Although often successful in acute settings, long-term use of opioid pain medications may be accompanied by waning levels of analgesic response not readily attributable to advancing underlying disease, necessitating dose escalation to attain pain relief. Analgesic tolerance, and more recently opioid-induced hyperalgesia, have been invoked to explain such declines in opioid effectiveness over time. Because both phenomena result in inadequate analgesia, they are difficult to distinguish in a clinical setting. Patients with otherwise uncomplicated low-back pain were titrated to comfort or dose-limiting side effects in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using sustained-release morphine or weight-matched placebo capsules for 1 month. A total of 103 patients completed the study, with an average end titration dose of 78 mg morphine/d. After 1 month, the morphine-treated patients developed tolerance to the analgesic effects of remifentanil, but did not develop opioid-induced hyperalgesia. On average, these patients experienced a 42% reduction in analgesic potency. The morphine-treated patients experienced clinically relevant improvements in pain relief, as shown by a 44% reduction in average visual analogue scale pain levels and a 31% improvement in functional ability. The differences in visual analogue scale pain levels (P = .003) and self-reported disability (P = .03) between both treatment groups were statistically significant. After 1 month of oral morphine therapy, patients with chronic low-back pain developed tolerance but not opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Improvements in pain and functional ability were observed.
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.
CONTEXT: This article presents the results of a pivotal Phase 3 study that assesses a new treatment for the management of chronic low back pain: a transdermal patch containing the opioid buprenorphine. In this randomized, placebo-controlled study with an enriched enrollment design, the buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) was found to be efficacious and generally well tolerated.
OBJECTIVES: This enriched, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of BTDS in opioid-naïve patients who had moderate to severe chronic low back pain.
METHODS: Patients who tolerated and responded to BTDS (10 or 20 mcg/hour) during an open-label run-in period were randomized to continue BTDS 10 or 20 mcg/hour or receive matching placebo. The primary outcome was "average pain over the last 24 hours" at the end of the 12-week double-blind phase, collected on an 11-point scale (0=no pain, 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Sleep disturbance (Medical Outcomes Study subscale) and total number of supplemental analgesic tablets used were secondary efficacy variables.
RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of patients receiving open-label BTDS (541 of 1024) were randomized to receive BTDS (n=257) or placebo (n=284). Patients receiving BTDS reported statistically significantly lower pain scores at Week 12 compared with placebo (least square mean treatment difference: -0.58, P=0.010). Sensitivity analyses of the primary efficacy variable and results of the analysis of secondary efficacy variables supported the efficacy of BTDS relative to placebo. During the double-blind phase, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 55% for the BTDS treatment group and 52% for the placebo treatment group. Laboratory, vital sign, and electrocardiogram evaluations did not reveal unanticipated safety findings.
CONCLUSION: BTDS was efficacious in the treatment of opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. Most treatment-emergent adverse events observed were consistent with those associated with the use of opioid agonists and transdermal patches.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of tramadol ER 300 mg and 200 mg versus placebo once daily in the treatment of chronic low back pain, using an open-label run-in followed by, without washout, a randomized controlled study design.
METHODS: Adults with scores > or = 40 on a pain intensity visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain; 100 = extreme pain) received open-label tramadol ER, initiated at 100 mg once daily and titrated to 300 mg once daily during a three-week open-label run-in. Patients completing run-in were randomized to receive tramadol ER 300 mg, 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Of 619 patients enrolled, 233 (38 percent) withdrew from the run-in, primarily because of adverse event (n = 128) or lack of efficacy (n = 41). A total of 386 patients were then randomized to receive either 300 mg (n = 128), 200 mg (n = 129), or placebo (n = 129). Following randomization, mean scores for pain intensity VAS since the previous visit, averaged over the 12-week study period, increased more in the placebo group (12.2 mm) than in the tramadol ER 300-mg (5.2 mm, p = 0.009) and 200-mg (7.8 mm, p = 0.052) groups. Secondary efficacy scores for current pain intensity VAS, patient global assessment, Roland Disability Index, and overall sleep quality improved significantly (p < or = 0.029 each) in the tramadol ER groups compared with placebo. The most common adverse events during the double-blind period were nausea, constipation, headache, dizziness, insomnia, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients who tolerated and obtained pain relief from tramadol ER, continuation of tramadol ER treatment for 12 weeks maintained pain relief more effectively than placebo. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported for tramadol ER.
UNLABELLED: Opioid-experienced (N = 250) patients with chronic, moderate to severe low back pain (LBP) were converted from their prestudy opioid(s) to an approximately equianalgesic dose of OPANA ER (oxymorphone extended release). Patients continued slow titration, with 56% stabilized within 1 month to a dose of OPANA ER that reduced average pain to <40 mm on a visual analog scale with good tolerability. Stabilized patients (n = 143) were randomized to placebo or their stabilized dose of OPANA ER every 12 hours for a 12-week double-blind period. Pain intensity increased significantly more for patients randomized to placebo than for patients who continued their stabilized dose of OPANA ER; the increase from baseline (at randomization) to final visit was 31.6 mm for placebo versus 8.7 mm with OPANA ER (P < .0001). During double-blind treatment, placebo patients were approximately 8-fold more likely than OPANA ER patients to discontinue because of lack of efficacy (P < .001). Discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar between groups, 10% with placebo and 11% with OPANA ER. Opioid-related adverse events included constipation (6%), somnolence (3%), and nausea (3%). Fifty-seven percent of opioid-experienced patients with chronic, moderate to severe LBP achieved a stable dose of OPANA ER that was efficacious and generally well-tolerated for up to 12 weeks.
PERSPECTIVE: In a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in opioid-experienced patients with chronic, moderate to severe LBP, OPANA ER provided efficacious, long-term analgesia and was generally well-tolerated. OPANA ER may provide clinicians with a new treatment option for patients experiencing suboptimal analgesic responses or poor tolerability with other opioids.
Although lumbar radicular pain is the most common chronic neuropathic pain syndrome, there have been few randomized studies of drug treatments. We compared the efficacy of morphine (15-90 mg), nortriptyline (25-100 mg), their combination, and a benztropine "active placebo" (0.25-1 mg) in patients with chronic sciatica. Each period consisted of 5 weeks of dose escalation, 2 weeks of maintenance at the highest tolerated doses, and 2 weeks of dose tapering. The primary outcome was the mean daily leg pain score on a 0-10 scale during the maintenance period. Secondary outcomes included a 6-point ordinal global pain relief scale, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) and the SF-36. In the 28 out of 61 patients who completed the study, none of the treatments produced significant reductions in average leg pain or other leg or back pain scores. Pain reduction, relative to placebo treatment was, 14% for nortriptyline (95% CI=[-2%, 30%]), 7% for morphine (95% CI=[-8%, 22%]), and 7% for the combination treatment (95% CI=[-4%, 18%]). Mean doses were: nortriptyline alone, 84+/-24.44 (SD) mg/day; morphine alone, 62+/-29 mg/day; and combination, morphine, 49+/-27 mg/day plus nortriptyline, 55 mg+/-33.18 mg/day. Over half of the study completers reported some adverse effect with morphine, nortriptyline or their combination. Within the limitations of the modest sample size and high dropout rate, these results suggest that nortriptyline, morphine and their combination may have limited effectiveness in the treatment of chronic sciatica.
Although often successful in acute settings, long-term use of opioid pain medications may be accompanied by waning levels of analgesic response not readily attributable to advancing underlying disease, necessitating dose escalation to attain pain relief. Analgesic tolerance, and more recently opioid-induced hyperalgesia, have been invoked to explain such declines in opioid effectiveness over time. Because both phenomena result in inadequate analgesia, they are difficult to distinguish in a clinical setting. Patients with otherwise uncomplicated low-back pain were titrated to comfort or dose-limiting side effects in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using sustained-release morphine or weight-matched placebo capsules for 1 month. A total of 103 patients completed the study, with an average end titration dose of 78 mg morphine/d. After 1 month, the morphine-treated patients developed tolerance to the analgesic effects of remifentanil, but did not develop opioid-induced hyperalgesia. On average, these patients experienced a 42% reduction in analgesic potency. The morphine-treated patients experienced clinically relevant improvements in pain relief, as shown by a 44% reduction in average visual analogue scale pain levels and a 31% improvement in functional ability. The differences in visual analogue scale pain levels (P = .003) and self-reported disability (P = .03) between both treatment groups were statistically significant. After 1 month of oral morphine therapy, patients with chronic low-back pain developed tolerance but not opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Improvements in pain and functional ability were observed.
