A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Anti-Nerve Growth Factor Antibody Tanezumab in Subjects With Cancer Pain Due to Bone Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study assessed the efficacy and safety of tanezumab in subjects with cancer pain predominantly due to bone metastasis receiving background opioid therapy. METHODS: Subjects were randomized (stratified by (1) tumor aggressiveness and (2) presence/absence of concomitant anticancer treatment) to placebo or tanezumab 20 mg. Treatment was administered by subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks for 24 weeks (3 doses) followed by a 24-week safety follow-up period. The primary outcome was change in daily average pain in the index bone metastasis cancer pain site (from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain) from baseline to week 8. RESULTS: LS mean (SE) change in pain at week 8 was -1.25 (0.35) for placebo (n = 73) and -2.03 (0.35) for tanezumab 20 mg (n = 72). LS mean (SE) [95% CI] difference from placebo was -0.78 (0.37) [-1.52, -0.04]; P = .0381 with α = 0.0478. The number of subjects with a treatment-emergent adverse event during the treatment period was 50 (68.5%) for placebo and 53 (73.6%) for tanezumab 20 mg. The number of subjects with a prespecified joint safety event was 0 for placebo and 2 (2.8%) for tanezumab 20 mg (pathologic fracture; n = 2). CONCLUSION: Tanezumab 20 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint at week 8. Conclusions on longer-term efficacy are limited since the study was not designed to evaluate the durability of the effect beyond 8 weeks. Safety findings were consistent with adverse events expected in subjects with cancer pain due to bone metastasis and the known safety profile of tanezumab. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02609828.

The Burden of Metastatic Cancer-Induced Bone Pain: A Narrative Review.

Bone pain is one of the most common forms of pain reported by cancer patients with metastatic disease. We conducted a review of oncology literature to further understand the epidemiology of and treatment approaches for metastatic cancer-induced bone pain and the effect of treatment of painful bone metastases on the patient's quality of life. Two-thirds of patients with advanced, metastatic, or terminal cancer worldwide experience pain. Cancer pain due to bone metastases is the most common form of pain in patients with advanced disease and has been shown to significantly reduce patients' quality of life. Treatment options for cancer pain due to bone metastases include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, palliative radiation, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and opioids. Therapies including palliative radiation and opioids have strong evidence supporting their efficacy treating cancer pain due to bone metastases; other therapies, like bisphosphonates and denosumab, do not. There is sufficient evidence that patients who experience pain relief after radiation therapy have improved quality of life; however, a substantial proportion are nonresponders. For those still requiring pain management, even with available analgesics, many patients are undertreated for cancer pain due to bone metastases, indicating an unmet need. The studies in this review were not designed to determine why cancer pain due to bone metastases was undertreated. Studies specifically addressing cancer pain due to bone metastases, rather than general cancer pain, are limited. Additional research is needed to determine patient preferences and physician attitudes regarding choice of analgesic for moderate to severe cancer pain due to bone metastases.

Burden of chronic low back pain: Association with pain severity and prescription medication use in five large European countries.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed associations between severity of, and prescription medication use for, chronic low back pain (CLBP) and health-related quality of life, health status, work productivity, and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaires, and visits to healthcare providers among adults with self-reported CLBP participating in the National Health and Wellness Survey in Germany, France, UK, Italy, and Spain. Respondents were stratified into four groups according to pain severity (mild or moderate/severe) and prescription medication use (Rx-treated or Rx-untreated). Differences between groups were estimated using generalized linear models controlling for sociodemographics and health characteristics. RESULTS: Of 2086 respondents with CLBP, 683 had mild pain (276 Rx-untreated, 407 Rx-treated) and 1403 had moderate/severe pain (781 Rx-untreated, 622 Rx-treated). Respondents with moderate/severe pain had significantly worse health-related quality of life (SF-12v2 physical component summary), health status (EQ-5D-5L), and both absenteeism and presenteeism compared with those with mild pain, including Rx-untreated (moderate/severe pain Rx-untreated vs. mild pain Rx-untreated, p ≤ 0.05) and Rx-treated (moderate/severe pain Rx-treated vs. mild pain Rx-treated, p ≤ 0.05) groups. Significantly more visits to healthcare providers in the last 6 months were reported for moderate/severe pain compared with mild pain for Rx-treated (least squares mean 13.01 vs. 10.93, p = 0.012) but not Rx-untreated (8.72 vs. 7.61, p = 0.072) groups. Health-related quality of life (SF-12v2 physical component summary) and health status (EQ-5D-5L), as well as absenteeism and presenteeism, were significantly worse, and healthcare utilization was significantly higher, in the moderate/severe pain Rx-treated group compared with all other groups (all p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Greater severity of CLBP was associated with worse health-related quality of life, health status, and absenteeism and presenteeism, irrespective of prescription medication use. Greater severity of CLBP was associated with increased healthcare utilization in prescription medication users.

Are pain severity and current pharmacotherapies associated with quality of life, work productivity, and healthcare utilisation for people with osteoarthritis in five large European countries?

OBJECTIVES: Although the osteoarthritis (OA) burden is well-recognised, the benefit of currently available OA pharmacological therapy is not clear. This study aimed to assess whether the impact of OA pain on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work, and healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) differed by both pain severity and prescription medication status. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used pooled data from the 2016/2017 European National Health and Wellness Survey. Respondents with self-reported physician-diagnosed OA and pain were included. Outcomes examined included HRQoL, health utility, health status, work productivity and activity impairment, and HRU. Groups derived from self-reported pain severity and prescription medication use were compared using chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and generalised linear models controlling for socio-demographics, health behaviours, and health status. RESULTS: Respondents with OA (n=2417) reported mild (40.4%, of which 44.9% prescription-treated) and moderate to severe pain (59.6%, of which 54.0% prescription-treated). HRQoL, health utility, health status, and work and activity impairment were substantially worse among the moderate/severe pain prescription-treated group compared to the rest (e.g. SF-12v2 physical component score [PCS] for moderate/severe pain prescription-treated=34.5 versus mild pain prescription-treated =39.3, moderate/severe pain prescription-untreated=40.6, and mild pain prescription-untreated=45.6; p<0.01). HRU such as the mean number of emergency room visits for >6 months was higher in the prescription-treated groups (0.51-0.52, 95% CI 0.437-0.71) than the prescription-untreated groups (0.30-0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.46; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Persons with moderate to severe OA pain treated with available prescription medications have poor health status and HRQoL and increased HRU compared to those not receiving prescription medications.

Direct and indirect effects of conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene treatment on quality of life in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the direct and indirect effects of conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene (CE/BZA) treatment on menopause-specific quality of life in a post-hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 Selective estrogens, Menopause, And Response to Therapy (SMART-1, SMART-2) trials. STUDY DESIGN: Data from participants in SMART-1 and SMART-2 who received CE 0.45mg/BZA 20mg, CE 0.625mg/BZA 20mg, or placebo were analyzed, including week 12 data from 1274 healthy postmenopausal women in SMART-1 and pooled week 1-4 and 9-12 data from 332 women with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (≥7 HFs/d or ≥50/wk) in SMART-2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A statistical mediation model included treatment as a binary predictor variable (pooled active treatment vs placebo), Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire domains (vasomotor, sexual, psychosocial, and physical function) as the outcomes variables, and frequency/severity of hot flushes (HFs) as treatment effect mediators on MENQOL. RESULTS: Vasomotor function was affected directly (SMART-1: 35.8%, P<0.05; SMART-2: 48.7%, P<0.05)] by CE/BZA and indirectly through improvements in HF severity (57.0%, P<0.05; 42.1%, P<0.05), and to a lesser extent, through reduction in HF frequency (7.2%, P<0.05; 9.2%, P<0.05). The effects of CE/BZA on the sexual, psychosocial, and physical function domains were fully mediated via improvements in HF severity. Final models for both studies were similar, indicating that direct and indirect effects of CE/BZA on menopause-specific quality of life are consistent and stable in different samples of women. CONCLUSIONS: CE/BZA affected the MENQOL vasomotor domain both directly and indirectly, whereas effects on other domains were fully mediated via HF severity reductions.

Perspective on prescribing conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene for estrogen-deficiency symptoms of menopause: a practical guide.

Current guidelines recommend that hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal women with a uterus include a progestin to protect against endometrial hyperplasia. However, many concerns relating to HT use appear to be related to the progestin component, including cardiovascular risk, breast stimulation, and irregular vaginal bleeding. Conjugated estrogens (CE) combined with the selective estrogen receptor modulator bazedoxifene (BZA) is a new progestin-free HT option for alleviating estrogen deficiency symptoms in postmenopausal women with a uterus for whom treatment with progestin-containing therapy is not appropriate. Five double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies, known as the Selective estrogens, Menopause, And Response to Therapy (SMART) trials have investigated the efficacy of CE/BZA for relieving vasomotor symptoms (VMS), and effect on bone mass, as well as endometrial and breast safety in postmenopausal women. In a 12-week study, CE 0.45 mg/BZA 20 mg significantly reduced the number and severity of hot flushes compared with placebo at weeks 4 and 12. Unlike estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT), CE 0.45 mg/BZA 20 mg did not increase breast density compared with placebo. In clinical trials up to 2 years, CE/BZA had a favorable tolerability profile, demonstrated by amenorrhea rates similar to placebo. Vascular disorders including venous thromboembolic events (pulmonary embolism, retinal vein thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, and thrombophlebitis) were rare events, occurring in less than 1 per 1000 patients. CE/BZA was associated with significantly higher incidences of amenorrhea and lower incidences of bleeding compared with CE/medroxyprogesterone acetate in 2 comparative trials. Therefore, CE 0.45 mg/BZA 20mg provides an effective, well-tolerated, progestin-free alternative to EPT for postmenopausal women with a uterus.

Superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg vs 4 mg in reducing urgency urinary incontinence episodes in patients with overactive bladder: results of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled EIGHT trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg vs 4 mg for improvement in urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes and other diary variables, diary-dry rate (proportion of patients with >0 UUI episodes on baseline diary and 0 UUI episodes on post-baseline diary), and improvements in measures of symptom bother, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial of men and women aged ≥18 years with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms including UUI (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01302067). Patients were randomised (2:2:1) to receive fesoterodine 8 mg, fesoterodine 4 mg, or placebo once daily; those randomised to fesoterodine 8 mg started with fesoterodine 4 mg once daily for 1 week, then 8 mg once daily for the remaining 11 weeks. Patients completed bladder diaries at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 and the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at baseline and week 12. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes per 24 h. RESULTS: At week 12, patients receiving fesoterodine 8 mg (779 patients) had significantly greater reductions from baseline in UUI episodes, micturitions, and urgency episodes than patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg (790) or placebo (386); diary-dry rate was significantly higher in the fesoterodine 8-mg group vs the fesoterodine 4-mg and placebo groups (all P < 0.05). At week 12, patients receiving fesoterodine 8 mg also had significantly greater improvements in scores on the PPBC, UPS, and all OAB-q scales and domains than patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg or placebo (all P < 0.01). Patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg had significantly greater improvements in UUI episodes, urgency episodes, and micturitions; significantly higher diary-dry rates; and significantly greater improvement in PPBC scores and OAB-q scores than patients receiving placebo (all P < 0.05). Dry mouth was the most commonly reported adverse event (AE) in the fesoterodine groups (placebo group, 3.4%; fesoterodine 4-mg group, 12.9%; fesoterodine 8-mg group, 26.1%); most cases were mild or moderate in all treatment groups. Rates of serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were low in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a 12-week, prospectively designed, superiority trial, fesoterodine 8 mg showed statistically significantly superior efficacy vs fesoterodine 4 mg and placebo, as measured by reductions in UUI episodes and other diary variables, diary-dry dry rate, and improvements in measures of symptom bother, HRQL, and other PROs; clear evidence of dose-dependent efficacy is unique to fesoterodine among antimuscarinics and other oral agents for the treatment of OAB. Fesoterodine 4 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all outcomes except for improvements in UPS scores. These data support the benefit of having two doses of fesoterodine in clinical practice, with the recommended starting dose of 4 mg for all patients and the fesoterodine 8-mg dose available for patients who require a higher dose to achieve optimal symptom relief.