Open-Label Study on the Long-Term Efficacy, Safety, and Impact on Quality of Life of OROS Hydromorphone ER in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

As the population ages, spine-related pain is increasingly common in older adults. While medications play an important role in pain management, their use has limitations in geriatric patients due to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy. This review will assess the evidence basis for medications used for spine-related pain in older adults, with a focus on drug metabolism and adverse drug reactions. A PubMed/OVID search crossing common spine, neck, and back pain terms with key words for older adults and geriatrics was combined with common drug classes and common drug names and limited to clinical trials and age over 65 years. The results were then reviewed with identification of commonly used drugs and drug categories: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, corticosteroids, gabapentin and pregabalin, antispastic and antispasmodic muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tramadol, and opioids. Collectively, 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were the focus of the review. The review found a variable contribution of high-quality studies examining the efficacy of medications for spine pain primarily in the geriatric population. There was strong evidence for NSAID use with adjustments for gastrointestinal and renal risk factors. Gabapentin and pregabalin had mixed evidence for neuropathic pain. SNRIs had good evidence for neuropathic pain and a more favorable safety profile than TCAs. Tramadol had some evidence in older patients, but more so in persons aged < 65 years. Rational therapeutic choices based on geriatric spine pain diagnosis are helpful, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based pain, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular pain, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies. Tramadol can be well tolerated in older patients, but has risks of cognitive and classic opioid side effects. Otherwise, opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults due to their morbidity and mortality risk and are reserved for refractory severe pain. Whenever possible, beneficial geriatric spine pain pharmacotherapy should employ the lowest therapeutic doses with consideration of polypharmacy, potentially decreased renal and hepatic metabolism, and co-morbid medical disorders.

Efficacy of opioids versus placebo in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trials

Introduction

Opioids have been used for millennia for the treatment of pain. However, the long-term efficacy of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain continues to be debated. To evaluate opioids’ efficacy in chronic non-cancer pain, we performed a meta-analysis of published clinical trials for μ-opioid receptor agonists performed for US Food and Drug Administration approval.

Methods

MEDLINE and Cochrane trial register were searched for enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal studies (before June 2016). Selection criteria included: adults, ≥10 subjects per arm, any chronic pain condition, double-blind treatment period lasting ≥12 weeks, and all μ-agonist opioids approved in the USA.

Results

Fifteen studies met criteria. Opioid efficacy was statistically significant (p<0.001) versus placebo for pain intensity (standardized mean difference: −0.416), ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain (risk difference: 0.166 and 0.137), patient global impression of change (0.163), and patient global assessment of study medication (0.194). There were minor benefits on physical function and no effect on mental function.

Conclusion

Opioids are efficacious in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain for up to 3 months in randomized controlled trials. This should be considered, alongside data on opioid safety, in the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

Quality of life under oxycodone/naloxone, oxycodone, or morphine treatment for chronic low back pain in routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of life of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain under treatment with the WHO-step III opioids oxycodone/naloxone, oxycodone, or morphine in routine clinical practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, 12-week, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point study in 88 medical centers in Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 901 patients requiring around-the-clock pain treatment with a WHO-step III opioid were randomized to either morphine, oxycodone, or oxycodone/naloxone (1:1:1). Changes from baseline to week 12 in quality of life were assessed using different validated tools (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D], Short Form 12 [SF-12], quality of life impairment by pain inventory [QLIP]).

RESULTS

EQ-5D weighted index scores significantly improved over the 12-week treatment period under all three opioids (P<0.001) with significantly greater improvements under oxycodone/naloxone (65.2% vs 49.6% for oxycodone and 48.2% for morphine, P<0.001). The proportion of patients without EQ-5D complaints was also significantly higher under oxycodone/naloxone (P<0.001). Although quality of life ratings with the QLIP inventory showed significant improvements in all the three treatment arms, improvements were significantly higher under oxycodone/naloxone than under oxycodone and morphine (P<0.001): 90.7% of all oxycodone/naloxone patients achieved ≥30% improvements in quality of life, 72.8% had ≥50%, and 33.2% ≥70% improvements. Similarly, both physical and mental SF-12 component scores showed significantly greater improvements under oxycodone/naloxone with both scores close to the German population norm after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with morphine, oxycodone, or oxycodone/naloxone under routine daily practice conditions significantly improved state of health and quality of life of patients with moderate-to-severe low back pain over a 12-week treatment period. Comparison between the treatment groups showed significantly greater improvements for oxycodone/naloxone than for the other two opioids.

Substantive review of the literature of medication treatment of chronic low back pain among adults

PURPOSE

Pain can be debilitating, and it is often inadequately treated, particularly among patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). CLBP has a substantial economic impact, as it affects an individual's ability to perform activities of daily living and maintain employment. This study aims to review original studies related to the evidence-based management of patients with CLBP to develop an algorithm for prescribing medications and recommending other treatment modalities for patients with CLBP.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database was conducted to identify studies related to the evidence-based management of CLBP that were performed between 2003 and 2012. The following keywords were used: low back pain, back pain, chronic back pain, medication management, and adjunct therapy. The selected articles were specific to CLBP, medication-based management, and additional treatment options, such as adjunct therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The collected data revealed that there are a number of approaches to the management of CLBP. Medication regimens are frequently used and widely available, but alternative treatment modalities can also be effective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Providers should encourage patients to explore a variety of treatment modalities that can provide pain relief and improve functionality and overall well-being.

Hydromorphone: evolving to meet the challenges of today's health care environment

BACKGROUND

Hydromorphone, a potent analogue of morphine, has long had an important role in pain management and is included in several international guidelines for managing pain. Advances in hydromorphone formulations and the ways in which hydromorphone is being used clinically today warrant a review of the drug's pharmacotherapeutic utility.

OBJECTIVE

The history and recent advances in hydromorphone pharmacotherapy are reviewed. Areas covered include the pharmacologic and metabolic profile of hydromorphone, the role of hydromorphone in pain management, formulations and routes of administration, and issues related to relative opioid potencies, equianalgesic ratios, and opioid rotation. Because hydromorphone, like all opioids, carries a risk of misuse, abuse, and illicit diversion, the related issues of tamper-resistant formulations and "dose-dumping" of extended-release formulations are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the epidemic of prescription opioid overdoses associated with prescription opioid abuse in the United States, development of tamper-resistant opioid formulations that avoid dose-dumping issues has become a significant goal of pharmaceutical manufacturers. The current formulation of hydromorphone extended-release potentially provides the benefits of long-acting hydromorphone (ie, continuous pain control, increased quality of life, freedom to perform daily activities) to appropriate patients, while reducing the risks of abuse and without compromising safety.

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.

Buprenorphine transdermal system and quality of life in opioid-experienced patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of 12 weeks of treatment with Butrans® (buprenorphine) transdermal system (BTDS) on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and the maintenance of effects over 52 weeks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multicenter, enriched, double-blind (DB), randomized trial comparing BTDS 20 μg/h (BTDS 20) against 5 μg/h (BTDS 5) for treatment of opioid-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe CLBP, including a 52-week open-label (OL) extension phase.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

QoL was measured with the SF-36v2 survey before and after an OL run-in period with BTDS 20, three times during the DB phase, and seven times over the extension phase. This post hoc analysis tested for SF-36v2 score differences between treatment groups during the DB phase and maintenance of effects over the extension phase.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, BTDS 20 produced larger improvements than BTDS 5 in role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain and overall physical QoL (p < 0.01). Treatment group differences in overall physical QoL were sustained throughout the DB phase. Quality-of-life improvements associated with BTDS 20 persisted through the extension phase.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that opioid-experienced moderate-to-severe CLBP patients receiving BTDS 20 exhibited better QoL than patients receiving BTDS 5.

Effectiveness and gastrointestinal tolerability during conversion and titration with once-daily OROS® hydromorphone extended release in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic low back pain

Purpose

To describe the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone extended-release tablets (OROS hydromorphone ER) during dose conversion and titration.

Patients and methods

A total of 459 opioid-tolerant adults with chronic moderate to severe low back pain participated in an open-label, 2- to 4-week conversion/titration phase of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal trial, conducted at 70 centers in the United States. Patients were converted to once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER at 75% of the equianalgesic dose of their prior total daily opioid dose (5:1 conversion ratio), and titrated as frequently as every 3 days to a maximum dose of 64 mg/day. The primary outcome measure was change in pain intensity numeric rating scale; additional assessments included the Patient Global Assessment and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire scores. Safety assessments were performed at each visit and consisted of recording and monitoring all adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs.

Results

Mean (standard deviation) final daily dose of OROS hydromorphone ER was 37.5 (17.8) mg. Mean (standard error of the mean [SEM]) numeric rating scale scores decreased from 6.6 (0.1) at screening to 4.3 (0.1) at the final titration visit (mean [SEM] change, −2.3 [0.1], representing a 34.8% reduction). Mean (SEM) change in Patient Global Assessment was −0.6 (0.1), and mean change (SEM) in the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire was −2.8 (0.3). Patients achieving a stable dose showed greater improvement than patients who discontinued during titration for each of these measures (P < 0.001). Almost 80% of patients achieving a stable dose (213/268) had a ≥30% reduction in pain. Commonly reported AEs were constipation (15.4%), nausea (11.9%), somnolence (8.7%), headache (7.8%), and vomiting (6.5%); 13.0% discontinued from the study due to AEs.

Conclusion

The majority of opioid-tolerant patients with chronic low back pain were successfully converted to effective doses of OROS hydromorphone ER within 2 to 4 weeks.

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.

Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Use of Opioids in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain—A Consensus Statement by the Pain Association of Singapore Task Force

Introduction: While opioids are effective in carefully selected patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), they are associated with potential risks. Therefore, treatment recommendations for the safe and effective use of opioids in this patient population are needed. Materials and Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened by the Pain Association of Singapore to develop practical evidence-based recommendations on the use of opioids in the management of CNCP in the local population. This article discusses specific recommendations for various common CNCP conditions. Results: Available data demonstrate weak evidence for the long-term use of opioids. There is moderate evidence for the short-term benefit of opioids in certain CNCP conditions. Patients should be carefully screened and assessed prior to starting opioids. An opioid treatment agreement must be established, and urine drug testing may form part of this agreement. A trial duration of up to 2 months is necessary to determine efficacy, not only in terms of pain relief, but also to document improvement in function and quality of life. Regular reviews are essential with appropriate dose adjustments, if necessary, and routine assessment of analgesic efficacy, aberrant behaviour and adverse effects. The reasons for discontinuation of opioid therapy include side effects, lack of efficacy and aberrant drug behaviour. Conclusion: Due to insufficient evidence, the task force does not recommend the use of opioids as first-line treatment for various CNCP. They can be used as second- or third-line treatment, preferably as part of a multimodal approach. Additional studies conducted over extended periods are required. Key words: Chronic pain, Consensus statement, Guidelines, Non-cancer pain, Opioids

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

CONTEXT

The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily hydromorphone extended release (ER) (OROS(®) hydromorphone ER, Exalgo(®), Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hazelwood, MO) in patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain have been reported in previous studies.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this analysis was to assess the pooled safety data of OROS hydromorphone ER in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain.

METHODS

Safety results were pooled from 11 clinical studies in opioid-tolerant patients: one 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; three active-controlled studies; and seven uncontrolled studies (durations of three to 52 weeks). Patients were included in this analysis if they took ≥1 dose of study medication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze baseline and demographic characteristics, supplemental analgesic use, and incidence of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

In total, 1251 opioid-tolerant patients received ≥1 dose of OROS hydromorphone ER. Mean (SD) duration of exposure was 43.1 (67.8) days (range 1-396 days), and mean (SD) daily dose was 43.4 (47.1) mg. Overall, 1081 patients (86.4%) used supplemental rescue analgesics. The overall incidence of AEs was 76.9%. The most frequently reported AEs were nausea (23.2%), constipation (22.4%), vomiting (14.4%), somnolence (12.9%), and headache (12.8%). Treatment-related constipation occurred in 20.5% of patients, nausea in 16.8%, somnolence in 11.8%, vomiting in 8.2%, and headache in 7.0%. Serious adverse events occurred in 13.5% of patients, with the most frequently reported serious adverse events being dehydration, nausea, and vomiting. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile in opioid-tolerant patients that is consistent with the known safety profiles of opioids.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the impact of the 7-day buprenorphine transdermal system on health-related quality of life in opioid-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain

This study evaluated the impact of treatment with Buprenorphine Transdermal System (BTDS) on the health-related quality of life for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain (CLBP), and the correspondence between quality of life and pain. A multicenter, enriched, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, randomized trial evaluated BTDS 10 and 20 μg/hour for treatment of opioid-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe CLBP. The SF-36v2 survey, which measures 8 domains of quality of life, was administered at screening and following an open-label run-in period with BTDS and at weeks 4, 8, and 12 of the DB phase. Post hoc analyses compared SF-36v2 scores between BTDS and placebo groups during the DB phase. Condition burden was examined through comparisons with a U.S. general population sample. Correlations examined the correspondence between quality of life and pain measures. BTDS produced larger improvements than placebo at 12 weeks in all quality-of-life domains (Ps < .05). Treatment group differences in both physical and mental quality of life emerged by 4 weeks. Patients' pretreatment quality of life was worse than that in the general population (Ps < .05); only BTDS treatment eliminated deficits in pain, social functioning, and role limitations due to emotional health. Improvements in quality of life were moderately associated with pain reduction. These data suggest that moderate-to-severe CLBP patients receiving BTDS exhibited better quality of life than patients receiving placebo.

PERSPECTIVE

This post hoc analysis suggests that patients with moderate-to-severe CLBP treated with BTDS exhibit better health-related quality of life than those using placebo within 4 weeks of treatment, and were more likely to exhibit clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life following 12 weeks of treatment.

A review of pharmacotherapy for chronic low back pain with considerations for sports medicine

Up to 30% of athletes experience low back pain (LBP) depending on sport type, sex, training intensity and frequency, and technique. United States clinical guidelines define back pain as chronic if it persists for ≥ 12 weeks, and subacute if it persists 4 to < 12 weeks. Certain sports injuries are likely to lead to chronic pain. Persistent or chronic symptoms are frequently associated with degenerative lumbar disc disease or spondylolytic stress lesions. Exercise therapy is widely used and is the most conservative form of treatment for chronic LBP (cLBP). Pharmacotherapies for cLBP include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids. Acetaminophen is a well-tolerated first-line pharmacotherapy, but high-dose, long-term use is associated with hepatic toxicity. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be an effective second-line option if acetaminophen proves inadequate but they have well-known risks of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and other systemic adverse effects that increase with patient age, dose amount, and duration of use. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, has demonstrated modest efficacy and is associated with systematic adverse events, including serotonin syndrome, which can be dose related or result from interaction with other analgesics. Opioids may be an effective choice for moderate to severe pain but also have significant risks of adverse events and carry a substantial risk of addiction and abuse. Because the course of cLBP may be protracted, patients may require treatment over years or decades, and it is critical that the risk/benefit profiles of pharmacotherapies are closely evaluated to ensure that short- and long-term treatments are optimized for each patient. This article reviews the clinical evidence and the guideline recommendations for pharmacotherapy of cLBP.