Objective
To assess the long‐term safety and 16‐week efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA).
Methods
This was a phase III randomized, double‐blind, active ...treatment–controlled (using nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs NSAIDs as the active treatment control) safety trial of tanezumab (56‐week treatment/24‐week posttreatment follow‐up) in adults who were receiving stable‐dose NSAID therapy at the time of screening and who had Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores of ≥5; patient global assessment (PtGA) of OA of fair, poor, or very poor; history of inadequate pain relief with standard analgesics; and no history or radiographic evidence of prespecified bone/joint conditions beyond OA. Patients received oral naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac twice daily (NSAID group; n = 996) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1,002) or 5 mg (n = 998) subcutaneously every 8 weeks. Coprimary efficacy end points at week 16 were changes in WOMAC pain and physical function scores and changes in PtGA. The primary joint safety end point over 80 weeks comprised adjudicated rapidly progressive OA type 1 or 2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathologic fracture. Mean values, least squares mean values, and least squares mean differences between groups (with 95% confidence intervals 95% CIs) were calculated.
Results
Of 3,021 randomized patients, 2,996 received ≥1 treatment dose. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between patients treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and those treated with NSAIDs, and were more prevalent in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg. Composite joint safety events were significantly more prevalent with tanezumab 2.5 mg and tanezumab 5 mg than with NSAIDs (observation time–adjusted rate/1,000 patient‐years 38.3 95% CI 28.0, 52.5 and 71.5 95% CI 56.7, 90.2, respectively, versus 14.8 95% CI 8.9, 24.6; P = 0.001 for tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAIDs; P < 0.001 for tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAIDs). Tanezumab 5 mg significantly improved pain and physical function but did not improve PtGA at week 16 when compared to NSAIDs; corresponding differences between the tanezumab 2.5 mg and NSAID groups were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
In patients previously receiving a stable dose of NSAIDs, tanezumab administered subcutaneously resulted in more joint safety events than continued NSAIDs, with differences being dose dependent. Pain and physical function improved with both doses of tanezumab compared to NSAIDs, reaching statistical significance with tanezumab 5 mg at 16 weeks.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Objective: To review the effects of naltrexone on withdrawal-related adverse events (AEs) and euphoria-related effects, and the relationship between plasma naltrexone concentrations and withdrawal ...across EMBEDA (MSN; extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone) studies.
Methods: Five studies in pain patients and a safety review summarizing AE reports during the first year following approval of MSN were assessed for withdrawal reports. Three of these studies also assessed Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores. Plasma naltrexone concentrations of MSN-treated individuals were summarized. Abuse potential was assessed in four studies in non-dependent recreational opioid users.
Results: Withdrawal AEs occurred in 13/1781 patients across five MSN studies, and 25/182 cases involving withdrawal were reported in the safety review. In three of these studies, 11/964 patients experienced moderate withdrawal (COWS score = 13-24) and 1/964 patients experienced moderately severe withdrawal (score = 28); all were either non-compliant with study drug, had undetectable plasma naltrexone concentrations, or were tapering to placebo. In ≥89% of plasma naltrexone concentration samples from patients who took MSN (n = 166), naltrexone was below the limit of quantification (4.0 pg/mL). In four studies with non-dependent recreational opioid users (n = 118), crushed MSN was associated with significantly lower scores of drug liking, high, and take drug again than crushed morphine sulfate (p ≤ 0.005).
Conclusions: When taken intact as directed, naltrexone in MSN does not precipitate withdrawal. However, when MSN is crushed, naltrexone mitigates, but does not eliminate, the euphorigenic effects of crushed morphine sulfate.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00420992.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00415597.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01100437.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01179191.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00751478.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01595867.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01380093.
Due to the risk of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), the phase III studies of subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) included ...comprehensive joint safety surveillance. This pooled analysis summarizes these findings.
Joint safety events in the phase III studies of SC tanezumab (2 placebo- and 1- nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug NSAID-controlled) were adjudicated by a blinded external committee. Outcomes of RPOA1 and RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathological fracture comprised the composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE). Potential patient- and joint-level risk factors for CJSE, RPOA, and total joint replacement (TJR) were explored.
Overall, 145/4541 patients (3.2%) had an adjudicated CJSE (0% placebo; 3.2% tanezumab 2.5 mg; 6.2% tanezumab 5 mg; 1.5% NSAID). There was a dose-dependent risk of adjudicated CJSE, RPOA1, and TJR with tanezumab vs NSAID. Patient-level cross-tabulation found associations between adjudicated RPOA with more severe radiographic/symptomatic (joint pain, swelling, and physical limitation) OA. Risk of adjudicated RPOA1 was highest in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 OA at baseline. Risk of adjudicated RPOA2 or TJR was highest in patients with KL grade 4 joints at baseline. A higher proportion of joints with adjudicated RPOA2 had a TJR (14/26) than those with adjudicated RPOA1 (16/106).
In placebo- and NSAID controlled studies of SC tanezumab for OA, adjudicated CJSE, RPOA, and TJR most commonly occurred in patients treated with tanezumab and with more severe radiographic or symptomatic OA. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
A recent phase 3 study demonstrated that treatment with tanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) improves pain and physical function in ...participants with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. Here, we evaluated the time course and clinical importance of these initial efficacy findings using a mixture of primary, secondary, and post hoc endpoints.
Participants on stable NSAID therapy and with a history of inadequate response to other standard OA analgesics were enrolled in an 80-week (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up), randomized, NSAID-controlled, phase 3 study primarily designed to assess the safety of tanezumab for moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip. Participants received oral NSAID (twice daily naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac) or subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5mg or 5mg every 8 weeks). Non-responders were discontinued at week 16. Changes from baseline in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, Patient's Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis (PGA-OA), and average pain in the index joint were compared between tanezumab and NSAID groups over the 56-week treatment period. Clinically meaningful response (e.g., ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function), rescue medication use, and safety were also assessed.
All groups improved WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, PGA-OA, and average pain in the index joint over the 56-week treatment period relative to baseline. Across all groups, improvements generally occurred from the time of first assessment (week 1 or 2) to week 16 and then slightly decreased from week 16 to 24 before stabilizing from weeks 24 to 56. The magnitude of improvement and the proportion of participants achieving ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in these measures was greater (unadjusted p≤0.05) with tanezumab than with NSAID at some timepoints on or before week 16. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation, prespecified joint safety events, and total joint replacement surgery occurred more frequently with tanezumab than with NSAID.
Tanezumab and NSAID both provided early and sustained (up to 56 weeks) efficacy relative to baseline. Improvements in pain and function were clinically meaningful in a substantial proportion of participants. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation and joint safety events occurred more frequently with tanezumab than with NSAID.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02528188 . Registered on 19 July 2015.
To assess the long-term neurological safety of tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor.
Patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee received stable doses of oral nonsteroidal ...anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before study entry and during a ≤ 37-day screening period. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to double-dummy tanezumab (2.5 mg or 5 mg, subcutaneous every 8 weeks) or oral NSAIDs (twice-daily) for 56 weeks, with a 24-week follow-up. Neurological safety evaluation focused on peripheral and sympathetic adverse events (AEs), neurologic examinations, and consultations with blinded, external diagnostic reviews.
During the treatment period, 6.2%, 9.0%, and 4.6% of patients experienced AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation (APS) in the tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. Hypoesthesia, paresthesia, and carpal tunnel syndrome were the most common AEs of APS. Clinically significant worsening on examination occurred in <1% in any treatment group at the last study assessment. Diagnoses following external neurological consultation included mononeuropathy (1.3%, 2.1%, and 1.0%), radiculopathy (0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.5%), and polyneuropathy (0.3%, 0.5%, and 0%) in tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. AEs potentially associated with sympathetic neuropathy were reported for 1.8%, 2.3%, and 2.9% of patients in the tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. No patient was diagnosed with sympathetic neuropathy.
Tanezumab had an increased incidence of AEs of APS versus NSAID; these were typically mild/moderate in severity, resolved during the study, and rarely resulted in discontinuation. Tanezumab was not associated with peripheral neuropathy and did not adversely affect the sympathetic nervous system.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02528188 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02528188).
•Tanezumab was associated with adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation.•Adverse events were infrequent and typically mild to moderate in severity.•Most adverse events resolved during the study and rarely caused discontinuation.•Tanezumab was not associated with peripheral polyneuropathy.•There was no evidence of an effect on sympathetic nervous system function.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Objective: To assess the impact of age on the safety and tolerability of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent opioid formulation consisting of oxycodone hydrochloride and sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride, ...in patients with chronic pain.
Methods: Data from two clinical studies in patients with chronic low back pain or chronic non-cancer pain were analyzed. Patients aged ≥18 years who required continuous around-the-clock opioid analgesia for an extended period were grouped into ≥65 years and <65 years age groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), use of concomitant medications, clinical laboratory measurements, and occurrences of opioid withdrawal using reported adverse events (AEs) and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores assessed safety. Data pooling was employed for the titration and maintenance phases of both studies.
Results: Respectively 805 and 436 patients received ≥1 dose of ALO-02 in the titration and maintenance phases; 121 (15.0%) and 83 (14.6%) patients, respectively, were aged ≥65 years in the titration and maintenance phases. Average doses of ALO-02 were lower in the older patients in both phases. Incidences of TEAEs were comparable between age groups in both phases and generally lower in the maintenance phase. Concomitant medications were taken more often by patients aged ≥65 years. Incidences of potentially clinically significant laboratory results were low in both phases with no clinically important differences between age groups. There were few reports of opioid withdrawal events as assessed by reported AEs and COWS scores. One patient aged ≥65 years experienced an AE of opioid withdrawal.
Conclusions: The safety and tolerability of ALO-02 is similar in those aged ≥65 years and those aged <65 years with chronic pain.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01571362, NCT01428583.
Objective Clinical trial safety data following chronic administration of extended-release opioids within an older population is limited. Embeda
*
is an extended-release formulation of morphine ...sulfate surrounding sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride (MSN) and is designed to deter opioid misuse and abuse. The present analysis compared pooled safety outcomes among patients aged ≥65 years and those aged <65 years from three phase 2/3 studies (ranging from 2 weeks to 12 months) in patients treated with MSN.
Research design and methods Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years and <65 years was performed on pooled data for adverse events (AEs), potentially clinically significant laboratory values (hematology/chemistry), and signs/symptoms of opioid withdrawal using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) (phase 3 trials only) for patients who received at least one dose (short-term studies, maximum dose was 160 mg/d or 320 mg/d depending on study; long-term study, no maximum dose) of study medication during titration and maintenance phases.
Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00420992, NCT00415597.
Results During titration, 173 (17.1%) of 1012 patients treated with MSN were aged ≥65 years, while during maintenance 76/564 (13.5%) patients were aged ≥65 years. Treatment-emergent AEs were similar in frequency and type between the two cohorts, with the most common being constipation, nausea, and somnolence; no consistent patterns relating to age and only one possibly treatment-related serious AE in patients ≥65 years was noted. No clinically significant differences in laboratory values or COWS scores (average maximum score ≤2.5) were observed between age groups.
Conclusions Safety outcomes following daily administration of MSN (2 weeks-12 months) were similar between patients aged ≥65 years and <65 years. Key limitations include the variable study designs and length of treatment (2 weeks-12 months), small sample size, and the inclusion of only those patients who were otherwise in relatively good health with restrictions on concomitant medications.
Abuse liability studies usually measure drug liking using 100‐mm visual analog scales (VAS), presented as unipolar (liking measured on entire scale) or bipolar (liking and disliking measured with a ...neutral midpoint). These 2 types of VAS were compared using drug liking ratings from a randomized double‐blind crossover study of immediate‐release and controlled‐release oxycodone in 2 cohorts of nondependent recreational opioid users. Cohort 1 (n = 19) received intact oxycodone 40 mg, intact OxyContin® 40 and 80 mg, crushed OxyContin® 40 mg, and placebo, while cohort 2 (n = 16) received intact oxycodone 20, 40, and 80 mg and placebo. In general, bipolar and unipolar ratings were positively correlated (r = 0.72) for all values (n = 2,477). Emax for both scales generally had higher correlation than individual responses for active drug or placebo. The correlation for individual scores after placebo treatment for the 2 scales was poor in both cohorts (r = –0.11, cohort 1 and r = 0.17, cohort 2). Both scales performed similarly within the context of the study, but bipolar scales can also assess disliking, which may be a consideration depending on anticipated drug effects. Appropriate participant training on the use of these scales is also necessary to reduce variability.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary
Purpose
A diazepam auto‐injector (AI) has been developed for intramuscular administration to treat acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy ...and safety of the diazepam AI when administered by caregivers to control an episode of ARS (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00319501).
Methods
In this phase III, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled, multicenter study, subjects with epilepsy on a stable antiepileptic drug regimen who required intermittent medical intervention to control ARS were randomized 1:1 to the placebo AI or the diazepam AI group. Subjects were stratified according to age (2–5, 6–11, ≥12 years). Dose (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg) was based on age and weight. A single dose of study medication was dispensed to be administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting when required. The primary end point was time to next seizure or rescue from 15 min to 12 h postdose. Secondary end points included rescue medication use, number of seizures postdose, caregiver and physician treatment assessments, and safety measures.
Key Findings
Of 234 subjects randomized, 81/110 in the placebo AI group and 82/124 in the diazepam AI group were included in the intent‐to‐treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Time to next seizure or rescue was significantly longer in the diazepam AI group compared with the placebo AI group, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.88; p = 0.012) for diazepam AI versus placebo AI, adjusted for age group. The 25th percentile for time to the next seizure or rescue was 1.18 h (95% CI 0.38–2.03) for placebo AI and 2.70 h (95% CI 0.48–11.42) for diazepam AI; the median was 5.9 h for placebo AI and was inestimable for diazepam AI due to the low number of events experienced by subjects in that group. The proportion of subjects using rescue medication postdose was 30% (24/81) placebo AI versus 17% (14/82) diazepam AI (p = 0.066). An event (seizure or rescue) occurred in 55.6% of subjects in the placebo AI group and 35.4% in the diazepam AI group. The number of seizures experienced during the 12‐h postdose period was significantly lower for diazepam AI (median 0.0) compared with placebo AI (median 1.0; p = 0.010). Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 44% (35/79) of subjects in the placebo AI group and 42% (34/81) in the diazepam AI group. The most common TEAEs reported were injection site pain (15% placebo AI, 17% diazepam AI) and injection site hemorrhage (6% placebo AI, 5% diazepam AI).
Significance
The diazepam AI was significantly more effective than placebo AI at delaying the next seizure or rescue. Secondary efficacy end points were generally supportive of the primary outcome. Diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers was effective for the treatment of ARS and was well‐tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Objectives: To compare the results of two open-label primary care-based studies that examined investigator assessment of patient risk for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion relative to ...patient self-reports and urine drug tests (UDTs).
Methods: Risk assessment data from two open-label, multicenter, primary care-based US studies in patients with chronic pain were compared.
Results: In one study (n = 1487), 54.4% of patients were at moderate, 24.8% at high, and 20.8% at low risk based on patients' self-reports at baseline on the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain®-Revised questionnaire. Investigators assigned 1.3% of patients as high risk despite 5.0% self-reporting prior illicit drug use and 15.3% with positive UDT(s) for an illicit drug at baseline. In the second study (n = 684), few patients were considered by investigators to be at high risk for misuse (1.6%), abuse (1.8%), or diversion (1.0%). However, 10.4% of patients reported prior illicit drug use; 23.4% had at least one abnormal baseline UDT; 60% of 537 patients reported on the Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion questionnaire they took more opioids than prescribed; and 10.9% reported chewing/crushing opioids in the past. Of patients completing the Current Opioid Misuse Measure, 40.6% were classified as having aberrant behaviors.
Conclusion: A comparison of risk assessment across two studies indicates a tendency for investigators to assess patients as lower risk for opioid-related aberrant behaviors despite a significant proportion self-reporting aberrant behavior and/or presenting with illicit UDTs. These consistent findings underline the importance of appropriate implementation of objective measures and self-reporting tools when evaluating risk in patients.
Clinical trial registration:
www.clinicaltrials.gov
identifiers: NCT00640042 and NCT01179191
PDF
