Update on prescription extended-release opioids and appropriate patient selection

Review of Opioid Abuse-Deterrent Formulations: Impact and Barriers to Access

The misuse and abuse of opioid analgesics continue to pose a serious public health concern, but for some patients, opioids remain an important analgesic option. Extended-release (ER) opioid formulations are effective for treating chronic pain and are supported by multiple 12-week efficacy studies. ER opioids often contain a high opioid content, and similar to immediate-release (IR) formulations, are subject to abuse, misuse, and diversion. Unintentional misuse may also occur when ER formulations are manipulated for medicinal administration, such as crushing a dose for easier oral intake. As part of a multipronged strategy designed to fight the opioid epidemic, abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) were developed to deter misuse, abuse, and diversion of opioids by making manipulation more difficult and nonoral routes of administration less rewarding. Although ADF opioids have been shown to decrease rates of abuse and diversion, they are not equally effective in terms of deterring manipulation for abuse or misuse. Xtampza ER utilizes DETERx technology, which allows it to retain ER characteristics when chewed or crushed, making it the only ER opioid without a boxed warning against these types of manipulation. OxyContin was also developed as an ADF but uses RESISTEC technology, making the tablet hard to crush and viscous in aqueous solutions. ADF utilization has been hampered by patient access issues, including high prices due to lack of insurance coverage. Postmarket real-world studies demonstrate lower rates of abuse, misuse, and diversion for ADF ER opioids compared with non-ADF formulations. However, similar studies comparing abuse-related effectiveness and health care costs for ADF opioids are warranted if clinicians are expected to utilize these potentially safer opioid formulations. These studies would support further education surrounding the benefits and utilization of ADFs and manipulation potential of different ADFs.

Promoting opioids, a story about how to influence medical science and opinions

Key origins of the opioid crisis in the US lie in some pharmaceutical companies' substantial efforts to sell prescription painkillers. To legitimize opioids, the companies built up a body of medical science and opinions, and channels with which to communicate. Archival searches found 876 contracts that together provide information on how Mallinckrodt, an opioid manufacturer, attempted the ghost-management of medicine. These records-available because of litigation-involved contract research organizations, medical education and communication companies, publishers, professional societies, researchers, and other people who could be Mallinckrodt's agents. Together, they produced and circulated scientific messages to increase physicians' comfort with prescribing opioids. This article gives an overview of that activity, as seen in the contracts and related documents.

The prescription opioid conundrum: 21st century solutions to a millennia-long problem

Health-care professionals are faced with a daunting task: balancing appropriate care for chronic pain with their responsibility to keep patients and others safe from treatment-related harm. Whereas opioids have historically been considered an effective tool in the analgesic armamentarium, the rise of opioid abuse has caused the pendulum to swing away from prescribing opioids to an emphasis on safety. This paradigm shift risks neglecting the very real consequences of untreated/undertreated pain. Using data from the medical literature, this review examines influences on the real and perceived benefit-to-risk ratio for opioids and provides clinicians with a practical approach to prescribing opioids that minimizes the risk for abuse/misuse. There is appreciable clinical trial and observational evidence of efficacy/effectiveness with opioids used for pain management over the short or long term when considered in the context of pharmacologic alternatives. Enhancing the relative safety and minimizing the risk for abuse/misuse may be achieved through proactive prescription practices that include careful patient selection, risk assessment, individualized and multimodal treatment plans with established goals, initiating opioid treatment cautiously with an exit plan in place, ongoing assessments of response to therapy, and routine patient monitoring. Additionally, prescribing opioids with a lower potential for abuse or misuse (e.g. abuse-deterrent formulations) may provide a benefit. Using a pragmatic approach to prescribing practices, we postulate that the balance between benefit and risk can be favorable for opioid therapy in select patients, even for long-term treatment of chronic pain.

Assessment of the Abuse Potential of Cebranopadol in Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users: A Phase 1 Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Cebranopadol is a nociceptin/orphanin FQ peptide/opioid receptor agonist with central antinociceptive activity. We hypothesize that this novel mechanism of action may lead to a lower risk of abuse compared with pure μ-opioid peptide receptor agonists.

METHODS

We conducted a single-dose, nested-randomized, double-blind crossover study in nondependent recreational opioid users to evaluate the abuse potential of single doses of cebranopadol relative to hydromorphone immediate release and placebo. The study consisted of a qualification phase and a 7-period treatment phase (cebranopadol 200, 400, and 800 μg; hydromorphone 8 and 16 mg; and 2 placebos). The primary end point was the peak effect of drug liking at this moment, measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Various secondary end points (eg, VAS rating for good drug effects, high, bad drug effects, take drug again, drug similarity, and pupillometry) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Forty-two subjects completed the study. Cebranopadol 200 and 400 μg did not differentiate from placebo on the abuse potential assessments and generated smaller responses than hydromorphone. Responses observed with cebranopadol 800 μg were similar to hydromorphone 8 mg and smaller than hydromorphone 16 mg. The maximum effect for VAS drug liking at this moment was delayed compared with hydromorphone (3 and 1.5 hours, respectively). Cebranopadol administration was safe; no serious adverse events or study discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm our hypothesis that cebranopadol, a nociceptin/orphanin FQ peptide/opioid receptor agonist, has lower abuse potential than hydromorphone immediate release, a pure μ-opioid peptide agonist.

A Phase I study of the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a novel tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone transdermal patch system

AIM

Characterize the pharmacokinetic profile and tolerability of two tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone patch formulations in healthy subjects, and the active metabolite (6-OH-oxymorphone).

MATERIALS & METHODS

Fifteen participants received a single application of oxymorphone patches +/- capsaicin for 72 h and were crossed-over for another 72 h.

RESULTS

Plasma oxymorphone was detected approximately 7 h and 6-OH-oxymorphone after approximately 18-19 h postapplication of both formulations, respectively. For oxymorphone, median t_max was 24 h, and C_max/C_min ratio was approximately 2.4. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event was application site reaction, mainly with capsaicin formulation.

CONCLUSION

Tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone transdermal patches can successfully deliver therapeutic amounts of oxymorphone in a sustained manner over 72 h and are well tolerated. ANZCTR registration number: ACTRN12614000613606.

Effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal buprenorphine patches: a multicenter, prospective, open-label study in Asian patients with moderate to severe chronic musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

We examined the effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal buprenorphine (TDB) treatment in real-world setting in Asian patients with musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

This was an open-label study conducted in Hong Kong, Korea, and the Philippines between June 2013 and April 2015. Eligible patients fulfilled the following criteria: 18 to 80 years of age; clinical diagnosis of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, low back pain, or joint/muscle pain; chronic non-malignant pain of moderate to severe intensity (Box-Scale-11 [BS-11] pain score ≥ 4), not adequately controlled with non-opioid analgesics and requiring an opioid for adequate analgesia; and no prior history of opioid treatment. Patients started with a 5 μg/h buprenorphine patch and were titrated as necessary to a maximum of 40 μg/h over a 6-week period to achieve optimal pain control. Patients continued treatment with the titrated dose for 11 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in BS-11 pain scores. Other endpoints included patients' sleep quality and quality of life as assessed by the 8-item Global Sleep Quality Assessment Scale (GSQA) questionnaire and the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire-3 Level version (EQ-5D-3 L), respectively. Tolerability was assessed by collecting adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 114 eligible patients were included in the analysis. The mean BS-11 score at baseline was 6.2 (SD 1.6). Following initiation of TDB, there was a statistically significant improvement in BS-11 score from baseline to visit 3 (least squares [LS] mean change: -2.27 [95% CI -2.66 to -1.87]), which was maintained till the end of the study (visit 7) (LS mean change: -2.64 [95% -3.05 to -2.23]) (p < 0.0001 for both). The proportion of patients who rated sleep quality as 'good' increased from 14.0% at baseline to 26.9% at visit 6. By visit 6, the mean EQ VAS score increased by 7.7 units (SD 17.9). There were also significant improvements in patients' levels of functioning for all EQ-5D-3 L dimensions from baseline at visit 6 (p < 0.05 for all). Seventy-eight percent of patients reported TEAEs and 22.8% of patients discontinued due to TEAEs. TEAEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity (96.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

TDB provides effective pain relief with an acceptable tolerability profile over the 11-week treatment period in Asian patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. More studies are needed to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of TBD treatment in this patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01961271 . Registered 7 October 2013 (retrospectively registered; first patient was enrolled on 28 June 2013 and last patient last visit date was 26 Apr 2015).

Use of immediate-release opioids as supplemental analgesia during management of moderate-to-severe chronic pain with buprenorphine transdermal system

Background

The buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) is approved in the US for the management of chronic pain. Due to its high affinity for μ-opioid receptors with a slow dissociation profile, buprenorphine may potentially displace or prevent the binding of competing μ-opioid-receptor agonists, including immediate-release (IR) opioids, in a dose-dependent manner. Health care professionals may assume that the use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during BTDS therapy is not acceptable.

Materials and methods

This post hoc analysis evaluated the use of IR opioids as supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate–severe chronic pain with BTDS at 52 US sites (BUP3015S, NCT01125917). Patients were categorized into IR-opioid and no-IR-opioid groups. At each visit of the extension phase, adverse events, concomitant medications, and information from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were recorded.

Results

The most common supplemental IR opioids prescribed during BTDS treatment (n=354) were hydrocodone–acetaminophen and oxycodone–acetaminophen. The mean daily dose of IR opioids (morphine equivalents) for supplemental analgesia was 22 mg. At baseline, BPI – pain intensity and BPI – interference scores were higher for patients in the IR-opioid group. In both treatment groups, scores improved by week 4, and then were maintained throughout 6 months of the open-label extension trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both groups.

Conclusion

Patients who were prescribed IR opioids reported lower scores for BPI pain intensity and pain interference to levels similar to patients receiving BTDS without IR opioids, without increasing the rate or severity of treatment-emergent adverse events. Patients prescribed concomitant use of IR opioids with BTDS had greater treatment persistence. The results of this post hoc analysis provide support for the concomitant use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate–severe chronic pain with BTDS.