Effect of a Simple Dose-Escalation Schedule on Tramadol Tolerability

Efficacy and Safety of Tramadol Hydrochloride Twice-Daily Sustained-Release Bilayer Tablets with an Immediate-Release Component for Chronic Pain Associated with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Treatment-Withdrawal Study

Background and Objectives

Knee osteoarthritis pain is a chronic form of pain for which conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may provide insufficient analgesia. Twice-daily tramadol hydrochloride (65% sustained-release/35% immediate-release) bilayer tablets are a novel formulation of tramadol developed for managing chronic pain. The objectives of this study were to examine the effectiveness and safety of this formulation in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain.

Methods

This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, treatment-withdrawal study. Patients with a reduction in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain of ≥2 points during a 1–3-week, open-label, tramadol dose-escalation period (100–300 mg/day) were randomized to continue tramadol or switched to placebo for 4 weeks (double-blind period). Patients with inadequate efficacy (increase in NRS ≥2 points/patient request) were withdrawn. Outcomes included the time to inadequate analgesic efficacy from randomization (primary endpoint), the cumulative retention rate, and safety.

Results

Overall, 249 and 160 patients entered the dose-escalation and double-blind periods, respectively (tramadol 79; placebo 81). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed superiority of tramadol (log-rank p = 0.042), and a hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25–0.99). Documentation of an inadequate analgesic effect was less frequent in the tramadol group (15.4%, 95% CI 8.2–25.3% vs. 30.9%, 95% CI 21.1–42.1%). The cumulative retention rate was greater in the tramadol group (83.7% vs. 69.0%). Adverse events occurred in 80.6% (200/248) of patients in the open-label period, and in 38.5% (30/78) and 13.6% (11/81) of patients in the tramadol and placebo groups, respectively, in the double-blind period. Opioid-associated adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, somnolence, and dizziness, were the most frequent events.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the analgesic efficacy and safety of sustained-release tramadol tablets with an immediate-release component for chronic knee osteoarthritis pain.

Trial registration

JapicCTI-132103 (Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center; registration date February 25, 2015)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-022-01139-5.

A Malaysian Delphi consensus on managing knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The 2013 Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Osteoarthritis (OA) recommend a linear step-up approach to manage knee OA. However, patients with knee OA often require a multimodal approach to address OA-related pain symptoms and functional limitations. This consensus aimed to provide doctors with an updated set of evidence-based, clinical experience-guided recommendations to manage knee OA.

METHODS

A multi-speciality expert panel consisting of nine Malaysian physicians from different healthcare settings who manage a diverse OA patient population was convened. Using a combination of the ADAPTE process and modified Delphi method, the panel reviewed current evidence on the management of knee OA and synthesised a set of nine recommendations on the management of knee OA, supported by an algorithm that summarises the consensus' core messages.

RESULTS

A multimodal intervention strategy is the mainstay of OA management and the choice of any single or multimodal intervention may vary over the course of the disease. Overall, a non-pharmacological core treatment set of patient education, weight loss and exercise is recommended for all patients. When pharmacotherapy is indicated, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis are recommended at the early stage of disease, and they can be paired with physical therapy as background treatment. Concurrent advanced pharmacotherapy that includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intraarticular injections and short-term weak opioids can be considered if patients do not respond sufficiently to background treatment. Patients with severe symptomatic knee OA should be considered for knee replacement surgery. Management should begin with specific treatments with the least systemic exposure or toxicity, and the choice of treatment should be determined as a shared decision between patients and their team of healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus presents nine recommendations that advocate an algorithmic approach in the management of patients living with knee OA. They are applicable to patients receiving treatment from primary to tertiary care providers in Malaysia as well as other countries.

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

OBJECTIVES

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) sought to revisit the 2014 algorithm recommendations for knee osteoarthritis (OA), in light of recent efficacy and safety evidence, in order to develop an updated stepwise algorithm that provides practical guidance for the prescribing physician that is applicable in Europe and internationally.

METHODS

Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process, a summary of evidence document for each intervention in OA was provided to all members of an ESCEO working group, who were required to evaluate and vote on the strength of recommendation for each intervention. Based on the evidence collected, and on the strength of recommendations afforded by consensus of the working group, the final algorithm was constructed.

RESULTS

An algorithm for management of knee OA comprising a stepwise approach and incorporating consensus on 15 treatment recommendations was prepared by the ESCEO working group. Both "strong" and "weak" recommendations were afforded to different interventions. The algorithm highlights the continued importance of non-pharmacological interventions throughout the management of OA. Benefits and limitations of different pharmacological treatments are explored in this article, with particular emphasis on safety issues highlighted by recent literature analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated ESCEO stepwise algorithm, developed by consensus from clinical experts in OA and informed by available evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatments, provides practical, current guidance that will enable clinicians to deliver patient-centric care in OA practice.

Safety of Opioids in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

We aimed to assess the safety of opioids in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with opioids in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, renal and urinary disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs and drug-related AEs. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once).

Results

Database searches identified 2189 records, from which, after exclusions, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. More disorders of the lower GI tract (constipation, fecaloma) were reported with both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (ER) formulations of opioids versus placebo: IR opioids (relative risk [RR] 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42–7.89); ER opioids (RR 4.22, 95% CI 3.44–5.17). The risk of upper GI AEs increased fourfold with ER opioids compared with placebo (RR 4.03, 95% CI 0.87–18.62), and the risk of nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite increased four- to fivefold with both formulations: IR opioids (RR 3.39, 95% CI 2.22–5.18); ER opioids (RR 4.03, 95% CI 3.37–4.83). An increased risk of dermatologic AEs (rash and pruritis; IR opioids: RR 3.60, 95% CI 1.74–7.43; ER opioids: RR 7.87, 95% CI 5.20–11.89) and central nervous system disorders (dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, insomnia; IR opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.90–4.02; ER opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.19–3.47) was found with all opioid formulations versus placebo.

Conclusions

Our results confirm that there are considerable safety and tolerability issues surrounding the use of opioids in OA, and support the recommendation of international and national guidelines to use opioids in OA after other analgesic options, and for short time periods.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-019-00666-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OSTEOPOROSIS AND OSTEOARTHRITIS (ESCEO) ALGORITHM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS IS APPLICABLE TO RUSSIAN CLINICAL PRACTICE: A CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF LEADING RUSSIAN AND ESCEO OSTEOARTHRITIS EXPERTS

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), published in December 2014, provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. This current paper represents an assessment and endorsement of the algorithm by Russian experts in OA for use in Russian clinical practice, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA, in support of the clinicians’ individualized assessment of the patient. Medications recommended by the ESCEO algorithm are available in Russia. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) is advised, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulphate (pCGS) (Rottapharm/Meda) and prescription chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs but without the systemic safety concerns. To be effective, topical NSAIDs must have high bioavailability, and among NSAIDs molecules like etofenamate have high absorption and bioavailability alongside evidence for accumulation in synovial tissues. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk: benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.

High-amylose sodium carboxymethyl starch matrices: development and characterization of tramadol hydrochloride sustained-release tablets for oral administration

Substituted amylose (SA) polymers were produced from high-amylose corn starch by etherification of its hydroxyl groups with chloroacetate. Amorphous high-amylose sodium carboxymethyl starch (HASCA), the resulting SA polymer, was spray-dried to obtain an excipient (SD HASCA) with optimal binding and sustained-release (SR) properties. Tablets containing different percentages of SD HASCA and tramadol hydrochloride were produced by direct compression and evaluated for dissolution. Once-daily and twice-daily SD HASCA tablets containing two common dosages of tramadol hydrochloride (100 mg and 200 mg), a freely water-soluble drug, were successfully developed. These SR formulations presented high crushing forces, which facilitate further tablet processing and handling. When exposed to both a pH gradient simulating the pH variations through the gastrointestinal tract and a 40% ethanol medium, a very rigid gel formed progressively at the surface of the tablets providing controlled drug-release properties. These properties indicated that SD HASCA was a promising and robust excipient for oral, sustained drug-release, which may possibly minimize the likelihood of dose dumping and consequent adverse effects, even in the case of coadministration with alcohol.

Efficacy and safety of flupirtine modified release for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of SUPREME, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group phase IV study

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate non-inferior/superior efficacy of flupirtine modified release (MR) compared with tramadol/placebo for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain (LBP).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, active-/placebo-controlled double-dummy multicenter study, performed in 31 German study centers. LBP patients (n = 363) with moderate pain intensity were randomized 1:1:1 to receive flupirtine MR 400 mg, tramadol extended release (ER) 200 mg, or matching placebo (each given OD in the evening) over 4 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2009-013268-38.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint was change from baseline in the LBP intensity index (LBPIX; 11-point NRS) at week 4; last observation carried forward was used to impute missing scores.

RESULTS

Least square (LS) mean ± SD LBPIX changes from baseline at week 4 were clinically significant for all three treatment groups of the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) population (n = 326/276): placebo (n = 110/96): -1.81 ± 1.65/-1.77 ± 1.59; flupirtine MR (n = 109/95): -2.23 ± 1.73/-2.28 ± 1.68; and tramadol ER (n = 107/85): -1.92 ± 1.84/2.03 ± 1.83 (p < 0.001 for each). ITT/PP treatment effects for flupirtine MR were non-inferior when compared with tramadol ER and superior when compared with placebo (p = 0.003/0.033). Significantly more ITT patients treated with flupirtine MR (59.6/37.6 showed a ≥30/50% LBPIX relief in comparison to placebo (46.4/24.6%; p vs. flupirtine MR: 0.049/0.037). Treatment contrasts for tramadol failed to reach significance vs. placebo. Within the safety population (n = 355), flupirtine MR (n = 119) was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 21.0%) and TEAE-related study discontinuations (3.4%) than tramadol ER (n = 116; 34.5/12.0%; p = 0.039/0.017) and exhibited an overall safety/tolerability profile non-inferior to placebo (n = 120; 15.8/3.3%; p = ns for each). Major limitations of this study were the short treatment duration, the comparison of different drug classes and the lack of a titration phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic efficacy of flupirtine MR 400 mg OD was comparable to that of tramadol ER 200 mg OD and superior to that of placebo.

The effectiveness of a weak opioid medication versus a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug in treating flare-up of chronic low-back pain: results from two randomized, double-blind, 6-week studies

Two 6-week studies compared the analgesic efficacy, tolerability and safety of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib 200 mg twice a day [bid]) and an opioid (tramadol HCl 50 mg four times a day [qid]) in subjects with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). Successful responders (primary endpoint) were defined as subjects completing 6 weeks of treatment and having > or = 30% improvement on the Numerical Rating Scale for pain. A total of 796 and 802 subjects were randomized to treatment in study 1 and study 2, respectively. A significantly greater percentage of celecoxib-treated subjects were successful responders compared with tramadol HCl-treated subjects (study 1: 63.2% versus 49.9%, respectively; study 2: 64.1% versus 55.1%, respectively). Fewer adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in the celecoxib-treated group. Overall, celecoxib 200 mg bid was more effective than tramadol HCl 50 mg qid in the treatment of CLBP, with fewer AEs reported.

Tramadol in the Treatment of Neuropathic Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety and impact on quality of life of tramadol in the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Patients with similar characteristics were grouped in pairs and randomised to receive either tramadol or placebo. The initial tramadol dosage was 1 mg/kg every 6 hours, increasing to 1.5 mg/kg every 6 hours if necessary to control pain.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 36 patients (22 women, 14 men), with a mean age of 50 years. In the group receiving tramadol (n = 18), major improvements in pain intensity and Karnofsky scores occurred (p < 0.001), sleep quality improved by day 45 (p < 0.05) activities of daily living improved (p < 0.05), and use of analgesics that had been taken before the study was reduced (p < 0.05) compared with the placebo group. There was no difference between the groups with regard to changes in the Zung Depression Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory scores and neurophysiological assessments. More patients in the tramadol group experienced adverse events (p < 0.05). The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Tramadol is a therapeutic option for the control of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer, and appears to improve quality of life in these patients. The analgesic effect of tramadol is independent of changes in anxiety, depression and nervous system function.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is increasingly used for the treatment of osteoarthritis because, in contrast to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol does not produce gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems, and does not affect articular cartilage.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the analgesic effectiveness, the effect on physical function, the duration of benefit and the safety of oral tramadol in people with osteoarthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to August 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol or tramadol plus paracetamol on pain levels and/or physical function in people with osteoarthritis. No language restriction was applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We analyzed separately placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies. We used fixed-effect models for the meta-analyses as the results across studies were similar.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven RCTs with a total of 1019 participants who received tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol and 920 participants who received placebo or active-control. The placebo-controlled studies indicated that participants who received tramadol had less pain (-8.5 units on a 0 to 100 scale; 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.0 to -5.0) than patients who received placebo. This represents a 12% relative decrease in pain intensity from baseline. Participants who received tramadol had a 37% increase (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5) in the likelihood of reporting moderate improvement (number needed to treat to benefit = 6; 95% CI 4 to 9). Participants who received tramadol had 2.27 times the risk of developing minor adverse events and 2.6 times the risk of developing major adverse events, compared to participants who received placebo. Of every eight people who receive tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol, one will stop taking the medication because of adverse events, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH)= 8 (95% CI 7 to 12) for major adverse events. No conclusion could be drawn on how tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol compared with available pharmacological treatments because of the limited number of studies that evaluated such therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol decreases pain intensity, produces symptom relief and improves function, but these benefits are small. Adverse events, although reversible and not life threatening, often cause participants to stop taking the medication and could limit tramadol or tramadol plus paracetamol usefulness.