A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of single-entity, once-daily hydrocodone tablets in patients with uncontrolled moderate to severe chronic low back pain

Long-term effects of lumbar flexion versus extension exercises for chronic axial low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

This study aimed to compare the long-term effects of flexion- and extension-based lumbar exercises on chronic axial low back pain (LBP). This was a 1-year follow-up of a prospective, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients with axial LBP (intensity ≥ 5/10) for > 6 months allocated to the flexion or extension exercise group. Patients underwent four sessions of a supervised treatment program and were required to perform their assigned exercises daily at home. Clinical outcomes were obtained at baseline, 1, 3, 6 months, and 1-year. A total of 56 patients (age, 54.3 years) were included, with 27 and 29 in the flexion and extension groups, respectively. Baseline pain and functional scales were similar between both groups. The mean (± standard deviation) baseline average back pain was 6.00 ± 1.00 and 5.83 ± 1.20 in the flexion and extension groups, respectively. At 1-year, the average pain was 3.78 ± 1.40 and 2.26 ± 2.62 (mean between-group difference, 1.52; 95% confidence interval 0.56-2.47; p = 0.002), favoring extension exercise. The extension group tended to have more improvements in current pain, least pain, and pain interference than the flexion group at 1-year. However, there was no group difference in worst pain and functional scales. In this controlled trial involving patients with chronic axial LBP, extension-based lumbar exercise was more effective in reducing pain than flexion-based exercises at 1-year, advocating lumbar extension movement pattern as a component for therapeutic exercise for chronic LBP.Clinical Trial Registration No.: NCT02938689 (Registered on www.clinicaltrial.gov ; first registration date was 19/10/2016).

Treatment with brodalumab is not associated with improved sleep problems in real-life patients with plaque psoriasis: Results of the ProLOGUE study

Psoriasis impacts various aspects of patients' health-related quality of life and is associated with sleep problems. However, research discussing the associations between interleukin-17 blockage therapies and sleep problems in patients with psoriasis is insufficient. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of brodalumab in alleviating sleep problems in real-life patients with plaque psoriasis. This analysis was part of the single-arm, open-label, multicenter, prospective, cohort study, ProLOGUE (study period October 2017-March 2020), which involved Japanese patients with plaque psoriasis. Assessments included correlation of Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale-Revised (MOS Sleep-R) scores (Sleep Problems Index-II [SPI-II] and MOS Sleep-R subscale scores) with multiple patient-reported outcome scores and the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) at baseline. Additionally, change from baseline in MOS Sleep-R scores was assessed at weeks 12 and 48 of brodalumab treatment. Seventy-three patients were enrolled (male 82.2%, median age 54.0 years). At baseline, the SPI-II score correlated with the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 score (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] = -0.474) and weakly correlated with the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS; ρ = -0.366), Skin Pain NRS (ρ = -0.275), and all Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9 domain scores (ρ = 0.270, ρ = 0.303, and ρ = 0.322 for effectiveness, convenience, and global satisfaction, respectively) but did not correlate with the PASI score. The SPI-II score and MOS Sleep-R subscale scores, except the Snoring score (p = 0.0319), did not significantly change from baseline to week 12 of brodalumab treatment. In conclusion, treatment with brodalumab did not improve overall sleep problems in real-life patients with plaque psoriasis, suggesting that sleep problems require attention in daily clinical practice (Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier, jRCTs031180037).

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

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

Comparative safety review of current treatment options for chronic low back pain and unmet needs: a narrative review

Introduction: The healthcare expenditures in the United States are substantial for the management of refractory, chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this review is to summarize and evaluate the safety profiles of different pharmacological treatment options used in the management of CLBP.Areas covered: The authors conducted a search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the safety profiles of different pharmacological agents used in the management of CLBP. This narrative review covered corticosteroids, opioids, antidepressants, gabapentinoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, anti-nerve growth factor antibodies and topical agents, as monotherapy or in combination.Expert opinion: The risk-benefit ratio of a particular treatment is a subject driving the ongoing development of pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported AEs across all drug classes are of gastrointestinal nature, followed by neurological and skin-related. These AEs include nausea, dizziness, constipation, arthralgia, headache, dry mouth, pruritus, etc. The majority of the AEs reported are not life-threatening, although they may lower patients' quality of life, thus, affecting their compliance. One of the biggest limitations of our review stems from the paucity of safety assessments in published RCTs. Advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of pain will promote development of new therapeutic strategies.

Are Opioids Needed to Treat Chronic Low Back Pain? A Review of Treatment Options and Analgesics in Development

The continued prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a testament to our lack of understanding of the potential causes, leading to significant treatment challenges. CLBP is the leading cause of years lived with disability and the fifth leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years. No single non-pharmacologic, pharmacologic, or interventional therapy has proven effective as treatment for the majority of patients with CLBP. Although non-pharmacologic therapies are generally helpful, they are often ineffective as monotherapy and many patients lack adequate access to these treatments. Noninvasive treatment measures supported by evidence include physical and chiropractic therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and non-opioid and opioid pharmacologic therapy; data suggest a moderate benefit, at most, for any of these therapies. Until our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of CLBP advances, clinicians must continue to utilize rational multimodal treatment protocols. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for opioid prescribing recommend that opioids not be utilized as first-line therapy and to limit the doses when possible for fear of bothersome or dangerous adverse effects. In combination with the current opioid crisis, this has caused providers to minimize or eliminate opioid therapy when treating patients with chronic pain, leaving many patients suffering despite optimal nonopioid therapies. Therefore, there remains an unmet need for effective and tolerable opioid receptor agonists for the treatment of CLBP with improved safety properties over legacy opioids. There are several such agents in development, including opioids and other agents with novel mechanisms of action. This review critiques non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment modalities for CLBP and examines the potential of novel opioids and other analgesics that may be a useful addition to the treatment options for patients with chronic pain.

Number Of Clinical Trial Study Sites Impacts Observed Treatment Effect Size: An Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials Of Opioids For Chronic Pain

Background

Many aspects of study conduct impact the observed effect size of treatment. Data were utilized from a recently published meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials performed for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of full mu-agonist opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

Methods

The number of study sites in each clinical trial and standardized effect size (SES) were extracted and computed. Standardized effect size was plotted against number of sites, and a two-piece linear model was fit to the plot. Ten studies were included.

Results

The SES decreased linearly by 0.13 units for every 10 sites (p=0.037), from 0.75 to 0.36, until an inflection point of 60 sites, after which SES did not decline further. The total number of subjects required for 90% power to discriminate drug from placebo increased from 78 to 336 subjects going from 30 to 60 sites.

Conclusion

Results showed that the number of sites was a source of loss of assay sensitivity in clinical trials, which may contribute to the well-known problem of failure to successfully transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 clinical development. Potential solutions include minimizing the number of sites, more rigorous and validated training, central statistical monitoring with rapid correction of performance issues, and more rigorous subject and site selection.

Effectiveness and Safety of Once-Daily Extended-Release Hydrocodone in Individuals Previously Receiving Immediate-Release Oxycodone for Chronic Pain

Objectives

This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of a once-daily, single-entity, extended-release hydrocodone bitartrate (HYD) among patients with chronic noncancer and non-neuropathic pain who required opioid rotation from a previous analgesic regimen that primarily consisted of immediate-release (IR) oxycodone.

Methods

Post hoc analyses of a primary study that assessed HYD 20 to 120 mg over a 52-week period are presented. The primary study included a dose titration period (up to 45 days), a 52-week maintenance period, and an optional taper period (up to 14 days).

Results

Relative to baseline, mean "average pain over the last 24 hours" declined by 1.9 points at the end of the titration period and by 2.6 points at the end of the maintenance period. Additionally, interference and severity of pain as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form decreased by 2.3 and 1.9 points, respectively, during the maintenance period. The use of supplemental opioid analgesics decreased. Most patients remained on a stable HYD dose throughout the maintenance period. Most patients indicated satisfaction with HYD and considered it convenient and easy to use. HYD demonstrated a safety profile typical of µ opioids; nausea, constipation, vomiting, and dizziness were the most frequently reported opioid-related adverse events during the study.

Conclusions

In patients with chronic pain who received HYD over a 52-week period, treatment was generally well tolerated and provided effective analgesia among those who rotated from a pain regimen primarily consisting of IR oxycodone.

Harms and benefits of opioids for management of non-surgical acute and chronic low back pain: a systematic review

Background

Consequences of prescription opioid use involve harms, addiction, tolerance and death. Despite routine prescription, opioids are not recommended for initial intervention by any major multidisciplinary low back pain (LBP) guideline.

Objective

Our primary purpose was to improve overall understanding of the harms and benefits associated with oral opioid interventions prescribed for treatment of acute or chronic back pain. Our second goal was to evaluate pain intensity and to compare and contrast these data with the harms. Our last objective was to evaluate conflicts of interest among the study authors and the findings.

Design/data/eligibility criteria

Studies incorporating oral prescription opioid management of non-surgical LBP were evaluated. After systematic assessment, no studies that met inclusion included participants with specifically acute LBP. Therefore, extracted data reflects only populations with subacute and chronic LBP. Data on reported harms, severe harms, pain outcomes and withdrawal rates were extracted and meta-analyses were completed for opioid versus placebo trials and opioids versus non-opioid trials.

Results

Fourteen studies met inclusion/exclusion requirements. All trials involved short-term management with limited follow-up. A high percentage of harms were identified across most studies. Opioids were not shown to be superior to other medications, and only showed superiority to placebo comparators (at cost of additional harms).

Conclusion

This review identified trends of higher harms rates and higher percentages of severe harms in opioid arms for the management of subacute and chronic LBP. The majority of trials that demonstrated benefits with opioids also had potential conflicts of interest. Lastly, non-opioid medications demonstrated statistically significant pain improvement compared with opioids. We feel that the results of the trial are supportive of current LBP guidelines and do not condone the initial use of opioids in management of subacute or chronic LBP.

Trial registration number

CRD42017070914

Economic aspects and managerial implications of the new technology in the treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND

The Human Body Posturizer (HPB), an innovative therapeutic tool able to correct postural changes dynamically, fits perfectly in this framework.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to consider the potential economic benefits of using the Human Body Posturizer both in terms of direct and indirect cost reduction in one year.

METHODS

This study was carried out using an estimation method in order to investigate the possible economic impact related to the adoption of the HBP in subjects with low back pain as an attempt to quantify the costs (direct and indirect) generated at different levels of the path therapeutic.

RESULTS

The use of therapy with HBP would generate a saving of € 971.40/year in case of sub-acute LBP and amounted to € 2,922.90/year in case of chronic low back pain.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides guidance on the potential economic benefits resulting from the adoption of the Human Body Posturizer as an innovative therapeutic approach by the Italian Health System.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Preclinical and Clinical Pharmacology of Hydrocodone for Chronic Pain: A Mini Review

Hydrocodone is one of the most prescribed oral analgesic drugs and it is one of the most abused drugs in general population. It is a mu-opioid agonist predominantly metabolized to the O-demethylated product hydromorphone and to the N-demethylated product norhydrocodone. The purpose of the study is to summarize the preclinical and clinical characteristics of hydrocodone. Pharmacokinetic aspect (terminal half-life, maximum serum concentration, and time to maximum serum concentration) of hydrocodone and the influence of metabolic genetic polymorphism in analgesic response to hydrocodone are also illustrated and commented. Literature on experimental preclinical pharmacology investigating analgesic activity in laboratory animals is furtherly discussed. Moreover, the authors discuss and comment on the updated data regarding safety profile and effectiveness of hydrocodone in the treatment of chronic pain. A bibliographic research was carried out (from February 01, 2018 to August 28, 2018) independently by two researchers (blinded to the authors and initially on results) in the major scientific databases and research engines of peer-reviewed literature on life sciences and biomedical topics, starting from January 1990 to August 2018. Analysis of results of clinical studies suggests that abuse-deterrent extended-release (ER) hydrocodone formulations can be effective and they are well tolerated in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Weaker is the evidence of the analgesic effectiveness of ER hydrocodone on other chronic pain syndromes and non-cancer non-neuropathic chronic pain. In these conditions, hydrocodone showed to have positive effects in non-controlled open studies and needs to be further studied to assess the real strength of results.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Real-world utilization of once-daily extended-release abuse deterrent formulation of hydrocodone: a comparison with the pre-approval randomized clinical trials

Background and objective

Hydrocodone bitartrate extended release (Hysingla^® ER, HYD) was previously studied in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 52-week open-label safety study. Both of these preapproval studies allowed dose titration to efficacy. The purpose of the present analysis was to compare dosing and utilization patterns in these previous clinical trials with real-world data (RWD) usage in a retrospective claim analysis performed 12–14 months post approval in the US.

Methods

In the claim analysis (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan^® Research Database), patients prescribed HYD between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, were followed for up to 6 months of continuous HYD use. Daily average consumption (DACON), initial dose, rescue opioid use and total milligram dose over time were also evaluated.

Results

HYD daily dose stabilized at ~60 mg dose once daily across all three studies. There was also a reduced need for rescue medication with HYD, resulting in a lower total opioid milligram dose over time. In the claim analysis, the mean monthly HYD dose increased from 49 to 55 mg in month 2 and then remained stable through month 6. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time on drug was 79.5 days (61.42 days), and DACON was 1.04 pills/day, corresponding to the approved full prescribing information (FPI) and once-daily dosing.

Conclusion

In 12–14 months post approval, real-world dosing and utilization of HYD mirrored registration and open-label study findings, with stable once-daily dosing of ~60 mg and no increase in rescue medicine utilization.

Palmitoylethanolamide for the treatment of pain: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy

Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has been suggested to have useful analgesic properties and to be devoid of unwanted effects. Here, we have examined critically this contention, and discussed available data concerning the pharmacokinetics of PEA and its formulation. Sixteen clinical trials, six case reports/pilot studies and a meta‐analysis of PEA as an analgesic have been published in the literature. For treatment times up to 49 days, the current clinical data argue against serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at an incidence of 1/200 or greater. For treatment lasting more than 60 days, the number of patients is insufficient to rule out a frequency of ADRs of less than 1/100. The six published randomized clinical trials are of variable quality. Presentation of data without information on data spread and nonreporting of data at times other than the final measurement were among issues that were identified. Further, there are no head‐to‐head clinical comparisons of unmicronized vs. micronized formulations of PEA, and so evidence for superiority of one formulation over the other is currently lacking. Nevertheless, the available clinical data support the contention that PEA has analgesic actions and motivate further study of this compound, particularly with respect to head‐to‐head comparisons of unmicronized vs. micronized formulations of PEA and comparisons with currently recommended treatments.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Extended-Release (ER) Hydrocodone in Individuals Previously Receiving ER Morphine for Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

This post hoc analysis examined the effectiveness and safety of hydrocodone bitartrate (HYD) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain who were previously taking extended-release morphine (morphine ER) for pain management.

STUDY DESIGN

The primary analysis was an open-label, 12-month study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in 88 sites in the United States.

METHODS

The study was approved by an institutional review board. Eligible patients were enrolled and titrated to a once-daily dose of HYD 20, 40, 60, 80, or 120 mg for a 45-day period. The subgroup of patients in this report was using morphine ER prior to study entry. After achieving a stable HYD daily dose, patients entered a 12-month maintenance period during which additional dose adjustment could be made and nonopioid or short-acting opioid medications could be received. Average pain over the last 24 hours was recorded daily (on a scale of 0 to 10) Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, which assessed pain severity and the interference of pain in daily life, every 4 weeks during the maintenance period. Safety was assessed routinely.

RESULTS

Of the 26 patients who switched from morphine ER to HYD, 19 entered the maintenance period. At study entry, mean "average pain over the last 24 hours" was scored as 5.21. This was reduced to 3.90 by the time patients entered the maintenance phase; this level of pain control was maintained over the 12-month period, with 16 patients requiring no further HYD dose adjustment. BPI scores decreased for both pain severity and pain interference during the maintenance period. HYD was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this subgroup analysis suggest that rotation from morphine ER to once-daily HYD in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain maintains or improves pain relief and does not increase safety concerns.

Paraspinous Lidocaine Injection for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

In this large, sham-controlled, randomized trial, we examined the efficacy of the combination of standard treatment and paraspinous lidocaine injection compared with standard therapy alone in subjects with chronic low back pain. There is little research-based evidence for the routine clinical use of paraspinous lidocaine injection for low back pain. A total of 378 subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomized to 3 groups: paraspinous lidocaine injection, analgesics, and exercises (group 1, LID-INJ); sham paraspinous lidocaine injection, analgesics, and exercises (group 2, SH-INJ); and analgesics and exercises (group 3, STD-TTR). A blinded rater assessed the study outcomes at 3 time points: baseline, after treatment, and after 3 months of follow-up. There were increased frequency of pain responses and better low back functional scores in the LID-INJ group compared with the SH-INJ and STD-TTR groups. These effects remained at the 3-month follow-up but differed between all 3 groups. There were significant changes in pain threshold immediately after treatment, supporting the effects of this intervention in reducing central sensitization. Paraspinous lidocaine injection therapy is not associated with a higher risk of adverse effects compared with conventional treatment and sham injection. Its effects on hyperalgesia might correlate with changes in central sensitization.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02387567.

PERSPECTIVE

There are few data to support paraspinous lidocaine injection use in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Our results show that this therapy when combined with standard therapy significantly increases the number of responders versus standard treatment alone. Its effects on hyperalgesia might correlate with a change in central sensitization.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of once-daily, single-entity, extended-release hydrocodone over 76 weeks of an open-label study in patients with chronic noncancer and nonneuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term use of Hysingla(®) ER (HYD), a single-entity, extended-release, once-daily hydrocodone bitartrate tablet with abuse-deterrent properties in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer and nonneuropathic pain.

METHODS

This open-label study consisted of a dose-titration period (up to 45 days), a 52-week maintenance period and a 24-week extension period. Opioid-naïve or opioid-experienced patients with controlled or uncontrolled chronic pain conditions were treated with HYD 20-120 mg daily. Supplemental nonopioid and short-acting opioid analgesics were permitted. This paper presents the results of 106 patients who continued HYD treatment for up to 76 weeks. Primary safety measures included the incidence of adverse events, as well as audiologic, clinical laboratory and electrocardiogram measurements. Effectiveness was measured by the change between baseline and the overall 76-week treatment period in "average pain over the last 24 h" (0 = no pain, 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form survey, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale-Revised and concomitant nonstudy opioid analgesic use.

RESULTS

Among 410 patients who completed the maintenance period, 106 continued into the extension. Of these, 83 (78%) completed the entire 76-week treatment period. Treatment-emergent adverse events were typical of those observed with μ-opioid agonists. No study drug abuse or diversion was reported. Clinically important analgesia and functional improvement were achieved during the dose-titration period and were maintained in most patients throughout 76 weeks without the need for continued HYD dose increases or changes in concomitant nonstudy opioid analgesics. The mean pain score was 6.1 at baseline, 3.8 at the end of the dose titration period and 3.8 through 76 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

HYD was generally well tolerated. No unexpected safety concerns emerged. Pain control was sustained throughout 76 weeks of treatment.