.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.38, -0.17) to -0.19 (95% CI -0.29, -0.08); similar effects were observed for function. Strong opioids demonstrated consistently inferior efficacy and overall worse safety than weak/intermediate opioids. Meta-regression revealed that incremental pain relief achieved beyond 20-50-mg doses was not substantial in the context of increased safety risks.

CONCLUSION

Opioids provide minimal relief of OA symptoms within a 12-week period, and they are known to cause discomfort in a majority of patients. Clinicians and policy makers should reconsider the utility of opioids in the management of OA.

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.

Model-based Meta-analysis to Compare Primary Efficacy-endpoint, Efficacy-time Course, Safety, and Tolerability of Opioids Used in the Management of Osteoarthritic Pain in Humans

BACKGROUND

Despite recent therapeutic advances, osteoarthritis continues to be a challenging health problem, especially in the elderly population. Opioids, which are potent analgesics, have shown an extraordinary ability to reduce intense pain in many osteoarthritic clinical trials; however, there is an increased need for a study to integrate the reported outcomes and utilize them to achieve a better understanding. Herein, efficacy and safety aspects of opioids used to manage osteoarthritic pain were assessed and compared using a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA).

METHODS

To perform the analysis, a comprehensive database consisting of pain relief compounds with information on summary-level of efficacy over time, adverse events and dropout rates was compiled from multiple sources. MBMA was conducted using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach.

RESULTS

The results of primary efficacy endpoint analysis indicated that the doses of oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tramadol required to produce 50% of the maximum effect were 47, 84, and 247 mg per day, respectively. Efficacytime course analysis showed that opioids had rapid time to efficacy onset, suggesting potentially powerful painrelieving effects. It was also found that gastrointestinal adverse events were the most opioid-associated and dosedependent adverse effects. In addition, the analysis revealed that opioids were well-tolerated at low to moderate doses.

CONCLUSION

This MBMA provides clinically meaningful insights into the efficacy and safety profiles of oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tramadol. Resultantly, the presented framework analysis can have an impact in the clinic on drug development where it can guide: the optimization of doses of opioids required to manage osteoarthritic pain; the making of precise key decisions for the positioning of new drugs, and; the design of more efficient trials.

Safety of Opioids in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

We aimed to assess the safety of opioids in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with opioids in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, renal and urinary disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs and drug-related AEs. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once).

Results

Database searches identified 2189 records, from which, after exclusions, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. More disorders of the lower GI tract (constipation, fecaloma) were reported with both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (ER) formulations of opioids versus placebo: IR opioids (relative risk [RR] 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42–7.89); ER opioids (RR 4.22, 95% CI 3.44–5.17). The risk of upper GI AEs increased fourfold with ER opioids compared with placebo (RR 4.03, 95% CI 0.87–18.62), and the risk of nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite increased four- to fivefold with both formulations: IR opioids (RR 3.39, 95% CI 2.22–5.18); ER opioids (RR 4.03, 95% CI 3.37–4.83). An increased risk of dermatologic AEs (rash and pruritis; IR opioids: RR 3.60, 95% CI 1.74–7.43; ER opioids: RR 7.87, 95% CI 5.20–11.89) and central nervous system disorders (dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, insomnia; IR opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.90–4.02; ER opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.19–3.47) was found with all opioid formulations versus placebo.

Conclusions

Our results confirm that there are considerable safety and tolerability issues surrounding the use of opioids in OA, and support the recommendation of international and national guidelines to use opioids in OA after other analgesic options, and for short time periods.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-019-00666-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.

RESULTS

Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Use and Misuse of Opioids in Chronic Pain

The prescribing of opioid analgesics for pain management-particularly for management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP)-has increased more than fourfold in the United States since the mid-1990s. Yet there is mounting evidence that opioids have only limited effectiveness in the management of CNCP, and the increased availability of prescribed opioids has contributed to upsurges in opioid-related addiction cases and overdose deaths. These concerns have led to critical revisiting and modification of prior pain management practices (e.g., guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), but the much-needed changes in clinical practice will be facilitated by a better understanding of the pharmacology and behavioral effects of opioids that underlie both their therapeutic effects (analgesia) and their adverse effects (addiction and overdose). With these goals in mind, this review first presents an overview of the contemporary problems associated with opioid management of CNCP and the related public health issues of opioid diversion, overdose, and addiction. It then discusses the pharmacology underlying the therapeutic and main adverse effects of opioids and its implications for clinical management of CNCP within the framework of recent clinical guidelines for prescribing opioids in the management of CNCP.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Transdermal Opioid Analgesics for Musculoskeletal Pain in Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials

This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using opioid analgesics in older adults with musculoskeletal pain. We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS for randomized controlled trials with mean population age of 60 years or older, comparing the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics with placebo for musculoskeletal pain conditions. Reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (when different scales were used across trials), mean differences and odds ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regressions were carried out to assess the influence of opioid analgesic daily dose and treatment duration on our main outcomes. We included 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials in the meta-analysis. Opioid analgesics had a small effect on decreasing pain intensity (standardized mean difference = -.27; 95% CI = -.33 to -.20) and improving function (standardized mean difference = -.27, 95% CI = -.36 to -.18), which was not associated with daily dose or treatment duration. The odds of adverse events were 3 times higher (odds ratio = 2.94; 95% CI = 2.33-3.72) and the odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events 4 times higher (odds ratio = 4.04; 95% CI = 3.10-5.25) in patients treated with opioid analgesics. The results show that in older adults suffering from musculoskeletal pain, using opioid analgesics had only a small effect on pain and function at the cost of a higher odds of adverse events and treatment discontinuation. For this specific population, the opioid-related risks may outweigh the benefits.

PERSPECTIVE

The systematic review shows that, in older adults suffering from musculoskeletal conditions, opioid analgesics have only a small effect on pain and disability. Conversely, this population is at higher risk of adverse events. The results may reflect age-related physiological changes in pain processing, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.

Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: A Clinical Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To formulate timely evidence-based guidelines for the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

SETTING

Constipation is a major untoward effect of opioids. Increasing prescription of opioids has correlated to increased incidence of opioid-induced constipation. However, the inhibitory effects of opioids are not confined to the colon, but also affect higher segments of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to the coining of the term "opioid-induced bowel dysfunction."

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to identify and categorize relevant papers. A series of statements were formulated and justified by a comment, then labeled with the degree of agreement and their level of evidence as judged by the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) system.

RESULTS

From a list of 10,832 potentially relevant studies, 33 citations were identified for review. Screening the reference lists of the pertinent papers identified additional publications. Current definitions, prevalence, and mechanism of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction were reviewed, and a treatment algorithm and statements regarding patient management were developed to provide guidance on clinical best practice in the management of patients with opioid-induced constipation and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, more insight has been gained in the pathophysiology of this "entity"; new treatment approaches have been developed, but guidelines on clinical best practice are still lacking. Current knowledge is insufficient regarding management of the opioid side effects on the upper gastrointestinal tract, but recommendations can be derived from what we know at present.

Tolerability of Opioid Analgesia for Chronic Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis

Aim of this study was to study the tolerability of opioid analgesia by performing a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated effectiveness of opioids for the management of chronic pain. Research articles reporting outcomes of RCT/s comparing 2 or more opioid analgesics for the management of chronic pain were obtained by database search. Bayesian NMAs were performed to combine direct comparisons between treatments with that of indirect simulated evidence. Study endpoints were: incidence of adverse events, incidence of constipation, trial withdrawal rate, and patient satisfaction with treatment. Outcomes were also compared with conventional meta-analyses. Thirty-two studies investigating 10 opioid drugs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Tapentadol treatment was top-ranking owing to lower incidence of overall adverse events, constipation, and least trial withdrawal rate. Tapentadol was followed by oxycodone-naloxone combination in providing better tolerability and less trial withdrawal rate. Patient satisfaction was found to be higher with oxycodone-naloxone followed by fentanyl and tapentadol. These results were in agreement with those achieved with conventional meta-analyses. Tapentadol and oxycodone-naloxone are found to exhibit better tolerability characteristics in comparison with other opioid drugs for the management of chronic pain and are associated with low trial withdrawal rate and better patient satisfaction.

[Opioids for noncancer pain in the elderly]

BACKGROUND

Opioids are increasingly used in the elderly. Side effects differ compared to other analgesics.

PURPOSE

In this review article, special aspects about using opioids for noncancer pain in older people and in geriatric patients are identified.

CURRENT SITUATION

So far randomized controlled trials for the indication of and comparison between various opioids have been performed in middle-aged patients and not exclusively in geriatric patients or elderly (> 75 years). Furthermore, the evidence for multimorbid elderly patients with respect to side effects is also very poor.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The indication for opioid therapy should be narrow. The patient and their caregivers must be provided patient information regarding opioid therapy. The principle "start low, go slow" is highly recommended. To reduce the risk of falls, longer acting opioids should be used and short acting opioids should be avoided. Everyday relevant negative effects on cognition are possible in opioid use and have to be observed. As recommended in the recently published German guideline for long-term use of opioids in noncancer pain a critical check after 3 months and in case of dosing over 120 mg morphine equivalents is advisable, especially for older patients. Liver and kidney function and drug interactions have to be taken into consideration like in every age group.

[Opioids in chronic noncancer pain-are opioids different? A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, tolerability and safety in randomized head-to-head comparisons of opioids of at least four week's duration]

BACKGROUND

We updated a systematic review on the comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids and of their routes of application in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNCP. We included randomized head-to-head comparisons of opioids (opioid of the sponsor of the study versus standard opioid) of at least 4 week's duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The quality of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs with 6748 participants. Median study duration was 15 weeks (range 4-56 weeks). Hydromorphone, morphine, oxymorphone and tapentadol were compared to oxycodone; fentanyl to morphine and buprenorphine to tramadol. In pooled analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups of opioids in terms of mean pain reduction (low-quality evidence), the patient global impression to be much or very much improved outcome (low-quality evidence), physical function (very low-quality evidence), serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence) or mortality (moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference between transdermal and oral application of opioids in terms of mean pain reduction, physical function, serious adverse events, mortality (all low-quality evidence) or dropout due to adverse events (very low-quality).

CONCLUSION

Pooled head-to-head comparisons of opioids (opioid of the sponsor of the study versus standard opioid) provide no rational for preferring one opioid and/or administration route over another in the therapy of patients with CNCP. The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").

Oral Oxymorphone for Pain Management

Objective

To describe the pharmacology, safety and efficacy, and rationale for use of oral oxymorphone for the management of acute and chronic moderate-to-severe pain.

Data Sources

A PubMed/MEDLINE search (1966-March 2007) was conducted using the following terms: oral oxymorphone, oxymorphone, EN 3202, EN 3203, Opana, and Opana ER. Manufacturer-provided data (package inserts) and abstracts presented at the American Pain Society meetings (2003–2006) were also reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Human studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral oxymorphone in pain management were considered; animal and non–English-language data were excluded.

Data Synthesis

Oral oxymorphone is a semisynthetic opioid agonist that is specific for the μ-opioid receptor and approved to treat both acute and chronic pain. Unlike other opioids, such as oxycodone, oxymorphone does not bind to the κ-opioid receptor. Due to extensive liver metabolism, oral oxymorphone is contraindicated in patients with moderate-to-severe hepatic impairment; however, no clinically significant CYP3A4, 2C9, or 2D6 mediated drug-drug interactions have been noted. Elderly patients may experience a 40% increase in plasma concentrations, while renally impaired patients may have a 57–65% increase in bioavailability. Food can increase the rate of absorption by as much as 50%, necessitating dosing either 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal. Oxymorphone's primary adverse effects are similar to those of other opioids: nausea, vomiting, pruritus, pyrexia, and constipation.

Conclusions

Oxymorphone is an oral therapeutic option approved for the treatment of acute and chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Oxymorphone has a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of other commonly used pure opioids (morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone). Like oxycodone and morphine, oxymorphone also has immediate-release and extended-re lease formulations. Since cost alone is not yet favorable for oxymorphone over oxycodone or morphine, further studies of comparative efficacy targeting potential advantages of oxymorphone over other opioids are necessary before considering it for addition to a formulary.

Comparable effects of exercise and analgesics for pain secondary to knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of trials included in Cochrane systematic reviews

AIM

Evidence of comparative effectiveness of different treatment approaches is important for clinical decision-making, yet absent for most recommended treatments of knee osteoarthritis pain. The objective of this study was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of exercise versus orally administered analgesics for pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of systematic reviews was searched for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies comparing exercise or analgesics with a control group (placebo or usual care) and with pain as an outcome. Individual study estimates were identified and effect sizes were calculated from group differences. We combined study-level effects on pain with a random effects meta-analysis and compared effect sizes between exercise trials and trials with analgesic interventions.

RESULTS

We included six Cochrane reviews (four pharmacology, two exercise). From these, 54 trials were eligible (20 pharmacology, 34 exercise), with 9806 participants (5627 pharmacology, 4179 exercise). The pooled effect size of pharmacological pain interventions was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.23-0.59) and for exercise 0.46 standardized mean difference (95% CI: 0.34-0.59). There was no statistically significant difference between the two types of intervention (difference: 0.06 standardized mean difference [95% CI: -0.28-0.16; p = 0.61]).

CONCLUSION

This meta-epidemiological study provides indirect evidence that for knee osteoarthritis pain, the effects from exercise and from oral analgesics are comparable. These results may support shared decision-making where a patient for some reason is unable to exercise or who consider exercise as unviable and analgesics as a more feasible choice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42013006924.

Fighting insomnia and battling lethargy: the yin and yang of palliative care

There is an interdependent relationship between insomnia and fatigue in the medical literature, but both remain distinct entities. Insomnia entails problematic sleep initiation, maintenance, or restoration with an accompanying decrease in perceived daytime function. Lethargy is a symptom that has a wide differential diagnosis that heavily overlaps with cancer-related fatigue; however, insomnia may contribute to worsened fatigue and lethargy in cancer patients. Insomnia is a major risk factor for mood disturbances such as depression, which may also contribute to lethargy in this at-risk population. The pathophysiology of fatigue and insomnia is discussed in this review, including their differential diagnoses as well as the emerging understanding of the roles of neurotransmitters, branched-chain amino acids, and inflammatory cytokines. Treatment approaches for insomnia and fatigue are also discussed and reviewed, including the role of hypnotics, psychotropics, hormonal agents, and alternative therapies.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

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.

Update on prescription extended-release opioids and appropriate patient selection

Chronic pain is largely underdiagnosed, often undertreated, and expected to increase as the American population ages. Many patients with chronic pain require long-term treatment with analgesic medications, and pain management may involve use of prescription opioids for patients whose pain is inadequately controlled through other therapies. Yet because of the potential for abuse and addiction, many clinicians hesitate to treat their patients with pain with potentially beneficial agents. Finding the right opioid for the right patient is the first - often complicated - step. Ensuring that patients continue to properly use the medication while achieving therapeutic analgesic effects is the long-term goal. Combined with careful patient selection and ongoing monitoring, new formulations using extended-release technologies incorporating tamper-resistant features may help combat the growing risk of abuse or misuse, which will hopefully reduce individual suffering and the societal burden of chronic pain. The objective of this manuscript is to provide an update on extended-release opioids and to provide clinicians with a greater understanding of which patients might benefit from these new opioid formulations and how to integrate the recommended monitoring for abuse potential into clinical practice.

Long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain: unproven efficacy and neglected safety?

BACKGROUND

For the past 30 years, opioids have been used to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. This study tests the following hypotheses: (1) there is no strong evidence-based foundation for the conclusion that long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain is effective; and (2) the main problem associated with the safety of such treatment - assessment of the risk of addiction - has been neglected.

METHODS

Scientometric analysis of the articles representing clinical research in this area was performed to assess (1) the quality of presented evidence (type of study); and (2) the duration of the treatment phase. The sufficiency of representation of addiction was assessed by counting the number of articles that represent (1) editorials; (2) articles in the top specialty journals; and (3) articles with titles clearly indicating that the addiction-related safety is involved (topic-in-title articles).

RESULTS

Not a single randomized controlled trial with opioid treatment lasting >3 months was found. All studies with a duration of opioid treatment ≥6 months (n = 16) were conducted without a proper control group. Such studies cannot provide the consistent good-quality evidence necessary for a strong clinical recommendation. There were profound differences in the number of addiction articles related specifically to chronic nonmalignant pain patients and to opioid addiction in general. An inadequate number of chronic pain-related publications were observed with all three types of counted articles: editorials, articles in the top specialty journals, and topic-in-title articles.

CONCLUSION

There is no strong evidence-based foundation for the conclusion that long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain is effective. The above identified signs indicating neglect of addiction associated with the opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain were present.

Primary care considerations of the pharmacokinetics and clinical use of extended-release opioids in treating patients with chronic noncancer pain

Extended-release (ER) opioid analgesics are associated with prolonged analgesia and greater stability in pain relief compared with immediate-release formulations. Due to the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of ER opioids and additional clinical advantages, the use of ER opioids for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer pain has increased. Primary care physicians are the major prescribers of opioids and require an in-depth understanding of the risks and benefits of opioid treatment in pain management. With appropriate knowledge of PK profiles and clinical outcomes of commonly prescribed ER opioids, primary care physicians can safely and effectively manage this patient population. In addition, the development of ER opioids with abuse-deterrent features marks an important milestone in potentially reducing abuse and may be factored into the clinical decision-making process. This article provides a comprehensive review of the PK and clinical effects of ER opioids and discusses novel ER opioid formulations that may limit abuse potential.

Efficacy and safety of flupirtine modified release for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of SUPREME, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group phase IV study

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate non-inferior/superior efficacy of flupirtine modified release (MR) compared with tramadol/placebo for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain (LBP).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, active-/placebo-controlled double-dummy multicenter study, performed in 31 German study centers. LBP patients (n = 363) with moderate pain intensity were randomized 1:1:1 to receive flupirtine MR 400 mg, tramadol extended release (ER) 200 mg, or matching placebo (each given OD in the evening) over 4 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2009-013268-38.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint was change from baseline in the LBP intensity index (LBPIX; 11-point NRS) at week 4; last observation carried forward was used to impute missing scores.

RESULTS

Least square (LS) mean ± SD LBPIX changes from baseline at week 4 were clinically significant for all three treatment groups of the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) population (n = 326/276): placebo (n = 110/96): -1.81 ± 1.65/-1.77 ± 1.59; flupirtine MR (n = 109/95): -2.23 ± 1.73/-2.28 ± 1.68; and tramadol ER (n = 107/85): -1.92 ± 1.84/2.03 ± 1.83 (p < 0.001 for each). ITT/PP treatment effects for flupirtine MR were non-inferior when compared with tramadol ER and superior when compared with placebo (p = 0.003/0.033). Significantly more ITT patients treated with flupirtine MR (59.6/37.6 showed a ≥30/50% LBPIX relief in comparison to placebo (46.4/24.6%; p vs. flupirtine MR: 0.049/0.037). Treatment contrasts for tramadol failed to reach significance vs. placebo. Within the safety population (n = 355), flupirtine MR (n = 119) was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 21.0%) and TEAE-related study discontinuations (3.4%) than tramadol ER (n = 116; 34.5/12.0%; p = 0.039/0.017) and exhibited an overall safety/tolerability profile non-inferior to placebo (n = 120; 15.8/3.3%; p = ns for each). Major limitations of this study were the short treatment duration, the comparison of different drug classes and the lack of a titration phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic efficacy of flupirtine MR 400 mg OD was comparable to that of tramadol ER 200 mg OD and superior to that of placebo.

Effectiveness and safety of tapentadol prolonged release with tapentadol immediate release on-demand for the management of severe, chronic osteoarthritis-related knee pain: results of an open-label, phase 3b study

This open-label, phase 3b study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00983073) evaluated the effectiveness, and tolerability of tapentadol for severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain that was inadequately managed with World Health Organization (WHO) Step I or II analgesics or co-analgesics, or that was not treated with regular analgesics. Prior to starting study treatment, patients discontinued any WHO Step II analgesics, while Step I analgesics and/or co-analgesics were continued at the same dose. Patients received tapentadol prolonged release (50–250 mg bid) during a 5-week titration period and a 7-week maintenance period. Doses of tapentadol immediate release 50 mg (≤twice/day; ≥4 hours apart) were permitted throughout the study (total daily dose of tapentadol prolonged and immediate release, ≤250 mg bid). The primary endpoint was the change in pain intensity on an 11-point numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3; recalled average pain intensity [11-point NRS] during the last 3 days) from baseline to Week 6, using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to impute missing pain intensity scores. The mean (standard deviation) change from baseline to Week 6 (LOCF) in pain intensity was −3.4 (2.10; P < 0.0001) for all patients evaluated for effectiveness (n = 195). Significant decreases in pain intensity were also observed at Weeks 6, 8, and 12 (all P < 0.0001) using observed-case analysis. Corresponding significant improvements from baseline to Weeks 6 and 12 were observed in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, the EuroQol-5 Dimension health status questionnaire, the Short Form-36 health survey, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (all P ≤ 0.0103). Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with those observed in previous studies of tapentadol prolonged release. Overall, the results of this study indicate that tapentadol treatment results in significant improvements in pain intensity, health-related quality of life, and function in patients with inadequately managed, severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain.

Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose assessment of once-daily OROS® hydromorphone ER in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with chronic osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Opioids are recommended for patients with moderate to severe pain due to osteoarthritis (OA), who do not receive adequate analgesia from nonopioid treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OROS hydromorphone extended-release (ER) compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with OA.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, fixed-dose study. Patients received placebo or fixed-dose OROS hydromorphone ER (8 or 16 mg). The primary efficacy measure was pain intensity score (11-point Numeric Rating Scale) at Maintenance Week 12, analyzed with baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) imputation for missing data.

RESULTS

This study did not meet the primary efficacy measure using the BOCF imputation. Study discontinuation was high (52%). When analyzed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation, the prespecified alternate method, OROS hydromorphone ER 16 mg provided significantly better analgesia than placebo (P = 0.0009). Treatment was associated with significant improvements in patient global assessment (P = 0.01), the overall Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (P = 0.0003), and its subscales: pain (P = 0.0001), stiffness (P = 0.0023), and physical function (P = 0.0006). Gastrointestinal adverse events, such as constipation and nausea, were common among patients receiving OROS hydromorphone ER.

CONCLUSIONS

OROS hydromorphone ER failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint using the prespecified imputation method (BOCF), likely due to the high discontinuation rate associated with the fixed-dose design. When data were analyzed according to an alternate method of imputation (LOCF), OROS hydromorphone ER demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pain, stiffness, and physical function.

Controlled release formulation of oxycodone in patients with moderate to severe chronic osteoarthritis: a critical review of the literature

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a physically and emotionally debilitating disease that predominantly affects the aging adult population. Current pharmacologic treatment options primarily consist of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or acetaminophen, but associated side effects, analgesic limitations, especially in the elderly, and the need for around-the-clock analgesia have led physicians to search for alternative analgesics. Opioids have shown effectiveness at mitigating both chronic cancer and noncancer pain, and their ability to be placed into controlled release (CR) formulations suggests that they may prove efficacious for OA patients. One formulation, oxycodone CR, has shown effectiveness in cancer pain patients and in some trials of noncancer low back pain. In this review, the objective was to synthesize the reported findings by researchers in this field and present an up-to-date look at the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oxycodone CR in OA patients. Public literature databases were searched using specific keywords (eg, oxycodone CR) for studies assessing the efficacy and safety profile of oxycodone CR and its use in patients with OA. A total of eleven articles that matched the criteria were identified, which included three placebo-controlled trials, six comparative trials, one pharmacokinetic study in the elderly, and one long-term safety trial. Analysis of the studies revealed that oxycodone CR is reasonably efficacious, safe, and tolerable when used to manage moderate to severe chronic OA pain, with similar side effects to that of other opioids.

A comparison between enriched and nonenriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trials of opioids for chronic noncancer pain

BACKGROUND

An enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) design excludes potential participants who are nonresponders or who cannot tolerate the experimental drug before random assignment. It is unclear whether EERW design has an influence on the efficacy and safety of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the results from EERW and non-EERW trials of opioids for CNCP. Secondary objectives were to compare weak versus strong opioids, subgroups of patients with different types of pain, and the efficacy of opiods compared with placebo versus other drugs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to July 2009, for randomized controlled trials of any opioid for CNCP. Metaanalyses and meta-regressions were conducted to compare the results. Treatment efficacy was assessed by effect sizes (small, medium and large) and the incidence of adverse effects was assessed by a clinically relevant mean difference of 10% or greater.

RESULTS

Sixty-two randomized trials were included. In 61 trials, the duration was less than 16 weeks. There was no difference in efficacy between EERW and non-EERW trials for both pain (P=0.6) and function (P=0.3). However, EERW trials failed to detect a clinically relevant difference for nausea, vomiting, somnolence, dizziness and dry skin⁄itching compared with non-EERW. Opioids were more effective than placebo in patients with nociceptive pain (effect size=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72) and neuropathic pain (effect size=0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73).

CONCLUSION

EERW trial designs appear not to bias the results of efficacy, but they underestimate the adverse effects. The present updated meta- analysis shows that weak and strong opioids are effective for CNCP of both nociceptive and neuropathic origin.

Systematic review of tapentadol in chronic severe pain

AIM

A systematic review of chronic pain treatment with strong opioids (step 3 WHO pain ladder) and a comparison to a new drug recently approved for the treatment of severe chronic pain in Europe, tapentadol (Palexia, Nucynta*), were performed.

METHODS

Thirteen electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources from 1980 up to November 2010 for relevant randomized controlled clinical trials in chronic moderate and severe pain investigating at least one step 3 opioid. Chronic pain could be nociceptive or neuropathic, malignant or non-malignant, all systemic administrations were considered as well as trials of different lengths. Two separate analyses were performed, one only for trials which reported (at least as sub-groups) the outcome in patients with severe pain, the other including both moderate and severe pain conditions. With the exception of the direct comparison between tapentadol, oxycodone and placebo, indirect comparisons were performed based on a network analysis. Trials with an enriched or an enriched withdrawal design were excluded. Primary (pain intensity) and a number of secondary endpoints were evaluated, including pain relief (30% and 50%), patient global impression of change, quality of life, quality of sleep, discontinuations, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events.

RESULTS

Only 10 trials were eligible for analysis of patients with severe pain (eight investigating tapentadol and two trials comparing buprenorphine patch vs placebo). For moderate and severe pain, 42 relevant trials were identified and indirect comparisons with transdermal buprenorphine, transdermal fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxymorphone were performed. This report focuses on the network analysis. Tapentadol showed statistically favourable results over oxycodone for pain intensity, 30% and 50% pain relief, patient global impression of change (PGIC), and quality of life. Furthermore, some of the most important adverse events of chronic opioid treatment were significantly less frequent with tapentadol as compared to oxycodone, i.e. constipation, nausea, and vomiting; discontinuations due to these adverse events were found significantly reduced with tapentadol. Similar results were obtained for the network analysis, i.e. tapentadol was superior for the primary outcome (pain intensity) to hydromorphone and morphine, whereas fentanyl and oxymorphone showed trends in favour of these treatments. Significantly less frequent gastrointestinal adverse events of tapentadol were observed in comparison with fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxymorphone, apparently leading to significantly reduced treatment discontinuations (for any reason).

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, the benefit-risk ratio of tapentadol appears to be improved compared to step 3 opioids.

Immunosuppressive effects of opioids--clinical relevance

Opioid-induced immunosuppression has been demonstrated in cell culture experiments and in animal models. This is in striking contrast to the paucity of confirmatory studies in humans. This review describes the basic pharmacokinetics and -dynamics of opioid use in patients. It summarizes the major findings on opioid use and infectious complications in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, in patients with acute or chronic non-malignant pain, and in intravenous drug users (IDU). The limitations of studies in each area are discussed. For example, ethical concerns may complicate randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) in acute postoperative pain and for a large part of ICU patients. Importantly, most studies in patients with chronic (non-malignant) pain only inadequately report infectious complications in relation to opioid use since their incidence is usually not considered to be drug related. Infectious complications in IDUs are very frequent but cannot easily be distinguished from risk behavior or risk environment. In summary, convincing clinical evidence is lacking that opioids per se increase the rate of infectious complications in most patient categories. From a clinical standpoint, important unresolved issues are i) selection of relevant animal models, ii) opioid selection and discontinuation, and iii) the role of coexisting diseases and concomitant other medications.

Can morphine still be considered to be the standard for treating chronic pain? A systematic review including pair-wise and network meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

For chronic pain treatment many health care authorities consider morphine to be the reference standard for strategic decisions in pain therapy. Although morphine's effectiveness is clear and its cost is low, it's unclear whether morphine should remain the first choice or reference treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence available to support the position of morphine as the reference standard for step III opioids based on efficacy and tolerability outcomes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5,675 titles and 56 studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity precluded pair-wise meta-analysis on change of pain intensity and no difference between morphine and other opioids were found for tolerability outcomes. The network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in change of pain intensity between morphine and oxycodone, methadone and oxymorphone. Compared to morphine, patients using buprenorphine are more likely to discontinue treatment due to lack of effect (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.95). Patients using methadone are more likely to discontinue due to adverse events (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 8.36), whereas this risk is decreased for patients using fentanyl (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50) or buprenorphine (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.53). The most important limitation of this review is that the included studies are heterogeneous with regard to study population and intervention, which may affect the pooled effect estimates. The main strength is that we only included parallel RCTs, the strongest design for intervention studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence is moderate, both in respect to the number of directly comparative studies and in the quality of reporting of these studies. No clear superiority in efficacy and tolerability of morphine over other opioids was found in pair-wise and network analyses. Based on these results, a justification for the placement of morphine as the reference standard for the treatment of severe chronic pain cannot be supported.

Safety and efficacy of tapentadol ER in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) may not be adequately managed with available therapeutic options. This phase III, randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of tapentadol extended release (ER) for relieving painful DPN.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients (n = 588) with at least a 3-month history of opioid and/or non-opioid analgesic use for DPN, dissatisfaction with current treatment, and an average pain intensity score of at least 5 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0 = 'no pain,' 10 = 'pain as bad as you can imagine') were titrated to an optimal dose of tapentadol ER (100-250 mg bid) during a 3-week open-label phase. Subsequently, patients (n = 395) with at least a 1-point reduction in pain intensity were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or the optimal fixed dose of tapentadol ER determined during the open-label phase for a 12-week double-blind phase.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00455520.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was the change in average pain intensity from randomization, determined by twice-daily NRS measurements. Safety was assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

The least-squares mean difference between groups in the change in average pain intensity from the start of double-blind treatment to week 12 was -1.3 (95% confidence interval, -1.70 to -0.92; p < 0.001, tapentadol ER vs. placebo). A total of 60.5% (356/588) of patients reported at least a 30% improvement in pain intensity from the start to the end of the open-label titration phase; of the patients who were randomized to tapentadol ER, 53.6% (105/196) reported at least a 30% improvement from pre-titration to week 12 of the double-blind phase. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred during double-blind treatment with tapentadol ER included nausea, anxiety, diarrhea, and dizziness. Potential limitations of this study are related to the enriched enrollment randomized-withdrawal trial design, which may result in a more homogeneous patient population during double-blind treatment and may present a risk of unblinding because of changes in side effects from the open-label to the double-blind phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, tapentadol ER 100-250 mg bid provided a statistically significant difference in the maintenance of a clinically important improvement in pain 1 , 2 and was well-tolerated by patients with painful DPN.

Chronic pain management issues in the primary care setting and the utility of long-acting opioids

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Chronic/persistent pain - a highly prevalent condition that places a substantial burden on patients in terms of personal suffering, reduced productivity and health care costs - remains inadequately treated in many patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview and evaluate the burden and undertreatment of chronic/persistent pain, considerations for choosing an analgesic and the utility of long-acting opioids.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

A PubMed search was conducted to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of long-acting opioids in chronic pain conditions. The following search terms were used: long-acting opioids, extended-release opioids, controlled-release opioids, sustained-release opioids, and transdermal opioids. The search was limited to randomized, controlled trials published within the last 10 years (1998 - 2008). Studies meeting the following criteria were excluded from review: those focused on a neuropathic pain condition or specific patient subpopulations (e.g., opioid-experienced patients); those conducted outside the USA; and those evaluating a long-acting opioid that is not on the US market at present.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will first develop a better understanding of the individual and societal ramifications of undertreated chronic pain. Then, a critical review of safety and efficacy data from well-controlled randomized studies will help readers understand the choices and variables that should be considered when selecting appropriate treatments for patients with chronic pain.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Successful management of chronic/persistent pain should be individually tailored to each patient, taking into account his or her pain intensity and duration, disease state, tolerance of adverse events and risk of medication abuse or diversion. The literature supports the efficacy and safety of a number of long-acting opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain, demonstrating sustained improvements in pain intensity and pain-related sleep disturbances with these agents.

Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic low back pain: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled Phase III study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release (ER) for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Patients (N = 981) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive tapentadol ER 100 - 250 mg b.i.d., oxycodone HCl controlled release (CR) 20 - 50 mg b.i.d., or placebo over 15 weeks (3-week titration period, 12-week maintenance period).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy was assessed as change from baseline in average pain intensity (11-point NRS) at week 12 of the maintenance period and throughout the maintenance period; last observation carried forward was used to impute missing pain scores. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Tapentadol ER significantly reduced average pain intensity versus placebo at week 12 (least squares mean difference vs placebo [95% confidence interval], -0.8 [-1.22, -0.47]; p < 0.001) and throughout the maintenance period (-0.7 [-1.06,-0.35]; p < 0.001). Oxycodone CR significantly reduced average pain intensity versus placebo at week 12 (-0.9 [-1.24,-0.49]; p < 0.001) and throughout the maintenance period (-0.8 [-1.16,-0.46]; p < 0.001). Tapentadol ER was associated with a lower incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) than oxycodone CR. Gastrointestinal TEAEs, including constipation, nausea, and vomiting, were among the most commonly reported TEAEs (placebo, 26.3%; tapentadol ER, 43.7%; oxycodone CR, 61.9%). The odds of experiencing constipation or the composite of nausea and/or vomiting were significantly lower with tapentadol ER than with oxycodone CR (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol ER (100 - 250 mg b.i.d.) effectively relieved moderate to severe chronic low back pain over 15 weeks and had better gastrointestinal tolerability than oxycodone HCl CR (20 - 50 mg b.i.d.).

Fixed combination of oxycodone with naloxone: a new way to prevent and treat opioid-induced constipation

Morphine and other opioids increase tone and reduce propulsive motility in several segments of the gut, enhance absorption of fluids, and inhibit secretion. This opioid-induced bowel dysfunction may present as infrequent stools, hard stools, difficult defecation, bloating, and sense of incomplete emptying of the bowels, but also dry mouth, gastroesophageal reflux, epigastric fullness, and abdominal cramping. It afflicts about one-third of patients on opioid treatment. Lifestyle measures, such as regular toilet visits, physical activity, and fiber-rich diet, are very unlikely to be successful. Laxatives, such as bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, sennosides, macrogols, and prucalopride, may relieve opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in a proportion of patients only. A new approach to counteract OIC is the coadministration of an opioid antagonist devoid of the potential to penetrate the brain. In the EU, an oxycodonenaloxone combination has been approved for this purpose. Both components are included in an oral extended-release preparation. Following its release, naloxone acts locally on the gut and antagonizes the inhibitory effect of the opioid. After being absorbed in parallel with oxycodone, naloxone is rapidly and completely inactivated by a high first-pass effect in the liver. In a 2:1 dose ratio it may improve OIC without interfering with the analgesic effect.

Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release for chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain

INTRODUCTION

This pooled analysis of data from three phase 3 studies in patients with chronic osteoarthritis knee or low back pain evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release (PR; 100-250 mg twice daily) compared with placebo and oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) controlled release (CR; 20-50 mg twice daily).

METHODS

Patients in each study were randomized to receive twice-daily doses of placebo, tapentadol PR (100-250 mg), or oxycodone HCl CR (20-50 mg) for a 12-week maintenance period, preceded by a 3-week titration period. Primary endpoints were change from baseline in average pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at week 12 of the maintenance period and for the overall maintenance period using last observation carried forward for imputation of values missing after treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 2968 patients were evaluated for efficacy; 2974 patients were evaluated for safety. Compared with placebo, treatment with tapentadol PR or oxycodone CR resulted in significantly greater reductions in pain intensity from baseline at week 12 and for the overall maintenance period (all P<0.001). For both primary endpoints, the efficacy of tapentadol PR was noninferior to oxycodone CR (P<0.001), and tapentadol PR had superior gastrointestinal tolerability compared with oxycodone CR (P<0.001). Results of analyses of responders, patient global impression of change, Short Form-36 domains (except general health), and the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status index were significantly better for tapentadol PR than oxycodone CR (all P<or=0.048); these results may have been affected by the worse tolerability profile of oxycodone CR. A higher percentage of patients discontinued treatment with oxycodone CR (61.7% [616/999]) compared with tapentadol PR (43.5% [425/978]).

CONCLUSION

Tapentadol PR (100-250 mg twice daily) was efficacious and provided efficacy that was similar to oxycodone HCl CR (20-50 mg twice daily) for the management of chronic osteoarthritis knee and low back pain, with a superior gastrointestinal tolerability profile and fewer treatment discontinuations.