Dataset Information

Oliceridine is Associated with Reduced Risk of Vomiting and Need for Rescue Antiemetics Compared to Morphine: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Use of parenteral opioids is a major risk factor for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conventional opioids bind to µ-opioid receptors (MOR), stimulate both the G-protein signaling (achieving analgesia); and the β-arrestin pathway (associated with opioid-related adverse effects). Oliceridine, a next-generation IV opioid, is a G-protein selective MOR agonist, with limited recruitment of β-arrestin. In two randomized, placebo- and morphine-controlled phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy or abdominoplasty, oliceridine at demand doses of 0.1, 0.35, and 0.5 mg provided rapid and sustained analgesia vs. placebo with favorable gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability. In this exploratory analysis, we utilized a clinical endpoint assessing gastrointestinal tolerability, "complete GI response" defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetic to characterize the GI tolerability profile of oliceridine vs. morphine.

Methods

A logistic regression model was utilized to compare oliceridine (pooled regimens) vs. morphine, after controlling for analgesia (using the sum of pain intensity difference [SPID]-48/24 [bunionectomy/abdominoplasty] with pre-rescue scores carried forward for 6 h). This analysis excluded patients receiving placebo and was performed for each study separately and for pooled data from both studies.

Results

In the unadjusted analysis, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the placebo (76.4%), oliceridine 0.1 mg (68.0%), and 0.35 mg (46.2%) demand dose achieved complete GI response vs. morphine 1 mg (30.8%), p ≤ 0.005. In the adjusted analysis, after controlling for analgesia, the odds ratio of experiencing a complete GI response with oliceridine (pooled regimens) vs. morphine was 3.14 (95% CI: 1.78, 5.56; p < 0.0001) in bunionectomy study and 1.92 (95% CI: 1.09, 3.36; p = 0.024) in abdominoplasty study.

Conclusions

When controlled for the analgesic effects (constant SPID-48/24), the odds ratio for complete GI response was higher with oliceridine than morphine, suggesting better GI tolerability with oliceridine.

SUBMITTER: Beard TL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8119517 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn the management of postoperative acute moderate-to-severe pain, opioids remain an important component. However, conventional opioids have a narrow therapeutic index and are associated with dose-limiting opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) that can result in worse patient outcomes. Oliceridine, a new intravenous µ-opioid receptor agonist, is shown in nonclinical studies to be biased for G protein signaling (achieving analgesia) with limited recruitment of β-arrestin (associated with ORAEs). In two phase 3 randomized controlled studies of patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain following hard or soft tissue surgery, in which analgesia was measured using Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID) from baseline over 48 and 24 h (SPID-48 and -24 respectively, oliceridine at demand doses of 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg was highly effective compared to placebo, with a favorable safety profile compared to morphine. This exploratory analysis was conducted to determine whether the safety benefits seen with oliceridine persisted when adjusted for equal levels of analgesia compared to morphine.MethodsPresence of at least one treatment-emergent ORAE (based on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities [MedDRA]-coded events: hypoxemia, nausea, vomiting, sedation, pruritus, or dizziness) was used as the composite safety endpoint. A logistic regression model was utilized to compare oliceridine (pooled regimens) versus morphine, after controlling for analgesia (using SPID-48 or SPID-24 with pre-rescue scores carried forward 6 h). This analysis excluded patients receiving placebo and was repeated for each study and for pooled data.ResultsAt a given level of SPID-48 or SPID-24, patients receiving oliceridine were less likely to experience the composite safety endpoint. Although not statistically significant at the 0.05 level in the soft tissue model, the odds ratio (OR) showed a consistent numerical trend for oliceridine, being approximately half that observed with morphine in both the hard (OR 0.499; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.255, 0.976; p = 0.042) and soft (OR 0.542; 95% CI 0.250, 1.175; p = 0.121) tissue studies. Results from the pooled data were consistent with those observed in the individual studies (OR 0.507; 95% CI 0.304, 0.844; p = 0.009).ConclusionFindings from this exploratory analysis suggest that at comparable levels of analgesia, patients receiving oliceridine were less likely to experience the composite safety endpoint consisting of ORAEs compared to patients treated with morphine. Oliceridine Exhibits Improved Tolerability Compared to Morphine at Equianalgesic Conditions: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials- A Video (MP4 99188 kb).

Project description:BackgroundOliceridine, an investigational IV opioid, is a first-in-class G-protein selective agonist at the μ-opioid receptor. The G-protein selectivity results in potent analgesia with less recruitment of β-arrestin, a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). In randomized controlled studies in both hard and soft tissue models yielding surgical pain, oliceridine provided effective analgesia with a potential for an improved safety and tolerability profile at equianalgesic doses to morphine. The phase 3, open-label, single-arm, multicenter ATHENA trial demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of oliceridine in moderate to severe acute pain in a broad range of patients undergoing surgery or with painful medical conditions warranting use of an IV opioid. This retrospective, observational chart review study compared respiratory depression events associated with oliceridine administration as found in the ATHENA trial to a control cohort treated with conventional opioids.MethodsPatients at 18 years of age or older, who underwent colorectal, orthopedic, cardiothoracic, bariatric, or general surgeries between June 2015 and May 2017 in 11 sites participating in the ATHENA trial who received postoperative analgesia either with IV oliceridine or with IV conventional opioids (e.g., morphine alone or in combination with other opioids) (CO cohort); and had a hospital stay >48 hours, were included in this retrospective analysis. Data from the ATHENA trial was used for the oliceridine cohort; and additional baseline characteristics were collected from medical charts. Data from medical charts were collected for all CO cohort patients. The two cohorts were balanced using an inverse probability weighting method. The primary outcome was the incidence of operationally defined opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) in the two cohorts. Secondary outcomes included between-group comparison of the incidence of OIRD events among a subset of high-risk patients.ResultsOIRD was significantly less in the oliceridine cohort compared to the CO cohort (8.0% vs. 30.7%; odds ratio: 0.139) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.22; P < 0.0001). Likewise, the incidence of OIRD was lower among high-risk patients in the oliceridine cohort (9.1% vs. 34.7%; odds ratio: 0.136) (95% CI [0.09-0.22]; P < 0.0001) compared to the CO cohort.ConclusionIn this retrospective chart review study, patients receiving IV oliceridine for moderate to severe acute pain demonstrated a lower incidence of treatment emergent OIRD compared to patients who were treated with IV morphine either alone or with concomitant administration of other opioids.

Project description:Study objectiveThis study's purpose was to determine if ondansetron can prevent pruritus after administration of intrathecal morphine in children, as has been demonstrated in adults.DesignA double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial.SettingOperating room and first 24 h postoperative inpatient stay at an academic children's hospital.PatientsForty-six children aged 3-17 years, who received 4-5 mcg/kg intrathecal morphine for urological or orthopedic procedures were included.InterventionsChildren were randomized to receive intravenous ondansetron (treatment) or saline placebo (placebo), prior to intrathecal morphine administration, and q6H for 24 h thereafter. Intraoperative anti-emetics and postoperative rescue treatments for pruritus and nausea were standardized.MeasurementsPatients were interviewed q6H for scored pruritus, nausea, and pain, using standardized scales.Main resultsThe trial was terminated for futility after interim analysis. Forty-six children were recruited and 45 completed data collection. No significant difference was found between both groups for incidence of pruritus (requiring treatment) [relative risk (RR) 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7, 1.2], during the first postoperative 24 h. Notably, the incidence of pruritus was 84% overall, much higher than rates in previously published studies. Intravenous ondansetron significantly reduced the incidence of nausea, compared with the placebo group [RR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3, 0.9].ConclusionsThis study found no evidence for intravenous ondansetron as an effective preventative for pruritus following intrathecal morphine in children. However, this RCT did find that the rate of pruritus following intrathecal morphine administration may be significantly higher than previously thought. Nausea and vomiting (a secondary outcome) were reduced significantly in the treatment group. The negative findings of this study reinforce the potential dangers of extrapolating the drug effects seen in adults onto pediatric patients.

Project description:BackgroundThis study compared palonosetron and ondansetron as rescue medications for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients who received prophylactic ondansetron. Although guidelines recommend use of an agent from a different class when prophylaxis has failed, palonosetron has unique properties relative to other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Prior trials assessing its use for rescue have had conflicting results. Although palonosetron has compared favorably with ondansetron for PONV prevention, the drugs have not been compared in the rescue setting of failure of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis.MethodsThis was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous palonosetron 0.075 mg and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg in patients experiencing PONV following laparoscopic abdominal or gynecological surgery despite prophylactic ondansetron.ResultsOf 239 patients screened, 220 were enrolled and 98 were treated for PONV: 48 and 50 in the palonosetron and ondansetron arms, respectively. Complete control during 72 hours after study drug administration was achieved in 25.0% of palonosetron recipients and 18.0% of ondansetron recipients (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.2, 23.3; p = 0.40). Corresponding incidences of vomiting were 29.2% for palonosetron and 48.0% for ondansetron (95% CI, -0.06, 37.7; p = 0.057), and 62.5% and 56.0% required additional rescue treatment, respectively (95% CI, -25.9, 12.9; p = 0.52). Other than a similar incidence of procedural pain in the 2 groups, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, which were generally mild, were headache (14.6% vs 12.0%), constipation (8.3% vs 10.0%), and dizziness (6.3% vs 8.0%), for the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively.ConclusionsPalonosetron and ondansetron did not show differences in the primary efficacy endpoint of CC during the 72 hours after study drug administration. There was a trend toward less emesis in the 0-72 h time period favoring palonosetron. While larger studies are needed to fully assess any clinical benefits of palonosetron to rescue patients who have failed ondansetron prophylaxis for PONV, the benefit, if any, would be limited based on this study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967499 (Registered August 27, 2009).