26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      APOLLO‐2: A Randomized, Placebo and Active‐Controlled Phase III Study Investigating Oliceridine (TRV130), a G Protein–Biased Ligand at the μ‐Opioid Receptor, for Management of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain Following Abdominoplasty

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The clinical utility of conventional IV opioids is limited by the occurrence of opioid‐related adverse events. Oliceridine is a novel G protein–biased μ‐opioid receptor agonist designed to provide analgesia with an improved safety and tolerability profile. This phase III, double‐blind, randomized trial ( APOLLO‐2 [ NCT02820324]) evaluated the efficacy and safety of oliceridine for acute pain following abdominoplasty.

          Methods

          Patients received a loading dose of either placebo, oliceridine (1.5 mg), or morphine (4 mg), followed by demand doses via patient‐controlled analgesia (0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg oliceridine; 1 mg morphine; or placebo) with a 6‐minute lockout interval. The primary endpoint was the proportion of treatment responders over 24 hours for oliceridine regimens compared to placebo. Secondary outcomes included a predefined composite measure of respiratory safety burden ( RSB, representing the cumulative duration of respiratory safety events) and the proportion of treatment responders vs. morphine.

          Results

          A total of 401 patients were treated with study medication. Effective analgesia was observed for all oliceridine regimens, with responder rates of 61.0%, 76.3%, and 70.0% for the 0.1‐, 0.35‐, and 0.5‐mg regimens, respectively, compared with 45.7% for placebo (all <  0.05) and 78.3% for morphine. Oliceridine 0.35‐ and 0.5‐mg demand dose regimens were equi‐analgesic to morphine using a noninferiority analysis. RSB showed a dose‐dependent increase across oliceridine regimens (mean hours [ standard deviation], 0.1 mg: 0.43 [1.56]; 0.35 mg: 1.48 [3.83]; 0.5 mg: 1.59 [4.26]; all comparisons not significant at >  0.05 vs. placebo: 0.60 [2.82]). The RSB measure for morphine was 1.72 (3.86) ( <  0.05 vs. placebo). Gastrointestinal adverse events increased in a dose‐dependent manner across oliceridine demand dose regimens (0.1 mg: 49.4%; 0.35 mg: 65.8%; 0.5 mg: 78.8%; vs. placebo: 47.0%; and morphine: 79.3%). In comparison to morphine, the proportion of patients experiencing nausea or vomiting was lower with the 2 equi‐analgesic dose regimens of 0.35 and 0.5 mg oliceridine.

          Conclusions

          Oliceridine is a safe and effective IV analgesic for the relief of moderate to severe acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing abdominoplasty. Since the low‐dose regimen of 0.1 mg oliceridine was superior to placebo but not as effective as the morphine regimen, safety comparisons to morphine are relevant only to the 2 equi‐analgesic dose groups of 0.35 and 0.5 mg, which showed a favorable safety and tolerability profile regarding respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse effects compared to morphine. These findings support that oliceridine may provide a new treatment option for patients with moderate to severe acute pain where an IV opioid is warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers.

            Recently, two centers have independently developed a risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study investigated (1) whether risk scores are valid across centers and (2) whether risk scores based on logistic regression coefficients can be simplified without loss of discriminating power. Adult patients from two centers (Oulu, Finland: n = 520, and Wuerzburg, Germany: n = 2202) received inhalational anesthesia (without antiemetic prophylaxis) for various types of surgery. PONV was defined as nausea or vomiting within 24 h of surgery. Risk scores to estimate the probability of PONV were obtained by fitting logistic regression models. Simplified risk scores were constructed based on the number of risk factors that were found significant in the logistic regression analyses. Original and simplified scores were cross-validated. A combined data set was created to estimate a potential center effect and to construct a final risk score. The discriminating power of each score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Risk scores derived from one center were able to predict PONV from the other center (area under the curve = 0.65-0.75). Simplification did not essentially weaken the discriminating power (area under the curve = 0.63-0.73). No center effect could be detected in a combined data set (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.59). The final score consisted of four predictors: female gender, history of motion sickness (MS) or PONV, nonsmoking, and the use of postoperative opioids. If none, one, two, three, or four of these risk factors were present, the incidences of PONV were 10%, 21%, 39%, 61% and 79%. The risk scores derived from one center proved valid in the other and could be simplified without significant loss of discriminating power. Therefore, it appears that this risk score has broad applicability in predicting PONV in adult patients undergoing inhalational anesthesia for various types of surgery. For patients with at least two out of these four identified predictors a prophylactic antiemetic strategy should be considered.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Molecular mechanisms of opioid receptor-dependent signaling and behavior.

              Opioid receptors have been targeted for the treatment of pain and related disorders for thousands of years and remain the most widely used analgesics in the clinic. Mu (μ), kappa (κ), and delta (δ) opioid receptors represent the originally classified receptor subtypes, with opioid receptor like-1 (ORL1) being the least characterized. All four receptors are G-protein coupled and activate inhibitory G proteins. These receptors form homo- and heterodimeric complexes and signal to kinase cascades and scaffold a variety of proteins.The authors discuss classic mechanisms and developments in understanding opioid tolerance and opioid receptor signaling and highlight advances in opioid molecular pharmacology, behavioral pharmacology, and human genetics. The authors put into context how opioid receptor signaling leads to the modulation of behavior with the potential for therapeutic intervention. Finally, the authors conclude there is a continued need for more translational work on opioid receptors in vivo.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                eugene.viscusi@jefferson.edu
                Journal
                Pain Pract
                Pain Pract
                10.1111/(ISSN)1533-2500
                PAPR
                Pain Practice
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1530-7085
                1533-2500
                24 June 2019
                September 2019
                : 19
                : 7 ( doiID: 10.1111/papr.v19.7 )
                : 715-731
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Lotus Clinical Research Pasadena California U.S.A.
                [ 2 ] Trevena Inc. Chesterbrook Pennsylvania U.S.A.
                [ 3 ] Sidney Kimmel Medical College Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia Pennsylvania U.S.A.
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 111 S 11th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107, U.S.A. E‐mail: eugene.viscusi@ 123456jefferson.edu .
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0260-4396
                Article
                PAPR12801
                10.1111/papr.12801
                6851842
                31162798
                8dd2b11e-859e-4222-88e5-704918b4af8f
                © 2019 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of World Institute of Pain.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 01 March 2019
                : 06 May 2019
                : 25 May 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 4, Pages: 17, Words: 10665
                Funding
                Funded by: Trevena Inc.
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                September 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.7.1 mode:remove_FC converted:13.11.2019

                postoperative,analgesia,patient controlled,clinical trial,abdominoplasty

                Comments

                Comment on this article