Extended-release Hydromorphone Research Articles

Assessment of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing of Opioid Analgesics Requiring Prior Opioid Tolerance

Opioid-tolerant only (OTO) medications, such as transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl products and certain extended-release opioid analgesics, require prior opioid tolerance for safe use, as patients without tolerance may be at increased risk of overdose. Studies using insurance claims have found that many patients initiating these medications do not appear to be opioid tolerant. To measure prevalence of opioid tolerance in patients initiating OTO medications and to determine whether linked electronic health record (EHR) data contribute evidence of opioid tolerance not found in insurance claims data. This retrospective cohort study used a national database of deidentified longitudinal health information, including medical and pharmacy claims, insurance enrollment, and EHR data, from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Data included 131 756 US residents with at least 183 days of continuous enrollment in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance (including medical and pharmacy benefits) who had received an OTO medication and who had no inpatient stays in the 30 days prior to starting an OTO medication; of these, 20 044 individuals had linked EHR data within the prior 183 days. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018. Initiating an OTO medication. Prior opioid tolerance demonstrated through pharmacy fills or EHR data on prescriptions written. Among 153 385 OTO use episodes identified, 89 029 (58.0%) occurred among women, 62 900 (41.0%) occurred among patients with Medicare Advantage insurance, 39 394 (25.7%) occurred in the Midwest, 17 366 (11.3%) occurred in the Northeast, 73 316 (47.8%) occurred in the South, and 23 309 (15.2%) occurred in the West. Less than half of use episodes (73 117 episodes [47.7%]) involved patients with evidence in claims data of opioid tolerance prior to initiating therapy with an OTO medication, including 31 392 of 101 676 episodes (30.9%) involving transdermal fentanyl, 1561 of 2440 episodes (64.0%) involving transmucosal fentanyl, 36 596 of 43 559 episodes (84.0%) involving extended-release oxycodone, and 3568 of 5710 episodes (62.5%) involving extended-release hydromorphone. Among 20 044 OTO use episodes with linked EHR and claims data, less than 1% of OTO episodes identified in claims had evidence of opioid tolerance in structured EHR data that was not present in claims data (108 episodes [0.5%]). After limiting the sample to OTO episodes identified in claims with a matching OTO prescription within 14 days in the structured EHR data, only 40 of 939 episodes (4.0%) occurred among patients with evidence of tolerance that was not present in claims data. This cohort study found that most patients initiating OTO medications did not have evidence of prior opioid tolerance, suggesting they were at increased risk of opioid-related harms, including fatal overdose. Data from EHRs did not contribute substantial additional evidence of opioid tolerance beyond the data found in prescription claims. Future research is needed to understand the clinical rationale behind these observed prescribing patterns and to quantify the risk of harm to patients associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing.

Evaluation of the Relative Abuse of an OROS Extended-release Hydromorphone HCI Product: Results From 3 Postmarket Surveillance Studies.

Formulating prescription opioids to limit abuse remains a priority. OROS extended-release (ER) hydromorphone HCl (EXALGO) may have lower abuse potential than many other opioid products. Three postmarketing studies of the relative abuse liability of OROS hydromorphone ER were conducted. Estimates of abuse, unadjusted, and adjusted for prescription volume, were generated for OROS hydromorphone ER and comparators from Q2 2010 through Q2 2014 for a high-risk, substance abuse treatment population and the general population using poison control center data. Comparators were selected for compound, market penetration, and route of administration (ROA) profile. ROA comparisons were made among the substance abuse treatment population. Internet discussion was examined to determine abusers' interest in and desire for the OROS formulation. Examination of abuse prevalence among adults within substance abuse treatment, intentional poison exposures, and Internet discussion levels generally support the hypothesis that OROS hydromorphone ER may have lower abuse potential than many other opioid products. OROS hydromorphone ER also seems to be abused less often by alternate ROAs (eg, snorting and injection). Lower levels of online discussion were observed along with relatively low endorsement for abuse. Abuse of OROS hydromorphone ER was observed in high-risk substance abuse and general population samples but at a very low relative prevalence compared to comparators. Evidence suggests it may be less often abused by alternate ROAs than some comparators. Online data did not find evidence of high levels of desire for OROS hydromorphone ER by recreational abusers. Continued monitoring of this product's abuse liability is warranted.

Opioid tolerance and urine drug testing among initiates of extended-release or long-acting opioids in Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System

Objective: A risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012. Our objective was to assess frequency of opioid tolerance and urine drug testing for individuals initiating ER/LA opioid analgesics.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: Sentinel, a distributed database with electronic healthcare data on >190 million predominantly commercially insured members.Patients, participants: Members under age 65 initiating ER/LA opioid analgesics between January 2009 and December 2013.Main outcome measure(s): We examined the proportion of opioid-tolerantonly ER/LA opioid analgesic initiates meeting tolerance criteria: receipt of ≥30 mg oxycodone equivalents per day in 7 days prior to the first opioid-tolerant-only dispensing. We separately examined the proportion of new users of extended-release oxycodone (ERO) and other ER/LA opioid analgesics with a claim for a urine drug test in the 30 days prior to, and separately for the 183 days after, dispensing.Results: We identified 79,824 ERO, 7,343 extended-release hydromorphone, and 91,778 transdermal fentanyl opioid-tolerant-only episodes. Tolerance criteria were met in 64 percent of ERO, 64 percent of extended-release hydromorphone and 40 percent of transdermal fentanyl episodes. We identified 210,581 incident ERO and 311,660 other ER/LA opioid analgesic episodes. Use of urine drug testing for ERO compared with other ER/LA opioid analgesics was: 4 percent vs 14 percent respectively in the 30 days prior to initiation and 9 percent vs 23 percent respectively in the 183 days following initiation.Conclusions: These results suggest potential areas for improving appropriate ER/LA opioid analgesic prescribing practices.

A randomized, double-blind study of hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets versus oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets for cancer pain: efficacy and safety in Japanese cancer patients (EXHEAL: a Phase III study of EXtended-release HydromorphonE for cAncer pain reLief).

BackgroundIn Japan, there are limited options for switching opioid analgesics. Hydromorphone is an opioid analgesic that is routinely used instead of morphine for cancer pain; however, it is not yet available in Japan. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone (DS-7113b) extended-release tablets in opioid-naïve patients with cancer pain not relieved by non-opioid analgesics.Subjects and methodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. A double-dummy method was used for blinding. Each randomized subject received either hydromorphone extended-release tablets plus placebo oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets 4 mg/day (n=88) or placebo hydromorphone extended-release tablets plus oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets 10 mg/day (n=93) orally for 7 days (once-daily dosing for hydromorphone and twice-daily dosing for oxycodone). The doses were adjusted as necessary. Efficacy was evaluated by change in visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline to completion of treatment.ResultsThe between-group difference in least squares mean changes in VAS score from baseline to completion or discontinuation of treatment was −0.4 mm (95% CI −5.9 to 5 mm) by analysis of covariance where the baseline VAS score was used as a covariate. The upper limit of the 95% CI was below 10 mm, which was predefined as the noninferiority limit. This verified the noninferiority of hydromorphone tablets relative to oxycodone tablets. The incidence of adverse events was 80.7% (71 of 88) in the hydromorphone group and 83.7% (77 of 93) in the oxycodone group. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, somnolence, diarrhea, and constipation, most of which are commonly observed with opioid analgesics.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of hydromorphone extended-release tablets were equivalent to those of the oxycodone extended-release formulation.

Pharmacokinetics and circulating Microrna profiles of extended release Hydromorphone in healthy subjects

Pharmacokinetics and circulating Microrna profiles of extended release Hydromorphone in healthy subjects

Single-dose evaluation of safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of newly formulated hydromorphone immediate-release and hydrophilic matrix extended-release tablets in healthy Japanese subjects without co-administration of an opioid antagonist.

This single dose, open-label study investigated the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of single oral doses of newly formulated immediate-release (IR) and hydrophilic matrix extended-release (ER) hydromorphone tablets in healthy Japanese subjects without co-administration of an opioid antagonist under fasting and fed conditions. Plasma and urinary concentrations of hydromorphone and metabolites were measured by liquid-chromatography tandem mass-spectroscopy. Following administration of the ER tablet, plasma concentrations of hydromorphone slowly increased with a median tmax of 5.0 h and the Cmax decreased to 37% of the IR tablet, while the AUC0-inf was comparable with that of the IR tablet when administered at the same dose. The degree of fluctuation in the plasma concentration for the ER tablet was much lower than that of the IR tablet and certain levels of plasma concentrations were maintained after 24 h of ER dosing. The AUC0-inf and Cmax increased with food for both IR and ER tablets. The AUC0-inf of hydromorphone-3-glucoside was one-tenth of that of hydromorphone-3-glucuronide. A single oral administration of the hydromorphone tablets would be well-tolerated in healthy Japanese subjects despite a lack of co-administration of an opioid antagonist and the newly developed ER hydromorphone tablets may have the appropriate PK characteristics for once-daily dosing.

Tapentadol abuse potential: a postmarketing evaluation using a sample of individuals evaluated for substance abuse treatment.

Abuse of prescription opioid pain relievers continues to be a serious public health concern. In contrast to opioids such as oxycodone or morphine, tapentadol, a prescription analgesic, has two mechanisms of action: μ-opioid receptor agonism and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. As a result of differences in its receptor pharmacology, there may be differences in its abuse profile. As an initial step toward testing this hypothesis, we present a postmarketing examination of tapentadol's abuse liability relative to comparators. A sentinel sample of 113,914 individuals assessed for substance abuse treatment as part of the NAVIPPRO ASI-MV(®) surveillance system at 624 facilities in 38 states from January 2011 to September 2012 was examined for prevalence and prescription-adjusted prevalence of past 30-day abuse of tapentadol as a compound and its immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (ER) formulations with oxymorphone, hydromorphone, hydrocodone, morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, tramadol, and buprenorphine as comparators. Tapentadol abuse was reported significantly less often (P < 0.001) than all comparator compounds. Tapentadol IR abuse prevalence was significantly lower than all comparators except fentanyl IR, which had the next lowest unadjusted abuse prevalence. Prevalence of tapentadol ER abuse was lower than comparators except hydromorphone ER. Low prescription-adjusted estimates were observed for tapentadol as a compound as well as its IR and ER formulations, which were among the lowest observed and the lowest of the Schedule II comparators. Prescription-adjusted risk for tapentadol ER was less than comparators except hydromorphone ER (P = 0.06). Tapentadol abuse was seen infrequently in this study and, on a prescription basis, was less likely to be abused than most of the examined Schedule II analgesics.

Hydromorphone extended release for neuropathic and non-neuropathic/nociceptive chronic low back pain: a post hoc analysis of data from a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of hydromorphone extended release (ER) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) with or without a neuropathic component. This was a post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a randomized withdrawal design, performed in patients with moderate to severe chronic LBP. Patients achieving stable doses of hydromorphone ER during a 2- to 4-week conversion and titration phase were randomized to continue treatment with hydromorphone ER or taper-down to placebo during a 12-week double-blind phase. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change in 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain intensity score from randomization to the final visit of the double-blind phase. Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed separately for patients with non-neuropathic and neuropathic LBP. A total of 173 patients with non-neuropathic/nociceptive LBP and 94 with neuropathic LBP were randomized into the double-blind phase. During the conversion and titration phase, mean (SD) NRS scores decreased significantly from 6.5 (1.87) and 6.4 (1.99) at screening to 3.3 (0.98) and 3.2 (1.05), respectively. For both LBP subgroups, patients randomized to hydromorphone ER maintained this improvement over the double-blind treatment period, whereas those randomized to placebo reported significant increase in NRS scores. Across subgroups, the incidence of 1 or more AE was 54 percent to 57 percent in the conversion and titration phase and 47 percent to 55 percent in the double-blind phase. The results of this study indicate that hydromorphone ER is efficacious and generally well tolerated in the management of patients with non-neuropathic and neuropathic chronic LBP.

Safety and Efficacy of Once-Daily Hydromorphone Extended-Release Versus Twice-Daily Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-Release in Chinese Patients With Cancer Pain: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study

Noninferiority of the efficacy of once-daily hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release (hydromorphone ER) compared with twice-daily oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release (oxycodone CR) was investigated in this randomized, double-blind study in Chinese patients with moderate to severe cancer pain requiring strong oral opioid analgesics. Randomization (1:1) to hydromorphone ER (8–32 mg) or oxycodone CR (10–40 mg) was followed by dose titration (up to 8 days) and dose maintenance (28 days, weekly visits). Primary endpoint was change from baseline to end of study in “worst pain in the past 24 hours” of Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score on last observation carried forward (per protocol set). A total of 137 of 260 randomized patients completed maintenance phase (hydromorphone ER: n = 70; oxycodone CR: n = 67); per protocol set: 81 patients. Mean age was 53.1 years (range: 18–70 years; males: 65.3%); most common Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 2. Least square mean difference between 2 treatment groups for primary endpoint using analysis of covariance (baseline score, covariate) was −.1 (95% confidence interval: −1.3, 1.1), with upper bound of 95% confidence interval <1.5 (predefined noninferiority margin). Most common reason for deaths was disease progression (hydromorphone ER: 6.3%; oxycodone CR: 12.7%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. Hydromorphone ER was noninferior to oxycodone CR in alleviating cancer pain and was well tolerated. PerspectiveThis article demonstrates clinical noninferiority of the efficacy of once-daily hydromorphone ER compared with twice-daily oxycodone CR in alleviating cancer pain in Chinese patients, with comparable safety profiles between the 2 treatment groups. Thus, a treatment option with the potential for a reduced dosing frequency exists for health care providers and patients.

Dose proportionality and pharmacokinetics of extended-release (OROS®) hydromorphone: A phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy Taiwanese subjects

Osmotic-controlled release oral delivery system (OROS®) hydromorphone - an extended-release preparation - is recommended long-term therapy for chronic pain patients. Dose proportionality of OROS hydromorphone has been shown in healthy Caucasian volunteers; however, no studies have been conducted in Asian populations. To determine whether ethnic differences affect the drug's pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, we evaluated the dose proportionality of OROS hydromorphone in healthy Taiwanese adults. This 12-week, open-label, 4-way crossover, phase 1 study randomly assigned subjects to 1 of 4 treatment sequences - single oral dose OROS hydromorphone: 8 mg, 16 mg, 32 mg, or 64 mg - along with 50 mg naltrexone. Dose proportionality was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the slope of the regression line and its 90% CI for Cmax, AUC0-48h, and AUClast. Descriptive statistics measured plasma hydromorphone concentrations, PK parameters, laboratory analytes, and vital signs. 23 subjects completed the study; a single-dose of OROS hydromorphone increased plasma concentration steadily for 6 hours and sustained it at or near maximum levels for ~ 24 hours. After dose normalization to a 16 mg dose, all studied doses demonstrated dose proportionality for Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-48h,as the slopes of the regression lines for Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-48h were close to zero, and the 90% CIs within pre-specified limits. Adverse events were as expected for hydromorphone administered with concomitant naltrexone. Single doses of 8 mg, 16 mg, 32 mg, and 64 mg of OROS hydromorphone were found to be dose proportional for Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-48h and were generally safe and well-tolerated in healthy Taiwanese adults.

Complementary pharmacokinetic measures to further define the profile of once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER during single-dose and steady-state dosing

Conventional measures such as maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) may be insufficient to fully describe the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of extended-release (ER) formulations. A complementary measure, the half-value duration (HVD), corresponds to the period of time during a dosing cycle that plasma concentration is at or above half the value of the maximal concentration (i.e. ≥50% Cmax). The current post-hoc analysis uses data from 2 previously published studies comparing the PK profiles and HVD of OROS hydromorphone ER (16 mg administered once daily) and immediate-release (IR) hydromorphone (4 mg administered every 6 hours), calculating single-dose and steady-state condition values. Bioequivalence was demonstrated between the 2 formulations. Mean steady-state once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER concentrations were elevated for most of the 24-hour dosing period and for significantly longer than with the dose-equivalent IR hydromorphone regimen. The duration of time spent ≥50% Cmax was, on average, 2.7 times longer at steady state for the ER formulation, which also maintained steady-state hydromorphone plasma concentrations, with 65% lower mean degree of fluctuation versus IR hydromorphone. Both formulations appeared to be well tolerated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-625) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A prospective, open-label, multicenter study of the clinical efficacy of extended-release hydromorphone in treating cancer pain inadequately controlled by other analgesics

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether extended-release hydromorphone (osmotic-controlled release oral delivery system [OROS] hydromorphone) treatment provided pain relief in cancer patients whose pain was inadequately controlled by other analgesics. In this prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, patients who have sustained cancer pain with other analgesics were enrolled. After the baseline evaluation (visit 1), OROS hydromorphone was administered. Two evaluations (visits 2 and 3) were made: 29 ± 7 and 57 ± 7 days later, respectively. The primary end point was the pain intensity difference (PID) at visit 3 relative to visit 1 (expressed as percent PID). In total, 879 patients were screened and 432 completed all three visits. Of the 874 full analysis set patients, 343 (39.2 %) improved by more than 30 % PID. Of the 432 per-protocol patients, 282 (65.3 %) improved by more than 30 % PID. At visits 2 and 3, the degree of sleep disturbance, the number of awakenings, and the degree of sleep satisfaction were significantly better than at visit 1 (all P < 0.0001 for both visit 1-visit 2 and visit 1-visit 3). However, this pain relief was not associated with improved quality of life (P = 0.326 and P = 0.055 for visit 1-visit 2 and visit 1-visit 3, respectively). This study suggested that active pain management using the strong opioid OROS hydromorphone was beneficial in the management of cancer pain that was not controlled by other analgesics.

Evaluating the titration and persistency of treatment with hydromorphone ER in a real-world setting

Clinical use of opioids requires individualized dosing, with titration to an effective dose that balances analgesia and adverse effects. Hydromorphone extended-release (ER) is a once-daily opioid indicated for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain in opioid-tolerant patients who require continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesia for an extended period of time. When converting to hydromorphone ER from another opioid, the calculated morphine equivalent dose (MED) is generally reduced by 25% to 50% to determine the starting dose.

Open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extendedrelease hydromorphone in patients with chronic neuropathic pain

To assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily hydromorphone extended-release tablets (OROS [Alza Corporation, Mountain View, CA] hydromorphone ER) in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Single-center, open-label, 12-week study. Opioid-tolerant patients with chronic neuropathic pain for $6 months (N = 30). Patients were converted from previous opioid therapy to OROS hydromorphone ER using a 5:1 morphine:hydromorphone equianalgesic dosing ratio, with an initial 50 percent reduction of the calculated equianalgesic dose, titrated every 3-4 days to adequate analgesia over 2 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to week 12 (end of study) on question #5 ("average pain") of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary measures included least pain, worst pain, current pain, and sleep interference on the BPI, as well as the Pain Quality Assessment Scale (PQAS) and patient global assessment of treatment satisfaction. Thirty patients were enrolled and received $1 dose of OROS hydromorphone ER, titrated to a final mean dose of 26.4 mg/d. Mean (SE) BPI change from baseline to end of study was -1.3 (0.59) for current pain (p < 0.05) and -1.8 (0.61) for worst pain (p < 0.01). Mean (SE) change from baseline was also significant for BPI scores for sleep interference (-1.7 [0.61]; p < 0.01) and PQAS scores (-24.8 [7.9], p < 0.01). The majority (81 percent) of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with treatment. The most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness, headache, and nausea (two patients each). Patients with chronic neuropathic pain were safely and effectively converted to and maintained on OROS hydromorphone ER.

Repeat-dose steady-state pharmacokinetic evaluation of once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS&amp;reg; hydromorphone ER) in patients with chronic pain

ObjectiveTo characterize the steady-state pharmacokinetic profile of hydromorphone extended-release (ER) in patients with chronic pain taking concomitant medications.MethodsThis open-label repeat-dose study enrolled 22 patients (mean age, 51.4 years; 81.8% female). All patients were receiving at least one concomitant medication; 86.4% were receiving at least two concomitant medications and 81.8% were receiving at least three. Patients receiving a stable dose of an opioid were converted to hydromorphone ER at a 5:1 ratio (morphine equivalent:hydromorphone). The dose was titrated to adequate analgesia over 3–14 days and stabilized between 8–48 mg. Oral morphine immediate-release was permitted for breakthrough pain. Area under the concentration–time curve from 0–24 hours (AUC0–24), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), trough plasma concentration (Cmin), average plasma concentration (Cavg), and degree of fluctuation (100 × [(Cmax − Cmin) ÷ Cavg]) were calculated based on data from 14 patients.ResultsDose-normalized to 16 mg, mean pharmacokinetic parameter values were: AUC0–24, 41.1 ng · h/mL; Cmax, 2.6 ng/mL; Cmin, 1.1 ng/mL; Cavg, 1.7 ng/mL; and the degree of fluctuation was 99.6%. The pharmacokinetic profile of hydromorphone ER was linear and consistent with dose proportionality. Mean pain intensity difference scores showed statistically significant improvement from 2–21 hours after dosing. Sixteen (72.7%) patients reported at least one adverse event (AE). The most common were constipation (31.8%), headache (22.7%), and vomiting (13.6%). One patient discontinued treatment due to vomiting. No deaths, serious AEs, or unexpected AEs occurred.ConclusionThese findings replicate and extend the steady-state pharmacokinetic profile of hydromorphone ER, previously characterized in healthy volunteers, to a population of chronic pain patients taking numerous concomitant medications.

Safety and tolerability of OROS® hydromorphone ER in adults with chronic noncancer and cancer pain: Pooled analysis of 13 studies

This analysis was designed to assess the pooled safety and tolerability of once-daily hydromorphone extended release (ER) (OROS® hydromorphone ER) in opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain. Safety results were pooled from 13 controlled and uncontrolled clinical studies, with varying approaches to dosing and titration, pain etiology, and duration of exposure. Of the 3,075 patients in the pooled population, 2,335 (76 percent) received at least one dose of OROS hydromorphone ER, with a duration of dosing of up to 1.5 years; 420 patients were treated for at least 6 months and 141 for longer than 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the incidence of AEs in the overall population as well as according to baseline characteristics. Overall AE incidence with OROS hydromorphone ER treatment was 80.5 percent (1,880/2,335 patients). The most common treatment-related AEs were constipation (28.9 percent, 674 patients) and nausea (22.7 percent, 529 patients), and most cases were mild to moderate in severity. The incidence of overall AEs did not undergo a notable change over time. Opioid-related AEs were higher in patients ≥65 years of age, female patients, and opioid-naïve patients. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 10.2 percent (239) of patients. A total of 64 deaths occurred, none of which were considered related to OROS hydromorphone ER treatment. OROS hydromorphone was generally well tolerated in short- and long-term studies and demonstrated a consistent AE profile over time.

Safety and Tolerability of Once-Daily OROS® Hydromorphone Extended-Release in Opioid-Tolerant Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Cancer and Noncancer Pain: Pooled Analysis of 11 Clinical Studies

ContextThe efficacy and tolerability of once-daily hydromorphone extended release (ER) (OROS® hydromorphone ER, Exalgo®, Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hazelwood, MO) in patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain have been reported in previous studies. ObjectivesThe objective of this analysis was to assess the pooled safety data of OROS hydromorphone ER in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain. MethodsSafety results were pooled from 11 clinical studies in opioid-tolerant patients: one 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; three active-controlled studies; and seven uncontrolled studies (durations of three to 52 weeks). Patients were included in this analysis if they took ≥1 dose of study medication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze baseline and demographic characteristics, supplemental analgesic use, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). ResultsIn total, 1251 opioid-tolerant patients received ≥1 dose of OROS hydromorphone ER. Mean (SD) duration of exposure was 43.1 (67.8) days (range 1–396 days), and mean (SD) daily dose was 43.4 (47.1) mg. Overall, 1081 patients (86.4%) used supplemental rescue analgesics. The overall incidence of AEs was 76.9%. The most frequently reported AEs were nausea (23.2%), constipation (22.4%), vomiting (14.4%), somnolence (12.9%), and headache (12.8%). Treatment-related constipation occurred in 20.5% of patients, nausea in 16.8%, somnolence in 11.8%, vomiting in 8.2%, and headache in 7.0%. Serious adverse events occurred in 13.5% of patients, with the most frequently reported serious adverse events being dehydration, nausea, and vomiting. No treatment-related deaths occurred. ConclusionOnce-daily OROS hydromorphone ER demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile in opioid-tolerant patients that is consistent with the known safety profiles of opioids.

Relationship of Negative Affect and Outcome of an Opioid Therapy Trial Among Low Back Pain Patients

Patients with chronic noncancer pain frequently report symptoms of depression and anxiety (negative affect), which are associated with higher ratings of pain intensity and a greater likelihood of being prescribed chronic opioid therapy. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to test the hypothesis that initial levels of negative affect can predict treatment-related outcomes in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release (ER) hydromorphone among opioid-tolerant patients with chronic low back pain. Four hundred fifty-nine (N = 459) patients participated in the titration/conversion phase of a multicenter study, of which 268 were randomized to receive once-daily hydromorphone or placebo. All patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline and were divided evenly into Low (N = 157), Moderate (N = 155), and High (N = 147) negative affect groups based on their scores. Group differences in numerical pain intensity measures at home and in the clinic, Roland-Morris Disability ratings, and measures of symptoms from the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) throughout the trial were analyzed. Two hundred sixty-eight of the initial 459 subjects who entered the 2 to 4-week titration/conversion phase (pretreatment) were successfully randomized to either placebo or ER hydromorphone; a total of 110 patients then completed this double-blind phase of the study. Those in the Moderate and High negative affect groups tended to drop out more often during the titration/conversion phase because of the adverse effects or lack of efficacy of their prescribed opioid than those in the Low negative mood group (P < 0.05). Overall, those patients in the Moderate and High groups reported significantly higher pain intensity scores in at-home and in-clinic pain intensity ratings (P < 0.05), greater disability on the Roland-Morris Scale (P < 0.01), and more withdrawal symptoms on the SOWS (P < 0.05) than those in the Low group. Higher negative affect scores also predicted less favorable ratings of the study drug during the titration phase (P < 0.05). Interestingly, the High negative affect group showed the most improvement in pain in the placebo condition (P < 0.05). Negative affect is associated with diminished benefit during a trial of opioid therapy and is predictive of dropout in a controlled clinical trial.

Results of a Double‐blind, Placebo‐controlled, Fixed‐dose Assessment of Once‐daily OROS® Hydromorphone ER in Patients with Moderate to Severe Pain Associated with Chronic Osteoarthritis

Opioids are recommended for patients with moderate to severe pain due to osteoarthritis (OA), who do not receive adequate analgesia from nonopioid treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OROS hydromorphone extended-release (ER) compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with OA. This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, fixed-dose study. Patients received placebo or fixed-dose OROS hydromorphone ER (8 or 16 mg). The primary efficacy measure was pain intensity score (11-point Numeric Rating Scale) at Maintenance Week 12, analyzed with baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) imputation for missing data. This study did not meet the primary efficacy measure using the BOCF imputation. Study discontinuation was high (52%). When analyzed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation, the prespecified alternate method, OROS hydromorphone ER 16 mg provided significantly better analgesia than placebo (P = 0.0009). Treatment was associated with significant improvements in patient global assessment (P = 0.01), the overall Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (P = 0.0003), and its subscales: pain (P = 0.0001), stiffness (P = 0.0023), and physical function (P = 0.0006). Gastrointestinal adverse events, such as constipation and nausea, were common among patients receiving OROS hydromorphone ER. OROS hydromorphone ER failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint using the prespecified imputation method (BOCF), likely due to the high discontinuation rate associated with the fixed-dose design. When data were analyzed according to an alternate method of imputation (LOCF), OROS hydromorphone ER demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pain, stiffness, and physical function.

Sustained Safety and Efficacy of Once‐Daily Hydromorphone Extended‐Release (OROS® hydromorphone ER) Compared with Twice‐Daily Oxycodone Controlled‐Release Over 52 Weeks in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Noncancer Pain

Once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS(®) hydromorphone ER) and oxycodone controlled-release (CR) are semisynthetic, ER opioid analgesics with established efficacy. An open-label, randomized, 24-week, parallel group, flexible-dose study demonstrated noninferiority of OROS hydromorphone ER vs. twice-daily oxycodone CR in patients with chronic noncancer pain. In total, 112 patients were enrolled in a 28-week, open-label extension study; 60 patients received OROS hydromorphone ER and 52 received oxycodone CR. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to Weeks 38 and 52 in Brief Pain Inventory item "pain right now." Global assessments of efficacy, dosing convenience, and tolerability were secondary endpoints. Mean change in "pain right now" from baseline to Week 38 was -3.0 (OROS hydromorphone ER) vs. -2.8 (oxycodone CR), and from baseline to Week 52 was -2.9 vs. -2.8; these changes were similar to the changes in the core phase (-2.1 vs. -2.1). Similar improvements were demonstrated for secondary assessments, including pain, pain interference, and quality of life. At Week 52, global assessment of efficacy was rated as "very good" or "good" by the majority of patients (OROS hydromorphone ER, 91.7%; oxycodone CR, 86.5%). More patients in the OROS hydromorphone ER group (35.0% vs. 21.2%) assessed mode of drug intake as "very convenient." The majority of patients receiving OROS hydromorphone ER (88.3%) and oxycodone CR (88.5%) rated tolerability as "good" or "very good" at Week 52; few patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (1.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively). The effectiveness of OROS hydromorphone ER and oxycodone CR was maintained through 1 year.