Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1)

INTRODUCTION

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal.

METHODS

Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score.

RESULTS

All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) for acute moderate-to-severe pain

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review aims to provide a clinical perspective on the potential role of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in the management of acute moderate-to-severe pain by synthesizing the available preclinical and clinical data, with emphasis on phase 3 trials.

METHODS

A non-systematic literature review was performed using a targeted PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2000, and May 2, 2023; all publication types were permitted, and selected articles were limited to those published in English. Search results were manually reviewed to identify references based on their preclinical and clinical relevance to CTC and management of acute moderate-to-severe pain.

RESULTS

The crystalline structure of CTC alters the physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib, modifying their pharmacokinetics. If taken in a free combination, tramadol reduces absorption of celecoxib. Conversely, administration of CTC slows tramadol absorption and lowers its maximum plasma concentration, while increasing celecoxib plasma concentration through its enhanced release. In clinical studies across models of acute moderate-to-severe pain, CTC demonstrated an early onset of analgesia, with improved efficacy and lower rescue medication use, compared with either agent alone. CTC's safety profile was in line with that expected for the individual components; no additive effects were observed. CTC exhibited tramadol-sparing effects, with efficacy seen at lower daily/cumulative opioid doses vs. tramadol alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from phase 3 trials suggest that the modified physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib in CTC translate into an improved clinical benefit-risk profile, including fewer opioid-related adverse effects due to lower overall opioid dosing.

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) is a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal of celecoxib and racemic tramadol with an improved pharmacologic profile, conferred by the co-crystal structure, compared with its active constituents administered alone/concomitantly.

AIM

We evaluated CTC in moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT03108482) was conducted at 6 US clinical research centers. Adults with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy were randomized to oral CTC (200 mg [112 mg celecoxib/88 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride] every 12 h), tramadol (50 mg every 6 h), celecoxib (100 mg every 12 h), or placebo for 48 h. Patients, investigators, and personnel were blinded to assignment. The primary endpoint was the 0-48 h sum of pain intensity differences (SPID0-48) in all randomized patients. Pain intensity was assessed on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Safety was analyzed in patients who received study medication. Funded by ESTEVE Pharmaceuticals.

RESULTS

In 2017 (March to November), 1323 patients were screened and 637 randomized to CTC (n = 184), tramadol (n = 183), celecoxib (n = 181), or placebo (n = 89). Mean baseline NRS was 6.7 in all active groups. CTC had a significantly greater effect on SPID0-48 (least-squares mean: -139.1 [95% confidence interval: -151.8, -126.5]) than tramadol (-109.1 [-121.7, -96.4]; p < 0.001), celecoxib (-103.7 [-116.4, -91.0]; p < 0.001), or placebo (-74.6 [-92.5, -56.6]; p < 0.001). Total treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 358 for CTC and 394 for tramadol. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 37.7% patients in the CTC group, compared with 48.6% in the tramadol group. There were no serious TEAEs/deaths.

CONCLUSION

CTC provided greater analgesia than comparable daily doses of tramadol and celecoxib, with similar tolerability to tramadol. CTC is approved in the United States.

Efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (STARDOM2)

BACKGROUND

STARDOM2 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC)-a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal comprising racemic tramadol hydrochloride and celecoxib in a supramolecular network that modifies their pharmacokinetic properties-for the management of acute postoperative pain (NCT03062644; EudraCT:2016-000593-38).

METHODS

Patients with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominal hysterectomy were randomized 2:2:2:2:2:1 to oral CTC 100 mg (rac-tramadol hydrochloride 44 mg/celecoxib 56 mg) twice daily (BID); CTC 150 mg (66/84 mg) BID; CTC 200 mg (88/112 mg) BID; immediate-release tramadol 100 mg four times daily (QID); celecoxib 100 mg BID; or placebo, for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0-4 h (SPID_0-4 ). Key secondary endpoints were rescue medication use within 4 h, 50% response rate at 4 h, and safety/tolerability.

RESULTS

Of 1355 patients enrolled, 1138 were randomized (full analysis set) and 1136 treated (safety analysis set). In the prespecified gatekeeping analysis of SPID_0-4 , CTC 200 mg was not superior to tramadol but showed non-inferior efficacy (p < 0.001) that was sustained throughout the 120-h period, despite a 5-day cumulative tramadol administration of 880 mg with CTC 200 mg BID versus 2000 mg with tramadol 100 mg QID. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and severe TEAEs were less common with CTC 200 mg versus tramadol. Treatment-related TEAEs were 14.4% with CTC 200 mg and 23.6% with tramadol.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, CTC 200 mg showed a clinically relevant improvement in overall benefit/risk profile versus tramadol alone, with considerably lower cumulative opioid exposure.

SIGNIFICANCE

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 STARDOM2 trial-in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy-the novel co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) 200 mg BID was superior to placebo and non-inferior to tramadol 100 mg QID. Although superiority to tramadol was not reached, CTC 200 mg BID exposed patients to lower cumulative opioid (tramadol) doses than tramadol (100 mg QID) alone, with fewer treatment-emergent adverse events. CTC 200 mg thus has a clinically relevant improved benefit/risk profile compared with tramadol alone.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two oral formulations of quetiapine fumarate in healthy volunteers

One bioequivalence study was carried out in healthy volunteers in order to compare the rate and extent of absorption of two oral formulations of quetiapine fumarate (CAS 111974-72-2) 25 mg film-coated tablet. Thirty subjects were administered quetiapine fumarate film-coated tablet of test and reference formulation in an open-label, randomised, fasting, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. Blood samples were taken before and within 48 h after drug administration. Plasma concentrations were determined by LC/MS/MS. Log-transformed AUC and Cmax values were tested for bioequivalence based on the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference). Tmax was analysed nonparametrically. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean values for the test/reference ratios for AUCo-t, and Cmax were within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. It may be therefore concluded that the test formulation of quetiapine fumarate 25 mg film-coated tablet is bioequivalent to the reference product and can be prescribed interchangeably.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two dosage forms of olanzapine 10 mg formulations in healthy volunteers

Two bioequivalence studies were carried out in healthy volunteers in order to compare the rate and extent of absorption of two dosage forms (film-coated tablet and orodispersible tablet) of oral olanzapine (CAS 132539-06-1) 10 mg test formulations and the respective brand formulations as reference. Twenty and twenty-six subjects were administered olanzapine film-coated tablet or orodispersible tablet of test and reference formulations in an open-label, randomised, fasting, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. Blood samples were taken before and within 240 h after drug administration. Plasma concentrations were determined by LC/MS/MS. Log-transformed AUC and Cmax values were tested for bioequivalence based on the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference). tmax was analysed nonparametrically. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean values for the test/reference ratios for AUC(0-t) and Cmax were within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. It may be therefore concluded that the test formulations of olanzapine 10 mg film-coated tablet and orodispersible tablet are bioequivalent to the reference products and can be prescribed interchangeably.

[The use of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis. The characteristics and consequences]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in certain surgical procedures has been demonstrated in clinical trials. The present study aimed at getting knowledge on the way how it is used in a certain hospital.

METHODS

In a certain day, all patients receiving antibiotics to prevent a postoperative infection were identified in a medical school hospital. Information on the operative procedure, prescribed antibiotics and clinical course of the patients was recorded.

RESULTS

Out of 714 patients admitted, 255 (36%) were treated with antibiotics and, of these, 85 were given them to prevent a postoperative infection. In 52% of patients, two or more antibiotics were given. The mean (SD) duration of prophylaxis was 8.4 (8.6) days. It was judged as really indicated in 34 cases (40%). Only in 17 (20%) the first choice antibiotic was selected; in 11 (13%) a preoperative dose of the right antibiotic was administered and only in 3 (3.5%) a preoperative dose of the first choice antibiotic was administered and prophylaxis lasted up to 48 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis in a medical school hospital is inappropriate in more than 95% of cases. The situation in other centres should be quantified and the universally accepted norms of prophylaxis should be implemented.