Dataset Information

Sativex oromucosal spray as adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Opioids are critical for managing cancer pain, but may provide inadequate relief and/or unacceptable side effects in some cases. OBJECTIVE:To assess the analgesic efficacy of adjunctive Sativex (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol (27?mg/mL): cannabidiol (25?mg/mL)) in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy. METHODS:This report describes two phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Eligible patients had advanced cancer and average pain numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ?4 and ?8 at baseline, despite optimized opioid therapy. In Study-1, patients were randomized to Sativex or placebo, and then self-titrated study medications over a 2-week period per effect and tolerability, followed by a 3-week treatment period. In Study-2, all patients self-titrated Sativex over a 2-week period. Patients with a ?15% improvement from baseline in pain score were then randomized 1:1 to Sativex or placebo, followed by 5-week treatment period (randomized withdrawal design). RESULTS:The primary efficacy endpoint (percent improvement (Study-1) and mean change (Study-2) in average daily pain NRS scores) was not met in either study. Post hoc analyses of the primary endpoints identified statistically favourable treatment effect for Sativex in US patients <65?years (median treatment difference: 8.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00-17.95; p?=?0.040) that was not observed in patients <65?years from the rest of the world (median treatment difference: 0.2; 95% CI: -5.00 to 7.74; p?=?0.794). Treatment effect in favour of Sativex was observed on quality-of-life questionnaires, despite the fact that similar effects were not observed on NRS score. The safety profile of Sativex was consistent with earlier studies, and no evidence of abuse or misuse was identified. CONCLUSIONS:Sativex did not demonstrate superiority to placebo in reducing self-reported pain NRS scores in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy, although further exploration of differences between United States and patients from the rest of the world is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Fallon MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5521351 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sativex oromucosal spray as adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies.

Fallon Marie T MT Albert Lux Eberhard E McQuade Robert R Rossetti Sandro S Sanchez Raymond R Sun Wei W Wright Stephen S Lichtman Aron H AH Kornyeyeva Elena E

British journal of pain 20170517 3

<h4>Background</h4>Opioids are critical for managing cancer pain, but may provide inadequate relief and/or unacceptable side effects in some cases.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the analgesic efficacy of adjunctive Sativex (Δ<sup>9</sup>-tetrahydrocannabinol (27 mg/mL): cannabidiol (25 mg/mL)) in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy.<h4>Methods</h4>This report describes two phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Eligible patients ...[more]

PMID: 28785408

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Stroke is the most disabling neurological disorder and often causes spasticity. Transmucosal cannabinoids (tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (THC:CBD), Sativex) is currently available to treat spasticity-associated symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis. Cannabinoids are being considered useful also in the treatment of pain, nausea and epilepsy, but may bear and increased risk for cardiovascular events. Spasticity is often assessed with subjective and clinical rating scales, which are unable to measure the increased excitability of the monosynaptic reflex, considered the hallmark of spasticity. The neurophysiological assessment of the stretch reflex provides a precise and objective method to measure spasticity. We propose a novel study to understand if Sativex could be useful in reducing spasticity in stroke survivors and investigating tolerability and safety by accurate cardiovascular monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will recruit 50 patients with spasticity following stroke to take THC:CBD in a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study. Spasticity will be assessed with a numeric rating scale for spasticity, the modified Ashworth scale and with the electromyographical recording of the stretch reflex. The cardiovascular risk will be assessed prior to inclusion. Blood pressure, heart rate, number of daily spasms, bladder function, sleep disruption and adverse events will be monitored throughout the study. A mixed-model analysis of variance will be used to compare the stretch reflex amplitude between the time points; semiquantitative measures will be compared using the Mann-Whitney test (THC:CBD vs placebo) and Wilcoxon test (baseline vs treatment). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was registered on the EudraCT database with number 2016-001034-10 and approved by both the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco) and local Ethics Committee 'Comitato Etico Regionale della Liguria'. Data will be made anonymous and uploaded to a open access repository. Results will be disseminated by presentations at national and international conferences and by publication in journals of clinical neuroscience and neurology.

Project description:Numerous placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated the ability of ketamine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, to induce rapid (within hours), transient antidepressant effects when administered intravenously (IV) at subanesthetic doses (0.5 mg/kg over 40 min). However, the optimal antidepressant dose remains unknown. We aimed to compare to active placebo the rapid acting antidepressant properties of a broad range of subanesthetic doses of IV ketamine among outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). A range of IV ketamine doses were compared to active placebo in the treatment of adult TRD over a 3-day period following a single infusion over 40 min. This was an outpatient study conducted across six US academic sites. Outpatients were 18-70 years old with TRD, defined as failure to achieve a satisfactory response (e.g., less than 50% improvement of depression symptoms) to at least two adequate treatment courses during the current depressive episode. Following a washout period, 99 eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of the five arms in a 1:1:1:1:1 fashion: a single intravenous dose of ketamine 0.1 mg/kg (n = 18), a single dose of ketamine 0.2 mg/kg (n = 20), a single dose of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg (n = 22), a single dose of ketamine 1.0 mg/kg (n = 20), and a single dose of midazolam 0.045 mg/kg (active placebo) (n = 19). The study assessments (HAM-D-6, MADRS, SDQ, PAS, CGI-S, and CGI-I) were performed at days 0, 1, 3 (endpoint), 5, 7, 14, and 30 to assess the safety and efficacy. The overall group × time interaction effect was significant for the primary outcome measure, the HAM-D-6. In post hoc pairwise comparisons controlling for multiple comparisons, standard dose (0.5 mg/kg) and high dose (1 mg/kg) of intravenous ketamine were superior to active placebo; a low dose (0.1 mg/kg) was significant only prior to adjustment (p = 0.02, p-adj = 0.14, d = -0.82 at day 1). Most of the interaction effect was due to differences at day 1, with no significant adjusted pairwise differences at day 3. This pattern generally held for secondary outcomes. The infusions of ketamine were relatively well tolerated compared to active placebo, except for greater dissociative symptoms and transient blood pressure elevations with the higher doses. Our results suggest that there is evidence for the efficacy of the 0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg subanesthetic doses of IV ketamine and no clear or consistent evidence for clinically meaningful efficacy of lower doses of IV ketamine. Trial Registration: NCT01920555.

Project description:Insulin resistance has been proposed as one of the causes of poor glycemic control in overweight/obese youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the role of adjunctive metformin, an insulin sensitizer, on glycemic control in these patients is unclear.To compare the effect of metformin vs. placebo on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), total daily dose (TDD) of insulin, and other parameters in overweight/obese youth with T1D.Adjunctive metformin therapy will improve glycemic control in overweight/obese youth with T1D.A 9-mo randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of metformin and placebo in 28 subjects (13m/15f) of ages 10-20years (y), with HbA1c >8% (64 mmol/mol), BMI >85%, and T1D > 12 months was conducted at a university outpatient facility. The metformin group consisted of 15 subjects (8 m/ 7f), of age 15.0 ± 2.5 y; while the control group was made up of 13 subjects (5m/ 8f), of age 14.5 ± 3.1y. All participants employed a self-directed treat-to-target insulin regimen based on a titration algorithm of (-2)-0-(+2) units to adjust their long-acting insulin dose every 3rd day from -3 mo through +9 mo to maintain fasting plasma glucose (FPG) between 90-120 mg/dL (5.0-6.7 mmol/L). Pubertal maturation was determined by Tanner stage.Over the course of the 9 months of observation, the between-treatment differences in HbA1c of 0.4% (9.85% [8.82 to 10.88] for placebo versus 9.46% [8.47 to 10.46] for metformin) was not significant (p = 0.903). There were non-significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose (189.4 mg/dL [133.2 to 245.6] for placebo versus 170.5 mg/dL [114.3 to 226.7] for metformin), (p = 0.927); total daily dose (TDD) of short-acting insulin per kg body weight/day(p = 0.936); and the TDD of long-acting insulin per kg body weight per day (1.15 units/kg/day [0.89 to 1.41] for placebo versus 0.90 units/kg/day [0.64 to 1.16] for metformin) (p = 0.221). There was no difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia between the groups.This 9-month RCT of adjunctive metformin therapy in overweight and obese youth with T1D resulted in a 0.4% lower HbA1c value in the metformin group compared to the placebo group.ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01334125.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Dataset Information

Sativex oromucosal spray as adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies.

Publications

Sativex oromucosal spray as adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets