Search

Beatrice Setnik,1 Carl L Roland,1 Kenneth W Sommerville,1,2 Glenn C Pixton,1 Robert Berke,3,4 Anne Calkins,5 Veeraindar Goli1,2 1Pfizer Inc, 2Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 3Family Health Medical Services PLLC, Mayville, NY, 4Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 5New York Spine & Wellness Center, Syracuse, NY, USA Objective: To compare the investigator assessment of patient risk for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion with patient self-reports of these activities in a population with chronic pain. Methods: As a secondary objective of an open-label, multicenter, primary care-based clinical study to evaluate the success of converting opioid-experienced patients with chronic pain to morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride, risk for misuse, abuse, and diversion was assessed using two nonvalidated questionnaires: one was completed by the investigator and another by the patient (Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion [SR-MAD]). In addition, the validated Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) test and urine drug test were used. Results: Of the 684 patients assessed by the investigators, 537 returned the self-assessment, SR-MAD. Most patients were assigned by the investigator as low risk for misuse (84.2%), abuse (89.3%), and diversion (94.3%). Of the patients who returned SR-MAD, 60% indicated having taken more opioids than prescribed and 10.9% reported chewing or crushing their opioids in the past. Of the patients who completed COMM, 40.6% were deemed as having aberrant behaviors. COMM results correlated with the risk levels from the investigator assessment. One-third of patients (33.8%) had at least one abnormal urine drug test result. Conclusion: More research is needed to better understand the gap between the investigator assessment of potential risk for misuse, abuse, and diversion and the actual extent of these behaviors among patients with chronic pain. Keywords: opioid, abuse, misuse, diversion, chronic pain

Beatrice Setnik,1 Carl L Roland,1 Kenneth W Sommerville,1,2 Glenn C Pixton,1 Robert Berke,3,4 Anne Calkins,5 Veeraindar Goli1,2 1Pfizer Inc, 2Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 3Family Health Medical Services PLLC, Mayville, 4Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, 5New York Spine & Wellness Center, Syracuse, NY, USA Objective: To evaluate the conversion of opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain to extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride (MSN) using a standardized conversion guide. Methods: This open-label, single-arm study was conducted in 157 primary care centers in the United States. A total of 684 opioid-experienced adults with chronic moderate-to-severe pain were converted to oral administration of MSN from transdermal fentanyl and oral formulations of hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and other morphine products using a standardized conversion guide. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a stable MSN dose within a 6-week titration phase. Secondary endpoints included duration of time to stable dose, number of titration steps, safety and efficacy measures, and investigator assessment of conversion guide utility. Results: Of the 684 patients, 51.3% were converted to a stable dose of MSN (95% confidence interval: 47.5%, 55.1%). The mean (standard deviation) number of days to stable dose was 20 (8.94), and number of titration steps to stable dose was 2.4 (1.37). The majority of adverse events were mild/moderate and consistent with opioid therapy. Mean pain scores at stable dose decreased from baseline. Investigators were generally satisfied with the conversion guide and, in 94% of cases, reported they would use it again. Conclusion: Conversion to MSN treatment using the standardized MSN conversion guide was an attainable goal in approximately half of the population of opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Investigators found the guide to be a useful tool to assist conversion of opioid-experienced patients to MSN. Keywords: opioid conversion, rotation, morphine, primary care, safety, equianalgesic

Objective: 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., Method: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusion: 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest John A. Carrino has received consulting fees from Covera Health, Globus, and Pfizer, and is on the medical advisory board of Image Analysis Group, Image Biopsy Lab and Carestream. Timothy E McAlindon has served on an advisory board for Pfizer, Samumed, Seikagaku, Flexion Therapeutics, Sanofi, Roche, Astellas, and Regeneron. Tom J. Schnitzer has received grants from Kolon TissueGene, Pfizer, Regeneron, Galapagos, Eli Lilly & Company, Paradigm, TLC, Ltd, Anika, Novartis; personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, Eli Lilly & Company, Regeneron, Aptinyx, Calibr, GSK, Astra-Zeneca, Genascence, Biosplice, Xalud, IBSA, IQVIA and Vertex. Ali Guermazi has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Organogenesis, Novartis and TissueGene, and is a shareholder of Boston Imaging Core Lab LLC. Marc C Hochberg has received consulting fees from Bone Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer, Regenosine, Samumed LLC, Theralogix LLC, TissueGene Inc., TLC Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and Zynerba; is a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee for clinical trials conducted by Covance, Galapagos, ICON plc, IQVIA, and SunPharma; received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Rheumatology 7e and Editor-in-Chief, Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism) and UpToDate™; and has stock ownership in BriOri Biotech and Theralogix LLC. Philip Conaghan has received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Levicept, Novartis, Pfizer, Stryker and UCB. Mark T Brown, Aimee Burr, Robert J. Fountaine, Glenn C Pixton, Christine West and Kenneth M Verburg are employees of Pfizer and have stock/stock options. Lars Viktrup is an employee and stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, was developed for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis. Due to its mechanism of action, peripheral nerve safety was assessed in all clinical studies., Objectives: To summarize the neurological safety of intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis., Methods: Data were pooled from 3389 patients across seven studies that investigated IV administration, and from 1840 patients across three studies that investigated SC administration. The treatment period of each study ranged from 16 to 24 weeks, and follow-up periods ranged from 8 to 24 weeks. Neurological safety evaluations focused on adverse events (AEs) of abnormal peripheral sensation (APS), neurologic examinations, and consultations., Results: Across datasets, the incidence of AEs of APS was higher in tanezumab groups versus placebo. Paresthesia and hypoesthesia were the most frequently reported AEs in tanezumab-treated patients, compared with placebo. In both datasets, most AEs were of mild severity, resolved, and rarely resulted in discontinuation. In all treatment groups in both IV and SC studies, over 90% of patients had no new or worsened neurological examination abnormalities at the last study visit. Across datasets, mononeuropathy was diagnosed more frequently in tanezumab groups compared with placebo. Polyneuropathy was diagnosed in ≤ 0.9% of patients in tanezumab and placebo groups., Conclusions: Tanezumab IV or SC had an increased incidence of AEs of APS, such as paresthesia and hypoesthesia, and diagnoses of mononeuropathy compared with placebo. However, tanezumab was not associated with generalized peripheral neuropathy., Gov Identifiers: NCT00733902, NCT00744471, NCT00830063, NCT00863304, NCT00863772, NCT01089725, NCT00985621, NCT02697773, and NCT02709486., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objective: Describe the radiograph-based screening program and frequencies of ineligibility in 3 large, international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 studies of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with osteoarthritis (OA)., Design: Standardized bilateral shoulder, hip, and knee screening radiographs were obtained by trained imaging technologists and centrally read by 1 of 5 musculoskeletal radiology experts trained using a program-specific imaging atlas. Inter-reader consistency was tracked with test cases blindly inserted into the reader queue. Readers attended quarterly calibration meetings. Protocol-specified radiographic exclusion criteria included rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) or risk factors for RPOA (including severe malalignment of the knee, subchondral insufficiency fracture, atrophic OA, and osteonecrosis). Patients reporting disproportionate pain to radiographic evidence of OA in the hip or knee (without other pathology) were ineligible under a nonradiographic exclusion criterion., Results: At >480 international sites, 23,079 patients entered screening and 13,797 were radiographically assessed. Across 6 sets of quarterly testing, pairwise central reader agreement on radiographic eligibility was 72-87% (kappa: 0.41-0.71) and on radiographic OA grading 77-84% (kappa: 0.68-0.75). Among the 5,773/13,797 (41.8%) patients who met exclusionary criteria, 27% had disproportionate pain to radiographic findings (~10% of knee/hip radiographs). RPOA or risk factors for RPOA were each identified in <5% of patients (usually 1 joint) and <3% of knee/hip/shoulders., Conclusions: The phase 3 tanezumab screening program demonstrated the utility of radiographs to screen patients entering NGF inhibitor trials. A high degree of reader concordance was achieved. RPOA and risk factors for RPOA were not commonly observed. NCT02697773, NCT02709486, NCT02528188., Competing Interests: Ali Guermazi, Frank W Roemer, and Michel D Crema are shareholders at Boston Imaging Core Lab, LLC. Ali Guermazi has also been a consultant for AstraZeneca, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis, and TissueGene. Frank W Roemer has also received an honorarium from Eli Lilly and Company. Andrew J Kompel and Luis E Diaz have no disclosures. Mark T Brown, Anne Hickman, Glenn C Pixton, Robert J Fountaine, Aimee Burr, Sarah P Sherlock, and Christine R West are employees at Pfizer and have associated shares/stock options. Lars Viktrup is an employee at Eli Lilly and Company and has associated stock. Medical writing support was provided by Jennifer Bodkin at Engage Scientific Solutions and was funded by Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company.

Objective: To assess the long-term neurological safety of tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02528188 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02528188)., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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: 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.

With the development of opioid abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs), there is a need to conduct well-designed human abuse potential studies to evaluate the effectiveness of their deterrent properties. Although these types of studies have been conducted for many years, largely to evaluate inherent abuse potential of a molecule and inform drug scheduling, methodological approaches have varied across studies. The focus of this review is to describe current "best practices" and methodological adaptations required to assess abuse-deterrent opioid formulations for regulatory submissions. A literature search was conducted in PubMed® to review methodological approaches (study conduct and analysis) used in opioid human abuse potential studies. Search terms included a combination of "opioid," "opiate," "abuse potential," "abuse liability," "liking," AND "pharmacodynamic," and only studies that evaluated single doses of opioids in healthy, nondependent individuals with or without prior opioid experience were included. Seventy-one human abuse potential studies meeting the prespecified criteria were identified, of which 21 studies evaluated a purported opioid ADF. Based on these studies, key methodological considerations were reviewed and summarized according to participant demographics, study prequalification, comparator and dose selection, route of administration and drug manipulation, study blinding, outcome measures and training, safety, and statistical analyses. The authors recommend careful consideration of key elements (eg, a standardized definition of a "nondependent recreational user"), as applicable, and offer key principles and "best practices" when conducting human abuse potential studies for opioid ADFs. Careful selection of appropriate study conditions is dependent on the type of ADF technology being evaluated.

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.

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.

Objective: To explore behaviors related to prescription opioid abuse and diversion in individuals who self-reported past recreational (nonmedical) opioid use., Design: A questionnaire was developed and included in two abuse potential clinical studies conducted in Canada (Toronto, ON, August 2010 to January, 2011) and the United States (Salt Lake City, UT, February-May 2011)., Participants: Recreational opioid users., Main Outcome Measure(s): Self-reported behaviors related to prescription opioid abuse and diversion., Results: The questionnaire was completed by 174 participants in the Canadian study and 80 participants in the US study. Most participants reported that they used prescription opioids for nonmedical purposes a few times a month. Most had taken their first prescription opioid between the ages of 12 and 24 years and the two most common reasons were to treat pain or to feel high/stoned. When asked about specific opioids taken for nonmedical purposes in the past year, oxycodone, acetaminophen with codeine, and morphine were commonly used by both cohorts, whereas hydrocodone use was substantially greater in the US cohort versus the Canadian cohort. Participants reported various tampering methods and routes of administration, with swallowed whole, crushed and snorted, and chewed/crushed and swallowed as the most prevalent. Most participants indicated taking other drugs with prescription opioids to get high, most commonly marijuana and alcohol. The most common sources for obtaining prescription opioids were family/friends., Conclusions: Two cohorts of recreational opioid users from Canada and the United States reported similar experiences with various prescription opioids and indicated a predominance of diversion from family/friends.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety of oxycodone-hydrochloride and sequestered naltrexone-hydrochloride (ALO-02) administered for up to 12 months., Design: Open-label, single-arm safety study., Setting: Thirty-two US research centers (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01428583)., Patients: Three hundred ninety-five adults (opioid experienced and opioid naïve) with moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer pain (CNCP)., Interventions: Open-label, oral ALO-02 capsules, daily dose ranging from 20 to 160 mg oxycodone for up to 12 months., Main Outcome Measures: Number and type of adverse events (AEs) and drugrelated AEs, including assessments of withdrawal (Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale; COWS), pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and aberrant behaviors (Current Opioid Misuse Measure)., Results: A total of 193 (48.9 percent) patients received ALO-02 for ≥181 days and 105 (26.6 percent) patients for ≥361 days. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were nausea (25.3 percent), constipation (21.3 percent), vomiting (13.9 percent), and headache (11.6 percent). The most common drug-related AEs were constipation (18.0 percent), nausea (14.9 percent), somnolence (8.4 percent), fatigue (6.8 percent), dizziness (5.6 percent), and vomiting (5.1 percent). A majority of patients (86.6 percent) had a maximum COWS total score below the level for mild withdrawal symptoms at every visit throughout the study. Pain severity scores as measured by the short Form of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF) decreased over time., Conclusions: Repeat dosing of ALO-02 for up to 12 months is safe and well tolerated in a CNCP population of both opioid-experienced and opioid-naïve patients. ALO-02 demonstrated a safety profile consistent with extended-release opioids and the expected analgesic efficacy. The addition of sequestered naltrexone had no significant clinical effect on patients when taken as directed.

Objective: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an open-label continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS., Methods: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected., Results: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injection-site bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs., Significance: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2014 International League Against Epilepsy.)

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., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2013 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Objective: To evaluate the pharmacodynamic effects (subjective and physiologic) of a new formulation of immediate release oxycodone HCl (IRO-A; Oxecta™) tablets compared with immediate release oxycodone HCl (IRO; Roxicodone®) tablets when crushed and administered intranasally to nondependent recreational opioid users., Design: Single-center, single-dose, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled two-way crossover study., Setting: Inpatient Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Toronto, Canada., Participants: Nondependent, recreational opioid users aged 18-55 years., Interventions: Subjects able to discriminate intranasally administered crushed IRO from placebo were randomized to receive 15 mg crushed IRO-A and crushed IRO in crossover fashion in treatment phase., Main Outcome Measures: Primary subjective endpoints were maximum effect (E(max)) for Drug Liking and effect at 8 hours (E(8h)) postdose for Take Drug Again and Overall Drug Liking. All were assessed using bipolar 0-100 visual analog scale (VAS; 50 points = neutral). Secondary pharmacodynamic endpoints included other VAS endpoints, pupillometry, and subject-rated scales for nasal effects., Results: Forty subjects were randomized to treatment; 39 were evaluable, one subject was excluded for postdose vomiting. Subjects were mostly male (80 percent) and White (75 percent). Least squares mean Drug Liking VAS E(max) (70.8 vs 93.5), Overall Drug Liking E(8h) (47.8 vs 87.4), and Take Drug Again E(8h) (45.9 vs 91.3) were significantly lower for crushed IRO-A vs IRO (all p < 0.0001). A significant sequence effect was found, but lower liking of IRO-A was observed for both treatment sequence groups. Pupillary responses between treatments were similar overall, but differences were noted for some endpoints/time points. Adverse events common to opioids were observed with both treatments. Subjects experienced more nasal-related symptoms with IRO-A., Conclusions: Crushed IRO-A tablets demonstrated lower scores on "drug liking," "overall drug liking," and "take drug again" than crushed IRO when administered intranasally to nondependent recreational opioid users.

Background: An immediate-release oxycodone hydrochloride formulation (IRO-A) indicated for moderate to severe pain was designed (by adding functional excipients) to discourage tampering associated with intranasal and intravenous abuse of prescription opioids., Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine the dose proportionality of oxycodone in IRO-A tablets under fasted conditions. Secondary objectives were to assess food effects on the pharmacokinetics of IRO-A tablets, to compare the relative bioavailability of oxycodone in IRO-A tablets versus marketed oxycodone hydrochloride (IRO) tablets under fed conditions and to evaluate the single-dose safety profile of the IRO-A tablets in healthy volunteers pretreated with naltrexone., Methods: This open-label, single-dose, randomized, 5-way crossover study was conducted in healthy adults who received each of the following treatments, separated by a washout period of ≥7 days: IRO-A 1 × 5 mg, 2 × 5 mg, and 2 × 7.5 mg under fasted conditions, and IRO-A 2 × 7.5 mg and IRO 1 × 15 mg after a high-fat, high-calorie breakfast. Naltrexone was administered to minimize untoward pharmacologic effects of oxycodone. Dose proportionality (IRO-A), food effects (IRO-A), and relative bioavailability in a fed state (IRO-A and IRO) were assessed by using bioequivalence criteria (90% CIs between 80% and 125% for C(max) and AUC)., Results: Of the 35 adults enrolled in the study, 33 completed at least 1 dosing period. Most participants were male (54%) and white (69%), with a mean (SD) age of 32.6 (11.1) years and mean weight of 75.5 (12.3) kg. Plasma levels of oxycodone in IRO-A suggested dose-proportional pharmacokinetics; 90% CIs for dose-normalized C(max), AUC(0-last), and AUC(0-∞) fell within the 80% to 125% range. Concomitant food intake with IRO-A resulted in an ~14% reduction in oxycodone C(max) and an ~21% increase in AUC(0-last). The bioavailability of oxycodone from IRO-A tablets in the fed state was comparable with IRO tablets based on AUC parameters, although C(max) was ~16.5% lower. Reported or observed treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored throughout the study and were similar for IRO-A and IRO tablets. Nausea, headache, abdominal pain, and dizziness were the most common and are consistent with known effects of oxycodone after naltrexone blockade., Conclusions: Plasma levels of oxycodone in IRO-A tablets were compatible with proportional single-dose pharmacokinetics from 5 to 15 mg under fasted conditions. Administration of IRO-A with food suggested increased overall bioavailability relative to fasting conditions and a reduction in peak systemic exposure of oxycodone that is not expected to be clinically significant. When comparing IRO-A tablets with IRO tablets in the fed state, the overall systemic exposure of oxycodone was comparable, and peak systemic exposure was lower., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Topical bovine thrombin has been associated with immune responses and anecdotal reports of coagulopathy. This open-label study assessed the impact on clinical hemostasis of human antibodies to bovine thrombin (aBT) or factor V/Va (aBV/Va) in response to topical bovine thrombin (THROMBIN-JMI) in patients both with and without preexisting anti-bovine antibodies. Noninferiority analysis assessed primary endpoint for mean shift from baseline activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) at 48 hours postsurgery; secondary endpoints included changes from baseline antibodies/titers and coagulation parameters through 8 weeks postsurgery. A total of 550 patients underwent surgery with THROMBIN-JMI utilized at investigator's discretion. Adjusted mean aPTT change in (+)aBT/(+)THROMBIN-JMI cohort was greater than (-)aBT/(-)THROMBIN-JMI cohort; 4.67-second upper confidence bound exceeded 4.5-second margin (based on assumed mean aPTT of 30 seconds) and noninferiority was not met. Post hoc analysis indicated noninferiority would have been met had noninferiority margin been set prior at relative 15% of actual baseline aPTT. Antibodies/titers were unchanged by THROMBIN-JMI exposure 48 hours postsurgery and unrelated to postsurgical changes in coagulation. Thus, THROMBIN-JMI exposure in patients with/without preexisting aBT or aBV/Va does not alter hemostasis.

Background: The pharmacological stress agents adenosine and dipyridamole are contraindicated in asthma patients because of the risk of adenosine receptor-mediated bronchospasm. Binodenoson, a selective adenosine A(2A) receptor agonist, produces maximal coronary hyperemia during pharmacological stress testing yet has a low affinity for the adenosine A(1), A(2B), and A(3) receptors that are probably responsible for bronchospasm. This study was conducted to assess the safety of binodenoson in 87 healthy young adult volunteers with documented mild, intermittent asthma., Methods and Results: This study consisted of a dose-escalating, single-blinded phase and a placebo-controlled, double-blinded phase conducted in healthy, young adults with documented mild, intermittent, asthma. In the single-blinded phase, 3 sequential cohorts of 8 subjects received intravenous binodenoson (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 microg/kg). In the double-blinded phase, commenced after medical review of results from the single-blinded phase, subjects were randomly assigned 2:1 to either binodenoson 1.5 microg/kg (n=41) or placebo (n=22). The primary end point was clinically significant bronchoconstriction, defined as a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of >/=20% from the preinjection measure. Secondary safety end points were changes from preinjection measure in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory flow during the middle 50% of the forced vital capacity; vital signs; pulse oximetry; and adverse events. Binodenoson caused no clinically significant bronchoconstriction or alterations in pulmonary function parameters and transiently increased heart rate and systolic blood pressure. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were tachycardia, dizziness, and flushing., Conclusions: Binodenoson was safe, well tolerated, and caused no clinically significant bronchoconstriction or pulmonary responses in a small population of healthy subjects with mild, intermittent asthma.

Background: Drugs used to induce stress for cardiac imaging studies often cause discomfort. Patient-reported intensity of discomfort should be considered when comparing such agents., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of a modified visual analog scale (VAS) symptom-intensity measure and an overall-bother measure adapted to assess patient-reported intensity of the adverse events (AEs) associated with pharmacologic stress testing with adenosine, a pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging (PS-MPI) agent., Methods: Data were based on 2 complementary, open-label, multicenter, naturalistic, observational studies among patients completing a PS-MPI procedure. Content, concurrent, and discriminant validity was examined by correlating modified VAS symptom-intensity scores obtained from patients with investigator-rated intensity at time of event, overall bother, and patient-reported measures obtained during a structured interview. Test-retest reliability of the overall-bother measure was examined using 1- and 2-hour assessments, and concurrent validity was assessed by correlating counts of symptoms and other patient-reported measures. Responsiveness was examined by calculating change scores of the VAS symptom-intensity measures from baseline to 1 hour among patients who reported symptoms during the 1-hour monitoring period after PS infusion. Low to moderate correlation was defined as a coefficient between 0.3 and 0.5., Results: A total of 324 patients enrolled in the 2 studies. Content validity of the VAS symptom-intensity and overall-bother measures was established, with nearly all patients reporting that they were a useful way to rate symptom intensity and overall bother. VAS ratings were moderately to highly correlated with physician-rated AE intensity, and patient-reported assessments of symptom intensity, discomfort, and concern (r(s) = 0.21 r(s) = 0.84). Findings to support discriminant validity were inconclusive because of small sample size. Responsiveness was demonstrated with VAS symptom-intensity change scores ranging from 2.8 for headache to 4.9 for chest pain; effect sizes for these differences were large, ranging from 1.6 to 7.3, respectively., Conclusion: Findings support the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the modified VAS symptom-intensity measure, and the reliability and validity of the overall-bother measure for use in patients completing PS procedures.

Purpose: We evaluated the dose-related impacts of tiagabine (TGB) on cognition and mood in a monotherapy study., Methods: Patients were 123 adults with uncontrolled partial seizures, each treated with a single currently available antiepileptic drug (AED) for management of clinical epilepsy. They completed a battery of neuropsychological tests during an 8-week prospective baseline period and once again at the end of the 12-week fixed-dose period (or earlier if they dropped out of the study). Sixty-six patients were randomized to 6 mg/day TGB and 57 were randomized to 36 mg/day TGB., Results: Few changes in either abilities or adjustment and mood were noted when all patients were considered as a single group. However, analysis of both dose and attainment of TGB monotherapy showed that patients receiving TGB monotherapy did best, improving particularly in the areas of adjustment and mood with low-dose TGB and in the area of abilities with high-dose TGB. Patients who did not attain monotherapy showed no change except that the high-dose group did not perform as well on measures of mood and adjustment. Baseline AED and changes in seizure control did not affect the results., Conclusions: Patients' attainment of TGB monotherapy was associated with their achievement of positive changes of varying degree on psychological tests. Failure to attain TGB monotherapy was associated with no changes on the tests except in patients receiving high-dose TGB where it appeared that some alterations in mood might have been avoided if a slower titration schedule had been used.

The effect of hepatic enzyme-inducing antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs) on the clinical pharmacokinetics of tiagabine, a new AED, was studied in the steady-state condition. Patients with epilepsy entered this two-day study on a previously stable regimen of one to three enzyme-inducing drugs (phenytoin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, and/or primidone) and tiagabine.HCl (24, 40, 56, or 80 mg daily). Patients were confined on both days, and serial blood samples were collected. Plasma tiagabine concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography; pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Tiagabine pharmacokinetics were linear at all doses, as substantiated by the lack of significant differences among groups for dose-adjusted Cmax, Cmin, and AUC0-6. Some diurnal variation occurred, as evidenced by a statistically significant time effect for dose-adjusted AUC0-6. The effect was small, however, and possibly not clinically relevant. The harmonic mean half-lives of 3.8 to 4.9 h were remarkably constant across dosages and shorter than those of historical control subjects not taking enzyme-inducing AEDs suggesting that epilepsy patients not taking enzyme-inducing AEDs may require lower tiagabine.HCl doses to achieve the plasma levels observed in patients taking these drugs.