Systematic review of tapentadol in chronic severe pain

Appropriate use of tapentadol: focus on the optimal tapering strategy

OBJECTIVE

Due to its opioid and non-opioid mechanism of action, tapentadol is considered an atypical opioid with improved gastrointestinal tolerability versus traditional opioids. As for all opioid analgesics it is important to understand how to discontinue a treatment when it is not needed anymore. The aim of this article was to provide an overview of opioid therapy in non-cancer pain, with a specific focus on tapering of tapentadol in patients with chronic non-cancer pain, and suggestions on how to achieve tapering.

METHODS

Studies for this narrative review were identified via PubMed using a structured search strategy, focusing on management of chronic non-cancer pain with opioids, and the efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacology of tapentadol prolonged release. Publications were limited to English-language articles published within the last ∼10 years.

RESULTS

The review discusses the use and discontinuation of opioids in general, as well clinical data on discontinuation of tapentadol specifically. We provide a flow chart, which can be used by clinicians in the context of their own clinical experience to appropriately taper tapentadol in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. The flow chart can be easily tailored to individual patient characteristics, duration of tapentadol treatment, response to progressive dosage reduction, and likelihood of withdrawal symptom occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

While tapentadol is associated with a low frequency of opioid withdrawal symptoms after abrupt discontinuation, use of a tapering strategy is prudent. Tapering strategies developed for opioids in general can potentially be safely individualized in tapentadol-treated patients, although research on tapering strategies for tapentadol is required.

Characteristics of fatal tapentadol-related toxicity in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Tapentadol is a centrally acting opioid analgesic prescribed for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. The study aimed to determine the characteristics of Australian toxicity deaths related to tapentadol.

METHODS

All cases in which tapentadol use was coded contributory to death (n = 159) were retrieved from the National Coronial Information System (1 July 2000-31 December 2020).

RESULTS

The mean age was 48.5 (18-81) and 56% were female. Documented histories of problems with chronic pain (66%), mental health (60.4%), substance use (44%) and injecting drug use (23.3%) were common. The majority of deaths were deemed unintentional (76.1%) and in 18.9% pre-existing disease was co-contributory. The median peripheral blood tapentadol concentration was 1.00 mg L^-1 (0.02-47.00), and the median aortic concentration was 2.05 mg L^-1 (0.10-30.00). In all cases, psychoactive drugs other than tapentadol were also detected, most commonly antidepressants (72.3%), opioids (66.7%), hypnosedatives (64.2%) and gabapentinoids (43.4%). Of cases where autopsies were conducted, 27.7% were diagnosed with cardiomegaly and 18.5% with severe coronary artery stenosis. Pulmonary oedema (68.1%), aspiration of vomitus (39.5%) and acute pneumonia (26.9%) were common.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The typical tapentadol-related toxicity death involved unintentional death in the presence of multiple drugs, although a notable minority were intentional self-harm. Multiple morbidities were common. The identification and characteristics of these cases indicate that the adverse event profile of tapentadol needs to be considered in the setting of polypharmacy.

Tapentadol shows lower intrinsic efficacy at µ receptor than morphine and oxycodone

Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic with a dual mechanism of action. It acts as an agonist at the µ receptor and inhibitor of noradrenaline reuptake. Clinical trials suggest similar analgesic efficacy of tapentadol, oxycodone, and morphine in acute and chronic pain. Given the limited information about the molecular actions of tapentadol at the µ receptor, we investigated the intrinsic efficacy of tapentadol and compared it with other opioids. β-chlornaltrexamine (β-CNA, 100 nM, 20 min) was used to deplete spare receptors in AtT20 cells stably transfected with human µ receptor wild-type (WT). Opioid-mediated changes in membrane potential were measured in real-time using a membrane potential-sensitive fluorescent dye. Using Black and Leff's operational model, intrinsic efficacy relative to DAMGO was calculated for each opioid. Tapentadol (0.05 ± 0.01) activated the GIRK channel with lesser intrinsic efficacy than morphine (0.17 ± 0.02) and oxycodone (0.16 ± 0.02). We further assessed the signaling of tapentadol in the common µ receptor variants (N40D and A6V) which are associated with altered receptor signaling. We found no difference in the response of tapentadol between these receptor variants.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN 000044282 (University Hospital Medical Information Network).

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.

Bone fractures in patients using tapentadol or oxycodone: an exploratory US claims database study

Aim: To explore fracture outcomes with tapentadol or oxycodone, two opioids with differing mechanisms of action. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort pilot study, using MarketScan^® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases, on patients with postoperative pain, back pain, or osteoarthritis and ≥1 claim for tapentadol (n = 16,457), oxycodone (n = 1,356,920), or both (n = 15,893) between June 2009 and December 2015. Results: During 266,826 and 9,007,889 days of tapentadol and oxycodone treatment, patients evidenced 1080 and 72,275 fractures, respectively. Fracture rates per treatment-year were 1.512 for tapentadol and 3.013 for oxycodone. Conclusion: Examination of administrative claims has inherent limitations, but this exploratory analysis indicates a lower fracture rate with tapentadol than oxycodone in the analyzed dataset, which needs confirmation by further clinical trials.

Opioid use and harms associated with a sustained-release tapentadol formulation: A post-marketing surveillance study

AIMS

A sustained-release formulation (SRF) of tapentadol has been marketed in Australia since February 2013. This study examined tapentadol SRF extra-medical use, attractiveness for extra-medical use, and associated harms in Australia.

METHODS

This post-marketing study comprises analyses of Australian community sales data (2011-2017) for eleven pharmaceutical opioids (prescription and over-the-counter codeine disaggregated); calls to three poisons information centres (covering five of the eight jurisdictions in Australia) related to pharmaceutical opioids and coded by the centres as 'misuse' or 'abuse' (2011-2017); and interviews with people who inject drugs (n = 888) recruited as part of the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) from all Australian capital cities (2017).

RESULTS

Population-level availability of tapentadol SRF increased from market launch, comprising the sixth largest market share of all opioid unit sales, and third greatest share in oral morphine equivalent milligrams sold, in December 2017. Lifetime tapentadol SRF use among the IDRS sample (n = 888) was low (1.5%; 95%CI 0.9-2.5), with few reporting past-6 month non-prescribed use or injection. Non-fatal overdose following tapentadol use was self-reported by less than 1% (95%CI 0.1-0.8). Between 2013-2017, 1.1% (n = 25) of pharmaceutical opioid 'misuse/abuse' calls were related to tapentadol, and predominantly the SRF.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing utilisation of tapentadol sustained-release formulation was observed, along with indications of extra-medical use and harms associated with use, although on a smaller scale relative to other opioids. These findings need to be interpreted in the context of the low level of exposure to tapentadol sustained-release formulation among the sentinel population of people who inject drugs.

Does 'Strong Analgesic' Equal 'Strong Opioid'? Tapentadol and the Concept of 'µ-Load'

INTRODUCTION

The distinct properties of the centrally-acting analgesic tapentadol derive from the combined contributions of an opioid component and a nonopioid component. However, the opioid component's relative contribution to analgesic and adverse effects has not previously been elucidated. Tapentadol's analgesic effect derives from the combined contribution of an opioid mechanism and a nonopioid mechanism, the extent of which can vary for different pains. Likewise, the interaction can vary for various adverse effects. Hence, the contribution of each mechanism to adverse effects can be different from the contribution to analgesia. We here estimate the percent contribution of each component of the mechanism of action to analgesia and to adverse effects.

AREAS COVERED

Several approaches to in vitro and in vivo data to estimate the contribution of tapentadol's opioid component to analgesia and to the two important opioid adverse effects, respiratory depression and constipation. The results are then compared with clinical data.

EXPERT OPINION

Traditional opioids, such as morphine, oxycodone, and others, produce their analgesic effects primarily through a single mechanism-the activation of µ-opioid receptors (MOR). Therefore, the contribution of the opioid component to adverse effects is 100%. In contrast, the newer strong analgesic tapentadol produces its analgesic effect via two separate and complementary analgesic mechanisms, only one of which is µ-opioid. We applied standard drug-receptor theory and novel techniques to in vitro and in vivo data to estimate by several different ways the μ-load of tapentadol (the % contribution of the opioid component to the adverse effect magnitude relative to a pure/classical µ-opioid at equianalgesia) in respiratory depression and constipation, and we compared the results to clinical evidence. The estimate is remarkably consistent over the various approaches and indicates that the μ-load of tapentadol is ≤ 40% (relative to pure MOR agonists, which have, by definition, a µ-load of 100%).

FUNDING

Grünenthal GmbH.

Tapentadol Extended Release in the Treatment of Severe Chronic Low Back Pain and Osteoarthritis Pain

Tapentadol is a novel pain reliever with apparently synergistic dual mechanisms of action, capable of addressing both nociceptive and neuropathic components of chronic pain. As an effective analgesic with good tolerability, tapentadol may be appropriate for patients suffering from severe chronic pain associated with low back pain (LBP) or osteoarthritis (OA). Efficacy studies of tapentadol in populations of patients with severe chronic LBP or OA pain suggest that tapentadol is non-inferior to oxycodone. Its tolerability, especially with respect to gastrointestinal (GI) side effects, may be better than that of other strong opioids in clinical trials and analyses of multiple trials. Patient satisfaction with tapentadol extended release for chronic noncancer pain syndromes is good. Although tapentadol has an opioid component with abuse liability, it appears to be a difficult opioid for tampering with less appeal to abusers than other opioids. For patients with severe LBP and OA pain, tapentadol appears to hold promise as a safe, effective therapeutic option.

Opioid use and harms associated with a sustained-release tapentadol formulation: a postmarketing study protocol

INTRODUCTION

It has been argued that tapentadol may pharmacologically have lower abuse potential than other pharmaceutical opioids currently available. However, there has been no comprehensive triangulation of data regarding use and harms associated with this formulation. A sustained-release formulation (SRF) of tapentadol (Palexia) was released in Australia in 2011 and listed for public subsidy in 2013. We summarise here the methods of a postmarketing study which will measure postintroduction: (1) population level availability, (2) extramedical use and diversion, (3) attractiveness for extramedical use and (4) associated harms, of tapentadol compared against other pharmaceutical opioids.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated key sources on pharmaceutical use and harms in Australia. This review indicateddata from four sources that disaggregate pharmaceutical opioid formulations and capture tapentadol SRF could be triangulated. These data sources comprised: (1) national pharmaceutical opioid community sales data from 2011 to 2017, (2) national pharmaceutical opioid poisonings reported to Poison Information Centres (PICs) from 2011 to 2017, (3) number of vendors on online marketplaces listing pharmaceutical opioids for sale and (4) data on pharmaceutical opioid extramedical use, attractiveness and harms from interviews with people who regularly inject drugs in Australia.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for use of pharmaceutical sales data. Ethics approval has been obtained for use of national pharmaceutical opioid poisonings reported to PICs (LNR/16/SCHN/44) and for use of online marketplace data and interview data from people who inject drugs (HC12086). Key findings will be published mid-2018 in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and presented at various conferences and professional meetings.

Assessment and manifestation of central sensitisation across different chronic pain conditions

Different neuroplastic processes can occur along the nociceptive pathways and may be important in the transition from acute to chronic pain and for diagnosis and development of optimal management strategies. The neuroplastic processes may result in gain (sensitisation) or loss (desensitisation) of function in relation to the incoming nociceptive signals. Such processes play important roles in chronic pain, and although the clinical manifestations differ across condition processes, they share some common mechanistic features. The fundamental understanding and quantitative assessment of particularly some of the central sensitisation mechanisms can be translated from preclinical studies into the clinic. The clinical perspectives are implementation of such novel information into diagnostics, mechanistic phenotyping, prevention, personalised treatment, and drug development. The aims of this paper are to introduce and discuss (1) some common fundamental central pain mechanisms, (2) how they may translate into the clinical signs and symptoms across different chronic pain conditions, (3) how to evaluate gain and loss of function using quantitative pain assessment tools, and (4) the implications for optimising prevention and management of pain. The chronic pain conditions selected for the paper are neuropathic pain in general, musculoskeletal pain (chronic low back pain and osteoarthritic pain in particular), and visceral pain (irritable bowel syndrome in particular). The translational mechanisms addressed are local and widespread sensitisation, central summation, and descending pain modulation.

Significance

Central sensitisation is an important manifestation involved in many different chronic pain conditions. Central sensitisation can be different to assess and evaluate as the manifestations vary from pain condition to pain condition. Understanding central sensitisation may promote better profiling and diagnosis of pain patients and development of new regimes for mechanism based therapy. Some of the mechanisms underlying central sensitisation can be translated from animals to humans providing new options in development of therapies and profiling drugs under development.

Assessment of the antinociceptive and ulcerogenic activity of the tapentadol-diclofenac combination in rodents

Preclinical Research & Development The objective of the present study was to evaluate the tapentadol-diclofenac combination in three dose-ratios in the mouse acetic acid-induced visceral pain and their ulcerogenic activity on the stomachal mucous. Dose-response curves were generated for tapentadol, diclofenac, and their combination in the acetic acid-induced writhing test in mice. Moreover, the stomachs of animals were surgically removal and gastrointestinal ulcerogenic action of the combination was assessed. The isobolographic analysis, interaction index, and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. The isobolographic analysis and interaction index showed a similar antinociceptive activity for the three combinations of the analgesic mixture. Moreover, tapentadol and the proportions 1:1 or 3:1 of the analgesic combination caused a mild gastrointestinal damage. These data indicate that the systemic co-administration of tapentadol and diclofenac produced a synergistic interaction in the acetic acid-induced visceral pain test with an acceptable gastric damage profile in mice.

Tapentadol prolonged-release for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and oxycodone controlled release-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain.

METHODS

Patients (n = 990) were randomized (1:1:1) to tapentadol PR, oxycodone controlled release (CR; reference compound for assay sensitivity), or placebo for a double-blind 3-week titration and 12-week maintenance period. Primary efficacy end-points were change from baseline in average pain intensity at week 12 of maintenance (US end-point) and over the entire maintenance period (non-US end-point) with "last observation carried forward" as imputation method for missing scores.

RESULTS

Both primary end-points were not significantly different for tapentadol PR nor for oxycodone CR vs placebo at week 12 (least squares [LS] mean difference = -0.3 [95% CI = -0.61-0.09]; p = 0.152 and 0.2 [95% CI = -0.16-0.54]; p = 0.279, respectively) and over the maintenance period (LS mean difference = -0.2 [95% CI = -0.55-0.07]; p = 0.135 and 0.1 [95% CI = -0.18-0.44]; p = 0.421, respectively). Considerably more patients receiving tapentadol PR than oxycodone CR completed the trial (58.3% vs 36.6%). This is consistent with better results with tapentadol PR on the overall health status (PGIC) compared to oxycodone CR. Indeed, respectively, 56% and 42.5% rated at least "much improved" at the end of treatment. Incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were higher for both active treatments compared to placebo. Tapentadol PR was associated with a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile with incidences of constipation (17.9% vs 35%) and of the composite of nausea and/or vomiting (23.8% vs 46.8%) significantly lower vs oxycodone CR (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study did not demonstrate assay sensitivity. The finding that both primary end-points for tapentadol PR were not met can, thus, not be interpreted. Tapentadol PR was better tolerated than oxycodone CR, largely due to fewer gastrointestinal side-effects.

Tapentadol in neuropathic pain cancer patients: a prospective open label study

Many chemotherapy treatments induce peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). These patients often experience neuropathic pain (NP) that reduces the quality of life. The aim of this prospective, open label study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol (TP) in patients affected by CIPN. CIPN were consecutively enrolled in a prospective open label study at the Neuro-Oncology Unit of the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. During the titration phase, each patient initially received doses of TP 50 mg twice a day. All patients underwent pain intensity (NRS) and DN4. For evaluation of quality of life, patients underwent EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CIPN2 QLQ-CIPN20. We enrolled 31 patients, 19 were females with a median age of 60 years. After 3 months of treatment with TP, 22 patients completed the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). Nineteen patients out of 22 showed a response to treatment (86%). We also observed that TP reduced the NRS and DN4 values from baseline to the last visit in a significant way (p < 0.001, respectively). Seven patients (22.5%) discontinued the TP therapy after the first week of occurrence of side effects. Furthermore, we observed that TP improved also the global health status measured by EORT QLQ-C30. TP is well tolerated and efficacy in the treatment of NP. The important reduction of neuropathic pain, the improvement in NRS and QoL scores after therapy with TP makes it a candidate in the management of patients suffering from neuropathic pain of CIPN also as a first line of therapy.

Considering tapentadol as a first-line analgesic: 14 questions

Tapentadol is the newest centrally acting analgesic to be approved by the US FDA and regulatory bodies in other countries. It has been called the first-in-class of a novel-acting analgesic mechanism of action that combines µ-opioid receptor agonist activity with neuronal norepinephrine-reuptake inhibition in a single molecule. This duality of action should combine inhibition of ascending (afferent) pain-transmitting signals with activation of descending (efferent) pain-attenuating systems (e.g., diffuse noxious inhibitory controls). However, not all novel mechanisms of action impart the characteristics needed for an analgesic to be considered for first-line therapy. These key questions may help inform clinical decision making.

[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").

[Recommendations of the updated LONTS guidelines. Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain]

BACKGROUND

The regular update of the German S3 guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), the"LONTS" (AWMF registration number 145/003), began in November 2013.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed by 26 scientific societies and two patient self-help organisations under the coordination of the Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft (German Pain Society). A systematic literature search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Scopus databases (up until October 2013) was performed. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The strength of the recommendations was established by multistep formal procedures, in order to reach a consensus according to German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies ("Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlich Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften", AWMF) regulations. The guidelines were reviewed by the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association, the Austrian Pain Society and the Swiss Association for the Study of Pain.

RESULTS

Opioids are one drug-based treatment option for short- (4-12 weeks), intermediate- (13-25 weeks) and long-term (≥ 26 weeks) therapy of chronic osteoarthritis, diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia and low back pain. Contraindications are primary headaches, as well as functional somatic syndromes and mental disorders with the (cardinal) symptom pain. For all other clinical presentations, a short- and long-term therapy with opioid-containing analgesics should be evaluated on an individual basis. Long-term therapy with opioid-containing analgesics is associated with relevant risks (sexual disorders, increased mortality).

CONCLUSION

Responsible application of opioid-containing analgesics requires consideration of possible indications and contraindications, as well as regular assessment of efficacy and adverse effects. Neither an uncritical increase in opioid application, nor the global rejection of opioid-containing analgesics is justified in patients with CNCP.

Tapentadol Prolonged Release for Chronic Pain: A Review of Clinical Trials and 5 Years of Routine Clinical Practice Data

Tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain combines 2 modes of action. These are μ-opioid receptor agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in a single molecule that allow higher analgesic potency through modulation of different pharmacological targets within the pain transmitting systems. At the same time, this can also serve as a clue for modulation of different pain-generating mechanisms according to nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed pain conditions. Tapentadol PR has now been on the market for 5 years, with over 4.6 million people treated worldwide. A panel of pain specialists convened in Germany to review the clinical program and to discuss the role of tapentadol PR in the management of chronic pain. The clinical study program demonstrated effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for up to 2 years in a broad range of chronic pain conditions, including those with neuropathic pain components. This was confirmed in routine clinical practice observations. Head-to-head studies with World Health Organization (WHO) III opioids such as oxycodone controlled release and oxycodone/naloxone PR showed at least comparable pain relief in the treatment of moderate-to-severe musculoskeletal pain. Rotation from poorly tolerated WHO III opioids to tapentadol PR provided effective pain relief and better symptom control for musculoskeletal pain compared to previous medication. Functionality, health status and quality of life also improved under tapentadol PR treatment. The gastrointestinal tolerability profile was more favorable compared to other tested WHO III opioids. Tapentadol PR has a good safety profile and no evidence of acquired tolerance from the long-term data so far collected. Overall, tapentadol PR represents an effective and generally well-tolerated alternative to "classical" opioidergic drugs.

Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors.

METHODS

An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation.

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or late-onset treatment effects in any patient who reports new-onset pain should be evaluated, treated, and monitored. Clinicians should determine the need for other health professionals to provide comprehensive pain management care in patients with complex needs. Systemic nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant analgesics may be prescribed to relieve chronic pain and/or to improve function. Clinicians may prescribe a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience distress or functional impairment. Risks of adverse effects of opioids should be assessed. Clinicians should clearly understand terminology such as tolerance, dependence, abuse, and addiction as it relates to the use of opioids and should incorporate universal precautions to minimize abuse, addiction, and adverse consequences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/chronic-pain-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release for the management of painful mucositis in head and neck cancers during intensity modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability profile of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) in a cohort of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients affected by background pain due to painful mucositis during intensity modulated radiation therapy with or without cisplatin with definitive and adjuvant intent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tapentadol PR was administered at the moment of pain onset in opioid-naive patients at the dosage of 50 mg BID. The dosage was increased 50 mg twice a day until the optimal dose of no more than 500 mg/day of tapentadol PR. Primary endpoint of the analysis was the evaluation of improved assessment using the numerical rating scale (NRS). Secondary endpoints were as follows: (1) assessment of the treatment received using the patients' global impression of change (PGIC) scale; (2) weight increase/stability; (3) sleep quality; and (4) tolerability. The period of observation was 90 days from the start of antineoplastic treatment.

RESULTS

Between September 2014 and May 2015, 30 HNC patients were observed. The average age was 64.9 years (range, 36-80). Twenty-two days after the start of antineoplastic treatment, tapentadol PR was administered to 25 % of patients. This percentage was increased to 50 % after 39 days and to 75 % after 43 days. Considering the efficacy of tapentadol PR on daily pain, there was a reduction of 30 % (95 % C.I. 69.3 ÷ 96.2 %) in the pain score in 26 patients (86.7 %), and a reduction of 50 % (95 % C.I. 57.7 ÷ 90.1 %) in 23 patients (76.7 %).

CONCLUSION

The use of tapentadol PR is feasible and well tolerated in HNC patients affected by background pain due to painful mucositis during intensity modulated radiotherapy with or without cisplatin. Further studies are needed to enhance current findings.

[Good clinical practice guide for opioids in pain management: the three Ts - titration (trial), tweaking (tailoring), transition (tapering)]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Achieving good clinical practice in the use of opioids as part of a comprehensive pain management regimen can face significant challenges. Despite guidelines from governmental and pain society/organization sources, there are still significant hurdles. A review of some basic tenets of opioid analgesia based on current published knowledge and experiences about this important healthcare imperative is warranted.

CONTENT

Consistent with guidelines, the literature supports using the lowest total opioid dose that provides adequate pain control with the fewest adverse effects. Titration (or trial) during opioid initiation is a way of starting low and going slow (and assessing the appropriateness of a specific opioid and formulation). Recognizing that multiple factors contribute to an individual's personal experience of pain, the physical, psychological, social, cultural, spiritual, pharmacogenomic, and behavioral factors of the individual patient should be taken into account (tweaking, or tailoring). Finally, for those patients for whom transition (tapering) from opioid is desired, doing so too rapidly can have negative consequences and minimization of problems during this step can be achieved by proper tapering.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a simultaneously aggressive, yet conservative, approach is advocated in the literature in which opioid therapy is divided into three key steps (the 3 T's): titration (or trial), tweaking (or tailoring), and transition (or tapering). Establishment of the 3 T's along with the application of other appropriate good medical practice and clinical experience/judgment, including non-pharmacologic approaches, can assist healthcare providers in the effort to achieve optimal management of pain.

Pain in the Frail or Elderly Patient: Does Tapentadol Have a Role?

Persistent pain affects the elderly disproportionally, occurring in 50% of elderly community-dwelling patients and 80% of aged care residents. The management of pain in the elderly and frail patient is complicated because of the risks posed by changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, polypharmacy, and drug-disease interactions. Trials evaluating the efficacy of analgesics have often excluded elderly patients and universally excluded frail patients; therefore, the true efficacy and side-effect profiles in these population groups are largely unknown, especially for long-term use. A stepwise approach is recommended to managing pain, commencing with paracetamol and adding on opioids when needed to manage pain. However, because of the short duration of clinical trials, exclusion of frail patients, and minimal inclusion of elderly patients, the decision as to which opioid should be added on to paracetamol is a difficult one. This article reviews the evidence surrounding a newer opioid, tapentadol. Tapentadol acts on both the mu receptors and on neuronal reuptake of noradrenaline, and has no significant analgesically active metabolites, which theoretically presents some advantages, particularly in comparison with tramadol. However, the evidence to support tapentadol is weak and the trials were often methodologically poor and sponsored almost universally by the drug company. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of tapentadol over other opioids, which have been on the market longer, are less expensive, and have better established safety profiles. As a first-line agent after the failure of paracetamol alone, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine are still the preferred evidence-based choices for add-on opioid therapy for elderly or frail patients.

Lost but making progress--Where will new analgesic drugs come from?

There is a critical need for effective new pharmacotherapies for pain. The paucity of new drugs successfully reaching the clinic calls for a reassessment of current analgesic drug discovery approaches. Many points early in the discovery process present significant hurdles, making it critical to exploit advances in pain neurobiology to increase the probability of success. In this review, we highlight approaches that are being pursued vigorously by the pain community for drug discovery, including innovative preclinical pain models, insights from genetics, mechanistic phenotyping of pain patients, development of biomarkers, and emerging insights into chronic pain as a disorder of both the periphery and the brain. Collaborative efforts between pharmaceutical, academic, and public entities to advance research in these areas promise to de-risk potential targets, stimulate investment, and speed evaluation and development of better pain therapies.

The influence of μ-opioid and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in the modulation of pain responsive neurones in the central amygdala by tapentadol in rats with neuropathy

Treatments for neuropathic pain are either not fully effective or have problematic side effects. Combinations of drugs are often used. Tapentadol is a newer molecule that produces analgesia in various pain models through two inhibitory mechanisms, namely central μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition. These two components interact synergistically, resulting in levels of analgesia similar to opioid analgesics such as oxycodone and morphine, but with more tolerable side effects. The right central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) is critical for the lateral spinal ascending pain pathway, regulates descending pain pathways and is key in the emotional-affective components of pain. Few studies have investigated the pharmacology of limbic brain areas in pain models. Here we determined the actions of systemic tapentadol on right CeA neurones of animals with neuropathy and which component of tapentadol contributes to its effect. Neuronal responses to multimodal peripheral stimulation of animals with spinal nerve ligation or sham surgery were recorded before and after two doses of tapentadol. After the higher dose of tapentadol either naloxone or yohimbine were administered. Systemic tapentadol resulted in dose-dependent decrease in right CeA neuronal activity only in neuropathy. Both naloxone and yohimbine reversed this effect to an extent that was modality selective.

The interactions of the components of tapentadol are not limited to the synergy between the MOR and α₂-adrenoceptors seen at spinal levels, but are seen at this supraspinal site where suppression of responses may relate to the ability of the drug to alter affective components of pain.

Pain management of the cancer patient

INTRODUCTION

Cancer pain is one of the most important symptoms of malignant disease, which has a major impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. Therefore, it needs to be treated appropriately after a careful assessment of the types and causes of pain.

AREAS COVERED

The mainstay of cancer pain management is systemic pharmacotherapy. This is, in principle, still based on the WHO guidelines initially published in 1986. Although these have been validated, they are not evidence-based. The principles are a stepladder approach using non-opioids, weak and then strong opioids. In addition, adjuvants can be added at any step to address specific situations such as bone or neuropathic pain. Patients, even if they are on long-acting opioids, need to be provided with immediate-release opioids for breakthrough pain. In case of inefficacy or severe adverse effects of one opioid, rotation to another opioid is recommended.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a major need for more and better randomized controlled trials in the setting of cancer pain as the lack of evidence is hampering the improvement of current treatment guidelines.

Good clinical practice guide for opioids in pain management: the three Ts - titration (trial), tweaking (tailoring), transition (tapering)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Achieving good clinical practice in the use of opioids as part of a comprehensive pain management regimen can face significant challenges. Despite guidelines from governmental and pain society/organization sources, there are still significant hurdles. A review of some basic tenets of opioid analgesia based on current published knowledge and experiences about this important healthcare imperative is warranted.

CONTENT

Consistent with guidelines, the literature supports using the lowest total opioid dose that provides adequate pain control with the fewest adverse effects. Titration (or trial) during opioid initiation is a way of starting low and going slow (and assessing the appropriateness of a specific opioid and formulation). Recognizing that multiple factors contribute to an individual's personal experience of pain, the physical, psychological, social, cultural, spiritual, pharmacogenomic, and behavioral factors of the individual patient should be taken into account (tweaking, or tailoring). Finally, for those patients for whom transition (tapering) from opioid is desired, doing so too rapidly can have negative consequences and minimization of problems during this step can be achieved by proper tapering.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a simultaneously aggressive, yet conservative, approach is advocated in the literature in which opioid therapy is divided into three key steps (the 3 T's): titration (or trial), tweaking (or tailoring), and transition (or tapering). Establishment of the 3 T's along with the application of other appropriate good medical practice and clinical experience/judgment, including non-pharmacologic approaches, can assist healthcare providers in the effort to achieve optimal management of pain.

Tapentadol at medium to high doses in patients previously receiving strong opioids for the management of cancer pain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol (TP) for a period of 4 weeks in patients who were already treated by opioids.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 30 patients was selected for a prospective observational cohort study. Cancer patients who were receiving at least 60 mg of oral morphine equivalents were selected. Patients discontinued their previous opioid analgesics before starting TP, in doses calculated according the previous opioid consumption (1:3.3 ratio with oral morphine equivalents). The subsequent doses were changed according to the patients' needs for a period of 4 weeks. Oral morphine was offered as a breakthrough pain medication. Pain and symptom intensity were recorded at weekly intervals. Distress score (DS) was calculated from the sum of symptom intensities. TP opioid escalation indexes (TPEI) for the study period were calculated.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were male, and the mean age was 63.5 years (±11.5). The mean Karnofsky status was 62.9 (±10). The mean dose of oral morphine equivalents before switching to TP was 112 mg (±57) and the initial mean dose of TP was 343 mg (±150). Pain intensity significantly decreased. Tapentadol escalation index in percentage was 1.26 (TPEI% ± 2.6) and Tapentadol escalation index in mg was 2.76 (TPEImg ± 4.96). No significant relationships were found with primary tumor (TPEI%, p = 0.204; TPEImg, p = 0.180), pain mechanism (TPEI%, p = 0.863; TPEImg, p = 0.846), age (TPEI%, p = 0.882; TPEImg, p = 0.884), or gender (TPEI%, p = 0.287; TPEImg, p = 0.325). DS decreased, but non-significantly (p = 0.1). Ten patients did not complete the study period: five patients discontinued TP for uncontrolled pain, despite increasing doses of TP over 600 mg/day. Two patients discontinued TP for adverse effects and three patients dropped out, one patient for poor compliance and two patients for unrecorded reasons.

CONCLUSION

In our sample, TP used in doses of 350-450 mg/day was well tolerated and effective in opioid tolerant patients with cancer pain and could be considered as a flexible drug to be used for the management of moderate to severe cancer pain. Like most studies in patients with cancer pain, it was limited by its open-label, uncontrolled design, the number of patients lost in follow-up, and discontinuation of the treatment for several reasons. Further studies in a large number of patients should confirm these preliminary results.

New opioids

Despite the skilled use of opioid analgesics, which is crucial to the relief of cancer pain, there is a lack of evidence to support many aspects of current clinical practice. Therefore, there is a significant need for more effective treatment options. New opioids have been marketed in the past years, including hydrocodone and oxymorphone. Moreover, mixed opioids with combined mechanisms of action have been developed; one such agent, tapentadol, is a centrally acting oral analgesic that possesses a combined mechanism of action: μ-opioid receptor activation with norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. Drug development strategies involving naloxone have been initiated to reduce peripheral opioid-related adverse effects. The rationale is based on the local antagonist activity of naloxone in intestinal opioid receptors and the negligible oral bioavailability of naloxone, particularly in a prolonged-release formulation. New delivery systems have been developed to provide rapid analgesia with potent opioid drugs such as fentanyl. Despite the upcoming availability of these new drugs and technologies that will add to existing types of opioid medication, their benefits and liabilities will ultimately need to be determined by the individual physician and individual patient experiencing pain.

Systematic review of adverse events of buprenorphine patch versus fentanyl patch in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain

SUMMARY This systematic review compares convenience of administration, adverse events and tolerability of buprenorphine patch with fentanyl patch in patients with chronic pain. Methods of quantitative and qualitative research were combined. Seventeen databases were searched up to December 2010. A total of 49 unique trials (56 publications) were included. Patients regarded the use of patches, both transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl, as easy and convenient. Compared with buprenorphine patch, fentanyl can cause more cases of constipation and could lead to a higher number of serious adverse events. There were no differences between buprenorphine patch and fentanyl patch regarding dizziness, somnolence, nausea and treatment discontinuation. Overall, transdermal administration of buprenorphine and fentanyl can be seen as an alternative pathway for delivering these drugs. Use of transdermal buprenorphine might be favorable in certain groups of patients, such as renally impaired, elderly and immunosuppressed patients.

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.

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

RATIONALE

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Tapentadol extended release for chronic pain patients

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain reduces quality of life, utilizes healthcare resources, and increases healthcare costs. It is widespread, but generally inadequately treated or managed, partly due to several obstacles, including a limited number of mechanistic options for long-term pharmacologic agents. Opioids are generally the primary class of analgesic prescribed, but because of associated side effects during long-term treatment, many patients become noncompliant or discontinue treatment. A long-term use analgesic with a good benefit/risk ratio is advantageous.

METHODS

A literature search for randomized trials using tapentadol extended release (ER) for noncancer chronic pain patients was conducted. Databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, using key terms "tapentadol," "prolonged release," "extended release," and "chronic pain" individually or in combination. The results were synthesized and evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of six randomized, controlled studies were identified. Chronic pain conditions analyzed included low back, osteoarthritis, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Treatment arms consisted most often of placebo, tapentadol ER (100-250 mg twice daily [b.i.d.]), and/or oxycodone CR (controlled release) (20-50 mg b.i.d.). Subjects treated with tapentadol ER had significant reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo controls and similar efficacy to oxycodone CR. Overall, the safety profile was superior to that of oxycodone CR in regards to reduction in side effects, reduced severity of side effects (particularly gastrointestinal related), and lower study discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSION

The two mechanisms of analgesic action of tapentadol, combined with an ER, appears to provide equal efficacy to a strong controlled-release opioid while providing greater gastrointestinal tolerability. The reduction in incidence and severity of gastrointestinal side effects correlated with a higher compliance rate. These findings suggest that tapentadol ER might be a viable alternative to conventional strong opioids for pain management for chronic pain patients.

Effects of tapentadol on mechanical hypersensitivity in rats with ligatures of the infraorbital nerve versus the sciatic nerve

BACKGROUND

Convergent data showed that neuropathic pain has specific characteristics at cephalic versus extra-cephalic level, where single-targeted drugs differentially alleviate pain. Because the novel analgesic drug, tapentadol, is acting at two targets, μ-opioid receptors (as agonist) and noradrenaline reuptake (as inhibitor), we tested its effects on neuropathic pain at both cephalic and extra-cephalic levels.

METHODS

Sprague-Dawley rats underwent unilateral constriction injury (CCI) to the infraorbital nerve (ION; cephalic territory) or the sciatic nerve (SN; extra-cephalic territory), and alleviation of nerve lesion-induced mechanical allodynia/hyperalgesia was assessed after acute or repeated (for 4 days) treatment with tapentadol compared with morphine and/or reboxetine (noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor) 2 weeks after surgery. Possible changes in the expression of the neuroinflammatory markers activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) by repeated tapentadol treatment were quantified by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in ganglia and central tissues.

RESULTS

Acute administration of tapentadol (1-10 mg/kg, i.p.) significantly reduced allodynia in both CCI-SN and CCI-ION rats. Although morphine (3 mg/kg, s.c.) or reboxetine (10 mg/kg, i.p.) alone was only marginally active, the combination of both drugs produced supra-additive effects like those observed with tapentadol. In contrast to repeated morphine whose effects vanished, the anti-allodynic effects of tapentadol remained unchanged after a 4-day treatment. However, the latter treatment with tapentadol did not affect nerve lesion-evoked overexpression of ATF3, IL-6 and BDNF transcripts.

CONCLUSIONS

The dual synergistic pharmacological properties of tapentadol, which result in clear-cut anti-neuropathic pain effects at both cephalic and extra-cephalic levels, probably involve mechanisms downstream of nerve injury-induced neuroinflammatory reaction.