Abstract Purpose Chronic pain is often challenging to address appropriately. Although patients with severe chronic pain may respond to treatment with an opioid analgesic, opioids are often associated ...with adverse effects that may lead patients to disrupt or discontinue therapy. In addition, opioid analgesics alone may not be effective for all types of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain. Tapentadol prolonged release (PR), a centrally acting analgesic with 2 mechanisms of action (μ-opioid receptor agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition), provides strong and reliable analgesia across a range of indications, including nociceptive, neuropathic, and mixed types of chronic pain, and is associated with an improved tolerability profile relative to classic opioid analgesics. The purpose of this article was to review the recent literature on different aspects related to the clinical use of tapentadol PR. Methods A review was conducted of the current literature and relevant unpublished data on initiation and titration of tapentadol PR, switching from classic strong opioids, risk of withdrawal after discontinuation, long-term treatment, coadministration with other medications, and risk of abuse and diversion. Findings Tapentadol PR may provide clinically meaningful benefits over classic opioid analgesics, including ease of initiating and titrating tapentadol PR treatment in opioid-naive and opioid-experienced patients, low risk of withdrawal after cessation of tapentadol PR therapy, a favorable pharmacokinetic profile (allowing for coadministration with other medications) of tapentadol PR, and low potential for tapentadol PR abuse. Implications The broad analgesic efficacy of tapentadol PR may simplify chronic pain management by allowing for the treatment of different types of pain with a single analgesic. In addition, tapentadol is associated with a low risk of pharmacokinetic interactions, which permits its use in patients taking multiple medications. Furthermore, the favorable tolerability profile of tapentadol PR may result in improved patient compliance and allow for easy titration and rotation from previous strong opioids.
Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of ...preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.
Opioid-induced androgen deficiency (OPIAD) affects patients treated with opioid analgesics. The norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) and µ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist activities of tapentadol ...may result in tapentadol having less effect on serum androgen concentrations than analgesics acting through the MOR alone, such as morphine and oxycodone. The objectives of this publication are to 1) evaluate the effects of tapentadol (NUCYNTA and NUCYNTA extended release ER) on sex hormone concentrations in healthy male volunteers (vs placebo and morphine) and patients with osteoarthritis (vs placebo and oxycodone), and 2) present a mechanistic hypothesis explaining how the combined MOR agonist and NRI activities of tapentadol may result in less impact on androgen concentrations.
Three clinical studies were conducted: study 1 (single-dose comparison study vs morphine in healthy volunteers), study 2 (single-dose-escalation study in healthy volunteers without an active comparator), and study 3 (multiple-dose study vs oxycodone in patients with osteoarthritis). Studies 1 and 2 were conducted at medical research centers in Germany and the United Kingdom; study 3 was conducted at primary and secondary care centers and medical research centers in the United States. All three studies were randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled. Concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; study 3 only) were evaluated at 6 and 24 hours postdose in studies 1 and 2, respectively, and at varying time points postdose in study 3.
In study 1, mean serum total testosterone concentrations in healthy male volunteers were similar at baseline for all treatment periods; 6 hours after dosing, mean concentrations were comparable between placebo (8.6 nmol/L) and tapentadol immediate release (IR; 43 mg, 8.8 nmol/L; 86 mg, 9.3 nmol/L), but were lower following administration of morphine IR 30 mg (5.4 nmol/L). In study 2, there were no or minimal changes in testosterone in the therapeutic dose range with tapentadol IR (75-100 mg), and there was a modest decrease that appeared to level off in the supratherapeutic range (125-175 mg); mean testosterone and LH concentrations with all doses remained within normal ranges (testosterone, 4.56-28.2 nmol/L; LH, 2.9-4.6 U/L). In study 3, the decrease in the mean standard deviation testosterone concentration from baseline to endpoint for male patients receiving tapentadol ER (100 mg, -1.9 0.71 nmol/L; 200 mg, -2.1 0.93 nmol/L) was numerically smaller compared to oxycodone CR (20 mg, -2.7 0.93 nmol/L), but higher compared to placebo (-0.3 1.62 nmol/L).
These results suggest that tapentadol, which has combined MOR and NRI activities, may have a lower impact on sex hormone concentrations than pure opioid analgesics, such as morphine or oxycodone. The data and mechanistic rationale presented herein provide a justification for conducting additional hypothesis testing studies, and are not intended to be used as a basis for clinical decision making. Future studies may help elucidate whether the observed trends are clinically significant and would translate into a reduced incidence of OPIAD.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster with pregabalin in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN).
Study ...design and methods: This was a two-stage adaptive, randomized, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority study. Data are reported from the initial 4-week comparative phase, in which adults with PHN or painful DPN received either topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster applied to the most painful skin area or twice-daily pregabalin capsules titrated to effect according to the Summary of Product Characteristics. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 weeks, defined as reduction averaged over the last three days from baseline of ≥2 points or an absolute value of ≤4 points on the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-3). Secondary endpoints included 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores; change in allodynia severity rating; quality of life (QoL) parameters EQ-5D, CGIC, and PGIC; patient satisfaction with treatment; and evaluation of safety (laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, adverse events AEs, drug-related AEs DRAEs, and withdrawal due to AEs).
Results: Ninety-six patients with PHN and 204 with painful DPN were analysed (full analysis set, FAS). Overall, 66.4% of patients treated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and 61.5% receiving pregabalin were considered responders (corresponding numbers for the per protocol set, PPS: 65.3% vs. 62.0%). In PHN more patients responded to 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treatment than to pregabalin (PPS: 62.2% vs. 46.5%), while response was comparable for patients with painful DPN (PPS: 66.7% vs 69.1%). 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores were greater with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster than with pregabalin. Both treatments reduced allodynia severity. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed greater improvements in QoL based on EQ-5D in both PHN and DPN. PGIC and CGIC scores indicated greater improvement for 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treated patients with PHN. Improvements were comparable between treatments in painful DPN. Fewer patients administering 5% lidocaine medicated plaster experienced AEs (safety set, SAF: 18.7% vs. 46.4%), DRAEs (5.8% vs. 41.2%) and related discontinuations compared to patients taking pregabalin.
Conclusion: 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed better efficacy compared with pregabalin in patients with PHN. Within DPN, efficacy was comparable for both treatments. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed a favourable efficacy/safety profile with greater improvements in patient satisfaction and QoL compared with pregabalin for both indications, supporting its first line position in the treatment of localized neuropathic pain.
A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy ...had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo ("assay sensitivity"). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.
Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of ...preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.
Finnerup and colleagues1 provided updated recommendations from the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain, which included recommendations for ...the use of tapentadol for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Objective
To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol PR monotherapy versus tapentadol PR/pregabalin combination therapy for severe, chronic low back pain with a neuropathic ...component.
Methods
Eligible patients had painDETECT “unclear” or “positive” ratings and average pain intensity ≥ 6 (11‐point NRS‐3 average 3‐day pain intensity) at baseline. Patients were titrated to tapentadol PR 300 mg/day over 3 weeks. Patients with ≥ 1‐point decrease in pain intensity and average pain intensity ≥ 4 were randomized to tapentadol PR (500 mg/day) or tapentadol PR (300 mg/day)/pregabalin (300 mg/day) during an 8‐week comparative period.
Results
In the per‐protocol population (n = 288), the effectiveness of tapentadol PR was clinically and statistically comparable to tapentadol PR/pregabalin based on the change in pain intensity from randomization to final evaluation (LOCF; LSMD 95% CI, −0.066 −0.57, 0.43; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). Neuropathic pain and quality‐of‐life measures improved significantly in both groups. Tolerability was good in both groups, in line with prior trials in the high dose range of 500 mg/day for tapentadol PR monotherapy, and favorable compared with historical combination trials of strong opioids and anticonvulsants for combination therapy. The incidence of the composite of dizziness and/or somnolence was significantly lower with tapentadol PR (16.9%) than tapentadol PR/pregabalin (27.0%; P = 0.0302).
Conclusions
Tapentadol PR 500 mg is associated with comparable improvements in pain intensity and quality‐of‐life measures to tapentadol PR 300 mg/pregabalin 300 mg, with improved central nervous system tolerability, suggesting that tapentadol PR monotherapy may offer a favorable treatment option for severe low back pain with a neuropathic component.
PDF
