Tapentadol in cancer pain management: a prospective open-label study

Simultaneous determination of tramadol in earwax and urine samples: effects of age, duration time and sex

Background: This study aims to determine the concentrations of tramadol in earwax (μg/g) and urine (μg/ml) samples taken from postoperative patients, to evaluate the sensitivity of earwax (cerumen) as an alternative analyte and compare it with the findings in urine samples. Results: The results indicated that tramadol concentrations in earwax samples were averaged 45.08 μg/g (range: 13.5-107.7 μg/g), whereas tramadol concentrations in urine samples were averaged 4.97 μg/ml (range: 1.57-10.11 μg/ml). There were significant differences when comparing age groups, duration and sex between earwax and urine samples (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Despite the significant differences between earwax and urine samples, earwax can be used as a bioindicator of tramadol detection.

A prospective, multicenter, open-label study of the clinical efficacy of tapentadol extended-release in the treatment of cancer-related pain and improvement in the quality of life of opioid-naïve or opioid-resistant patients

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of tapentadol extended-release (ER) on pain control and the quality of life (QoL) of patients with moderate to severe chronic cancer pain in clinical practice in Korea.

Methods

In this prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, patients with sustained cancer pain as well as chronic pain, who were or were not using other analgesics were enrolled. Thirteen centers recorded a total of 752 patients during the 6-month observation period, based on the tapentadol ER dose and tolerability, prior and concomitant analgesic treatment, pain intensity, type of pain, adverse effects, and clinical global impression change (CGI-C). Of those 752 patients, 688 were enrolled, and 650 completed the study for efficacy and adverse drug reactions; among them, 349 were cancer patients.

Results

Tapentadol ER significantly reduced the mean pain intensity including neuropathic pain during the observation period by 2.9 points (from a mean 7 ± 0.87 to 4.1 ± 2.02). Furthermore, QoL was observed to be significantly improved based on the CGI-C, an objective measure.

Conclusion

This study showed that tapentadol ER was effective for treating patients with moderate to severe cancer pain and neuropathic pain, and therefore it significantly improved the patients’ QoL.

Adult Cancer Pain, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

Tapentadol in the management of cancer pain: current evidence and future perspectives

Thanks to the progress in early diagnosis and treatment of cancer, the life expectancy of cancer patients has now increased. Patients are, therefore, more likely to experience their individual cancer pain as a chronic pain. As a consequence, long-term treatment of cancer-related pain and oncological therapy-related pain are a major need for all patients and a challenge to all healthcare professionals. Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic drug characterized by two synergistic mechanisms of action, since it acts at the µ-opioid receptor (MOR) and inhibits noradrenalin re-uptake (NRI). Therefore, tapentadol has been considered the first of a new class of drugs, MOR-NRI. Tapentadol has been tested in different populations of cancer patients (opioid-naive and -pretreated), such as those with pain of mixed etiology, patients with pain from hematological malignancies and patients experiencing pain conditions due to anticancer treatment. According to available evidence, tapentadol prolonged release was well tolerated and effective in cancer pain patients. In randomized, double-blind and active-controlled trials it proved non-inferior to standard opioids like morphine or oxycodone in the management of moderate-to-severe cancer pain, both in opioid-naive and in opioid-pretreated patients. The good analgesic efficacy may be partly due to the action of tapentadol on neuropathic pain components. Together with the low rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects and the overall favorable safety profile, tapentadol can be considered a good option in cancer pain patients, who can suffer frequently from nausea, vomiting, constipation or other events that further reduce their quality of life.

Where should analgesia lead to? Quality of life and functional recovery with tapentadol

Chronic pain is a major health-care problem worldwide, affecting more than one out of five adults in Europe. Although multiple analgesic agents have been extensively investigated in terms of clinical response and tolerability profile, few studies have focused on the impact of these therapies on patients' quality of life (QoL). Of note, improvement in QoL, together with functional recovery, has been recognized since the late 1990s as two main goals of analgesic therapy. Tapentadol is a novel analgesic molecule that synergistically combines two mechanisms of action, µ-opioid receptor agonism and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition, and for which multiple literature data are available that confirm its efficacy and safety in controlling pain. This narrative review summarizes the information available on the impact of tapentadol on QoL, with the aim to provide clinicians with a comprehensive overview of the analgesic effects of tapentadol prolonged release beyond the reduction of pain.

Multiple effectiveness aspects of tapentadol for moderate-severe cancer-pain treatment: an observational prospective study

Background

Previous studies have shown the efficacy of tapentadol (TP) for chronic cancer pain. We evaluated multiple effectiveness aspects of TP prolonged release on moderate–severe cancer-related pain, neuropathic pain (NeP), patient satisfaction, and quality of life.

Methods

An observational prospective study was conducted on 80 cancer patients. Opioid-naïve patients received a starting dose of prolonged-release TP 50 mg twice daily, and opioid-experienced patients were switched to TP, not to exceed 500 mg/day. Treatment response was evaluated at 3, 6, 30–40, and 60–70 days through response rate, numeric rating-scale scoring, survival analysis (time to event for response), pain-intensity difference, TP escalation-index percentage, and effects on NeP. The drug-sparing effect on concomitant therapies was evaluated.

Results

Seventy of 80 patients (88%) were responders to treatment (95% CI 78%–94%). Compared to T₀, pain-intensity reductions were statistically significant for all intervals (P<0.01), with better results at T₃/T₄. NeP was significantly reduced at T₄ (P<0.01). The probability of response was low at the initial stages and increased during the study. Pain-intensity differences decreased during the study, though without significance. Two patients (2.5%) left the study for TP-induced side effects. A significant improvement in quality of life was observed after 30–40 days (P<0.01). The majority of patients were “satisfied”, “very satisfied”, or “extremely satisfied” (T₃–T₄).

Conclusion

TP was effective in terms of drug-sparing effect, response rate, TP escalation-index percentage, and NeP management. By comparing data from the survival analysis with the response rate and time to response (numeric rating scale from T₀ to T₄), we found that although TP induced a quick response, a longer period of therapy and higher doses were needed to improve the positive result.

A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of hydromorphone hydrochloride immediate-release tablets versus oxycodone hydrochloride immediate-release powder for cancer pain: efficacy and safety in Japanese cancer patients

Background

Hydromorphone is a standard opioid analgesic for cancer pain that, prior to this study, was not approved in Japan, where options for opioid switching are limited. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone (DS-7113b) immediate-release tablets in opioid-naïve cancer patients with moderate to severe cancer pain.

Methods

Multicenter, active-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority study of 183 cancer patients over 20 years of age at 50 clinical sites in Japan. Hydromorphone tablets or oxycodone hydrochloride powder was orally administered four times daily for 5 days. The initial doses of hydromorphone and oxycodone hydrochloride were 4 mg/day and 10 mg/day, respectively, and adjusted as necessary. Efficacy was evaluated as the intergroup difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the least squares mean by analysis of covariance, using the baseline visual analog scale (VAS) as a covariate for change in VAS score at treatment completion/discontinuation in the full analysis set.

Results

Non-inferiority of hydromorphone versus oxycodone was confirmed, with an intergroup difference (95% CI) in the least squares mean of -3.4 mm (-9.8 to 3.1 mm) for change in VAS scores, which was below the upper limit of the 95% CI at 10 mm, the non-inferiority limit determined during study planning. Adverse events occurred in 83.0% (73/88) of patients in the hydromorphone group and 77.4% (65/84) in the oxycodone group. The most frequently observed adverse events were somnolence, constipation, vomiting and nausea.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of hydromorphone tablets are equivalent to those of oxycodone immediate-release powder.

Comparative pharmacology and toxicology of tramadol and tapentadol

Moderate-to-severe pain represents a heavy burden in patients' quality of life, and ultimately in the society and in healthcare costs. The aim of this review was to summarize data on tramadol and tapentadol adverse effects, toxicity, potential advantages and limitations according to the context of clinical use. We compared data on the pharmacological and toxicological profiles of tramadol and tapentadol, after an extensive literature search in the US National Library of Medicine (PubMed). Tramadol is a prodrug that acts through noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake inhibition, with a weak opioid component added by its metabolite O-desmethyltramadol. Tapentadol does not require metabolic activation and acts mainly through noradrenaline reuptake inhibition and has a strong opioid activity. Such features confer tapentadol potential advantages, namely lower serotonergic, dependence and abuse potential, more linear pharmacokinetics, greater gastrointestinal tolerability and applicability in the treatment of chronic and neuropathic pain. Although more studies are needed to provide clear guidance on the opioid of choice, tapentadol shows some advantages, as it does not require CYP450 system activation and has minimal serotonergic effects. In addition, it leads to less side effects and lower abuse liability. However, in vivo and in vitro studies have shown that tramadol and tapentadol cause similar toxicological damage. In this context, it is important to underline that the choice of opioid should be individually balanced and a tailored decision, based on previous experience and on the patient's profile, type of pain and context of treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

This review underlines the need for a careful prescription of tramadol and tapentadol. Although both are widely prescribed synthetic opioid analgesics, their toxic effects and potential dependence are not completely understood yet. In particular, concerning tapentadol, further research is needed to better assess its toxic effects.

The role of tapentadol as a strong opioid in cancer pain management: a systematic and critical review

AIM

The aim of this review was to assess the role of tapentadol given at medium-high doses in opioid-tolerant patients for cancer pain management in place of step-3 analgesics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was performed out of which six studies and one secondary analysis provided data regarding tapentadol used as a step-3 analgesic for this review. Tapentadol, when used at ≥60 mg of oral morphine equivalents in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain, or passing from step-2 doses to ≥60 mg of oral morphine equivalents, was well tolerated and effective and could be considered as a flexible drug to be used for the management of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. The limited occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects may be a great advantage in the context of a disease like cancer, where multiple causes contribute to nausea, vomiting, or constipation; however, studies of tapentadol given at doses equivalent to step-3 level have some weaknesses, as data from prospective observational studies are poorly generalizable due to a small number of participants, controlled studies do not clearly show a superiority of tapentadol with respect to other opioids, and the sample size is often small.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are necessary to confirm the role of tapentadol in cancer patients requiring strong opioids for their pain.

A randomized, double-blind study of hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets versus oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets for cancer pain: efficacy and safety in Japanese cancer patients (EXHEAL: a Phase III study of EXtended-release HydromorphonE for cAncer pain reLief)

BACKGROUND

In Japan, there are limited options for switching opioid analgesics. Hydromorphone is an opioid analgesic that is routinely used instead of morphine for cancer pain; however, it is not yet available in Japan. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone (DS-7113b) extended-release tablets in opioid-naïve patients with cancer pain not relieved by non-opioid analgesics.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. A double-dummy method was used for blinding. Each randomized subject received either hydromorphone extended-release tablets plus placebo oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets 4 mg/day (n=88) or placebo hydromorphone extended-release tablets plus oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets 10 mg/day (n=93) orally for 7 days (once-daily dosing for hydromorphone and twice-daily dosing for oxycodone). The doses were adjusted as necessary. Efficacy was evaluated by change in visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline to completion of treatment.

RESULTS

The between-group difference in least squares mean changes in VAS score from baseline to completion or discontinuation of treatment was -0.4 mm (95% CI -5.9 to 5 mm) by analysis of covariance where the baseline VAS score was used as a covariate. The upper limit of the 95% CI was below 10 mm, which was predefined as the noninferiority limit. This verified the noninferiority of hydromorphone tablets relative to oxycodone tablets. The incidence of adverse events was 80.7% (71 of 88) in the hydromorphone group and 83.7% (77 of 93) in the oxycodone group. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, somnolence, diarrhea, and constipation, most of which are commonly observed with opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of hydromorphone extended-release tablets were equivalent to those of the oxycodone extended-release formulation.

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.

Tapentadol for Cancer Pain Management: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pain is one of the most common symptoms in patients with cancer. The aim of this review is to summarize the most recent literature regarding tapentadol use in oncology patients and moderate or severe pain.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

We have conducted a review of the literature using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for all manuscripts published between 2008 and 2016, using the key words "tapentadol," "cancer," "pain," "tumor," and "malignant."

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (four randomized clinical trials and five prospective cohort studies). The scope of the literature was diverse, with 15 instruments used to measure different aspects of pain (intensity, health status, quality of life, psychometric and well-being, perception of change, and neuropathic pain). All these studies concluded that tapentadol is seemingly a well-tolerated and efficacious agent for moderate-severe cancer pain, with few typically mild adverse reactions. However, the most significant detected weaknesses of research were that (1) existing studies do not clearly show a superiority of tapentadol with respect to previous generation opioids, (2) low-to-moderate sample sizes prevent obtaining robust conclusions about effectiveness, (3) there was an absence of noninferiority trials comparing tapentadol vs. fentanyl or oxycodone-naloxone, and (4) there was scarce generalizability of prospective observational studies.

CONCLUSION

Tapentadol is seemingly an effective, well-tolerated alternative for moderate or severe cancer pain. Most prospective cohort studies have relatively small samples, are restricted to few research centers, and lack detailed subgroup information. More experience is required to draw valid generalizable conclusions.

The painDETECT project - far more than a screening tool on neuropathic pain

Background and objectives The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), a simple and reliable screening questionnaire of neuropathic pain, was developed in 2004 in cooperation with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain. The initial aim was to implement quality management and to improve the situation of neuropathic pain (NeP) patients in Germany. The PD-Q proved immediately successful and was translated into and validated in multiple languages. Subsequently a comprehensive electronic system (PD) comprising various validated questionnaires with regard to pain typical comorbidities, such as function, sleep, mood or anxiety, was implemented Germany wide. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview about the development and validation as well as the application of the PD-Q in various clinical conditions. Methods This overview is based on a literature search on English full-text papers using the term 'painDETECT' in Medline and PubMed covering the time period from 2006 to September 2015, amended with further publications cited in the retrieved publications or provided by the questionnaire developers. Results PD-Q as screening tool for NeP described in patients with lower back pain (8 studies), rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (10), thoracotomy (2 studies), tumor diseases (4 studies), fibromyalgia (4 studies), diverse musculoskeletal conditions (12 studies) and diverse other conditions (10 studies). In addition, the PD-Q was used in 9 studies that investigated the effect of drugs for the treatment of patients with a NeP component. Conclusion To date more than 300,000 patients were assessed, providing the basis for one of the world's largest datasets for chronic pain. Among others the extensive pool of PD-Q data triggered the idea of subgrouping patients on the basis of their individual sensory profiles which might in the future lead to a stratified treatment approach and ultimately to personalized therapy. Started as a healthcare utilization project in Germany, the PD-Q is nowadays used for clinical and research purposes around the world.

Worldwide research productivity on tramadol: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain management and safe use of analgesics is an important medical issue. Tramadol is an old analgesic with controversial properties. Evaluation of worldwide scientific output on tramadol has not been explored. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to give a bibliometric overview of global research productivity on tramadol.

METHODS

SciVerse Scopus was used to retrieve and quantitatively and qualitatively analyze worldwide publications on tramadol.

RESULTS

A total of 2059 original and review research articles on tramadol were retrieved from Scopus. Forty-six documents (2.23 %) were published in Anesthesia and Analgesia Journal whereas 30 (1.46 %) were published in Arzneimittel Forschung Drug Research Journal. Retrieved tramadol documents were published from 71 countries and appeared in 160 peer reviewed journals. Although the United States of America (259; 12.86 %) had the largest contribution to tramadol publications; the contribution by other countries like Turkey (232; 11.27) India (189; 8.09 %) and Germany (176; 8.56 % was not far away from that of USA. The most productive institution was Grunenthal, Germany (47; 2.28 %) followed by Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran (29; 1.41 %), and, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Incorporated, USA (25; 1.21 %). Of the 2059 documents, there were 370 documents about dependence. The leading institution in documents pertaining to tramadol dependence was Grunenthal GmbH (18; 4.86 %) followed by Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Incorporated (17; 4.59 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed that there is an obvious interest in tramadol research. More efforts are needed to clarify the abuse potential and safety profile of tramadol to help in determining the legal status of tramadol. Collaboration among pharmaceutical industry, clinical researchers and academic institutions can improve research quantity and quality on tramadol.

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.

Cancer pain physiology

Mechanisms of inflammatory and neuropathic pains have been elucidated and translated to patient care by the use of animal models of these pain states. Cancer pain has lagged behind since early animal models of cancer-induced bone pain were based on the systemic injection of carcinoma cells. This precluded systematic investigation of specific neuronal and pharmacological alterations that occur in cancer-induced bone pain. In 1999, Schwei et al. described a murine model of cancer-induced bone pain that paralleled the clinical condition in terms of pain development and bone destruction, confined to the mouse femur. This model prompted related approaches, and we can now state that cancer pain may include elements of inflammatory and neuropathic pains but also unique changes in sensory processing. Cancer-induced bone pain results in progressive bone destruction, elevated osteoclast activity and distinctive nocifensive behaviours (indicating the triad of ongoing, spontaneous and movement-induced hyperalgesia). In addition, cancer cells induce an inflammatory infiltrate and release growth factors, cytokines, interleukins, chemokines, prostanoids and endothelins, resulting in a reduction of pH to below 5 and direct deformation of primary afferents within bone. These peripheral changes, in turn, drive hypersensitivity of spinal cord sensory neurons, many of which project to the parts of the brain involved in the emotional response to pain. Within the spinal cord, a unique neuronal function reorganization within segments of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord receiving nociceptive input from the bone are discussed. Changes in certain neurotransmitters implicated in brain modulation of spinal function are also altered with implications for the affective components of cancer pain. Treatments are described in terms of mechanistic insights and in the case of opioids, which modulate pain transmission at spinal and supraspinal sites, their use can be compromised by opioid-induced hyperalgesia. We discuss evidence for how this comes about and how it may be treated.

Tapentadol prolonged release for patients with multiple myeloma suffering from moderate-to-severe cancer pain due to bone disease

Context

Myeloma bone disease (MBD) is a devastating complication of multiple myeloma that leads to severe pain.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) in the management of patients with MBD suffering from moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

Methods

A 12-week prospective study was carried out in 25 opioid-naïve MBD patients. Patients initially received twice-daily doses of tapentadol PR 50 mg. Doses were then managed to maintain adequate relief or dose-limiting toxicity. The following parameters were recorded at weekly intervals for 4 weeks, and then at weeks 8 and 12: pain, opioid-related adverse effects, use of other analgesics, DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique 4) score. Quality of life (SF-36 [36-item short-form health survey]) was measured at baseline and at final evaluation.

Results

Of 25 patients, 22 completed the study. Pain intensity significantly decreased from baseline to all the week intervals (P<0.01). Quality of life significantly improved with respect to all SF-36 subscale parameters (P<0.01), and so did both the physical and mental status (P<0.01). Tapentadol PR significantly reduced DN4 mean value (P<0.01) and the number of patients with neuropathic component (DN4 ≥4) (P<0.01). After 8 weeks of treatment, all patients were negative for the DN4 score. Tapentadol PR was well tolerated, and the use of other analgesics was reduced during the study period.

Conclusion

Tapentadol PR started in doses of 100 mg/day was effective and well tolerated in opioid-naïve MBD patients with moderate-to-severe pain. Tapentadol PR can be considered a first-choice opioid in cancer patients suffering from mixed pain with a neuropathic component.

Ready conversion of patients with well-controlled, moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain on other opioids to tapentadol extended release

Background and Objectives

The effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol extended release (ER), a centrally acting analgesic with μ-opioid receptor agonist and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor activities, have been demonstrated in patients with chronic pain, including those switching directly from prior opioid therapy. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of conversion to oral tapentadol ER (50–250 mg twice daily) from previous around-the-clock strong opioid therapy in patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor–related cancer pain that was well-controlled.

Methods

This randomized, open-label, phase III study, which was conducted in Japan, included a 1- to 2-week screening period (on previous opioid) and an 8-week, open-label treatment period. Eligible patients, who were taking a strong opioid analgesic and had a mean pain intensity score <4 during the 3 days prior to randomization (adequate pain control on previous strong opioid), were randomized (1:1) to receive twice-daily treatment with tapentadol ER (100–500 mg/day) or morphine sustained release (SR; 20–140 mg/day; reference for assay sensitivity). Initial doses were estimated based on the conversion ratio of tapentadol ER:oxycodone:morphine:fentanyl = 10:2:3:0.03. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained pain control [change from baseline in mean pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) less than +1.5 for 3 consecutive days and no more than two doses of rescue medication per day for 3 consecutive days) during the first week of open-label treatment.

Results

In the tapentadol ER group (n = 50), 84.0 % of patients (42/50; 95 % CI, 70.89–92.83) maintained pain control during Week 1. On the Patient Global Impression of Change, 2.1 % (1/48), 2.1 % (1/48), 22.9 % (11/48), and 50.0 % (24/48) of patients in the tapentadol ER group reported that their overall condition was “very much improved,” “much improved,” “minimally improved,” and “not changed,” respectively, at Week 1 compared with 0 %, 10.7 % (3/28), 28.6 % (8/28), and 53.6 % (15/28) reporting these ratings at Week 8. The sensitivity of effectiveness analyses was validated based on results using morphine SR; 98.0 % (49/50; 95 % CI, 89.35–99.95) of patients in the morphine SR group maintained pain control after 1 week of treatment. The overall safety profile was similar to that demonstrated in previous studies; tapentadol ER was associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events than morphine SR [38.0 % (19/50) vs. 54.0 % (27/50)], including constipation [12.0 % (6/50) vs. 20.0 % (10/50)] and vomiting [6.0 % (3/50) vs. 26.0 % (13/50)].

Conclusions

Overall, results indicate that conversion from previous strong opioids to tapentadol ER (50–250 mg twice daily) was successful and resulted in safe and effective pain control with improved gastrointestinal tolerability versus morphine SR in patients with moderate to severe cancer-related pain that was well-controlled on their previous opioid.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40261-014-0204-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tapentadol extended release in the management of peripheral diabetic neuropathic pain

Tapentadol, a μ-opioid agonist and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, has been found to be an effective medication for a wide variety of chronic pain conditions, including back pain, cancer-related pain, and arthritic pain. It has also been found to have fewer gastrointestinal side effects than more traditional opioid-based therapies. More recently, tapentadol extended release has been demonstrated to be effective in the management of painful diabetic neuropathy, an often debilitating condition affecting approximately one-third of all patients with diabetes. This review highlights the most up-to-date basic and clinical studies by focusing on the mechanisms of action of tapentadol and its clinical efficacy, especially with regard to painful diabetic neuropathy.

Lasting Prolonged-Release Tapentadol for Moderate/Severe Non-Cancer Musculoskeletal Chronic Pain

Introduction

Despite opioids’ recognized role in the treatment of moderate/severe musculoskeletal chronic pain, their long-term benefits need investigation. We explored the lasting analgesic efficacy, tolerability, influence on life quality, and chronicity stage of the novel prolonged release (PR) opioid, tapentadol, in 30 outpatients.

Methods

We evaluated patients’ pain intensity and relief (Numerical Rating Scale; NRS), adverse effects, sleep quality, treatment satisfaction, health status (12-questions Health-Survey; SF-12), chronicity stage (Italian Mainz Pain-Staging System; I-MPSS) at 10, 30, 60, and 90 days after tapentadol prescription.

Results

At follow-ups, the investigated outcomes showed an overall statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) improvement and remained stable over time, as did the health status and chronicity stage. Adverse effects were limited, transitory, and tolerable.

Conclusions

Twelve weeks of PR tapentadol in outpatients with moderate/severe chronic musculoskeletal pain showed satisfactory analgesic efficacy and tolerability, and had a positive influence on life quality and chronicity stage. The results are robust enough to warrant a subsequent study with a larger sample and a longer observation period.

Tapentadol prolonged release for severe chronic cancer-related pain: effectiveness, tolerability, and influence on quality of life of the patients

Background

Clinical trials have shown the efficacy and good tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for severe chronic pain of different etiologies. This study investigated the influence of tapentadol PR on pain control and quality of life of patients with severe chronic cancer-related pain in routine clinical practice in Germany.

Patients and methods

During a 3-month observation period, 45 physicians (mainly palliative care specialists) documented dosage and tolerability of tapentadol PR, previous and concomitant analgesic treatment, pain intensity, pain-related restrictions of daily activities and quality of life, and general state of health of 123 patients with chronic cancer-related pain in the context of a prospective noninterventional study.

Results

All patients (mean age 63.9±13.2 years, 93.5% in constant pain) had received analgesic long-term treatment (42.3% strong opioids) prior to the start of tapentadol PR treatment. During the observation period, tapentadol PR significantly reduced the average pain intensity by 2.4 points (from a mean 6.1±1.7 to 3.7±2.0, P<0.001); half of the patients (52%) achieved a pain score ≤3 at the end of observation. At the same time, mental and emotional well-being, pain-related impairments of daily activities, sleep quality, and quality of life improved, while the overall intake of analgesic concomitant medication could be reduced. Improvements in general state of health were significant (P<0.001). Overall, tapentadol PR was well tolerated.

Conclusion

Good pain control with tapentadol PR was accompanied by markedly reduced pain-related mental and physical burden and quality of life improved. Overall, the general state of health of these patients with chronic cancer-related pain improved significantly despite the underlying illness.

The use of opioids for treatment of cancer pain

INTRODUCTION

Pain is commonly experienced by patients with cancer, particularly those with advanced disease. Alleviating pain is an important goal of cancer treatment. Opioids are the cornerstone of the analgesic treatment.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacology, characteristics, and use of opioids in clinical practice are presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Although the use of opioids is largely accepted as a fundamental step for controlling cancer pain, existing data supporting this statement are poor. All opioids provide analgesia and are effective in controlling cancer pain. New drugs have been developed and experience is accumulating among clinicians. Despite these drugs having different pharmacokinetic and chemical properties, there is no proof that one opioid is better than another one. Thus, the optimum benefit depends on the experience of the users. Clinicians should weight evidence, clinical experience, patient preferences, and treatment costs when choosing the optimal treatment for an individual patient with cancer pain. New opioids with specific receptor activities are under investigation.

Management of severe chronic pain with tapentadol prolonged release - long-term data from pain specialists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have documented the efficacy and good tolerability of tapentadol prolonged released (PR) for severe chronic pain. This study investigated routine long-term administration by pain specialists.

METHODS

The effectiveness analysis included prospective data collected over a 3 month period (cohort I, n = 1457, mean age 61.2 ± 13 years) and over a 12 month period (cohort II, n = 588, 60.1 ± 13.2 years) regarding previous and concomitant analgesic treatment, tapentadol dosage, pain intensity, sleep and quality of life parameters, and tolerability.

RESULTS

Most patients (>77%) had suffered from severe chronic pain for ≥2 years with low back pain the main pain diagnosis (82%); 91% had already received analgesic long-term treatment prior to initiation of tapentadol therapy (42% of those received strong opioids). After 3 month tapentadol treatment, cohort I had experienced a mean pain reduction of 2.4 points (from 6.8 ± 1.6 at baseline) and improvements of 2.1 points in quality of sleep (from 5.8 ± 2.5) and quality of life (from 6.5 ± 2; all p ≤ 0.001). The 12 month tapentadol treatment (cohort II) reduced the mean pain intensity by 3.2 points from 6.7 ± 1.6 at baseline (NRS-11; p ≤ 0.001); 57% of the patients experienced clinically relevant pain relief of ≥50%. At end of observation, 92% attained either their intended pain reduction and/or an additional individual treatment target, both predefined at start of tapentadol therapy. This was accompanied by a significant reduction in pain-related impairments in daily activities and an improvement in quality of life (all p ≤ 0.001). Most frequent side-effects were nausea (6.3% of patients) and dizziness (3.8%) for cohort I, and nausea (1.5%) and constipation (1.2%) for cohort II.

CONCLUSION

Tapentadol PR is effective and well tolerated and can be considered an alternative to classical strong opioids in long-term chronic pain therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The study lacks a control group; assessment under routine practice conditions, however, reflects daily practice clinical management conditions.

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.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression: reversal by non-opioid drugs

The human body is critically dependent on the ventilatory control system for adequate uptake of oxygen and removal of carbon dioxide (CO2). Potent opioid analgesics, through their actions on μ-opioid receptor (MOR) expressed on respiratory neurons in the brainstem, depress ventilation. Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) is potentially life threatening and the cause of substantial morbidity and mortality. One possible way of prevention of OIRD is by adding a respiratory stimulant to the opioid treatment, which through activation of non-opioidergic pathways will excite breathing and consequently will offset OIRD and should not affect analgesia. Various new respiratory stimulants are currently under investigation including (a) potassium channel blockers acting at the carotid bodies, and (b) ampakines and (c) serotonin receptor agonists acting within the brainstem. (a) GAL-021 targets BKCa-channels. Initial animal and human experimental evidence indicates that this potassium channel blocker is a potent respiratory stimulant that reverses OIRD without affecting antinociception. GAL021 is safe and better tolerated than the older K(+)-channel blocker doxapram and more efficacious in its effect on respiration. (b) Ampakines modulate glutamatergic respiratory neurons in brainstem respiratory centers. Various ampakines have been studied showing their ability to increase respiratory drive during OIRD by increasing respiratory rate. Currently, CX717 is the most promising ampakine for use in humans as it is safe and does not affect opioid analgesia. (c) While animal studies show that serotonin receptor agonists increase respiratory drive via activation of serotonin receptors in brainstem respiratory centers, human studies are without success. Further clinical studies are required to improve our care of patients that are treated with potent opioid analgesics. The use of non-opioid adjuvants may reduce the probability of OIRD but does never relieve us of our duty to continuously monitor these patients, irrespective whether they are treated in-house or in an ambulatory setting.

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.

Neuropathic cancer pain: What we are dealing with? How to manage it?

Cancer pain is a serious health problem, and imposes a great burden on the lives of patients and their families. Pain can be associated with delay in treatment, denial of treatment, or failure of treatment. If the pain is not treated properly it may impair the quality of life. Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is one of the most complex phenomena among cancer pain syndromes. NCP may result from direct damage to nerves due to acute diagnostic/therapeutic interventions. Chronic NCP is the result of treatment complications or malignancy itself. Although the reason for pain is different in NCP and noncancer neuropathic pain, the pathophysiologic mechanisms are similar. Data regarding neuropathic pain are primarily obtained from neuropathic pain studies. Evidence pertaining to NCP is limited. NCP due to chemotherapeutic toxicity is a major problem for physicians. In the past two decades, there have been efforts to standardize NCP treatment in order to provide better medical service. Opioids are the mainstay of cancer pain treatment; however, a new group of therapeutics called coanalgesic drugs has been introduced to pain treatment. These coanalgesics include gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin), antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, and venlafaxine), corticosteroids, bisphosphonates, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists, and cannabinoids. Pain can be encountered throughout every step of cancer treatment, and thus all practicing oncologists must be capable of assessing pain, know the possible underlying pathophysiology, and manage it appropriately. The purpose of this review is to discuss neuropathic pain and NCP in detail, the relevance of this topic, clinical features, possible pathology, and treatments of NCP.

Recent advances in cancer pain management

Pain is the most feared symptom of cancer. New oncological cancer treatments are improving survival, but advanced cancer presents challenges that have not been seen before, often with pain that is very difficult to manage because of a recurrent tumour that is invading the central nervous system. In some of the older interventional techniques of destroying nerve pathways, expertise has diminished or has been deemed unnecessary with the development of specialist palliative care. Not all pain is managed adequately with the analgesic ladder. Knowledge of pain mechanisms, careful assessment and selection of the right technique at the right time will enhance cancer pain management. New techniques include intrathecal drug therapy, vertebroplasty, cordotomy, ultra-sound guided nerve blocks, neuromodulation and advances in drug therapies.

Efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability of oral oxycodone/naloxone combination for chronic pain in outpatients with cancer: an observational study

Combination opioid agonist/antagonist therapy has been shown to preserve bowel function in patients with chronic cancer pain. This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of prolonged-released fixed-dose oxycodone-naloxone (PR OXN) in consecutive outpatients with chronic cancer pain. Of 206 patients prescribed PR OXN (mean age 61.3 ± 12.9 years; 52.9% female), 31.5% were opioid naïve. PR OXN was associated with a significant decrease in pain score measured on a visual analogue scale over 28 days (P < .0001), without adverse effects on bowel function, nor change in laxative use. PR OXN efficacy and tolerability were similar in opioid-naïve and -experienced patients, and among age-stratified subgroups. No severe side effects occurred. In a real-life outpatient setting, PR OXN provided analgesia without bowel dysfunction in patients with chronic cancer pain.

Efficacy and safety of oral tapentadol extended release in Japanese and Korean patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain

OBJECTIVE

This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release (ER) compared with oxycodone controlled release (CR) for the management of moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related cancer pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study included Japanese and Korean patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive oral tapentadol ER (25-200 mg bid) or oral oxycodone HCl CR (5-40 mg bid) for 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01165281.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This study was designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of the efficacy provided by tapentadol ER versus oxycodone CR, based on the mean change in average pain intensity (11 point numerical rating scale) from baseline to the last 3 days of study drug administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded throughout the study.

RESULTS

Of the 374 patients who were screened, 343 were randomized and 236 completed treatment. The least-squares mean difference in the change in pain intensity from baseline to the last 3 days of study treatment between tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR was -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.506 to 0.383). The upper limit of the 95% CI was <1 (the predefined threshold value for non-inferiority), indicating that tapentadol ER provided analgesic efficacy that was non-inferior to that of oxycodone CR. The percentage of patients reporting at least one TEAE was similar in the tapentadol ER (87.5% [147/168]) and oxycodone CR (90.1% [155/172]) treatment groups, but the incidence of gastrointestinal TEAEs was lower in the tapentadol ER group (55.4% [93/168]) than in the oxycodone CR group (67.4% [116/172]).

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol ER (25-200 mg bid) provides analgesic efficacy that is non-inferior to that provided by oxycodone HCl CR (5-40 mg bid) for the management of moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain, and is well tolerated overall, with a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile than oxycodone CR.

Patient considerations in the use of tapentadol for moderate to severe pain

Poorly controlled acute and chronic pain can increase morbidity, impair quality of life and prolong disability. Over 80 percent of post surgical patients report moderate to severe uncontrolled postoperative pain. Over-reliance on potent opioid agonists can lead to several opioid related side effects such as gastrointestinal intolerability, respiratory depression and cognitive impairment. A recently approved dual acting central analgesic tapentadol may offer improved tolerability over traditional opioid agonists while having multimodal opioid and nonopioid analgesic benefits. Tapentadol, classified by the US Food and Drug Administration as a class 2 opioid, is currently marketed in the United States as immediate release (IR) NUCYNTA® for moderate to severe acute pain in tablets of 50 mg, 75 mg, and 100 mg, and as extended release (ER) NUCYNTA ER® for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe pain in tablets of 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg. Tapentadol is a low affinity mu opioid receptor agonist and a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Tapentadol has no active metabolites and this property makes it useful in patients with hepatic and renal failure. Clinical trials with tapentadol IR showed that there was improved gastrointestinal tolerability and similar pain relief as compared to oxycodone IR. Tapentadol ER allows for twice daily dosing. Clinical trials showed that tapentadol ER could effectively relieve moderate to severe chronic pain and was associated with significantly fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects as compared to oxycodone controlled release. Tapentadol ER is indicated and has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of chronic painful diabetic neuropathy. The most common side effects of tapentadol are nausea (30%), vomiting (18%), dizziness (24%), and somnolence (15%). Tapentadol, due to its potential synergistic effects on norepinephrine levels, is contraindicated in patients who have taken monoamine oxidase inhibitors within the last 14 days. Caution has to be exercised with the use of tapentadol IR and tapentadol ER in the presence of other central nervous system depressants such as neuroleptics, opioids, illicit drugs, muscle relaxants, sedatives, and anxiolytics.

Opioid switching from and to tapentadol extended release in cancer patients: conversion ratio with other opioids

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this exploratory study was to assess the conversion ratios between tapentadol and other opioids in patients requiring an opioid switching.

METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in a convenience sample of consecutive patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit and a home care unit for a period of 1 year. Patients who were switched from/to tapentadol were selected. The initial ratio between tapentadol and other opioids, expressed as oral morphine equivalents was 1:3.3. The subsequent doses were flexible and were changed to fit the patients' needs. Pain intensity and distress score were recorded until opioid doses were stable. In all, 37 patients were examined; 24 and 13 patients were switched from and to tapentadol, respectively.

RESULTS

The most frequent sequences were tapentadol-morphine (18 patients) in one direction, and morphine-tapentadol (8 patients) in the other direction. In the sequence tapentadol-morphine and morphine-tapentadol, the mean final tapentadol-morphine ratios were 3.9:1 (SD 2.3), and 1:4.5 (SD 3.2), respectively, which did not differ significantly from the initial established conversion ratio. A minority of patients were switched from/to tapentadol to/from other opioids. Globally, the initial ratio did not change after switching took place.

CONCLUSION

Data suggest that a conversion ratio between tapentadol and other opioids, expressed in oral morphine equivalents could be 1:3.3 in both direction, particularly in patients who are switched in conditions of equianalgesia. The limited number of patients prevents a definitive conclusion to be drawn, and data should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of the study and the question of the low number of patients should be addressed in future studies.