Evaluation of Effectiveness and Tolerability of Tapentadol Hydrochloride in Subjects With Severe Pain Due to Osteoarthritis Taking WHO Step III Analgesics But Showing a Lack of Tolerability.

October 7, 2019 updated by: Grünenthal GmbH

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Tapentadol Hydrochloride Prolonged Release, and Tapentadol Hydrochloride Immediate Release on Demand, in Subjects With Severe Chronic Pain Due to Osteoarthritis of the Knee Taking WHO Step III Analgesics But Showing a Lack of Tolerability.

The main objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of tapentadol hydrochloride prolonged release (PR) in participants suffering from severe chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee who are taking WHO Step III analgesics and show lack of tolerability. This is a clinical effectiveness trial designed to establish a link between anticipated clinical outcomes and the clinical practice by means of selected measures of clinical and subject-reported outcome. The trial will compare the effectiveness of previous analgesic treatment (WHO Step III) with that of tapentadol hydrochloride PR treatment during defined periods of evaluation.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Terminated

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The trial will last up to 13 weeks for each subject and includes:

  • One week of observation under previous analgesic treatment.
  • Twelve weeks of treatment with tapentadol hydrochloride PR.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
82

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Australia
      • Melbourne, Australia
        • Site 4
      • Perth, Australia
        • Site 2
  • Denmark
      • Aalborg, Denmark
        • Site 4
      • Hvidovre, Denmark
        • Site 7
      • Kolding, Denmark
        • Site 6
      • Odense, Denmark
        • Site 2
      • Vejle, Denmark
        • Site 3
  • Germany
      • Berlin, Germany
        • Site 1
      • Katzhütte, Germany
        • Site 7
      • Leer, Germany
        • Site 2
      • Leipzig, Germany
        • Site 8
      • Zerbst, Germany
        • Site 9
  • Poland
      • Lublin, Poland
        • Site 4
      • Ostrow Mazowiecka, Poland
        • Site 5
      • Tychy, Poland
        • Site 2
  • Spain
      • Madrid, Spain
        • Site 4
      • Valencia, Spain
        • Site 1
  • United Kingdom
      • Birmingham, United Kingdom
        • Site 3
      • Carmarthen, United Kingdom
        • Site 6
      • Leeds, United Kingdom
        • Site 1
      • London, United Kingdom
        • Site 2
      • Middlesborough, United Kingdom
        • Site 8
      • Oxford, United Kingdom
        • Site 9
      • York, United Kingdom
        • Site 10

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

40 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Participants must have signed an Informed Consent Form indicating that they understand the purpose of and procedures required for the trial and are willing to participate in it.
  • Participants are men or non-pregnant, non-lactating women. Sexually active women must be postmenopausal, surgically sterile, or practicing an effective method of birth control (e.g., prescription oral contraceptives, contraceptive injections, intrauterine device, double barrier method, contraceptive patch, male partner sterilization) before entry and throughout the trial. Women of childbearing potential must have a negative pregnancy test at screening.
  • Participants must be appropriately communicative to verbalize and to differentiate with regard to location and intensity of the pain.
  • Participants must be at least 40 years of age.

  • Participants must have a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Classification criteria:

    • Knee pain and
    • Radiographic osteophytes or
    • Knee pain and aged 40 years or above and
    • Morning stiffness of less than 30 minutes of duration and
    • Crepitus on motion.
  • Participants must have pain at the reference joint which has been present for at least 3 months.
  • Participant's pain must require a strong analgesic (defined as WHO Step III) as judged by the Investigator
  • Participant must be taking a WHO Step III analgesic on a daily basis for at least 2 weeks prior to the Screening Visit.
  • Participant must have responded to the WHO Step III analgesic, i.e., participant must have a confirmed average pain intensity score (NRS 3) of smaller or equal to 5 points during the last 3 days prior to the Screening Visit.
  • Participant must report opioid-related side effects as the reason to change their analgesic
  • Participant must report a rate of satisfaction with their previous analgesic regimen not exceeding "fair" on a subject satisfaction with treatment scale (5-point VRS).

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Presence of a clinically significant disease or laboratory findings that in the Investigator's opinion may affect efficacy or safety assessments.
  • Presence of active systemic or local infection that may, in the opinion of the Investigator, affect the efficacy, quality of life/function or safety assessments.
  • History of alcohol or drug abuse, or suspicion thereof in Investigator's judgement.
  • Presence of concomitant autoimmune inflammatory conditions.
  • Known history of or laboratory values reflecting severe renal impairment.
  • Known history of moderately or severely impaired hepatic function.
  • History of or active hepatitis B or C within the past 3 months or history of HIV infection.
  • History of seizure disorder or epilepsy.
  • Any of the following within 1 year: mild/moderate traumatic brain injury, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or brain neoplasm. Severe traumatic brain injury within 15 years (consisting of 1 or more of the following: brain contusion, intracranial hematoma, either unconsciousness or post traumatic amnesia lasting more than 24 h) or residual sequelae suggesting transient changes in consciousness.
  • Pregnant or breast-feeding.
  • History of allergy to, or hypersensitivity to tapentadol hydrochloride or its excipients, or contraindications related to tapentadol hydrochloride including:
  • participants with acute or severe bronchial asthma or hypercapnia.
  • participants who have or are suspected of having paralytic ileus.
  • Employees of the Investigator or trial site, with direct involvement in this trial or other trials under the direction of the Investigator or trial site, as well as family members of employees of the Investigator.
  • Participation in another trial concurrently or within 4 weeks prior to the Screening Visit.
  • Known to or suspected of not being able to comply with the protocol and the use of the investigational medicinal product.
  • Use of monoamine oxidase inhibitors within 14 days before the Screening Visit.
  • Non-stable dosing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors within 30 days before the Screening Visit (the doses must remain stable during the trial).
  • Osteoarthritis in a flare state.
  • Use of intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid in the reference joint within 3 months before the Screening Visit.
  • Presence of conditions other than OA of the reference joint that could confound the assessment or self-evaluation of pain, e.g., anatomical deformities, significant skin conditions such as abscess or syndromes with widespread pain such as fibromyalgia. Subjects with OA at joints other than the reference joint will not be excluded as long as the reference joint is the source of main pain and disability.
  • History and clinical signs at the reference joint of crystal-induced (e.g., gout, pseudo-gout), metabolic, infectious and autoimmune disease.
  • Any painful procedures during the trial (e.g., major surgery including the reference joint) that may, in the opinion of the Investigator, affect the efficacy or safety assessments.
  • Pending litigation due to chronic pain or disability.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Tapentadol
Tapentadol PR was given orally twice a day. A maximum of 2 oral Tapentadol IR tablets per day, with a minimum of a 4 hour interval between doses, were taken if there were acute pain episodes. The total daily dose of Tapentadol PR and IR were not permitted to exceed 500 mg per day.
Drug: Tapentadol PR

Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Titration and Optimal Dose Period: Starting at 50 mg, 100 mg or 150 mg Tapentadol PR twice daily, adjusting at 50 mg PR steps (upwards or downwards) as necessary to achieve a balance between pain relief and a satisfactory level of tolerability. Participants were not permitted to exceed 500 mg of Tapentadol per day.

Maintenance Period: Participants continuing on the dose established in the previous period.

Other Names:
  • Palexia
  • Nucynta

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Responder Rate
Time Frame: 6 weeks
Participants were considered responders if they reported the same or less average pain intensity over a 3 day period after 6 weeks of tapentadol PR treatment as with their previous analgesic treatment.
6 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient Global Impression of Change
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
In the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) the participant indicates the perceived change over the treatment period. The participant is requested to choose one of seven categories. Scores range from very much improved to very much worse.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Patient Global Impression of Change
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 12 (12 Weeks)
In the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) the participant indicates the perceived change over the treatment period. The participant is requested to choose one of seven categories. Scores range from very much improved to very much worse.
Baseline; End of Week 12 (12 Weeks)
Mean Equipotency Ratio of Tapentadol Compared to Oxycodone
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Tapentadol was compared to Oxycodone with Oxycodone set to 1. The average total daily dose of Tapentadol at which a pain score equivalent or below to the pain score at the end of observation period under Oxycodone was reached was documented as the equipotent or equianalgesic dose to the total daily dose of the previously used Oxycodone.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Average Pain Intensity Before the Start of Tapentadol Treatment
Time Frame: Baseline
For this pain assessment, the participant was to indicate the level of average pain experienced over the previous 3 days on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale(NRS) where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine".
Baseline
Change in Average Pain Intensity After 6 Weeks of Tapentadol PR Treatment.
Time Frame: Baseline; Week 6 (6 weeks)
For this pain assessment, the participant was to indicate the level of average pain experienced over the previous 3 days on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale(NRS) where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". The value indicates the change from the baseline value on the 0 to 10 scale. A Negative value indicates a reduction in pain intensity from the baseline average pain intensity.
Baseline; Week 6 (6 weeks)
Change in Average Pain Intensity After 12 Weeks of Tapentadol PR Treatment.
Time Frame: Baseline; Week 12 (12 weeks)
For this pain assessment, the participant was to indicate the level of average pain experienced over the previous 3 days on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale(NRS) where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". The value indicates the change from the baseline value on the 0 to 10 scale. A Negative value indicates a reduction in pain intensity from the baseline average pain intensity.
Baseline; Week 12 (12 weeks)
Baseline Western Ontario McMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) Global Score Assessing Pain, Disability and Joint Stiffness of the Knee
Time Frame: Baseline
Western Ontario McMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) Global Score: WOMAC is measured with a Likert ordinal scale (the participant gives one of 5 possible answers) A higher score indicate that a symptom is bothersome or disabling. The WOMAC is a self-administered questionnaire and has 24 questions: Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function. The possible scores range from 0-20 for pain, 0-8 for stiffness, 0-68 for physical function and these are then summed 0-96 for the global score. A lower score indicates a lower level of symptoms and or disability.
Baseline
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario McMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) Global Score Assessing Pain, Disability and Joint Stiffness of the Knee Over the Last Week at Week 6
Time Frame: 6 weeks
The WOMAC is a self-administered questionnaire and has 24 questions: Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function. The possible scores range from 0-20 for pain, 0-8 for stiffness, 0-68 for physical function and these are then summed 0-96 for the global score. The negative value indicates that there has been an improvement since baseline, the higher the value the greater the change since baseline.
6 weeks
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario McMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) Global Score Assessing Pain, Disability and Joint Stiffness of the Knee Over the Last Week at Week 12
Time Frame: 12 weeks
The WOMAC is a self-administered questionnaire and has 24 questions: Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function. The possible scores range from 0-20 for pain, 0-8 for stiffness, 0-68 for physical function and these are then summed 0-96 for the global score. The negative value indicates that there has been an improvement since baseline, the higher the value the greater the change since baseline.
12 weeks
EuroQol-5 (EQ-5D) Health Status Index Outcome Over Time
Time Frame: 6 weeks
The participant scored the EuroQol-5. This is a five dimensional health state classification. Each dimension is assessed on a 3-point ordinal scale (1=no problems, 2=some problems, 3=extreme problems). The responses to the five EQ-5D dimensions were scored using a utility-weighted algorithm to derive an EQ-5D health status index score between 0 to 1, with 1.00 indicating "full health" and 0 representing dead. The positive values indicate that during the study the health status improved.
6 weeks
EuroQol-5 (EQ-5D) Health Status Index Outcome Over Time
Time Frame: 12 weeks
The participant scored the EuroQol-5. This is a five dimensional health state classification. Each dimension is assessed on a 3-point ordinal scale (1=no problems, 2=some problems, 3=extreme problems). The responses to the five EQ-5D dimensions were scored using a utility-weighted algorithm to derive an EQ-5D health status index score between 0 to 1, with 1.00 indicating "full health" and 0 representing dead. The positive values indicate that during the study the health status improved.
12 weeks
Change in Health Related Quality of Life: EuroQol-5D Health State Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Time Frame: 6 Weeks
EuroQoL-5D Health State Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single index value. The VAS component rates current health state on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health state. The values indicated represent the change from the baseline, a positive value indicates an improvement.
6 Weeks
Change in Health Related Quality of Life: EuroQol-5D Health State Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Time Frame: 12 Weeks
EuroQoL-5D Health State Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single index value. The VAS component rates current health state on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health state. The values indicated represent the change from the baseline, a positive value indicates an improvement.
12 Weeks
Clinical Global Impression of Change
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
In the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) the clinician indicates the perceived change over the treatment period. The clinician is requested to choose one of seven categories. Scores range from very much improved to very much worse.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Clinical Global Impression of Change
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 12 (12 Weeks)
In the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) the clinician indicates the perceived change over the treatment period. The clinician is requested to choose one of seven categories. Scores range from very much improved to very much worse.
Baseline; End of Week 12 (12 Weeks)
Participant's Satisfaction With Previous Analgesic Treatment.
Time Frame: Baseline
Participants were requested to rate their previous analgesic medication on a 5-point scale. Previous medication was rated as excellent, very good, good, fair and poor.
Baseline
Participant's Satisfaction With New Analgesic Treatment, i.e Tapentadol.
Time Frame: After 6 weeks
Participants were requested to rate their tapentadol (new) analgesic medication on a 5-point scale. The medication was rated as excellent, very good, good, fair and poor.
After 6 weeks
Participant's Satisfaction With New Analgesic Treatment, i.e Tapentadol.
Time Frame: After 12 weeks
Participants were requested to rate their tapentadol (new) analgesic medication on a 5-point scale. The medication was rated as excellent, very good, good, fair and poor.
After 12 weeks
Mean Equipotency Ratio of Tapentadol Compared to Buprenorphine
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Tapentadol was compared to Transdermal Buprenorphine with Buprenorphine set to 1. The average total daily dose of Tapentadol at which a pain score equivalent or below to the pain score at the end of observation period under Transdermal Buprenorphine was reached was documented as the equipotent or equianalgesic dose to the total daily dose of the previously used Transdermal Buprenorphine.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Grünenthal GmbH

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Barbara Hoggart, Dr. MD, FRCA, FRCAPM Heart of England NHS Trust

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
September 1, 2009

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
May 1, 2010

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
August 1, 2010

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
September 22, 2009

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 22, 2009

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 23, 2009

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
October 18, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 7, 2019

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
October 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 847022
  • 2009-010425-39 (EudraCT Number)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings