Explore the vast range of titles available.

This trial aimed to identify the effects of providing pharmacogenomic (PGx) results and recommendations for patients with chronic pain treated in primary care practices compared to standard care. An open‐label, prospective, largely virtual, type‐2 hybrid effectiveness trial randomized participants to PGx or standard care arms. Adults with pain ≥ 3 months who were treated with tramadol, codeine, or hydrocodone enrolled. Alternative analgesics were recommended for CYP2D6 intermediate or poor metabolizers (IM/PMs). Prescribing decisions were at providers' discretion. The trial randomized 253 participants. A modified intent‐to‐treat primary analysis assessed change in pain intensity over 3 months among IM/PMs (PGx: 49; Standard care: 57). The PGx and standard care arms showed no difference in pain intensity change (−0.10 ± 0.63 vs. −0.21 ± 0.75 standard deviation; p = 0.74) or PGx‐aligned care (69% vs. 63%; standardized difference [SD] = 0.13). In IM/PMs, secondary analyses of pain intensity change suggested improvements with PGx‐aligned (n = 70; −0.21 ± 0.70) vs. unaligned care (n = 36; −0.06 ± 0.69) (SD = −0.22), with this difference increasing when examining IM/PMs with an analgesic change (aligned: n = 31, −0.28 ± 0.76; unaligned: n = 36, −0.06 ± 0.69; SD = −0.31). This approach to PGx implementation for chronic pain was not associated with different prescribing (i.e., similar proportions of PGx‐aligned care) or clinical outcomes. Secondary analyses suggest that prescribing aligned with PGx recommendations showed a small improvement in pain intensity. However, the proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement (≥ 30%) in pain intensity was similar. Future efforts should identify effective implementation methods.

Abstract Objective Developing an acetaminophen-free, immediate-release hydrocodone product remains an unmet medical need; however, new opioid analgesics should not introduce new abuse risks. Benzhydrocodone is a prodrug of hydrocodone that must be metabolized into hydrocodone by enzymes in the intestinal tract to optimally deliver its pharmacologic effects. This study evaluated the intranasal pharmacokinetics and abuse potential of benzhydrocodone active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) compared with hydrocodone bitartrate (HB) API. Design Single-center, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Setting Clinical research site. Subjects Healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods Subjects (N = 51 Completers) were randomized to receive 13.34 mg of intranasal benzhydrocodone API and 15.0 mg of intranasal HB API (molar-equivalent doses of hydrocodone). Blood samples were taken, and Drug Liking scores (assessed on a bipolar visual analog scale) were obtained throughout each dosing interval. Nasal irritation and safety were assessed. Results Peak hydrocodone plasma concentration (Cmax) was 36.0% lower, and total hydrocodone exposures (AUClast and AUCinf) were 20.3% and 19.5% lower, respectively, for benzhydrocodone API compared with HB API (P < 0.0001). All partial AUC values were lower for benzhydrocodone API, with a ≥ 75% reduction in hydrocodone exposure at all time intervals up to one hour postdose (P < 0.0001). Median Tmax of hydrocodone following benzhydrocodone API was delayed by more than one hour compared with HB. Drug Liking score, as assessed by maximal liking (Emax), was significantly lower for benzhydrocodone API vs HB API (P = 0.004), with 45% of subjects showing a ≥ 30% reduction in Drug Liking Emax. Conclusion Reductions in hydrocodone exposure and associated decreases in Drug Liking relative to HB suggest that the prodrug benzhydrocodone may deter intranasal abuse.

Abstract Objective. To characterize emergency department (ED) patients' knowledge and beliefs about the addictive potential of opioids. Design. Mixed methods analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Setting. Urban academic ED (>88,000 visits). Subjects. One hundred and seventy four discharged ED patients prescribed hydrocodone-acetaminophen for acute pain. Methods. The study analyzed data collected from a randomized controlled trial investigating patients' knowledge of opioids. ED patients discharged with hydrocodone-acetaminophen completed an audio-recorded phone interview 4–7 days later. This analysis focuses on responses about addiction. Responses were categorized using content analysis; thematic analysis identified broad themes common across different categories. Results. Participants’ mean age was 45.5 years (SD, 14.8), 58.6% female, 50.6% white, and the majority had an orthopedic diagnosis (24.1% back pain, 52.3% other injuries). Responses were categorized first based on whether the patient believed that opioids could be addictive (categorized as: yes, 58.7%; no, 19.5%; depends, 17.2%; or do not know, 4.6%), and second based on whether or not the patient discussed his/her own experience with the medication (categorized as: personalized, 35.6%; or not personalized, 64.4%). Cohen's Kappa was 0.84 for all categories. Three themes emerged in the thematic analysis: theme 1) patients expect to “feel” addicted if they are addicted, theme 2) patients fear addiction, and theme 3) side effects affected patient views of addiction. Conclusion. In this sample, patients had misconceptions about opioid addiction. Some patients did not know opioids could be addictive, others underestimated their personal risk of addiction, and others overtly feared addiction and, therefore, risked inadequate pain management. Despite limited data, we recommend providers discuss opioid addiction with their patients.

Abstract Objectives Benzhydrocodone is a hydrocodone prodrug that has been combined with acetaminophen (APAP) in a novel immediate-release analgesic. This study evaluated the relative bioavailability, intranasal abuse potential, and safety of benzhydrocodone/APAP compared with commercially available hydrocodone bitartrate (HB)/APAP. Design Single-center, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-part study comprising a Dose Selection (Part A) phase and a Main Study (Part B) phase. Setting Clinical research site. Subjects Healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users with a history of intranasal abuse. Methods Subjects (N = 42) in Part B received five in-clinic treatments consisting of intranasal and oral benzhydrocodone/APAP (13.34/650 mg), intranasal and oral hydrocodone/APAP (15/650 mg), and placebo, with four or more days of washout between treatments. Pharmacodynamic assessments included subjective effects of Drug Liking, Overall Drug Liking, and Take Drug Again (assessed on visual analog scale [VAS]), as well as nasal irritation. Pharmacokinetics and safety were also assessed. Results Hydrocodone Cmax was 11% lower for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP vs intranasal HB/APAP (P = 0.0027). Early cumulative hydrocodone exposures for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP through 0.5, 1, and 2 hours were reduced by approximately 50%, 29%, and 15%, respectively (P ≤ 0.0024). Correspondingly, Drug Liking VAS values up to two hours postdose were significantly lower for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP vs intranasal HB/APAP (P ≤ 0.0079), although peak Drug Liking VAS (Emax) scores were not different (P = 0.2814). Adverse nasal effects were more frequent for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP vs intranasal HB/APAP. Conclusions Reduced hydrocodone exposure and drug liking at early time intervals, coupled with adverse nasal effects, can be expected to provide a level of deterrence to the intranasal route of abuse for benzhydrocodone/APAP.

Use/misuse of the opioid combination hydrocodone-acetaminophen has been associated with permanent hearing loss. Although reports have been rare, this potential effect can have significant detrimental effect on patients' overall quality of life. To date, the ototoxic effect of hydrocodone alone has not been systematically investigated. In this report, we aimed to evaluate the potential ototoxicity of a novel, single-entity, once-daily, extended-release hydrocodone tablet (Hysingla® ER; HYD). Clinical study. Audiology clinics in US. Results from 1207 patients in two phase 3 clinical studies were evaluated: A placebo-controlled study with an enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal design in patients with chronic low back pain, and an open-label, long-term, safety study in patients with chronic nonmalignant and non-neuropathic pain. Comprehensive audiologic assessments (comprising pure-tone air-conduction audiometry in the conventional [0.25-8 kHz] and ultra-high [10-16 kHz] frequencies, pure-tone bone-conduction audiometry, tympanometry, speech reception thresholds, and word recognition) were conducted at baseline and end-of-studies; air-conduction audiometry was conducted periodically during the studies. All audiologic assessments were performed in audiology clinics in the United States by licensed audiologists. The primary endpoint was changes from baseline in pure-tone air-conduction thresholds in the conventional frequencies during the studies. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers NCT01400139 and NCT01452529. During the studies, mean changes from baseline in air-conduction thresholds were clinically unremarkable. Bidirectional variability across all test frequencies was observed; 82% of patients did not experience significant threshold changes during the studies, 7% had potential hearing decrement, and 10% experienced hearing sensitivity improvement. No notable differences were observed between patients receiving HYD and placebo or between different HYD doses. No ototoxic signal was observed for single-entity hydrocodone tablets at the dosages and treatment durations investigated. Key words: Audiologic monitoring, clinical trials, hydrocodone, opioids, ototoxicity monitoring, sensorineural hearing loss.

Combination therapy has been widely used for the clinical management of acute pain. By combining 2 drugs with different mechanisms of action, such therapy provides additive analgesic effects while reducing the risk for adverse effects. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg with those of oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, and placebo in a dental pain model. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, single-dose study in patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after surgical removal of > or = 2 ipsilateral impacted third molars. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, or placebo. The primary outcome measures were total pain relief through 6 hours after dosing (TOTPAR6), sum of pain intensity differences through 6 hours (SPID6), and adverse events. Secondary efficacy measures included SPID3 and TOTPAR3, peak pain relief, peak pain intensity difference, time to onset of pain relief, time to use of rescue medication, proportion of patients reporting pain half gone, and the patient's global evaluation. Two hundred forty-nine patients (43.5% male; 87.5% white; mean age, 19.1 years; mean body weight, 153.6 pounds) were randomized to treatment as follows: 62 to oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, 61 to oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, 63 to hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, and 63 to placebo. Oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg provided significantly greater analgesia compared with oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, and placebo (mean [SD] TOTPAR6, 14.98 [5.37], 9.53 [6.77], 8.36 [6.68], and 5.05 [6.49], respectively; P < 0.001, oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg vs all other treatments). SPID6 values also differed significantly for oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with all other treatments (mean: 7.78 [4.11], 3.58 [4.64], 3.32 [4.73], and 0.69 [4.85]; P < 0.001). Oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly more effective compared with the other treatments on all secondary end points (P < 0.001, all variables except peak PID vs oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg [P = 0.006]), with the exception of the time to onset of analgesia. The lowest frequency of nausea and vomiting occurred in the groups that received oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg (6.5% and 3.2%, respectively) and placebo (3.2% and 1.6%). Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly lower with oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (P = 0.011 and P = 0.009, respectively) but not with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg. In this study in patients with moderate to severe pain after surgery to remove impacted third molars, oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg provided significantly better analgesia throughout the 6-hour study compared with the other opioid/nonopioid combinations tested, and was associated with fewer adverse events.

Analgesics are an essential component of the treatment of cancer-associated pain. Pharmacologic treatment is usually begun with nonopioid analgesics, most frequently acetaminophen. If pain relief is not achieved, the so-called “weak” opioids, such as codeine and hydrocodone, may be used in combination with acetaminophen. Adverse effects (AEs) of the opioids include constipation, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. Based on the results of a literature search, data comparing the effects of the opioids are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of codeine phosphate versus hydrocodone bitartrate in combination with acetaminophen in the relief of cancer-related pain. This 23-day, prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study was conducted at 3 Colombian centers: University Libre, Social Security Institute, and General Hospital of Medellín, Cali, Colombia. Outpatients with cancer were eligible for the study if they were aged >-18 years and had chronic (duration, ≥ 3 months) moderate to severe cancer-related pain (score on 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS], > 3 cm [moderate]; score on a 4-point verbal pain-intensity scale, > 1 [moderate]). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 tablet of codeine/acetaminophen (C/A) 30/500 mg or hydrocodone/acetaminophen (H/A) 5/500 mg PO q4h (total daily doses, 150/2500 and 25/2500 mg, respectively) for 23 days. In both groups, if pain intensity was rated as > 3 on the VAS at week 1 or 2, the dosage was doubled. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved pain relief (defined as a score of > 1 on a 5-point verbal rating scale [VRS] (0 = none; 1 = a little; 2 = some; 3 = a lot; and 4 = complete) on study days 1 and 2 and weeks 1, 2, and 3. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients in whom pain was decreased (VAS score, <- 3 cm). AEs were self-reported on a 4-point VRS (0 = absent; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; and 3 = severe). Of the 121 patients who participated, 59 received C/A and 62 received H/A. Of the total number of cases, 59% were aged 60 to 89 years, and 55% were men. At baseline, 88% of the patients described their pain intensity as moderate; 12%, severe. Of the patients who received C/A, 58% responded to the initial dosage of 150/2500 mg/d, and 8% of the patients responded to the double dosage; 34% did not experience pain relief. In patients with H/A, pain was reported as absent or mild in 56% of patients at the starting dosage of 25/2500 mg/d; an additional 15% of the patients responded to the double dosage; the remaining 29% of patients did not experience any pain relief. None of the between-group differences in response rates were significant. The most common AEs in the C/A and H/A groups were constipation (36% and 29%, respectively), dizziness (24% and 19%), vomiting (24% and 16%), and dry mouth (15% and 18%), with no significant differences between groups. In this study, efficacy and tolerability were comparable between C/A and H/A over 23 days of treatment in these patients with moderate or severe, chronic, cancer-related pain.

Background: Diclofenac potassium liquid-filled soft gelatin capsule (DPSGC) is a rapidly absorbed formulation of diclofenac potassium developed for the treatment of mild to moderate acute pain. Objective: The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety profile of DPSGC 25 mg in patients with pain after first-metatarsal bunionectomy. Methods: This was a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study conducted over 5 days. Patients experiencing the requisite level of pain (score ≥4 on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale [NPRS] from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain) on the day after bunionectomy were randomized to receive DPSGC 25 mg or matching placebo. A second dose was given when patients requested additional medication for pain. Subsequent doses were given every 6 hours over a 48-hour inpatient multiple-dose period and continued over an additional 48-hour outpatient multiple-dose period. Opioid rescue medication was available as needed after the second dose of study medication. The primary efficacy end point was the mean NPRS score over the 48-hour inpatient multiple-dose period. Additional measures included NPRS scores at predefined times over 48 hours, the summed pain intensity difference over 48 hours (SPID48), the time-weighted sum of pain relief scores over the first 8 hours, the mean dosing interval (the time from dosing to the time rescue medication or the next dose of study medication was administered, whichever was less), the proportion of patients requiring rescue medication, and the onset of perceptible and meaningful pain relief (2-stopwatch method). Tolerability was assessed based on physician monitoring and patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) and the results of standard laboratory tests. Results: Of 201 randomized patients (102 DPSGC 25 mg, 99 placebo; 86.6% female; 58.2% white; mean [SD] age, 45.2 [11.5] years; weight range, 49.4–108.0 kg), 198 completed the study. Mean baseline NPRS scores did not differ significantly between the DPSGC and placebo groups (6.9 and 7.3, respectively). DPSGC was associated with significant improvements compared with placebo in mean NPRS score over 48 hours (2.5 vs 5.6, respectively; P < 0.001), mean SPID48 (210.0 vs 90.3; P < 0.001), and overall mean dosing interval (331.5 vs 263.9 min; P < 0.001). Significant differences in NPRS scores between DPSGC 25 mg and placebo were noted at all time points from baseline through 48 hours (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring rescue medication was significantly lower in the DPSGC group compared with the placebo group (39.2% vs 87.9% on day 1; 21.6% vs 64.6% on day 2; both, P < 0.001). Patients receiving DPSGC had a significantly faster onset of meaningful pain relief compared with those receiving placebo (P = 0.008). The most commonly reported AEs were nausea (7.8% vs 18.2%), headache (5.9% vs 9.1%), vomiting (3.9% vs 9.1%), and constipation (3.9% vs 2.0%). The overall incidence of AEs occurring in ≥2% of patients was significantly lower in the DPSGC group than in the placebo group (20.6% vs 44.4%; P < 0.05); no patient receiving DPSGC had a serious AE. Conclusions: DPSGC 25 mg taken every 6 hours was effective in reducing postbunionectomy pain in the patients studied. DPSGC was well tolerated, suggesting that it may be a practicable option for the treatment of mild to moderate acute pain. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00366444

Background Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are frequently co-prescribed with opioids, increasing the risk of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. Hydrocodone, a commonly prescribed opioid metabolized by cytochrome (CYP) 2D6 and CYP3A4, may be affected by enzyme inhibition from certain SSRIs. However, it remains unclear whether all SSRIs pose equal overdose risk or if some may be safer options for patients requiring both medications. Thus, we aimed to evaluate comparative risks of opioid overdose among patients initiating SSRIs while on hydrocodone. Methods This population-based cohort study utilized US public and commercial health insurance claims data from 2004 to 2022 and included patients who initiated a SSRI (citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline) while receiving hydrocodone treatment. The outcome was hospitalization or emergency department visit due to opioid overdose. We balanced baseline covariates via propensity score matching weights. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model compared rates across the five SSRIs. Results Among 1,486,583 patients who initiated an SSRI while on hydrocodone, 403,488 (27.1%) initiated sertraline, 348,484 (23.4%) initiated citalopram, 311,375 (21.0%) initiated escitalopram, 258,957 (17.4%) initiated fluoxetine, and 164,279 (11.1%) initiated paroxetine. During a median on-treatment follow-up of 28 days, 1500 primary endpoints occurred. Weighted hazard ratios (HRs) for opioid overdose, using sertraline as the reference, were 1.21 (95% CI 1.02–1.42) for citalopram, 1.19 (1.00–1.41) for escitalopram, 1.29 (1.09–1.54) for fluoxetine, and 1.17 (0.95–1.43) for paroxetine. Using citalopram as the reference, HRs were 0.99 (0.83–1.17) for escitalopram, 1.07 (0.91–1.27) for fluoxetine, and 0.97 (0.79–1.18) for paroxetine. Relative to escitalopram, HRs were 1.09 (0.92–1.30) for fluoxetine and 0.98 (0.80–1.20) for paroxetine, and relative to fluoxetine, the HR was 0.90 (0.74–1.10) for paroxetine. Comparisons among SSRIs other than sertraline showed similar risks of overdose. Intention-to-treat analysis yielded similar findings, although the associations were attenuated. Conclusions In this cohort study, based on data from US healthcare claims databases, initiating citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, or paroxetine while on hydrocodone was associated with an increased risk of opioid overdose compared with sertraline. No substantial risk differences were observed across SSRIs other than sertraline.

Background: Improved clinical outcomes have been documented with combinations of oral analgesic agents, particularly those with complementary activities. However, because not all combinations or dose ratios lead to enhanced analgesia or reduced adverse events (AEs), each combination and dose ratio must be evaluated individually in carefully designed preclinical and clinical trials. Objective: The goal of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 37.5 mg tramadol/325 mg acetaminophen tablets (T/APAP), 10 mg hydrocodone bitartrate/ 650 mg acetaminophen tablets (HC/APAP), and placebo in the treatment of postoperative dental pain. Methods: This was a single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled study in adults with at least moderate pain (score ≥50 on a 100-mm pain visual analog scale) after extraction of ≥2 impacted third molars. Patients were randomized to receive 1 or 2 T/APAP tablets, 1 HC/APAP tablet, or placebo. Scores for hourly pain relief (PAR), pain intensity difference (PID), and combined PAR and PID (PRID) were based on reported pain at 30 minutes and each successive hour for 8 hours. Primary efficacy measures were summary pain intensity and pain relief scores (total pain relief [TOTPAR], sum of pain intensity differences [SPID], and sum of pain relief and pain intensity differences [SPRID]) for 0 to 4 hours, 4 to 8 hours, and 0 to 8 hours. Secondary efficacy measures were hourly PAR, PID, and PRID scores; onset and duration of pain relief; time to remedication with a supplemental analgesic agent; and patients' overall assessment of medication. Results: Two hundred adults took part in the study (50 per treatment group) and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. T/APAP 75/650 mg and HC/APAP were statistically superior to placebo on the primary efficacy measures of TOTPAR, SPID, and SPRID (P ≤ 0.024), as well as on hourly PAR, PID, and PRID over 6 hours (P ≤ 0.045). All active treatments were statistically superior to placebo in terms of onset of pain relief (P ≤ 0.001), duration of pain relief (P ≤ 0.024), time to remedication (P < 0.001), and patients' overall assessment of medication (P < 0.001). A statistically significant dose response with T/APAP (2 tablets > 1 tablet > placebo) was seen for TOTPAR, SPID, and SPRID (all, P ≤ 0.018). The median time to on-set of pain relief was ∼34.0 minutes with 2 T/APAP tablets and 25.4 minutes with HC/APAP. Although the median time to onset of pain relief was shorter with HC/APAP, two T/APAP tablets had comparable efficacy to HC/APAP. The median time to remedication with a supplemental analgesic agent was 169.0 minutes in the T/APAP 75/650 mg group and 204.0 minutes in the HC/APAP group. However, the duration of pain relief, as defined by time to remedication, was not significantly different between these 2 groups. The overall incidence of AEs was lower with T/APAP (0% treatment-related AEs) than with HC/APAP (4%) or placebo (10%). The incidence of nausea (18% T/APAP, 36% HC/APAP) and vomiting (12% T/APAP, 30% HC/APAP) was ∼50% lower with 2 T/APAP tablets than with HC/APAP (P < 0.05). Conclusions: T/APAP tablets provided effective, rapid (≤34 minutes), dose-dependent analgesia for the treatment of postoperative dental pain. Two T/APAP tablets provided analgesia comparable to that provided by HC/APAP with better tolerability.