Direct conversion from tramadol to tapentadol prolonged release for moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour‐related pain. (7th April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kress, H.G.; Koch, E.D.; Kosturski, H.; Steup, A.; Karcher, K.; Dogan, C.; Etropolski, M.; Eerdekens, M.
• Is Part Of: European journal of pain. Volume 20:Number 9(2016)
• Page Start: 1513
• Page End: 1518
• Publication Date: 2016-04-07
• Subjects: Pain -- Periodicals; Pain -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Pain -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; 616.0472
• DOI: 10.1002/ejp.875
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1090-3801

Abstract

Abstract: Background: A recent randomized‐withdrawal, active‐ and placebo‐controlled, double‐blind phase 3 study showed that tapentadol prolonged release (PR) was effective and well tolerated for managing moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour‐related pain in patients who were opioid naive or dissatisfied with current treatment ( Pain Physician, 2014, 17, 329–343). This post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol PR in patients who previously received and were dissatisfied with tramadol for any reason and who had a pain intensity ≥5 (11‐point numerical rating scale) before converting directly to tapentadol PR. Methods: In the original study, eligible patients had been randomized (2:1) and titrated to their optimal dose of tapentadol PR (100–250 mg bid) or morphine sulphate‐controlled release (40–100 mg bid) over 2 weeks. The present report focuses on results during the titration period for a subgroup of patients randomized to tapentadol PR after having been on tramadol treatment prior to randomization in the study ( n = 129). Results for this subgroup are compared with results for all 338 patients who received tapentadol PR during titration (overall tapentadol PR group). Results: Responder rates (responders: completed titration, mean pain intensity <5 [0–10 scale] and ≤20 mg/day rescue medication during last 3 days) were slightly better for the tramadol/tapentadol PR subgroup (69.8% [90/129]) vs. the overall tapentadol PR group (63.9% [214/335]). Tolerability profiles were comparable for both groups. Conclusions: Results of this subgroup analysis indicate that patients with cancer pain could safely switch from prior treatment with the weak centrally acting analgesic tramadol directly to the strong centrally acting analgesic tapentadol PR, for an improved analgesic therapy for severe pain. What does this study add?: Results of this post hoc analysis show that patients who had received prior tramadol therapy could switch directly to tapentadol PR, with the majority (˜70%) experiencing improved efficacy.