Clinical evaluation of XaraColl®, a bupivacaine-collagen implant, for postoperative analgesia in two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot studies

Susan L Cusack,1 Mark Jaros,2 Michael Kuss,3 Harold S Minkowitz,4 Peter Winkle,5 Lisa Hemsen61Cusack Pharmaceutical Consulting, Burlington, NJ, 2Summit Analytical, Denver, CO, USA; 3Premier Research Group, Austin, TX, USA; 4Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA; 5Advanced Clinical Research Institute, Anaheim, CA, USA; 6Innocoll Technologies, Athlone, IrelandBackground: XaraColl®, a collagen-based implant that delivers bupivacaine to the site of surgical trauma, is under development for postoperative analgesia. Because of differing patient attitudes to postoperative pain control and the inability to assess baseline pain, standard clinical methods for evaluating analgesic efficacy are compromised and justify application of novel integrated approaches.Methods: We conducted two independent, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in men undergoing unilateral inguinal hernioplasty by open laparotomy to evaluate the safety and efficacy of XaraColl at different doses (100 mg and 200 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride; study 1 and 2, respectively). Enrolled patients (50 in study 1 and 53 in study 2) were randomized to receive active or placebo implants in a 1:1 ratio. Postoperative pain intensity and use of supplementary opioid medication were recorded through 72 hours. Safety was assessed through 30 days. The principal efficacy variables were the summed pain intensity (SPI), total use of opioid analgesia (TOpA), and an integrated endpoint (I-SPI-TOpA). Each variable was analyzed at 24, 48, and 72 hours after implantation. A pooled analysis of both studies was also performed retrospectively.Results: Through 24 and 48 hours, XaraColl-treated patients experienced significantly less pain in study 1 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012, respectively) whereas they took significantly less opioid analgesia in study 2 (P = 0.004 and P = 0.042, respectively). Over the same time intervals in the pooled analysis, treated patients experienced both significantly less pain (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively) and took significantly less opioid analgesia (P = 0.001 and P = 0.024, respectively). The I-SPI-TOpA endpoint that combined both SPI and TOpA demonstrated a significant treatment effect through 72 hours in the pooled analysis (P = 0.021).Conclusion: XaraColl offers great potential for improving the management of postoperative pain and warrants further investigation in definitive clinical trials.Keywords: pain, opioid use, herniorrhaphy, hernioplasty&nbsp

A randomized, Phase IIb study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty

Neil Singla,1 Harold S Minkowitz,2 David G Soergel,3 David A Burt,3 Ruth Ann Subach,3 Monica Y Salamea,3 Michael J Fossler,3 Franck Skobieranda3 1Lotus Clinical Research, Pasadena, CA, 2Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, Houston, TX, 3Trevena, Inc, King of Prussia, PA, USA Background: Oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, was designed to improve the therapeutic window of conventional opioids by activating G-protein signaling while causing low β-arrestin recruitment to the µ receptor. This randomized, double-blind, patient-controlled analgesia Phase IIb study was conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oliceridine compared with morphine and placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain following abdominoplasty (NCT02335294; oliceridine is an investigational agent not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). Methods: Patients were randomized to receive postoperative regimens of intravenous oliceridine (loading/patient-controlled demand doses [mg/mg]: 1.5/0.10 [regimen A]; 1.5/0.35 [regimen B]), morphine (4.0/1.0), or placebo with treatment initiated within 4 hours of surgery and continued as needed for 24 hours. Results: Two hundred patients were treated (n=39, n=39, n=83, and n=39 in the oliceridine regimen A, oliceridine regimen B, morphine, and placebo groups, respectively). Patients were predominantly female (n=198 [99%]) and had a mean age of 38.2 years, weight of 71.2 kg, and baseline pain score of 7.7 (on 11-point numeric pain rating scale). Patients receiving the oliceridine regimens had reductions in average pain scores (model-based change in time-weighted average versus placebo over 24 hours) of 2.3 and 2.1 points, respectively (P=0.0001 and P=0.0005 versus placebo); patients receiving morphine had a similar reduction (2.1 points; P<0.0001 versus placebo). A lower prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to nausea, vomiting, and respiratory function was observed with the oliceridine regimens than with morphine (P<0.05). Other AEs with oliceridine were generally dose-related and similar in nature to those observed with conventional opioids; no serious AEs were reported with oliceridine. Conclusion: These results suggest that oliceridine may provide effective, rapid analgesia in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain, with an acceptable safety/tolerability profile and potentially wider therapeutic window than morphine. Keywords: TRV130, acute pain, analgesic, opioid, biased ligan