Evaluation of Effectiveness and Tolerability of Tapentadol Hydrochloride in Subjects With Severe Chronic Low Back Pain Taking WHO Step III Analgesics But Showing a Lack of Tolerability

December 20, 2018 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 Nociceptive, Mixed or Neuropathic Low Back Pain 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 in subjects suffering from severe chronic low back pain (LBP) 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 prolonged release treatment during defined periods of evaluation.

Study Overview

Status

Terminated

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

136

Phase

  • 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

  • Belgium
      • Brugge, Belgium
        • BE004
      • Charleroi, Belgium
        • BE003
      • Edegem, Belgium
        • BE002
      • Liège, Belgium
        • BE001
  • Czechia
      • Brno, Czechia
        • CZ001
  • France
      • Thionville, France
        • FR004
      • Toulouse, France
        • FR001
  • Germany
      • Albstadt, Germany
        • DE005
      • Berlin, Germany
        • DE001
      • Berlin, Germany
        • DE003
      • Kiel, Germany
        • DE006
      • Leipzig, Germany
        • DE004
      • Leipzig, Germany
        • DE008
      • Stuttgart, Germany
        • DE007
  • Netherlands
      • Alkmaar, Netherlands
        • NL002
      • Doetinchem, Netherlands
        • NL004
      • Eindhoven, Netherlands
        • NL003
      • Tiel, Netherlands
        • NL001
  • Poland
      • Krakow, Poland
        • PL002
      • Poznan, Poland
        • PL001
  • Spain
      • Cadiz, Spain
        • ES006
      • Granada, Spain
        • ES001
      • Malaga, Spain
        • ES003
      • Sevilla, Spain
        • ES004
      • Valencia, Spain
        • ES005
  • Switzerland
      • Basel, Switzerland
        • CH001
      • St. Gallen, Switzerland
        • CH002

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

Ages Eligible for Study

18 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 18 years of age.
  • Participants must have a diagnosis of chronic low back pain; chronic pain defined as pain lasting for at least 3 months
  • If the Participant has radicular pain, this must have been present for at least 3 months and stable for the 4 weeks before enrollment.
  • Participant's pain must require a strong analgesic (defined as WHO Step III) as judged by the Investigator.
  • Participants must be taking a WHO Step III analgesic on a daily basis for at least 3 months prior to the Screening Visit.
  • Participants must have responded to the WHO Step III analgesic, i.e., participants must have a confirmed average pain intensity score (NRS 3) of ≤5 points during the last 3 days prior to the Screening Visit.
  • Participants must report opioid-related side effects as the reason to change their analgesic.
  • Participants 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 of 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:
  • Subjects with acute or severe bronchial asthma or hypercapnia.
  • Subjects 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).
  • Presence of concomitant painful condition other than low back pain that could confound the subject's trial assessments or self evaluation of pain, e.g., anatomical deformities, significant skin conditions such as abscess or syndromes with widespread pain such as fibromyalgia.
  • Any painful procedures during the trial (e.g., major surgery) 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: NA
  • Interventional Model: SINGLE_GROUP
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Tapentadol Prolonged Release

Other Names:

  • Nucynta
  • Palexia
Drug: Tapentadol Prolonged Release

Participants started with 50 mg, 100 mg or 150 mg tapentadol prolonged release (PR) twice daily. Opioid rotation to tapentadol was scheduled as follows:

  • if less than 100 mg morphine equivalent start with 50 mg tapentadol PR;
  • if on 101 to 160 mg morphine equivalent daily dose start with 100 mg tapentadol PR;
  • if above 161 mg morphine equivalent daily dose start with 150 mg tapentadol PR.

Tapentadol doses were adjusted to a level that provided adequate analgesia (upwards or downwards on a weekly basis). After 5 weeks, the doses of tapentadol PR were kept stable (start of Maintenance phase). The tapentadol PR formulation was administered for up to 12 weeks. Tapentadol immediate release 50 mg (no more than twice daily; at least 4 hours apart) was considered as medication for acute pain episodes however, participants were not permitted to dose tapentadol immediate release any more when a daily dose of 500 mg tapentadol PR was reached.

Other Names:
  • - Nucynta
  • - Palexia

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Participants That Responded to Treatment
Time Frame: 6 weeks
Participants were considered responders if they reported the same or less average pain intensity over a 3 day period (NRS-3) after 6 weeks of tapentadol prolonged release treatment compared to their previous analgesic treatment (over a 3 day period on the Numeric Rating Scale) at Week 6 compared with Week-1.
6 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
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 Prolonged Release Treatment.
Time Frame: Baseline; End of 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; End of Week 6 (6 weeks)
Change in Average Pain Intensity After 12 Weeks of Tapentadol Prolonged Release Treatment.
Time Frame: Baseline; End of 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; End of Week 12 (12 weeks)
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)
Change in the Health Survey Scores Form (SF-36)
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
The Scores Form 36 (SF-36) includes several brief questions on 8 aspects, (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health) that a participant was asked to score over the last week. A higher score indicates an improvement in health. All domains are scored on a scale from 0 (negative health) to 100 (positive health), with 100 representing the best possible health state. A positive mean value indicates an improvement from baseline.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Change in the Health Survey Scores Form (SF-36)
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 12 (12 Weeks)
The Scores Form 36 (SF-36) includes several brief questions on 8 aspects, (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health) that a participant was asked to score over the last week. A higher score indicates an improvement in health. All domains are scored on a scale from 0 (negative health) to 100 (positive health), with 100 representing the best possible health state. A positive mean value indicates an improvement from baseline.
Baseline; End of Week 12 (12 Weeks)
Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) Sub-scores and Overall Score
Time Frame: Baseline

All participants were requested to complete the NPSI (Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory) questionnaire at this visit. Each participant rated their own neuropathic pain symptoms by answering ten questions relating to neuropathic symptoms on an 11-point scale 0 (not present) to 10 (worst imaginable) for each question. The higher the score for a question (sub-scale) the more bothersome the symptom is for the participant.

Results are reported as the mean for each neuropathic symptom in the sub-scale. The mean score is reported on a scale of 0 (not present in the group) to 1 (symptom has the maximum imaginable intensity for the whole group).
Baseline
Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) Sub-scores and Overall Score
Time Frame: End of Week 6

All participants were requested to complete the NPSI (Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory) questionnaire at this visit. Each participant rated their own neuropathic pain symptoms by answering ten questions relating to neuropathic symptoms on an 11-point scale 0 (not present) to 10 (worst imaginable) for each question. The higher the score for a question (sub-scale) the more bothersome the symptom is for the participant.

Results are reported as the mean for each neuropathic symptom in a sub-scale. The mean score is reported on a scale of 0 (not present in the group) to 1 (symptom has the maximum imaginable intensity for the whole group).
End of Week 6
Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) Sub-scores and Overall Score
Time Frame: End of Week 12

All participants were requested to complete the NPSI (Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory) questionnaire at this visit. Each participant rated their own neuropathic pain symptoms by answering ten questions relating to neuropathic symptoms on an 11-point scale 0 (not present) to 10 (worst imaginable) for each question. The higher the score for a question (sub-scale) the more bothersome the symptom is for the participant.

Results are reported as the mean (average) for each neuropathic symptom in a sub-scale.

The mean score is reported on a scale of 0 (not present in the group) to 1 (symptom has the maximum imaginable intensity for the whole group).
End of Week 12
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)
Mean Equipotency Ratio of Tapentadol Compared to Buprenorphine
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Tapentadol was compared to 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 Buprenorphine was reached was documented as the equipotent or equianalgesic dose to the total daily dose of the previously used Buprenorphine.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Mean Equipotency Ratio of Tapentadol Compared to Fentanyl
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Tapentadol was compared to Transdermal Fentanyl with Fentanyl 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 Fentanyl was reached was documented as the equipotent or equianalgesic dose to the total daily dose of the previously used Fentanyl.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Mean Equipotency Ratio of Tapentadol Compared to Morphine
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Tapentadol was compared to Morphine with Morphine 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 Morphine was reached was documented as the equipotent or equianalgesic dose to the total daily dose of the previously used Morphine.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Mean Equipotency Ratio of Tapentadol Compared to Hydromorphone
Time Frame: Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
Tapentadol was compared to Hydromorphone with Hydromorphone 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 Hydromorphone was reached was documented as the equipotent or equianalgesic dose to the total daily dose of the previously used Hydromorphone.
Baseline; End of Week 6 (6 Weeks)
painDETECT Assessment at Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline
The painDETECT questionnaire was used to determine the possibility of the presence of a neuropathic pain component. It is a participant completed questionnaire. A total score is calculated. Participants with a score between 0 and 12 are scored as being "negative" (no neuropathic pain component). Value between 19 and 38 as being "positive" (presence of neuropathic component)". Values from 13 to 18 are scored as being "unclear".
Baseline
painDETECT Assessment for Participants After 6 Weeks of Tapentadol Prolonged Release Treatment
Time Frame: End of Week 6

The baseline painDETECT score was reassessed at the end of Week 6.

It is a participant completed questionnaire. A total score is calculated. Participants with a score between 0 and 12 are scored as being "negative" (no neuropathic pain component). Value between 19 and 38 as being "positive" (presence of neuropathic component)". Values from 13 to 18 are scored as being "unclear".
End of Week 6
painDETECT Assessment for Participants After 12 Weeks of Tapentadol Prolonged Release Treatment
Time Frame: End of Week 12

The baseline painDETECT score was reassessed at the end of Week 12.

It is a participant completed questionnaire. A total score is calculated. Participants with a score between 0 and 12 are scored as being "negative" (no neuropathic pain component). Value between 19 and 38 as being "positive" (presence of neuropathic component)". Values from 13 to 18 are scored as being "unclear".
End of Week 12

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

Grünenthal GmbH

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Michael Schäfer, Prof. MD, Charité University Berlin, Campus Virchow Klinikum

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

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 (ACTUAL)

October 30, 2009

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

December 1, 2010

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

January 1, 2011

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 28, 2009

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 28, 2009

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

September 29, 2009

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

January 9, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 20, 2018

Last Verified

December 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 835093
  • 2009-010428-25 (EUDRACT_NUMBER)
  • KF5503/45 (OTHER: Sponsor)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Information available on the Grünenthal Web Site.

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • CSR

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

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.

Subscribe