Dataset Information

A double-blind, randomized comparative study to investigate the morphine to hydromorphone conversion ratio in Japanese cancer patients.

ABSTRACT: To confirm the morphine to hydromorphone conversion ratio for hydromorphone (DS-7113b) immediate-release tablets in cancer patients who achieved pain control with oral morphine.This was a multicenter, active-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative study (July 2013 to December 2014) at 39 Japanese sites. Seventy-one patients (aged >20 years) who had achieved pain control with morphine 60 mg/day and 90 mg/day were randomly allocated 1:1 to hydromorphone immediate-release tablets at a dose converted at a hydromorphone:morphine ratio of 1:5 or 1:8, respectively, and treated for up to 5 days. The efficacy was evaluated as the pain control ratio.The pain control ratio in the full analysis set was 83.3% (25/30) in the conversion ratio 1:5 group and 95.0% (38/40) in the conversion ratio 1:8 group, and both groups demonstrated highly successful pain control. The incidence of adverse events was 46.7% (14/30) in the conversion ratio 1:5 group and 58.5% (24/41) in the 1:8 group; the difference was not clinically relevant. Frequently observed adverse events (incidence ?5%) were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, somnolence and dyspnea.A high pain control ratio was maintained by a switch at either conversion ratio, and no notable difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events. A switch from morphine to hydromorphone is effective at a dose converted at ratios of 1:5 and 1:8.

SUBMITTER: Inoue S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5926545 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A double-blind, randomized comparative study to investigate the morphine to hydromorphone conversion ratio in Japanese cancer patients.

Inoue Satoshi S Saito Yoji Y Tsuneto Satoru S Aruga Etsuko E Ogata Takeshi T Uemori Mitsutoshi M

Japanese journal of clinical oncology 20180501 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To confirm the morphine to hydromorphone conversion ratio for hydromorphone (DS-7113b) immediate-release tablets in cancer patients who achieved pain control with oral morphine.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a multicenter, active-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative study (July 2013 to December 2014) at 39 Japanese sites. Seventy-one patients (aged >20 years) who had achieved pain control with morphine 60 mg/day and 90 mg/day were randomly allocated 1:1 t ...[more]

PMID: 29635632

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntrathecal opioids are routinely administered during spinal anesthesia for postcesarean analgesia. The effectiveness of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia is well established, and the use of intrathecal hydromorphone is growing. No prospective studies have compared the effectiveness of equipotent doses of intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen for postcesarean analgesia. The authors hypothesized that intrathecal morphine would result in superior analgesia compared with intrathecal hydromorphone 24 h after delivery.MethodsIn this single-center, double-blinded, randomized trial, 138 parturients undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery were randomized to receive 150 µg of intrathecal morphine or 75 µg of intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a primary spinal anesthetic and multimodal analgesic regimen; 134 parturients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale score for pain with movement 24 h after delivery. Static and dynamic pain scores, nausea, pruritus, degree of sedation, and patient satisfaction were assessed every 6 h for 36 h postpartum. Total opioid consumption was recorded.ResultsThere was no significant difference in pain scores with movement at 24 h (intrathecal hydromorphone median [25th, 75th] 4 [3, 5] and intrathecal morphine 3 [2, 4.5]) or at any time point (estimated difference, 0.5; 95% CI, 0 to 1; P = 0.139). Opioid received in the first 24 h did not differ between groups (median [25th, 75th] oral morphine milligram equivalents for intrathecal hydromorphone 30 [7.5, 45.06] vs. intrathecal morphine 22.5 [14.0, 37.5], P = 0.769). From Kaplan-Meier analysis, the median time to first opioid request was 5.4 h for hydromorphone and 12.1 h for morphine (log-rank test P = 0.200).ConclusionsAlthough the hypothesis was that intrathecal morphine would provide superior analgesia to intrathecal hydromorphone, the results did not confirm this. At the doses studied, both intrathecal morphine and intrathecal hydromorphone provide effective postcesarean analgesia when combined with a multimodal analgesia regimen.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous morphine (IVM) is the most common strong analgesic used in trauma, but is associated with a clear time limitation related to the need to obtain an access route. The intranasal (IN) route provides easy administration with a fast peak action time due to high vascularization and the absence of first-pass metabolism. We aimed to determine whether IN sufentanil (INS) for patients presenting to an emergency department with acute severe traumatic pain results in a reduction in pain intensity non-inferior to IVM.Methods and findingsIn a prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority trial conducted in the emergency departments of 6 hospitals across France, patients were randomized 1:1 to INS titration (0.3 μg/kg and additional doses of 0.15 μg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if numerical pain rating scale [NRS] > 3) and intravenous placebo, or to IVM (0.1 mg/kg and additional doses of 0.05 mg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if NRS > 3) and IN placebo. Patients, clinical staff, and research staff were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the total decrease on NRS at 30 minutes after first administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -1.3 on the NRS. The primary outcome was analyzed per protocol. Adverse events were prospectively recorded during 4 hours. Among the 194 patients enrolled in the emergency department cohort between November 4, 2013, and April 10, 2016, 157 were randomized, and the protocol was correctly administered in 136 (69 IVM group, 67 INS group, per protocol population, 76% men, median age 40 [IQR 29 to 54] years). The mean difference between NRS at first administration and NRS at 30 minutes was -4.1 (97.5% CI -4.6 to -3.6) in the IVM group and -5.2 (97.5% CI -5.7 to -4.6) in the INS group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (p < 0.001 with 1-sided mean-equivalence t test), as the lower 97.5% confidence interval of 0.29 (97.5% CI 0.29 to 1.93) was above the prespecified margin of -1.3. INS was superior to IVM (intention to treat analysis: p = 0.034), but without a clinically significant difference in mean NRS between groups. Six severe adverse events were observed in the INS group and 2 in the IVM group (number needed to harm: 17), including an apparent imbalance for hypoxemia (3 in the INS group versus 1 in the IVM group) and for bradypnea (2 in the INS group versus 0 in the IVM group). The main limitation of the study was that the choice of concomitant analgesics, when they were used, was left to the discretion of the physician in charge, and co-analgesia was more often used in the IVM group. Moreover, the size of the study did not allow us to conclude with certainty about the safety of INS in emergency settings.ConclusionsWe confirm the non-inferiority of INS compared to IVM for pain reduction at 30 minutes after administration in patients with severe traumatic pain presenting to an emergency department. The IN route, with no need to obtain a venous route, may allow early and effective analgesia in emergency settings and in difficult situations. Confirmation of the safety profile of INS will require further larger studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02095366. EudraCT 2013-001665-16.

Project description:Fibromyalgia is characterized by widespread pain and is often accompanied by accessory symptoms. There are limited treatment options for this condition in Japan. Therefore, we conducted a phase III study to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in Japanese patients with fibromyalgia.This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial was conducted in Japan. Outpatients who met the American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and whose Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score was ?4 were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg or placebo once daily for 14 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the change in the BPI average pain score from baseline. Secondary efficacy, quality of life (QoL), and safety outcomes were also evaluated. Mixed-effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis and last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis of covariance were used to evaluate the primary efficacy measure.Overall, 393 patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine (n?=?196) or placebo (n?=?197). The MMRM analysis revealed no significant difference between duloxetine and placebo regarding the change in BPI average pain scores at week 14. Based on LOCF analysis, a statistically significant improvement in the change in BPI average pain scores at week 14 was observed for patients treated with duloxetine compared with placebo. Duloxetine treatment was associated with improved outcomes in nearly all secondary and post hoc analyses. The treatment was generally well tolerated. Somnolence, nausea, and constipation were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the duloxetine group. The discontinuation rates due to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in both groups.Although the MMRM analysis did not demonstrate superiority of duloxetine over placebo, duloxetine treatment was associated with improved outcomes in secondary and post hoc analyses of the mean change in the BPI average pain score and most of the secondary outcomes, including analgesia and QoL. Duloxetine treatment was safe and well tolerated. These results suggest that duloxetine treatment could be associated with improvements in pain relief and QoL in Japanese patients with fibromyalgia.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552057 . Registered 9 March 2012.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vedolizumab safety and efficacy have been established in many populations all over the world, but have never been studied in Japan. We report results from a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of vedolizumab in Japanese patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS:Patients with moderate-to-severe UC were enrolled into Cohort 1 (double-blinded) or Cohort 2 (open-label) in the induction phase. Cohort 1 was randomized 2:1 to receive 300 mg vedolizumab or placebo, while Cohort 2 received vedolizumab 300 mg only, at Weeks 0, 2, and 6. Patients from Cohorts 1 and 2 showing a clinical response to vedolizumab at Week 10 were randomized 1:1 to receive vedolizumab or placebo (double-blinded) at Week 14 and then every 8 weeks up to Week 54 as the maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was clinical response at Week 10, for the induction phase, and clinical remission at Week 60, for the maintenance phase. RESULTS:A total of 292 patients were enrolled into the induction phase (246 in Cohort 1, 46 in Cohort 2); 83 patients achieved response to vedolizumab and were subsequently enrolled into the maintenance phase. Clinical response rates at Week 10 were 39.6% (65/164) and 32.9% (27/82) in the vedolizumab and placebo groups in Cohort 1, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.37, 95% CI 0.779-2.399; p = 0.2722). In the maintenance phase, clinical remission rate at Week 60 was significantly higher in the vedolizumab group, at 56.1% (23/41), versus 31.0% (13/42) for placebo (AOR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.168-7.108; p = 0.0210). Most adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity, and no deaths occurred during the study period. CONCLUSIONS:Vedolizumab showed numerically greater efficacy compared with placebo as induction therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Vedolizumab was significantly superior to placebo as maintenance therapy in Japanese patients with UC. Vedolizumab has favourable safety and tolerability in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02039505.

Dataset Information

A double-blind, randomized comparative study to investigate the morphine to hydromorphone conversion ratio in Japanese cancer patients.

Publications

A double-blind, randomized comparative study to investigate the morphine to hydromorphone conversion ratio in Japanese cancer patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets