Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Viscusi ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10084286 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Viscusi Eugene R ER de Leon-Casasola Oscar O Cebrecos Jesús J Jacobs Adam A Morte Adelaida A Ortiz Esther E Sust Mariano M Vaqué Anna A Gottlieb Ira I Daniels Stephen S Gimbel Joseph S JS Muse Derek D Winkle Peter P Kuss Michael E ME Videla Sebastián S Gascón Neus N Plata-Salamán Carlos C

Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain 20220708 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Aim</h4>We evaluated CTC in moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT03108482) was conducted ...[more]

PMID: 35686380

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCo-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.MethodsAdults (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.ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsCTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Project description:BackgroundCo-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC), containing equimolar quantities of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) tramadol and celecoxib (100 mg CTC = 44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride and 56 mg celecoxib), is a novel API-API co-crystal for the treatment of pain. We aimed to establish the effective dose of CTC for treating acute pain following oral surgery.MethodsA dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo- and active-controlled, multicentre (nine Spanish hospitals), phase II study (EudraCT number: 2011-002778-21) was performed in male and female patients aged ≥ 18 years experiencing moderate to severe pain following extraction of two or more impacted third molars requiring bone removal. Eligible patients were randomised via a computer-generated list to receive one of six single-dose treatments (CTC 50, 100, 150, 200 mg; tramadol 100 mg; and placebo). The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 8 h assessed in the per-protocol population.ResultsBetween 10 February 2012 and 13 February 2013, 334 patients were randomised and received study treatment: 50 mg (n = 55), 100 mg (n = 53), 150 mg (n = 57), or 200 mg (n = 57) of CTC, 100 mg tramadol (n = 58), or placebo (n = 54). CTC 100, 150, and 200 mg showed significantly higher efficacy compared with placebo and/or tramadol in all measures: SPID (0-8 h) (mean [standard deviation]): - 90 (234), - 139 (227), - 173 (224), 71 (213), and 22 (228), respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events was lower in the 50 (12.7% [n = 7]), 100 (11.3% [n = 6]), and 150 (15.8% [n = 9]) mg CTC groups, and similar in the 200 mg (29.8% [n = 17]) CTC group, compared with the tramadol group (29.3% [n = 17]), with nausea, dizziness, and vomiting the most frequent events.ConclusionSignificant improvement in the benefit-risk ratio was observed for CTC (doses ≥ 100 mg) over tramadol and placebo in the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery.FundingLaboratorios del Dr. Esteve, S.A.U.

Project description:BackgroundSTARDOM2 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).MethodsPatients 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 (SPID0-4 ). Key secondary endpoints were rescue medication use within 4 h, 50% response rate at 4 h, and safety/tolerability.ResultsOf 1355 patients enrolled, 1138 were randomized (full analysis set) and 1136 treated (safety analysis set). In the prespecified gatekeeping analysis of SPID0-4 , 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.SignificanceIn 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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare efficacy/safety of oral tramadol 75 mg/dexketoprofen 25 mg (TRAM/DKP) and TRAM 75 mg/paracetamol 650 mg (TRAM/paracetamol) in moderate to severe pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar.DesignMulticentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb study.ParticipantsHealthy adult patients scheduled for surgical extraction of at least one fully/partially impacted lower third molar requiring bone manipulation. 654 patients were randomised and 653 were eligible for analysis.InterventionsSurgery was performed under local anaesthetic. No sedation was permitted. Patients rated pain intensity (PI) using an 11-Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (0 no pain; 10 worst pain). Participants experiencing moderate/severe pain (≥4) within 4 hours of surgery were randomised (2:2:1 ratio) to a single oral dose of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg, TRAM/paracetamol 75/650 mg or placebo.Main outcome measuresEfficacy was based patients' electronic diaries. Analgesia and pain were recorded as follows: pain relief (PAR) on a 5-point Verbal Rating Scale (0='no relief', 1='a little (perceptible) relief', 2='some (meaningful) relief', 3='lot of relief', 4='complete relief') at the predefined postdose time points t15 min, t30 min, t1 hour, t1.5 hour, t2 hour, t4 hour, t6 hour and t8 hour and PI on the 11-point NRS at t0 and at the same predefined postdose time points. Onset of analgesia documented using double stopwatch method over a 2-hour period. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 6 hours (TOTPAR6). Rescue medication was available during the treatment period.ResultsTRAM/DKP was superior to TRAM/paracetamol and placebo at the primary endpoint TOTPAR6 (p<0.0001). Mean (SD) TOTPAR6 in the TRAM/DKP group was 13 (6.97), while those in the active control and placebo groups were 9.2 (7.65) and 1.9 (3.89), respectively. Superiority of TRAM/DKP over active comparator and placebo was observed at all secondary endpoints. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between active groups.ConclusionsTRAM/DKP (75/25 mg) is effective and superior to TRAM/paracetamol (75/650 mg) in relieving moderate to severe acute pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar, with a faster onset of action, greater and durable analgesia, together with a favourable safety profile.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2015-004152-22 and NCT02777970.

Project description:BackgroundPreclinical studies indicate that the enzyme cyclooxygenase 2 plays an important role in ultraviolet-induced skin cancers. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, as a chemopreventive agent for actinic keratoses, the premalignant precursor of nonmelanoma skin cancers, and for nonmelanoma skin cancers, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and basal cell carcinomas (BCCs).MethodsA double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial involving 240 subjects aged 37-87 years with 10-40 actinic keratoses was conducted at eight US academic medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg of celecoxib or placebo administered orally twice daily for 9 months. Subjects were evaluated at 3, 6, 9 (ie, completion of treatment), and 11 months after randomization. The primary endpoint was the number of new actinic keratoses at the 9-month visit as a percentage of the number at the time of randomization. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the incidence of actinic keratoses was compared between the two groups using t tests. In exploratory analyses, we evaluated the number of nonmelanoma skin cancers combined and SCCs and BCCs separately per patient at 11 months after randomization using Poisson regression, after adjustment for patient characteristics and time on study. The numbers of adverse events in the two treatment arms were compared using χ(2) or Fisher exact tests. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsThere was no difference in the incidence of actinic keratoses between the two groups at 9 months after randomization. However, at 11 months after randomization, there were fewer nonmelanoma skin cancers in the celecoxib arm than in the placebo arm (mean cumulative tumor number per patient 0.14 vs 0.35; rate ratio [RR] = .43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75; P = .003). After adjusting for age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, history of actinic keratosis at randomization, nonmelanoma skin cancer history, and patient time on study, the number of nonmelanoma skin cancers was lower in the celecoxib arm than in the placebo arm (RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.72, P = .002) as were the numbers of BCCs (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.93, P = .032) and SCCs (RR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.93, P = .032). Serious and cardiovascular adverse events were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsCelecoxib may be effective for prevention of SCCs and BCCs in individuals who have extensive actinic damage and are at high risk for development of nonmelanoma skin cancers.

Project description:Background and objectivesCo-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) is a first-in-class active pharmaceutical ingredient (API-API) co-crystal of rac-tramadol.HCl and celecoxib in a 1:1 molecular ratio (100 mg CTC: 44 mg rac-tramadol.HCl and 56 mg celecoxib). Tramadol and celecoxib pharmacokinetics are modified after CTC administration versus administration of reference products. This randomised, open-label, crossover, phase 1 study assessed CTC pharmacokinetics, dose proportionality, safety and tolerability in Japanese and Caucasian subjects.MethodsCTC (100, 150 and 200 mg) was administered orally to healthy Japanese/Caucasian subjects. Tramadol, O-desmethyltramadol and celecoxib plasma concentrations were determined pre-dose and up to 48 h post-dose. Maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from dosing to last measurable concentration (AUCt) and from dosing extrapolated to infinity (AUC∞) were evaluated. Dose proportionality was assessed in a dose-adjusted bioavailability analysis of variance and in a power model. Inter-cohort comparability of pharmacokinetic exposure was confirmed if the ratio (Japanese cohort/Caucasian cohort) of geometric least-squares means and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were 80-125%. Post hoc weight-adjusted comparability analyses were performed. Safety was assessed throughout.ResultsSixty subjects (21 males/9 females per cohort) were randomised; 57 completed the study. Cohorts were age and BMI matched; there were expected inter-cohort weight differences. Exposure to each analyte increased in both cohorts with increasing CTC dose. Tramadol's pharmacokinetic exposure was comparable between cohorts after adjusting for body weight; the pharmacokinetic exposure of O-desmethyltramadol and celecoxib was increased in Japanese subjects.ConclusionsDifferences in pharmacokinetics were not sufficient to suggest that CTC dose adjustment is required in Japanese subjects.Clinical trial registrationEudraCT: 2015-003071-29.

Project description:Desmetramadol is an investigational analgesic consisting of (+) and (-) enantiomers of the tramadol metabolite O-desmethyltramadol (M1). Tramadol is racemic and exerts analgesia by monoaminergic effects of (-)-tramadol and (-)-M1, and by the opioid (+)-M1. Tramadol labeling indicates cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozyme 2D6 ultrarapid metabolizer can produce dangerous (+)-M1 levels, and CYP2D6 poor metabolizers insufficient (+)-M1 for analgesia. We hypothesized that desmetramadol could provide the safety and analgesia of tramadol without its metabolic liabilities. We conducted consecutive double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3 segment cross-over trials A and B to investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics and analgesia of 20 mg desmetramadol and 50 mg tramadol in 103 healthy participants without (n = 43) and with (n = 60) cotreatment with the CYP inhibitor paroxetine. In the absence of CYP inhibition (trial A), 20 mg desmetramadol and 50 mg tramadol dosed every 6 hours gave equivalent steady-state (+)-M1, similar adverse events, and analgesia significantly greater than placebo, but equal to each other. In trial B, CYP inhibition significantly depressed tramadol steady-state (+)-M1, reduced its adverse events, and led to insignificant analgesia comparable with placebo. In contrast, CYP inhibition in trial B had no deleterious effect on desmetramadol (+)-M1 or (-)-M1, which gave significant analgesia as in trial A and superior to tramadol (P = .003). Desmetramadol has the safety and efficacy of tramadol without its metabolic liabilities. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATIONS: NCT02205554, NCT03312777 PERSPECTIVE: To our knowledge, this is the first study of desmetramadol in humans and the first to show it provides the same safety and analgesia as tramadol, but without tramadol's metabolic liabilities and related drug-drug interactions. Desmetramadol could potentially offer expanded safety and usefulness to clinicians seeking an alternative to schedule II opioids.

Project description:IntroductionThis study is part of the registrational program for intravenously administered (IV) tramadol in the USA and compared the analgesic benefit and tolerability of two doses of IV tramadol (50 mg and 25 mg) to placebo in adult patients undergoing bunionectomy, an orthopedic surgical model.MethodsThis was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, three-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-group trial to evaluate IV tramadol in the management of postoperative pain following bunionectomy. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to IV tramadol 50 mg, 25 mg, or placebo. Primary endpoint was summary of pain intensity differences over 48 h (SPID48). Key secondary endpoints included SPID24, total consumption of rescue analgesia, and patient global assessment of efficacy (PGA). Safety assessments included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). Assessment of the dose-response was an important objective of the study.ResultsThe study established a dose response, with IV tramadol 50 mg demonstrating statistically significant benefit (p < 0.05) over placebo for primary and all key secondary efficacy endpoints, whereas tramadol 25 mg demonstrated intermediate results between the 50 mg and placebo arms. IV tramadol 50 mg was well tolerated; most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting; and there were no meaningful differences among treatments for vital signs, ECG, and laboratory assessments. The largest proportion of patients completed tramadol 50 mg (98.6%) compared to tramadol 25 mg (91.8%) and placebo (88.2%).ConclusionIV tramadol 50 mg was effective and well tolerated as treatment for postoperative pain following bunionectomy surgery, while IV tramadol 25 mg, although well tolerated, was judged an ineffective dose for the treatment of pain in this setting. IV tramadol 50 mg was further developed in the registrational program for the USA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03290378.

Project description:IntroductionMulti-modal analgesia is desirable for the management of acute pain since it can provide effective pain relief at lower doses, thereby aiding tolerability. Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) provides effective analgesia in models of acute pain. Co-crystallization can alter the pharmacokinetics of individual components, potentially improving tolerability. We sought to better understand the safety and tolerability of CTC in patients with acute postoperative pain.MethodsWe conducted a pooled analysis of safety data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials in adults with acute moderate-to-severe pain following oral surgery, bunionectomy, and elective abdominal hysterectomy. We present data for CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) and its comparators: tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID) (one trial), tramadol 100 mg QID (two trials), celecoxib 100 mg BID (two trials), and placebo (three trials).ResultsIn total, n = 551 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, n = 183 received tramadol 50 mg QID, n = 368 received tramadol 100 mg QID, n = 388 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and n = 274 received placebo. The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to study drug up to 48 h was numerically lower with CTC 200 mg BID (35.9%) than with tramadol 50 mg QID (47.5%) and 100 mg QID (44.8%) but greater than with celecoxib 100 mg BID (12.4%) and placebo (20.4%). The most frequent AEs related to study drug up to 48 h were somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting, which occurred more frequently in patients receiving tramadol 100 mg QID than in those receiving CTC 200 mg BID.ConclusionCTC 200 mg BID appears to be better tolerated than tramadol 100 mg QID, possibly because of reduced total exposure to tramadol. This may contribute to a more favorable benefit-risk profile for CTC versus individual components, making it a promising treatment for acute pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03108482, NCT02982161 (EudraCT: 2016-000592-24), NCT03062644 (EudraCT: 2016-000593-38).

Dataset Information

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

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets