Evaluating the Incidence of Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression Associated with Oliceridine and Morphine as Measured by the Frequency and Average Cumulative Duration of Dosing Interruption in Patients Treated for Acute Postoperative Pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) is a potentially fatal complication associated with conventional opioids. Currently, there is a paucity of validated endpoints available to measure respiratory safety. Oliceridine, an investigational intravenous (IV) opioid, is a G-protein selective µ-agonist with limited activity on ß-arrestin2, a signaling pathway associated with adverse events including OIRD. In controlled phase III trials, oliceridine 0.35 mg and 0.5 mg demand doses demonstrated comparable analgesia to morphine 1 mg with favorable improvements in respiratory safety. In this exploratory analysis, we report dosing interruption (DI) and average cumulative duration of DI (CDDI) for both oliceridine and morphine. METHODS: Patients requiring analgesia after bunionectomy or abdominoplasty were randomized to IV demand doses of placebo, oliceridine (0.1 mg, 0.35 mg, or 0.5 mg), or morphine (1 mg), administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), following a loading dose (oliceridine 1.5 mg, morphine 4 mg, volume-matched placebo) with a 6-min lockout interval. Certified nurse anesthetists monitored each patient and withheld study medication according to the patient's respiratory status. For each patient, the duration of all DIs was summed and reported as CDDI. A zero-inflated gamma mixture model was used to compute the mean CDDI for each treatment. RESULTS: Proportion of patients with DI was lower with oliceridine (0.1 mg: 3.2%, 0.35 mg: 13.9%, 0.5 mg: 15.1%) versus morphine (22%). The CDDI was also lower across all demand doses of oliceridine versus morphine. CONCLUSION: Using DI as a surrogate for OIRD indicates improved respiratory safety with oliceridine versus morphine that merits further investigation.

The Influence of Renal or Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Oliceridine.

Oliceridine is a G protein-biased ligand at the µ-opioid receptor in development for treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. A phase 1, open-label, single-dose study investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of oliceridine 0.5 mg intravenous (IV) in subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD, n = 9) versus 1 mg in healthy controls (n = 8). A second phase 1, open-label, single-dose study investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of a 0.5-mg IV dose in hepatic impairment (mild, n = 10; moderate, n = 10; severe, n = 6) versus 1 mg in healthy controls (n = 8). The controls were sex and age (±10 years) matched. In ESRD versus healthy subjects, no difference in clearance was observed between ESRD patients and subjects with normal renal function. Oliceridine clearance and AUC were not affected by hepatic impairment. Half-life (hours; GM [%CV]) increased in subjects with moderate (4.3 [44.1]) and severe (5.8 [41.2]) impairment versus mild impairment (2.6 [20.0]) and healthy subjects (2.1 [11.3]). Volume of distribution was increased with the degree of hepatic impairment. All adverse events were mild and generally consistent with the known safety profile of oliceridine. No dose adjustment is needed in patients with renal impairment or in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. Initial dose reduction should be considered in severe hepatic impairment, and patients may require fewer doses of oliceridine due to the longer half-life observed in these patients.

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.

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 P < 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 P > 0.05 vs. placebo: 0.60 [2.82]). The RSB measure for morphine was 1.72 (3.86) (P < 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.

APOLLO-1: 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 bunionectomy.

PURPOSE: Oliceridine is a novel G protein-biased µ-opioid receptor agonist designed to provide intravenous (IV) analgesia with a lower risk of opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) than conventional opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: APOLLO-1 (NCT02815709) was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy. 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). The primary endpoint compared the proportion of treatment responders through 48 hours for oliceridine regimens and placebo. Secondary outcomes included a composite measure of respiratory safety burden (RSB, representing the cumulative duration of respiratory safety events) and the proportion of treatment responders vs morphine. RESULTS: Effective analgesia was observed for all oliceridine regimens, with responder rates of 50%, 62%, and 65.8% in the 0.1 mg, 0.35 mg, and 0.5 mg regimens, respectively (all P<0.0001 vs placebo [15.2%]; 0.35 mg and 0.5 mg non-inferior to morphine). RSB showed a dose-dependent increase across oliceridine regimens (mean hours [SD]: 0.1 mg: 0.04 [0.33]; 0.35 mg: 0.28 [1.11]; 0.5 mg: 0.8 [3.33]; placebo: 0 [0]), but none were statistically different from morphine (1.1 [3.03]). Gastrointestinal adverse events also increased in a dose-dependent manner in oliceridine regimens (0.1 mg: 40.8%; 0.35 mg: 59.5%; 0.5 mg: 70.9%; placebo: 24.1%; morphine: 72.4%). The odds ratio for rescue antiemetic use was significantly lower for oliceridine regimens compared to morphine (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Oliceridine is a novel and effective IV analgesic providing rapid analgesia for the relief of moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain compared to placebo. Additionally, it has a favorable safety and tolerability profile with regard to respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse effects compared to morphine, and may provide a new treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain where an IV opioid is required.

Oliceridine, a Novel G Protein-Biased Ligand at the µ-Opioid Receptor, Demonstrates a Predictable Relationship Between Plasma Concentrations and Pain Relief. II: Simulation of Potential Phase 3 Study Designs Using a Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model.

Oliceridine is a novel G protein-biased ligand at the µ-opioid receptor that differentially activates G protein coupling while mitigating ß-arrestin recruitment. Unlike morphine, oliceridine has no known active metabolites; therefore, analgesic efficacy is predictably linked to its concentration in the plasma. Oliceridine is primarily hepatically metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2D6. Using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model relating oliceridine plasma concentrations to its effect on pain intensity as measured by numeric pain-rating scale (NPRS) scores, we have simulated potential dosing regimens using both fixed-dose regimens and as-needed (prn) dosing regimens in which various doses of oliceridine were administered if NPRS scores indicated moderate to severe pain (≥4 on a 0-10 scale). In addition, regimens in which oliceridine was self-administered via a patient-controlled analgesia device were also simulated. The simulated population included 10% CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (PM). The simulation results suggest that oliceridine doses of 1-3 mg prn should be effective in reducing NPRS scores relative to placebo. The simulations also revealed that a 1-mg "supplemental dose" given 0.25 hour after the loading dose would decrease NPRS scores further in almost one-third of patients. In addition, if oliceridine is administered prn, a longer interval between doses is observed in simulated PM patients, consistent with their reduced oliceridine clearance. Because this longer average dosing interval is predicted to decrease oliceridine exposure in PM patients, the need to know the patient's CYP2D6 genotype for dosing is effectively obviated.

Oliceridine (TRV130), a Novel G Protein-Biased Ligand at the µ-Opioid Receptor, Demonstrates a Predictable Relationship Between Plasma Concentrations and Pain Relief. I: Development of a Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model.

Conventional opioids bind to µ-opioid receptors and activate 2 downstream signaling pathways: G-protein coupling, linked to analgesia, and ß-arrestin recruitment, linked to opioid-related adverse effects and limiting efficacy. Oliceridine (TRV130) is a novel G protein-biased ligand at the µ-opioid receptor that differentially activates G-protein coupling while mitigating ß-arrestin recruitment. Using data derived from both phase 1 studies in healthy volunteers as well as data from a phase 2 study examining the efficacy of oliceridine for the treatment of postbunionectomy pain, we have developed a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model linking the pharmacokinetics of oliceridine to its effect on pain, as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale score. Phase 1 data consisted of 145 subjects (88% male, 12% female), who received single doses of oliceridine ranging between 0.15 and 7 mg, as well as multiple doses ranging from 0.4 to 4.5 mg every 4-6 hours. Sixteen of these subjects were CYP2D6 poor metabolizers, who have lower oliceridine clearance than extensive metabolizers. Approximately 265 subjects (10% male, 90% female) came from the phase 2 study, in which they received active doses ranging from 0.5 to 4 mg every 3-4 hours. The final model was a 3-compartment model that included covariates of body weight, sex, and CYP2D6 status. The PD model was an indirect response model linked to plasma oliceridine concentrations and included the placebo pain response over the 48-hour treatment period. The EC50 for oliceridine on pain relief was estimated as 10.1 ng/mL (95%CI, 8.4-12.1 ng/mL). Model qualification showed that the model robustly reproduced the original data.

A randomized, Phase IIb study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, was designed to improve the therapeutic window of conventional opioids by activating G-protein signaling while causing low ß-arrestin recruitment to the µ receptor. This randomized, double-blind, patient-controlled analgesia Phase IIb study was conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oliceridine compared with morphine and placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain following abdominoplasty (NCT02335294; oliceridine is an investigational agent not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive postoperative regimens of intravenous oliceridine (loading/patient-controlled demand doses [mg/mg]: 1.5/0.10 [regimen A]; 1.5/0.35 [regimen B]), morphine (4.0/1.0), or placebo with treatment initiated within 4 hours of surgery and continued as needed for 24 hours. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were treated (n=39, n=39, n=83, and n=39 in the oliceridine regimen A, oliceridine regimen B, morphine, and placebo groups, respectively). Patients were predominantly female (n=198 [99%]) and had a mean age of 38.2 years, weight of 71.2 kg, and baseline pain score of 7.7 (on 11-point numeric pain rating scale). Patients receiving the oliceridine regimens had reductions in average pain scores (model-based change in time-weighted average versus placebo over 24 hours) of 2.3 and 2.1 points, respectively (P=0.0001 and P=0.0005 versus placebo); patients receiving morphine had a similar reduction (2.1 points; P<0.0001 versus placebo). A lower prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to nausea, vomiting, and respiratory function was observed with the oliceridine regimens than with morphine (P<0.05). Other AEs with oliceridine were generally dose-related and similar in nature to those observed with conventional opioids; no serious AEs were reported with oliceridine. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that oliceridine may provide effective, rapid analgesia in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain, with an acceptable safety/tolerability profile and potentially wider therapeutic window than morphine.

Evaluation of the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between fenofibrate and ezetimibe: A phase I, open-label, multiple-dose, three-period crossover study in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between fenofibrate and ezetimibe in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a Phase I, open-label, multiple-dose,3-period crossover study conducted in healthy adult men and women. Subjects received fenofibrate 145 mg alone, fenofibrate 145 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg, and ezetimibe 10 mg alone for 10 consecutive days, in an order determined by computerized randomization schedule. Blood samples were collected for up to 24 hours after dosing on study day 1 and up to 120 hours after dosing on study day 10 for determination of plasma concentrations of fenofibric acid, unconjugated (free) ezetimibe, and total (conjugated and unconjugated) ezetimibe using validated high-performance liquid chromatography methods with mass-spectrometric detection. Ezetimibe glucuronide concentrations were estimated by subtracting free ezetimibe concentrations from total ezetimibe concentrations. RESULTS: Eighteen healthy adults (12 men, 6 women; 17 white, 1 black) were enrolled in the study. Their mean age was 43.4 years (range, 27-55 years), their mean weight 78.7 kg (range, 60-98 kg), and their mean height 174.9 cm (range, 156-194 cm). Coadministration of multiple doses of fenofibrate and ezetimibe produced no statistically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of fenofibric acid but significantly increased exposures to total ezetimibe and ezetimibe glucuronide (P < 0.05). Using point estimates, co-administration of fenofibrate and ezetimibe increased AUC central values for total ezetimibe and ezetimibe glucuronide by 43% (90% CI, 29-59) and 49% (90% CI, 34-65), respectively. CONCLUSION: In these healthy volunteers, coadministration of multiple doses of fenofibrate and ezetimibe had no statistically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of fenofibric acid but was associated with a significant increase in exposure to total ezetimibe and its metabolite ezetimibe glucuronide.