Appropriate use of tapentadol: focus on the optimal tapering strategy

OBJECTIVE

Due to its opioid and non-opioid mechanism of action, tapentadol is considered an atypical opioid with improved gastrointestinal tolerability versus traditional opioids. As for all opioid analgesics it is important to understand how to discontinue a treatment when it is not needed anymore. The aim of this article was to provide an overview of opioid therapy in non-cancer pain, with a specific focus on tapering of tapentadol in patients with chronic non-cancer pain, and suggestions on how to achieve tapering.

METHODS

Studies for this narrative review were identified via PubMed using a structured search strategy, focusing on management of chronic non-cancer pain with opioids, and the efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacology of tapentadol prolonged release. Publications were limited to English-language articles published within the last ∼10 years.

RESULTS

The review discusses the use and discontinuation of opioids in general, as well clinical data on discontinuation of tapentadol specifically. We provide a flow chart, which can be used by clinicians in the context of their own clinical experience to appropriately taper tapentadol in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. The flow chart can be easily tailored to individual patient characteristics, duration of tapentadol treatment, response to progressive dosage reduction, and likelihood of withdrawal symptom occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

While tapentadol is associated with a low frequency of opioid withdrawal symptoms after abrupt discontinuation, use of a tapering strategy is prudent. Tapering strategies developed for opioids in general can potentially be safely individualized in tapentadol-treated patients, although research on tapering strategies for tapentadol is required.

Analgesic effects and arthritic changes following tramadol administration in a rat hip osteoarthritis model

We investigated the analgesic effects of tramadol and the arthritic changes following tramadol administration in the rat hip osteoarthritis (OA) model using mono-iodoacetate (MIA). The right hip joints of male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 5 rats/group) in the Sham group were injected with 25 μl of sterile saline and 1% of fluorogold (FG) retrograde neurotracer. In the MIA + Vehicle and MIA + Tramadol groups, FG and 25 μl of sterile saline with 0.5 mg of MIA were injected into the right hip joint. The MIA + Vehicle and MIA + Tramadol groups were administered daily for 4 weeks, either sterile saline (10 mg/kg, intraperitoneal [i.p.]) or tramadol (10 mg/kg, i.p.). We assessed hyperalgesia every week after MIA administration. Histopathological changes and immunoreactive neurons for calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) were evaluated after 4 weeks of treatment. MIA injection into the hip joint led to mechanical hyperalgesia (p < 0.01), which was significantly reduced by tramadol administration (p < 0.01). Furthermore, daily i.p injection of tramadol significantly suppressed CGRP expression in DRG (p < 0.0001). MIA + Vehicle and MIA + Tramadol groups showed significant cartilage reduction and degeneration compared to the Sham group (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, OA changes significantly progressed in the MIA + Tramadol group compared to the MIA + Vehicle group (p < 0.0001).

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Oxycodone/naloxone versus tapentadol in real-world chronic non-cancer pain management: an observational and pharmacogenetic study

Tapentadol (TAP) and oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) potentially offer an improved opioid tolerability. However, real-world studies in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remain scarce. Our aim was to compare effectiveness and security in daily pain practice, together with the influence of pharmacogenetic markers. An observational study was developed with ambulatory test cases under TAP (n = 194) or OXN (n = 175) prescription with controls (prescribed with other opioids (control), n = 216) CNCP patients. Pain intensity and relief, quality of life, morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD), concomitant analgesic drugs, adverse events (AEs), hospital frequentation and genetic variants of OPRM1 (rs1799971, A118G) and COMT (rs4680, G472A) genes, were analysed. Test CNCP cases evidenced a significantly higher pain relief predictable due to pain intensity and quality of life (R² = 0.3), in front of controls. Here, OXN achieved the greatest pain relief under a 28% higher MEDD, 8–13% higher use of pregabalin and duloxetine, and 23% more prescription change due to pain, compared to TAP. Whilst, TAP yielded a better tolerability due the lower number of 4 [0–6] AEs/patient, in front of OXN. Furthermore, OXN COMT-AA homozygotes evidenced higher rates of erythema and vomiting, especially in females. CNCP real-world patients achieved higher pain relief than other traditional opioids with a better tolerability for TAP. Further research is necessary to clarify the potential influence of COMT and sex on OXN side-effects.

Tapentadol shows lower intrinsic efficacy at µ receptor than morphine and oxycodone

Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic with a dual mechanism of action. It acts as an agonist at the µ receptor and inhibitor of noradrenaline reuptake. Clinical trials suggest similar analgesic efficacy of tapentadol, oxycodone, and morphine in acute and chronic pain. Given the limited information about the molecular actions of tapentadol at the µ receptor, we investigated the intrinsic efficacy of tapentadol and compared it with other opioids. β-chlornaltrexamine (β-CNA, 100 nM, 20 min) was used to deplete spare receptors in AtT20 cells stably transfected with human µ receptor wild-type (WT). Opioid-mediated changes in membrane potential were measured in real-time using a membrane potential-sensitive fluorescent dye. Using Black and Leff's operational model, intrinsic efficacy relative to DAMGO was calculated for each opioid. Tapentadol (0.05 ± 0.01) activated the GIRK channel with lesser intrinsic efficacy than morphine (0.17 ± 0.02) and oxycodone (0.16 ± 0.02). We further assessed the signaling of tapentadol in the common µ receptor variants (N40D and A6V) which are associated with altered receptor signaling. We found no difference in the response of tapentadol between these receptor variants.

Impact of tanezumab on health status, non-work activities and work productivity in adults with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of tanezumab on health status, non-work activities, and work productivity in a pooled analysis of two large phase 3 osteoarthritis (OA) studies.

METHODS

Subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) was tested in double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week (NCT02697773) and 24-week (NCT02709486) clinical trials in patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the hip or knee. At baseline and week 16, all patients completed EQ-5D-5L and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-OA (WPAI-OA) activity impairment item. Those currently employed also completed WPAI-OA work time missed, impairment while working, and overall work impairment items. Between-group differences in least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline at week 16 were tested using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of 1545 pooled patients, 576 were employed at baseline. Improvements in EQ-5D-5L index value at week 16 were significantly greater for the tanezumab 2.5-mg group (difference in LS means [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03 [0.01, 0.05]; p = 0.0083) versus placebo. Percent improvements (95% CI) in activity impairment (- 5.92 [- 8.87, - 2.98]; p < 0.0001), impairment while working (- 7.34 [- 13.01, - 1.68]; p = 0.0112), and overall work impairment (- 7.44 [- 13.22, - 1.67]; p = 0.0116) at week 16 were significantly greater for the tanezumab 2.5-mg group versus placebo. Results for the tanezumab 5-mg group were generally comparable to the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, although, compared with placebo, percent improvement (95% CI) in work time missed was significantly greater for the tanezumab 5-mg group (- 3.40 [- 6.47, - 0.34]; p = 0.0294), but not the tanezumab 2.5-mg group (- 0.66 [- 3.63, 2.32]; p = 0.6637).

CONCLUSIONS

These pooled analyses showed that health status, non-work activities, and work productivity were significantly improved following tanezumab administration, compared with placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02697773, NCT02709486.

Tapentadol and Oxycodone/Naloxone Prescribing Patterns in Primary Health Care in Catalonia, Spain: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

To characterize the use of tapentadol and the combination oxycodone/naloxone in primary health care. Data on their use and possible misuse will allow the identification of risk factors and to design protocols to reduce and prevent avoidable harm to patients being treated for pain.

Design

A descriptive, cross-sectional and multicenter study was performed.

Setting

Fifty-three primary health care teams, which provides healthcare for 1,300,000 inhabitants.

Patients

A total of 1840 patients had active prescriptions of tapentadol and 985 of oxycodone/naloxone.

Methods

Demographic (age, sex) and clinical (glomerular filtration rate; active liver disease; dosing and duration of treatment), prescribed daily dose (according to age, sex, length of treatment), concomitant analgesic treatment and diagnosis. Patient information was obtained from medical records.

Results

Most of the patients were women (>74.0% in both cases), and the average age was 69.3 years (women: 70.1±13.2; men: 66.7±13.9 years) in the case of tapentadol and 70.6 years (women: 64.0±13.6; men: 72.6±14.3 years) in the case of oxycodone/naloxone. Only 12.2% of patients taking tapentadol and 12.1% taking oxycodone/naloxone had a normal renal function. In both cases, 4.1% of patients had active liver disease. The average length of treatment was 246.4 days in oxycodone/naloxone and 199.0 days in tapentadol. It was recorded that 85.1% of patients in the case of tapentadol and 89.0% in the oxycodone/naloxone had at least another drug prescribed for pain. About 42.2% of patients treated with tapentadol and 34.4% of patients treated with oxycodone/naloxone had associated neuralgia as a diagnosis.

Conclusion

The pattern of use and profile of patients with tapentadol and oxycodone/naloxone had more similarities than differences, and suggested that prescribing practice, and monitoring should be assessed regularly to ensure patient safety and effective management of pain.

Is There Any Role for Opioids in the Management of Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Opioids have long been prescribed for chronic pain conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). However, there is little information about their temporal efficacy, or differences in efficacy and safety between opioids with strong versus weak/intermediate μ opioid receptor-binding affinity. To explore these research questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with knee and/or hip OA.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2019 and sought unpublished data. Placebo-controlled RCTs of oral opioids in patients with knee and/or hip OA were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for pain and function at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Subgroup analyses for strong and weak/intermediate opioids were conducted. Meta-regression was performed to assess the impact of dosage (morphine equivalency) on pain relief. Risk ratios were calculated for safety at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs (9,283 participants) were included. Opioids demonstrated small benefits on pain at each time point, with SMDs ranging from -0.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.38, -0.17) to -0.19 (95% CI -0.29, -0.08); similar effects were observed for function. Strong opioids demonstrated consistently inferior efficacy and overall worse safety than weak/intermediate opioids. Meta-regression revealed that incremental pain relief achieved beyond 20-50-mg doses was not substantial in the context of increased safety risks.

CONCLUSION

Opioids provide minimal relief of OA symptoms within a 12-week period, and they are known to cause discomfort in a majority of patients. Clinicians and policy makers should reconsider the utility of opioids in the management of OA.

Tapentadol Versus Tramadol: A Narrative and Comparative Review of Their Pharmacological, Efficacy and Safety Profiles in Adult Patients

We conducted a narrative review of the literature to compare the pharmacological, efficacy and safety profiles of tapentadol and tramadol, and to assess the clinical interest of tapentadol in adult patients. Tapentadol and tramadol share a mixed mechanism of action, including both mu-agonist and monoaminergic properties. Tapentadol is approximately two to three times more potent than tramadol and two to three times less potent than morphine. It has no identified analgesically active metabolite and is not significantly metabolised by cytochrome P450 enzymes, thus overcoming some limitations of tramadol, including the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and interindividual variability due to genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes. The toxicity profiles of tramadol and tapentadol are similar; however tapentadol is likely to result in less exposure to serotoninergic adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, hypoglycaemia) but cause more opioid adverse effects (constipation, respiratory depression, abuse) than tramadol. The safety of tapentadol in real-world conditions remains poorly documented, particularly in at-risk patient subgroups and also in the ability to assess the risk associated with its residual serotonergic activity (serotonin syndrome, seizures). Because of an earlier market introduction, more real-world safety data are available for tramadol, including data from at-risk patient subgroups. The level of evidence on the efficacy of both tramadol and tapentadol for the treatment of chronic pain is globally low. The trials published to date show overall that tapentadol does not provide a clinically significant analgesic improvement compared to existing treatments, for which the safety profile is much better known. In conclusion, tapentadol is not a first-line opioid but represents an additional analgesic in the therapeutic choices, which some patients may benefit from after careful examination of their clinical situation, co-morbidities and co-medications.

Tapentadol and Sleepwalking: A Case Report

OBJECTIVE

This is a case report of a patient with sleepwalking likely caused by tapentadol ER secondary to higher than the recommended dose for the treatment of pain.

METHODS

This report presents the relevant patient history, laboratory data and literature review on possible causes of this patient's sleepwalking.

RESULTS

A 39-year-old female reported sleepwalking as the dose of tapentadol increased above the recommended maximum provided in the package insert. The mechanism of action of tapentadol involving norepinephrine reuptake inhibition affecting the central nervous system, higher dosage and drug interactions with other home medications likely contributed to her sleepwalking.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights the importance of adhering to the recommended dosage of a medication and if it is clinically warranted to exceed the maximum recommended dose, the importance of diligent monitoring for any adverse effects.

Tapentadol vs oxycodone for postoperative pain treatment the first 7 days after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Pain after total knee arthroplasty is a prevalent condition. This study compared the effectiveness of tapentadol extended-release (ER) 50 mg × 2, oxycodone controlled-release (CR) 10 mg × 2, and placebo, as added to a multimodal analgesic regime both in-hospital and at home the first week after total knee arthroplasty. The study was randomized and blinded for investigators, staff, outcome assessors, and patients. Follow-up included pain intensity on mobilization, pain at rest, worst pain in the previous 24 hours, and adverse effects measured on 0 to 10 numerical rating scales. A total of 134 patients in 3 study groups received their allocated intervention and were included in the analysis. The primary outcome pain on mobilization the 7 first postoperative days reported as area under the curve was 528.1 (SD 267.5, interquartile range (IQR) 356.6-665.4) for placebo, 427.2 (SD 203.9, IQR 303.6-544.3) for tapentadol ER, and 507.9 (SD 243.7, IQR 292.4-686.8) for oxycodone CR (P = 0.12). With the exception of constipation being less prevalent in the tapentadol ER group (P = 0.02), we found no significant differences between treatment groups for the secondary outcomes. Tapentadol ER as an add-on to multimodal analgesia did not significantly improve pain relief when compared to oxycodone CR or placebo. Constipation was lowest in the tapentadol ER group.

Safety of tapentadol compared with other opioids in chronic pain treatment: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled and withdrawal trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative safety of oral tapentadol PR and other opioid analgesics for moderate or severe chronic pain in adults, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized withdrawal trials of tapentadol with other WHO stage II and III opioid analgesics in patients with moderate or severe chronic pain. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane databases and trial registries. Feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for NMA. Outcomes assessed were overall AEs, overall serious adverse events, constipation, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, headache, and discontinuation due to AEs. Randomized withdrawal trials were analyzed separately to other RCTs.

RESULTS

Searches conducted in April 2019 identified 16,604 records. Following screening and feasibility assessment, 29 RCTs and 19 randomized withdrawal trials were identified and included in the NMA. Consistent with existing research, evidence from RCTs suggested that tapentadol is associated with relatively lower odds of adverse events occurring than most active comparators. The withdrawal trial data were less clear, with higher uncertainty around the results, and results that appear to contradict the RCT evidence. There are a number of trial design factors that may be affecting these results.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT evidence suggests that tapentadol can be a useful treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain and in need of an opioid analgesic. Opioids should be prescribed by a qualified physician only after other analgesics have been considered, taking side effects and misuse risk into account.

Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials

The purpose of this article is to provide readers with a basis for understanding the emerging science of clinical trials and to provide a set of practical, evidence-based suggestions for designing and executing confirmatory clinical trials in a manner that minimizes measurement error. The most important step in creating a mindset of quality clinical research is to abandon the antiquated concept that clinical trials are a method for capturing data from clinical practice and shifting to a concept of the clinical trial as a measurement system, consisting of an interconnected set of processes, each of which must be in calibration for the trial to generate an accurate and reliable estimate of the efficacy (and safety) of a given treatment. The status quo of inaccurate, unreliable, and protracted clinical trials is unacceptable and unsustainable. This article gathers aspects of study design and conduct under a single broad umbrella of techniques available to improve the accuracy and reliability of confirmatory clinical trials across traditional domain boundaries.

Quality of life and functional outcomes with tapentadol prolonged release in chronic musculoskeletal pain: post hoc analysis

Aims: To investigate quality of life (QOL) and functionality changes in chronic pain during tapentadol prolonged release (PR) treatment. Patients & methods: Post hoc analysis of data from three Phase III trials in patients with osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. QOL and functionality changes were assessed by SF-36 scores. Results: All SF-36 subdomain scores improved progressively to week 3 of tapentadol titration and were sustained during 12-week maintenance treatment. Improvements in SF-36 scores were similar between tapentadol dose groups (e.g., 200 to <300 mg vs ≥500 mg), with no greater effect from higher doses. QOL and functionality improvements were consistently greater with tapentadol PR than oxycodone controlled release. Conclusion: Tapentadol PR provides consistent, clinically relevant improvements in QOL and functionality in chronic pain.

Bone fractures in patients using tapentadol or oxycodone: an exploratory US claims database study

Aim: To explore fracture outcomes with tapentadol or oxycodone, two opioids with differing mechanisms of action. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort pilot study, using MarketScan^® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases, on patients with postoperative pain, back pain, or osteoarthritis and ≥1 claim for tapentadol (n = 16,457), oxycodone (n = 1,356,920), or both (n = 15,893) between June 2009 and December 2015. Results: During 266,826 and 9,007,889 days of tapentadol and oxycodone treatment, patients evidenced 1080 and 72,275 fractures, respectively. Fracture rates per treatment-year were 1.512 for tapentadol and 3.013 for oxycodone. Conclusion: Examination of administrative claims has inherent limitations, but this exploratory analysis indicates a lower fracture rate with tapentadol than oxycodone in the analyzed dataset, which needs confirmation by further clinical trials.

Modulation of sensitization processes in the management of pain and the importance of descending pathways: a role for tapentadol?

Objective: This paper presents and discusses recent evidence on the pathophysiological mechanisms of pain. The role of tapentadol - an opioid characterized by an innovative mechanism of action (i.e. µ-opioid receptor [MOR] agonism and inhibition of noradrenaline [NA] reuptake [NRI]) - in the modulation of pain, and the most recent pharmacological evidence on this molecule (e.g. the µ-load concept) are also presented and commented upon.Methods: Narrative review.Results: Solid evidence has highlighted the importance of central sensitization in the transition from acute to chronic pain. In particular, the noradrenergic system holds a major role in limiting central sensitization and the progression to chronic pain. Therefore, pharmacological modulation of the noradrenergic system appears to be a well-grounded strategy for the control of chronic pain. Tapentadol is characterized by a to-date-unique mechanism of action, since it acts both as a MOR agonist and as an inhibitor of NA reuptake. The synergistic interaction of these two mechanisms allows a strong analgesic effect by acting on both ascending and descending pathways. Of note, the reduced µ-load of tapentadol limits the risk of opioid-related adverse events, such as gastrointestinal disturbances. Moreover, the NA component becomes predominant, at least, in some types of pain, with consequent specific clinical efficacy in the treatment of neuropathic and chronic pain.Conclusions: According to these characteristics, tapentadol appears suitable in the treatment of severe uncontrolled chronic pain characterized by both a nociceptive and a neuropathic component, such as osteoarthritis or back pain.

Model-based Meta-analysis to Compare Primary Efficacy-endpoint, Efficacy-time Course, Safety, and Tolerability of Opioids Used in the Management of Osteoarthritic Pain in Humans

BACKGROUND

Despite recent therapeutic advances, osteoarthritis continues to be a challenging health problem, especially in the elderly population. Opioids, which are potent analgesics, have shown an extraordinary ability to reduce intense pain in many osteoarthritic clinical trials; however, there is an increased need for a study to integrate the reported outcomes and utilize them to achieve a better understanding. Herein, efficacy and safety aspects of opioids used to manage osteoarthritic pain were assessed and compared using a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA).

METHODS

To perform the analysis, a comprehensive database consisting of pain relief compounds with information on summary-level of efficacy over time, adverse events and dropout rates was compiled from multiple sources. MBMA was conducted using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach.

RESULTS

The results of primary efficacy endpoint analysis indicated that the doses of oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tramadol required to produce 50% of the maximum effect were 47, 84, and 247 mg per day, respectively. Efficacytime course analysis showed that opioids had rapid time to efficacy onset, suggesting potentially powerful painrelieving effects. It was also found that gastrointestinal adverse events were the most opioid-associated and dosedependent adverse effects. In addition, the analysis revealed that opioids were well-tolerated at low to moderate doses.

CONCLUSION

This MBMA provides clinically meaningful insights into the efficacy and safety profiles of oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tramadol. Resultantly, the presented framework analysis can have an impact in the clinic on drug development where it can guide: the optimization of doses of opioids required to manage osteoarthritic pain; the making of precise key decisions for the positioning of new drugs, and; the design of more efficient trials.

Modulation of sensitization processes in the management of pain and the importance of descending pathways: a role for tapentadol?

Objective: This paper presents and discusses recent evidence on the pathophysiological mechanisms of pain. The role of tapentadol - an analgesic molecule characterized by an innovative mechanism of action (i.e. µ-opioid receptor [MOR] agonism and inhibition of noradrenaline [NA] reuptake [NRI]) - in the modulation of pain, and the most recent pharmacological evidence on this molecule (e.g. the µ-load concept) are also presented and commented upon.Methods: Narrative review.Results: Solid evidence has highlighted the importance of central sensitization in the transition from acute to chronic pain. In particular, the noradrenergic system holds a major role in limiting central sensitization and the progression to chronic pain. Therefore, pharmacological modulation of the noradrenergic system appears to be a well-grounded strategy for the control of chronic pain. Tapentadol is characterized by a to-date-unique mechanism of action since it acts both as a MOR agonist and as an inhibitor of NA reuptake. The synergistic interaction of these two mechanisms allows a strong analgesic effect by acting on both ascending and descending pathways. Of note, the reduced µ-load of tapentadol has two important consequences: first, it limits the risk of opioid-related adverse events, as well as the risk of dependence; second, the NA component becomes predominant at least in some types of pain with consequent specific clinical efficacy in the treatment of neuropathic and chronic pain.Conclusions: According to these characteristics, tapentadol appears suitable in the treatment of chronic pain conditions characterized by both a nociceptive and a neuropathic component, such as osteoarthritis or back pain.

Tapentadol Prolonged Release for Severe Chronic Osteoarthritis Pain in the Elderly-A Subgroup Analysis of Routine Clinical Practice Data

Background

Tapentadol prolonged release (PR) has been shown effective and generally well tolerated in a broad range of chronic pain conditions. This subgroup analysis investigated its benefits for elderly patients with severe chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain in routine clinical practice. Patients and Methods. Data of all patients with chronic OA pain were extracted from the database of a prospective, 3-month noninterventional tapentadol PR trial. The data of elderly OA patients (>65 years of age; n = 752) were compared with the data of younger OA patients (≤65 years; n = 282).

Results

Almost all patients (elderly 98.7% and younger patients 99.3%) had received long-term analgesic medication prior to the start of tapentadol PR treatment but presented with severe pain accompanied by considerable impairments in sleep quality and quality of life measures. Tapentadol PR provided effective pain relief in both patient groups, with slightly better outcomes in younger patients. However, the mean baseline pain intensity of 7.1 (SD 1.5) was reduced by 3.8 points (p ≤ 0.001), and sleep and quality of life measures had also markedly improved in the elderly: quality of sleep by 3 points, quality of life by 3.4 points, social activities by 3 points, and independence by 2.7 points (p ≤ 0.001 for all measures; 11-point scale). At the end of observation, 68% of the elderly had clinically relevant pain reductions of at least 50% (vs baseline), and 87.9% attained either their intended pain reduction target and/or an additional individual treatment target (both predefined during baseline examination). Only 8.4% of the elderly experienced adverse drug reactions, most frequently nausea (2.7% of patients) and dizziness (1.5%).

Conclusion

Tapentadol PR provided effective and well-tolerated treatment of severe chronic OA pain for elderly patients in routine clinical practice. The favorable tolerability profile in particular suggests tapentadol PR as a treatment option before classical strong opioids are considered.

Tapentadol prolonged release for severe chronic osteoarthritis pain in the elderly: improvements in daily functioning and quality of life

Background: Chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain leads to severe impairments in physical functioning and quality of life. Patients & methods: Data of patients with severe chronic knee and/or hip OA pain were extracted from the database of a prospective, noninterventional trial to assess the benefits of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) in elderly patients (>65 years of age; n = 1162) compared with younger patients (≤65 years of age; n = 498). Results: Tapentadol PR treatment (up to 3 months) significantly reduced pain intensity and pain-related restrictions on daily functioning and significantly improved physical and mental quality of life in both patient groups. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was low. Conclusion: Tapentadol PR is a useful strong analgesic to improve pain intensity, physical functioning and quality of life in elderly OA patients.

Tapentadol Prolonged Release: A Review in Pain Management

Tapentadol prolonged release (tapentadol PR) [Palexia^® SR in EU] is a long-acting tablet formulation of the strong central analgesic tapentadol, which acts as both a μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist and a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Tapentadol PR is approved for chronic pain in various countries, with its EU indication (severe chronic pain manageable only with opioid analgesics) being the focus here. Well-designed trials and clinical practice data support tapentadol PR use in this setting. Short term, tapentadol PR was an effective and generally well tolerated analgesic for moderate to severe pain of varying aetiologies, including neuropathic pain. It provided analgesia at least as good as that of conventional strong opioids and appeared more favourable in terms of gastrointestinal tolerability, likely due to less potent MOR binding. Severe back pain with a neuropathic component responded well to moderate-dose tapentadol PR in some patients, while for others, an increase to the maximum recommended tapentadol PR dosage provided analgesia at least as good as that of moderate-dose tapentadol PR plus pregabalin and appeared to have some CNS tolerability benefits. Data also support the use of tapentadol PR in opioid rotation, including when conventional opioids are intolerable. Longer-term data in musculoskeletal pain conditions indicate continued benefit over up to 2 years’ treatment with tapentadol PR with no evidence of tolerance. Thus, tapentadol PR is a useful option for the management of severe chronic pain.

Tapentadol vs oxycodone/naloxone in the management of pain after total hip arthroplasty in the fast track setting: an observational study

Background

In recent years, joint replacement surgery has gradually progressed towards the fast-track model, and early rehabilitation immediately after surgery is regarded fundamental for optimal recovery of function: the aim of the present study is to describe the efficacy in perioperative management of pain in patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery and treated with tapentadol or oxycodone/naloxone in combination with ketoprofene.

Methods

Single-center retrospective study on patients with moderate-severe pain, referred to total hip replacement. Patients received either tapentadol (100 mg/twice-daily post-surgery – treatment group) or oxycodone/naloxone (10 mg/5 mg post-surgery – control group) plus ketoprofen 100 mg/ twice daily. Supplemental analgesia (paracetamol 1 g or morphine 0,1 mg/kg sc) was provided if needed. Pain at rest and pain during movement were evaluated on a daily basis for 4 days post-op, after which patients were usually discharged. All adverse events were reported and compared between the two groups.

Results

106 patients were analyzed in the tapentadol group and compared to 105 patients treated with oxycodone/naloxone. Both pain intensity at rest and upon movement were significantly lower in the tapentadol group at all follow-up times (p < 0.001). Throughout T1-T4, supplemental analgesia was needed by significantly less tapentadol patients compared to the control group. Similarly, regarding side effects, a significantly higher occurrence of post-op nausea, vomit, itching and constipation was observed in the control group (p < 0.001 in all cases).

Conclusion

Results from the present study support the use of tapentadol in combination with ketoprofen for the management of moderate-severe pain in the setting of major orthopedic surgery, given its effectiveness in reducing pain intensity, and its satisfactory tolerance.

Safety of Opioids in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

We aimed to assess the safety of opioids in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with opioids in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, renal and urinary disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs and drug-related AEs. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once).

Results

Database searches identified 2189 records, from which, after exclusions, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. More disorders of the lower GI tract (constipation, fecaloma) were reported with both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (ER) formulations of opioids versus placebo: IR opioids (relative risk [RR] 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42–7.89); ER opioids (RR 4.22, 95% CI 3.44–5.17). The risk of upper GI AEs increased fourfold with ER opioids compared with placebo (RR 4.03, 95% CI 0.87–18.62), and the risk of nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite increased four- to fivefold with both formulations: IR opioids (RR 3.39, 95% CI 2.22–5.18); ER opioids (RR 4.03, 95% CI 3.37–4.83). An increased risk of dermatologic AEs (rash and pruritis; IR opioids: RR 3.60, 95% CI 1.74–7.43; ER opioids: RR 7.87, 95% CI 5.20–11.89) and central nervous system disorders (dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, insomnia; IR opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.90–4.02; ER opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.19–3.47) was found with all opioid formulations versus placebo.

Conclusions

Our results confirm that there are considerable safety and tolerability issues surrounding the use of opioids in OA, and support the recommendation of international and national guidelines to use opioids in OA after other analgesic options, and for short time periods.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-019-00666-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tapentadol for neuropathic pain: a review of clinical studies

Neuropathic pain (NP) is an enormous burden for patients, caregivers and society. NP is a pain state that may develop after injury of the peripheral or central nervous system because of a wide range of diseases and traumas. A NP symptom component can be found also in several types of chronic pain. Many NP patients are substantially disabled for years. Due to its chronicity, severity and unpredictability, NP is difficult to treat. Tapentadol is a central-acting oral analgesic with combined opioid and noradrenergic properties, which make it potentially suitable for a wide range of pain conditions, particularly whenever a NP component is present or cannot be excluded. In randomized controlled trials, tapentadol has proved to be effective in relieving NP in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and in chronic low back pain. In observational studies, tapentadol reduced NP in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies, blood and solid cancers, and the NP component in neck pain and Parkinson's disease. This narrative review aims to provide clinicians with a broad overview of tapentadol effects on NP.

Tapentadol in the treatment of osteoarthritis: pharmacological rationale and clinical evidence

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent joint disease in older people worldwide. Pain owing to OA is considered one of the most frequent causes of chronic pain; however, current pharmacological approaches have some limitations in terms of efficacy and safety. Of note, descending inhibitory pain pathways are often disrupted in chronic OA pain, and pharmacotherapies targeting those pathways – eg, those that block norepinephrine reuptake may be more appropriate for managing chronic pain than pure μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists. Tapentadol is an analgesic molecule, which combines two synergistic mechanisms of action, MOR, and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. This narrative review will briefly discuss the mechanisms contributing to the onset and maintenance of pain in OA patients; clinical data on the use of tapentadol in this setting will then be presented and commented.

Pooled analysis of tanezumab efficacy and safety with subgroup analyses of phase III clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis pain of the knee or hip

Purpose

A pooled analysis was conducted to evaluate tanezumab efficacy and safety in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), including subgroup analyses of at-risk patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, and those aged ≥65 years.

Patients and methods

Data from phase III placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip were pooled to evaluate tanezumab efficacy (four trials) and safety (nine trials). Patients received intravenous tanezumab, tanezumab plus an oral NSAID (naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac), active comparator (naproxen, celecoxib, diclofenac, or oxycodone), or placebo. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores, Patient’s Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and percentage of patients with ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70%, and ≥90% improvement in WOMAC pain. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) documentation and physical and neurologic examinations.

Results

Tanezumab significantly improved all efficacy end points in the overall population. Efficacy in at-risk patient subgroups was similar to the overall population. Incidence of AEs was highest in the tanezumab plus NSAID group and lowest in the placebo group. Incidence of AEs in the tanezumab monotherapy and active comparator groups was similar. Overall incidence of AEs was similar across subgroups. AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation were more frequently reported in tanezumab-treated patients compared with placebo or active comparator. Patients receiving active comparator had a slightly higher incidence of AEs suggestive of postganglionic sympathetic dysfunction.

Conclusion

Tanezumab consistently provided significant improvement of pain, physical function, and PGA in individuals with OA, including patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, or aged ≥65 years. No increased safety risk was observed in at-risk patient subgroups.

Trial registration

NCT00733902, NCT00744471, NCT00830063, NCT00863304, NCT00809354, NCT00864097, NCT00863772, NCT01089725, NCT00985621.

Nocebo Effects and Negative Suggestions in Daily Clinical Practice - Forms, Impact and Approaches to Avoid Them

Medical situations are hot spots in the life of a patient with potentially long lasting effects arising from the use of either negative expressions or encouraging statements, or the lack of empathy or a positive physician-patient relationship. Health care personnel should be aware of and evaluate what patients are exposed to, hear and see. Knowing more about the effects of nocebos and negative suggestions, combined with increased attention to these matters, provides the basis for better recognition of detrimental influences in their own clinical environment and to be able to avoid, stop or neutralize them. After anamnesis patients should not be left with a focus on a negative past, but shifted to positive experiences prior to their illness, or to positive expectations in the future following surgery and rehabilitation. For example, after examining an injured leg the doctor should not turn to the computer for documentation unless he has shifted the patient's focus on the other, unimpaired leg. "Is that painful too? No? Good! Can you feel that? Yes? Perfect! Can you bend that knee, move these toes? Great! That's good." This example draws attention to the fact that negative effects (discussed in the following) substantially are dependent on the focus of the patient and thus can be affected by focus shift and distraction. Patients, their symptoms and their healing are negatively affected by the omission of placebo effects, by nocebo effects and by negative suggestions.

[Placebo and nocebo : How can they be used or avoided?]

The expectations of patients enhance the probability of their occurrence and are thereby the main triggers for inducing placebo and nocebo responses. Strong placebo effects are not only regularly observed in pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical sham treatment in placebo controlled studies but also make a considerable contribution to any real treatment. The accompanying words are essential to ensure maximum impact of drugs and other forms of treatment. They should contain positive expressions instead of negations. Such a strengthening of drug therapy by placebo effects is more important than the widespread use of placebos that remains a problem because of the obligation to provide information and effective therapy and because of inherently induced side effects. Any false comments about symptoms or side effects can aggravate or induce them. Nocebo effects are not imagined but real symptoms that can definitely be harmful. They constitute a considerable proportion of the side effects requiring treatment. Awareness and knowledge is needed to prevent or neutralize them. Nocebo effects are avoidable when risk information is always directly combined with positive aspects, such as the expected benefits of the treatment or the prophylactic measures and therapeutic options for side effects. Existing negative expectations are disrupted by providing more alternative options and by leaving negative experiences in the past where they belong. Placebo and nocebo effects are strongly sensitive to the context. They are dependent on the experiences and conceptions of the individual patient, as well as on the physician-patient relationship. The latter can provide the best protection against harm from risk disclosure. In addition, the expectations of patients and their consequences are strongly affected by the expectations of the treating doctor, by fellow patients, the media and society.

Overlaps in pharmacology for the treatment of chronic pain and mental health disorders

There is significant overlap in the pharmacological management of pain and psychological disorders. Appropriate treatment of patients' comorbid psychological disorders, including sleep disturbances often leads to an improvement in reported pain intensity. The three first line agents for neuropathic pain include tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors which are medications originally developed as antidepressants. The other first line medication for chronic neuropathic pain are anticonvulsant medications initially brought to the market-place for the treatment of epilepsy and are also now being used for the treatment of anxiety disorders and substance withdrawal symptoms. The efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is contentious, but it is agreed that the patients at highest risk for opioid misuse and addiction are patients with underlying psychological disorders who use opioids for their euphoric effects. Similarly, benzodiazepines may present a problem in patients with chronic pain, as up to one third of patients with pain are concomitantly prescribed benzodiazepines, and when combined with other sedating analgesic medications they put patients at increased risk for adverse events and polysubstance misuse. Finally, there is growing evidence for the efficacy of cannabis for treating neuropathic pain, but the consumption of cannabis has been associated with increased risk of psychosis in adolescents, and may be associated with an increased risk for developing bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders. The use of cannabis is associated with an increased risk of substance misuse in both adolescents and adults. In this narrative review, we examine the evidence for the use of several medications used for the treatment of both pain and psychological disorders, and their proposed mechanisms of action, in addition to special concerns for patients with comorbid pain and psychological disorders.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.

RESULTS

Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release formulation in the treatment of elderly patients with moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a pooled analysis of two double-blind, randomized, placebo-, and active-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) vs oxycodone controlled release (CR) in younger patients (<65 years of age) and in elderly patients (≥65 and ≥75 years of age) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain.

METHODS

Data from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-, and oxycodone CR-controlled phase 3 trials were pooled and stratified by age. Primary efficacy end-points were change from baseline in average pain intensity at week 12 (US end-point) and over the entire maintenance period (non-US end-point).

RESULTS

A total of 1357 patients <65 years, 653 patients ≥65 years, and 176 patients ≥75 years of age were assessed. The comparison between tapentadol PR and oxycodone CR showed numerically better pain relief under tapentadol PR for both primary end-points in all three age groups. More favorable improvements were also observed for patient global impression of change, the Short Form-36 physical component score, and EuroQoL-5Dimensions health status index. In the elderly, incidences of dizziness and somnolence were comparable between active treatments, but incidences of nausea, vomiting, and constipation were considerably lower under tapentadol PR. Treatment completion rates were lowest under oxycodone CR; > 50% of elderly oxycodone CR patients named side-effects as the main reason for discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol PR was effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic OA pain in elderly and younger patients. Compared to oxycodone CR, the overall and the gastrointestinal tolerability profile in particular were better in all tapentadol PR groups, regardless of age.

Does 'Strong Analgesic' Equal 'Strong Opioid'? Tapentadol and the Concept of 'µ-Load'

Introduction

The distinct properties of the centrally-acting analgesic tapentadol derive from the combined contributions of an opioid component and a nonopioid component. However, the opioid component’s relative contribution to analgesic and adverse effects has not previously been elucidated. Tapentadol’s analgesic effect derives from the combined contribution of an opioid mechanism and a nonopioid mechanism, the extent of which can vary for different pains. Likewise, the interaction can vary for various adverse effects. Hence, the contribution of each mechanism to adverse effects can be different from the contribution to analgesia. We here estimate the percent contribution of each component of the mechanism of action to analgesia and to adverse effects.

Areas Covered

Several approaches to in vitro and in vivo data to estimate the contribution of tapentadol’s opioid component to analgesia and to the two important opioid adverse effects, respiratory depression and constipation. The results are then compared with clinical data.

Expert Opinion

Traditional opioids, such as morphine, oxycodone, and others, produce their analgesic effects primarily through a single mechanism—the activation of µ-opioid receptors (MOR). Therefore, the contribution of the opioid component to adverse effects is 100%. In contrast, the newer strong analgesic tapentadol produces its analgesic effect via two separate and complementary analgesic mechanisms, only one of which is µ-opioid. We applied standard drug–receptor theory and novel techniques to in vitro and in vivo data to estimate by several different ways the μ-load of tapentadol (the % contribution of the opioid component to the adverse effect magnitude relative to a pure/classical µ-opioid at equianalgesia) in respiratory depression and constipation, and we compared the results to clinical evidence. The estimate is remarkably consistent over the various approaches and indicates that the μ-load of tapentadol is ≤ 40% (relative to pure MOR agonists, which have, by definition, a µ-load of 100%).

Funding

Grünenthal GmbH.

Safety profile of prophylactic rescue dosing of immediate-release oral opioids in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Appropriate prophylactic rescue dosing of opioids is considered effective for cancer pain relief, but no study has reported the safety of such prophylactic rescue. We compared the safety of prophylactic rescue dosing of immediate-release oral opioids with that of regular rescue dosing.

METHODS

The study included 103 cancer patients who used either immediate-release morphine syrup or immediate-release oxycodone powder at Shizuoka Cancer Center between January and December 2016. Patients were divided into those who mostly used (prophylactic group) and those who never used (regular group) prophylactic rescue doses of opioids and compared the incidence of adverse events (AEs). We also investigated whether the prophylactic rescue dose negatively interfered with its objective activity, such as meals.

RESULTS

Incidence of each AE in the prophylactic versus regular groups was as follows: somnolence, 20.6% versus 14.3%; nausea, 22.1% versus 17.1%; constipation, 19.1% versus 20.0%; urinary retention, 1.5% versus 2.9%; delirium, 4.4% versus 8.6%; and pruritus, 0% versus 2.9%. No serious AE associated with prophylactic rescue dosing was observed. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of any AE between the two groups (p > 0.05, Fisher's exact test). No AE interfered with the objective activity of the prophylactic rescue dose.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of AEs associated with prophylactic rescue dosing is not different from that associated with regular rescue dosing. In addition, the prophylactic rescue dose did not adversely affect its objective activity, suggesting the safety of appropriate prophylactic rescue dosing was similar to that of regular rescue dosing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study approval number in the institution; H29-J30-29-1-3. Registered June 5, 2017.

Toxicity of tapentadol: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tapentadol is a novel atypical opioid. Anecdotal evidence suggests that tapentadol has a lower toxicity than conventional opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate all single-drug mortality due to tapentadol and assess serious adverse events caused by tapentadol.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) reporting guidelines, an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews, were followed in this systematic review.

RESULTS

 24 peer-reviewed papers were identified. They indicate that tapentadol toxicity can cause mortality and serious adverse effects.

CONCLUSION(S)

At least four confirmed fatalities, and serious adverse effects have been documented for individuals abusing or using tapentadol as prescribed. Serious adverse effects of tapentadol use may include respiratory depression, confusion, coma, hallucination/delusion, seizures, tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, tremor, miosis, hypotension, dyspnea, electrolyte abnormality, atrial fibrillation or severe upper abdominal pain. Tapentadol is unlikely to cause serotonin syndrome. The toxicity of tapentadol is significantly less than pure mu opioids, such as oxycodone.

Tapentadol Extended Release in the Treatment of Severe Chronic Low Back Pain and Osteoarthritis Pain

Tapentadol is a novel pain reliever with apparently synergistic dual mechanisms of action, capable of addressing both nociceptive and neuropathic components of chronic pain. As an effective analgesic with good tolerability, tapentadol may be appropriate for patients suffering from severe chronic pain associated with low back pain (LBP) or osteoarthritis (OA). Efficacy studies of tapentadol in populations of patients with severe chronic LBP or OA pain suggest that tapentadol is non-inferior to oxycodone. Its tolerability, especially with respect to gastrointestinal (GI) side effects, may be better than that of other strong opioids in clinical trials and analyses of multiple trials. Patient satisfaction with tapentadol extended release for chronic noncancer pain syndromes is good. Although tapentadol has an opioid component with abuse liability, it appears to be a difficult opioid for tampering with less appeal to abusers than other opioids. For patients with severe LBP and OA pain, tapentadol appears to hold promise as a safe, effective therapeutic option.

Opioid and noradrenergic contributions of tapentadol to the inhibition of locus coeruleus neurons in the streptozotocin rat model of polyneuropathic pain

Tapentadol is an analgesic that acts as an agonist of µ opioid receptors (MOR) and that inhibits noradrenaline reuptake. Data from healthy rats show that tapentadol inhibits neuronal activity in the locus coeruleus (LC), a nucleus regulated by both the noradrenergic and opioid systems. Thus, we set out to investigate the effect of tapentadol on LC activity in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic rats, a model of diabetic polyneuropathy, by analyzing single-unit extracellular recordings of LC neurons. Four weeks after inducing diabetes, tapentadol dose-response curves were obtained from animals pre-treated with RX821002 or naloxone (alpha2-adrenoceptors and opioid receptors antagonists, respectively). In STZ rats, the spontaneous activity of LC neurons (0.9 ± 0.1 Hz) was lower than in naïve animals (1.5 ± 0.1 Hz), and tapentadol's inhibitory effect was also weaker. Alpha2-adrenoceptors blockade by RX821002 (100 μg/kg i.v.) in STZ animals significantly increased the spontaneous activity (from 0.8 ± 0.1 to 1.4 ± 0.2 Hz) and it dampened the inhibition of LC neurons produced by tapentadol. However, opioid receptors blockade following naloxone pre-treatment (5 mg/kg i.v.) did not alter the spontaneous firing rate (0.9 ± 0.2 vs 0.9 ± 0.2 Hz) or the inhibitory effect of tapentadol on LC neurons in STZ animals. Thus, diabetic polyneuropathy appears to exert neuroplastic changes in LC neurotransmission, enhancing the sensitivity of alpha2-adrenoceptors and dampening opioid receptors expression. Tapentadol's activity seems to be predominantly mediated through its noradrenergic effects rather than its influence on opioid receptors in the STZ model of diabetic polyneuropathy.

Improved therapeutic potential of tapentadol employing cationic exchange resins as carriers in neuropathic pain: evidence from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics study

Current investigation was endeavoured to overcome problem of poor palatability and bioavailability of centrally acting analgesic, tapentadol (TAP) by formulating controlled release drug-resin complexes (DRCs). The technology encompassed in preparation of DRCs involved chemisorption of TAP to weak cationic resins (KyronT-134 and Tulsion335) by batch method. Various formulation variables like drug-resin ratio, pH, resin activation and swelling time were optimized to achieve maximum drug loading in DRCs. FT-IR, DSC, pXRD, in vitro release study under bio-relevant condition of mouth and in vivo sensory taste evaluation established formation of taste masked DRC whereas dissolution study assured prolonged drug release behaviour of optimized DRC. Among DRCs, TAP-KyronT-134 complex exhibited higher drug loading (80.89 ± 4.56%), stability and prolonged release profile (10 h) without any detectable amount of drug release under salivary conditions. Pharmacokinetic studies in wistar rats revealed increased Tmax (2.67-fold), MRT (1.94-fold), elimination half-life (2.79-fold) and relative oral bioavailability (2.62-fold) of TAP on oral administration of optimized formulation compared to TAP solution. Furthermore, pharmacodynamics study confessed higher potential of DRC in attenuating chronic injury induced tactile allodynia for prolonged duration. In conclusion, the method developed is easily scalable and holds potential for commercialization with an evidence of obtaining more efficacious neuropathic pain management therapy.

Drugs for Treating Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Mixed Treatment Comparison Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

CONTEXT

Opioid-induced constipation is a common problem associated with chronic use of opioid analgesics.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare available interventions for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation, using principles of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating drugs used in opioid-induced constipation. Number of patients with rescue-free bowel movements (RFBM) was the primary outcome, and time for achieving RFBM, adverse events, and changes in the analgesic activity of the opioid analgesics were the secondary outcomes. Inverse variance heterogeneity model was used for direct and mixed treatment comparison analysis. Odds ratio for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference for numerical outcomes were the effect estimates.

RESULTS

We included a total of 23 studies in the systematic review and 21 in the network meta-analysis. Lubriprostone, prucalopride, naldemedine, naloxegol, alvimopan, subcutaneous, and oral methyl naltrexone were observed to perform better than placebo in terms of RFBM. Additionally, subcutaneous methyl naltrexone was significantly better than lubiprostone, naloxegol, oral methyl naltrexone, and prucalopride. Lubiprostone and naldemedine were associated with increased risks of adverse events. Subcutaneous methyl naltrexone did not significantly affect the analgesia due to background opioid use. Quality of evidence for the comparisons is either low or very low.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous methyl naltrexone was found to perform better than other interventions for managing opioid-induced constipation.

Review of Post-Marketing Safety Data on Tapentadol, a Centrally Acting Analgesic

Introduction

Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic that has been available for the management of acute and chronic pain in routine clinical practice since 2009.

Methods

This is the first integrated descriptive analysis of post-marketing safety data following the use of tapentadol in a broad range of pain conditions relating to the topics overall safety, dose administration above approved dosages, administration during pregnancy, serotonin syndrome, respiratory depression, and convulsion. The data analyzed pertain to spontaneous reports from healthcare and non-healthcare professionals and were put in the context of safety information known from interventional and non-interventional trials.

Results

The first years of routine clinical practice experience with tapentadol have confirmed the tolerability profile that emerged from the clinical trials. Moreover, the reporting of expected side effects such as respiratory depression and convulsion was low and no major risks were identified. The evaluation of available post-marketing data did not confirm the theoretical risk of serotonin syndrome nor did it reveal unexpected side effects with administration of higher than recommended doses.

Conclusion

More than 8 years after its first introduction, the favorable overall safety profile of tapentadol in the treatment of various pain conditions is maintained in the general population.

Funding

Grünenthal GmbH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0654-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common and can be challenging to manage. Despite increased utilisation of opioids, the safety and efficacy of long-term use of these compounds for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This overview of Cochrane Reviews complements the overview entitled 'High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews'.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the occurrence and nature of adverse events associated with any opioid agent (any dose, frequency, or route of administration) used on a medium- or long-term basis for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library) Issue 3, 2017 on 8 March 2017 to identify all Cochrane Reviews of studies of medium- or long-term opioid use (2 weeks or more) for CNCP in adults aged 18 and over. We assessed the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR criteria (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) as adapted for Cochrane Overviews. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 16 reviews in our overview, of which 14 presented unique quantitative data. These 14 Cochrane Reviews investigated 14 different opioid agents that were administered for time periods of two weeks or longer. The longest study was 13 months in duration, with most in the 6- to 16-week range. The quality of the included reviews was high using AMSTAR criteria, with 11 reviews meeting all 10 criteria, and 5 of the reviews meeting 9 out of 10, not scoring a point for either duplicate study selection and data extraction, or searching for articles irrespective of language and publication type. The quality of the evidence for the generic adverse event outcomes according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate, with risk of bias and imprecision being identified for the following generic adverse event outcomes: any adverse event, any serious adverse event, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence for specific adverse events led to a downgrading to very low- to moderate-quality evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.We calculated the equivalent milligrams of morphine per 24 hours for each opioid studied (buprenorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, tilidine, and tramadol). In the 14 Cochrane Reviews providing unique quantitative data, there were 61 studies with a total of 18,679 randomised participants; 12 of these studies had a cross-over design with two to four arms and a total of 796 participants. Based on the 14 selected Cochrane Reviews, there was a significantly increased risk of experiencing any adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.66) as well as with opioids compared to a non-opioid active pharmacological comparator, with a similar risk ratio (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33). There was also a significantly increased risk of experiencing a serious adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.67). Furthermore, we found significantly increased risk ratios with opioids compared to placebo for a number of specific adverse events: constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, hot flushes, increased sweating, nausea, pruritus, and vomiting.There was no data on any of the following prespecified adverse events of interest in any of the included reviews in this overview of Cochrane Reviews: addiction, cognitive dysfunction, depressive symptoms or mood disturbances, hypogonadism or other endocrine dysfunction, respiratory depression, sexual dysfunction, and sleep apnoea or sleep-disordered breathing. We found no data for adverse events analysed by sex or ethnicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A number of adverse events, including serious adverse events, are associated with the medium- and long-term use of opioids for CNCP. The absolute event rate for any adverse event with opioids in trials using a placebo as comparison was 78%, with an absolute event rate of 7.5% for any serious adverse event. Based on the adverse events identified, clinically relevant benefit would need to be clearly demonstrated before long-term use could be considered in people with CNCP in clinical practice. A number of adverse events that we would have expected to occur with opioid use were not reported in the included Cochrane Reviews. Going forward, we recommend more rigorous identification and reporting of all adverse events in randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews on opioid therapy. The absence of data for many adverse events represents a serious limitation of the evidence on opioids. We also recommend extending study follow-up, as a latency of onset may exist for some adverse events.

Opioids in Gastroenterology: Treating Adverse Effects and Creating Therapeutic Benefits

The use of opioid medications on both an acute and chronic basis is ubiquitous in the United States. As opioid receptors densely populate the gastrointestinal tract, symptoms and side effects can be expected in these patients. In the esophagus, dysmotility may result, manifesting with dysphagia and a syndrome indistinguishable from primary achalasia. In the stomach, a marked delay in gastric emptying may occur with postprandial nausea and early satiety. Postoperatively, particularly with abdominal surgery, opioid-induced ileus may ensue. In the colon, opioid-induced constipation is common. A unique syndrome termed narcotic bowel syndrome is characterized by chronic abdominal pain often accompanied by nausea and vomiting in the absence of other identifiable causes. With the recognition of the important role of opioids on gastrointestinal function, novel drugs have been developed that use this physiology. These medications include peripheral acting opioid agonists to treat opioid-induced constipation and combination agonist and antagonists used for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. This review summarizes the most recent data in these areas.

Tapentadol prolonged-release for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and oxycodone controlled release-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain.

METHODS

Patients (n = 990) were randomized (1:1:1) to tapentadol PR, oxycodone controlled release (CR; reference compound for assay sensitivity), or placebo for a double-blind 3-week titration and 12-week maintenance period. Primary efficacy end-points were change from baseline in average pain intensity at week 12 of maintenance (US end-point) and over the entire maintenance period (non-US end-point) with "last observation carried forward" as imputation method for missing scores.

RESULTS

Both primary end-points were not significantly different for tapentadol PR nor for oxycodone CR vs placebo at week 12 (least squares [LS] mean difference = -0.3 [95% CI = -0.61-0.09]; p = 0.152 and 0.2 [95% CI = -0.16-0.54]; p = 0.279, respectively) and over the maintenance period (LS mean difference = -0.2 [95% CI = -0.55-0.07]; p = 0.135 and 0.1 [95% CI = -0.18-0.44]; p = 0.421, respectively). Considerably more patients receiving tapentadol PR than oxycodone CR completed the trial (58.3% vs 36.6%). This is consistent with better results with tapentadol PR on the overall health status (PGIC) compared to oxycodone CR. Indeed, respectively, 56% and 42.5% rated at least "much improved" at the end of treatment. Incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were higher for both active treatments compared to placebo. Tapentadol PR was associated with a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile with incidences of constipation (17.9% vs 35%) and of the composite of nausea and/or vomiting (23.8% vs 46.8%) significantly lower vs oxycodone CR (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study did not demonstrate assay sensitivity. The finding that both primary end-points for tapentadol PR were not met can, thus, not be interpreted. Tapentadol PR was better tolerated than oxycodone CR, largely due to fewer gastrointestinal side-effects.

Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a pooled analysis of two double-blind, randomized, placebo- and oxycodone controlled release-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged-release (PR) and oxycodone-controlled release (CR) in moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain.

METHODS

Data from two double-blind, randomized, placebo- and oxycodone CR-controlled phase 3 studies with a 3-week titration period and 12-week controlled dose adjustment maintenance period were pooled. Primary efficacy end-points were change from baseline in average pain intensity at week 12 (US end-point) and over the entire maintenance period (non-US end-point).

RESULTS

A total of 2,010 patients were assessed. For both primary end-points, tapentadol PR was significantly more effective than oxycodone CR (LS mean difference of -0.41 [95% CI = -0.65, -0.16; p = 0.001] at week 12 and -0.35 [95% CI = -0.58, -0.12; p = 0.003] over 12 weeks of maintenance [last observation carried forward]). Significantly better outcomes than for oxycodone CR were also observed for patient global impression of change, both Short Form-36 component scores, and EuroQoL-5Dimensions health status index (all p < 0.001). Relative risk for vomiting, constipation, nausea, somnolence, and pruritus was lower for tapentadol PR than for oxycodone CR. A higher proportion of oxycodone CR patients discontinued treatment (64% vs 42.2% for tapentadol PR); time to treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event was significantly shorter for oxycodone CR (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The analyses suggest that tapentadol PR provided superior pain relief and a more improved overall health status than oxycodone CR in a large patient population with moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis pain. Compared to oxycodone CR, tapentadol PR showed a more favorable tolerability profile with better gastrointestinal tolerability.

Ketorolac, Oxymorphone, Tapentadol, and Tramadol: A Comprehensive Review

Pain remains a tremendous burden on patients and for the health care system, with uncontrolled pain being the leading cause of disability in this country. There are a variety of medications that can be used in the treatment of pain, including ketorolac, oxymorphone, tapentadol, and tramadol. Depending on the clinical situation, these drugs can be used as monotherapy or in conjunction with other types of medications in a multimodal approach. A strong appreciation of pharmacologic properties of these agents and potential side effects is warranted for clinicians.

Considering tapentadol as a first-line analgesic: 14 questions

Tapentadol is the newest centrally acting analgesic to be approved by the US FDA and regulatory bodies in other countries. It has been called the first-in-class of a novel-acting analgesic mechanism of action that combines µ-opioid receptor agonist activity with neuronal norepinephrine-reuptake inhibition in a single molecule. This duality of action should combine inhibition of ascending (afferent) pain-transmitting signals with activation of descending (efferent) pain-attenuating systems (e.g., diffuse noxious inhibitory controls). However, not all novel mechanisms of action impart the characteristics needed for an analgesic to be considered for first-line therapy. These key questions may help inform clinical decision making.