Current Developments in Intraspinal Agents for Cancer and Noncancer Pain

Since the late 1980s, intrathecal (IT) analgesic therapy has improved, and implantable IT drug delivery devices have become increasingly sophisticated. Physicians and patients now have myriad more options for agents and their combination, as well as for refining their delivery. As recently as 2007, The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference of expert panelists updated its algorithm for drug selection in IT polyanalgesia. We review this algorithm and the emerging therapy included. This article provides an update on newly approved as well as emerging IT agents and the advances in technology for their delivery

Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Consistent healthcare decisionmaking requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.</p

Safety of oral methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain

Richard L Rauck,1 Neal E Slatkin,2,3 Nancy Stambler,4 Robert J Israel3 1Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 2School of Medicine, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA; 3Medical Affairs, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 4Clinical Research, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, New York, NY, USA Purpose: Oral methylnaltrexone was shown to be effective in treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain in a Phase III randomized controlled trial. This report provides a detailed safety analysis from that study. Methods: Adults (n=803) with chronic noncancer pain for &ge;2 months and confirmed OIC while receiving opioid doses &ge;50 mg morphine equivalent per day for &ge;14 days were randomized 1:1:1:1 to oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg) or placebo once daily for 4 weeks, followed by as-needed use for 8 weeks. Safety was evaluated by examining treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, electrocardiography, rescue-laxative and opioid use, Objective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (OOWS) and Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS), and pain-intensity scores. Results: TEAEs occurred at a similar incidence in the methylnaltrexone groups (59.0%) and placebo group (63.0%). The most common TEAEs with methylnaltrexone were abdominal pain (8.0% vs 8.5% with placebo), nausea (6.8% vs 9.0%), and diarrhea (6.0% vs 3.5%). Cardiac-related TEAEs occurred in 1.8% and 1.0% of patients, respectively, and no major adverse cardiovascular events were reported. No patient had a cluster of TEAEs associated with opioid withdrawal after excluding gastrointestinal TEAEs. Changes in laboratory parameters, vital signs, and electrocardiography were generally small and similar across treatment groups. Rescue-laxative use was more common with placebo than methylnaltrexone 450 mg (6.20% vs 4.27% of study days, P=0.024). Changes in opioid dose, OOWS and SOWS scores, and pain-intensity scores during treatment were minimal. Conclusion: Oral methylnaltrexone had a safety profile comparable with placebo in the treatment of OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain, with no evidence of cardiac toxicity or opioid withdrawal. Keywords: analgesia, &micro;-opioid-receptor antagonist, nonmalignant, safet

A long-term, open-label safety study of single-entity hydrocodone bitartrate extended release for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain

Srinivas Nalamachu,1,2 Richard L Rauck,3 Martin E Hale,4 Orlando G Florete Jr,5 Cynthia Y Robinson,6 Stephen J Farr,6 1International Clinical Research Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA; 2Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3Carolinas Pain Institute, Center for Clinical Research, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 4Gold Coast Research, LLC, Weston, FL, USA; 5Institute of Pain Management, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 6Zogenix, Inc., Emeryville, CA, USA Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of single-entity extended-release hydrocodone in opioid-experienced subjects with moderate to severe chronic pain not receiving adequate pain relief or experiencing intolerable side effects from their current opioid. Methods: This multicenter, open-label study started with a conversion/titration phase (&le;6 weeks) where subjects (n=638) were converted to individualized doses (range 20&ndash;300 mg) of extended-release hydrocodone dosed every 12 hours, followed by a 48-week maintenance phase (n=424). The primary objective (safety and tolerability) and the secondary objective (long-term efficacy as measured by change in average pain score; 0= no pain, 10= worst imaginable pain) were monitored throughout the study. Results: Subjects were treated for a range of chronic pain etiologies, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic and musculoskeletal conditions. The mean hydrocodone equivalent dose at screening was 68.9&plusmn;62.2 mg/day and increased to 139.5&plusmn;81.7 mg/day at the start of the maintenance phase. Unlimited dose adjustments were permitted at the investigator&#39;s discretion during the maintenance phase, reflecting typical clinical practice. No unexpected safety issues were reported. Common adverse events during the conversion/titration and maintenance phases, respectively, were constipation (11.3% and 12.5%), nausea (10.7% and 9.9%), vomiting (4.1% and 9.7%), and somnolence (7.7% and 4.2%). Four deaths occurred during the study; all were considered unrelated to treatment. One subject died 13 months after the study ended. From the start to end of the conversion/titration phase, 84% of subjects had a clinically meaningful improvement in average pain score (&ge;30% improvement), and the mean average pain scores remained stable through the maintenance phase. Conclusion: This single-entity, extended-release formulation of hydrocodone was generally safe, well tolerated, and effective in reducing chronic pain for 48 weeks. This formulation provides a new option for patients experiencing chronic pain, especially those who are taking immediate-release hydrocodone and have concerns about liver toxicity due to acetaminophen. Keywords: opioids, long-term, chronic pain, hydrocodone, extended-release, single-entit