Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: Secondary analyses by baseline pain intensity and use of rescue medication of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized, phase 3, SUSA-301 trial, celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) provided significantly greater analgesia compared with celecoxib, tramadol, or placebo in adults with acute, moderate-to-severe, postoperative pain. This post hoc, secondary analysis further evaluated the use of rescue medication and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). METHODS: Patients (N = 637) were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive oral CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID; n = 184), tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID; n = 183), celecoxib 100 mg BID (n = 181), or placebo QID (n = 89). Post hoc analyses were conducted on the use of rescue medications up to 4 and 48 h post-study drug dose, stratified by baseline pain intensity (moderate/severe), and on the incidence of TEAEs, stratified by rescue medication use. RESULTS: A significantly lower proportion of patients received any rescue medication within 4 h post-study dose with CTC (49.5%) versus tramadol (61.7%, p = 0.0178), celecoxib (65.2%, p = 0.0024), and placebo (75.3%, p = 0.0001); this was also seen for oxycodone use. Fewer patients in the CTC group received ≥3 doses of rescue medication compared with the other groups, irrespective of baseline pain intensity. In patients who did not receive opioid rescue medication, CTC was associated with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting TEAEs versus tramadol alone. In patients who received rescue oxycodone, the incidence of nausea was similar in the CTC and tramadol groups, and higher versus celecoxib and placebo. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal was associated with reduced rescue medication use and an acceptable tolerability profile compared with tramadol or celecoxib alone in adults with acute, moderate-to-severe, postoperative pain.

Efficacy of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) in Patients with Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain: A Pooled Analysis of Data from Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: New acute pain medications are needed that provide effective analgesia while minimizing side effects and opioid exposure. Clinical trials of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) have demonstrated an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol or celecoxib alone. We pooled data from two phase 3 clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) in acute moderate-to-severe pain. METHODS: Efficacy data were pooled from STARDOM1 [acute pain following oral surgery (NCT02982161)] and ESTEVE-SUSA-301 [acute pain following bunionectomy (NCT03108482)]. The primary efficacy outcome was sum of pain intensity difference from 0 to 48 h (SPID0-48). RESULTS: A total of 344 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, 342 received tramadol 50 or 100 mg four times a day, 181 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and 172 received placebo. The least-squares mean difference in SPID0-48 was -21.8 (p = 0.002) for CTC versus tramadol and -72.8 (p < 0.001) for CTC versus placebo. A similar pattern of SPID0-48 was observed with CTC versus comparator whether patients had moderate or severe pain at baseline. Reduction in pain intensity was faster and reached mild intensity earlier with CTC versus comparators. Patients were significantly (p ≤ 0.005) less likely to receive rescue medication within 4 or 48 h with CTC compared with tramadol or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis reinforces the efficacy profile of CTC versus tramadol and, given that CTC permits lower daily tramadol dosing and thereby reduces unnecessary opioid use, this highlights its improved benefit/risk profile and its potential for the management of moderate-to-severe pain.

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1).

INTRODUCTION: Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal. METHODS: Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score. RESULTS: All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone. CONCLUSIONS: CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) for acute moderate-to-severe pain.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to provide a clinical perspective on the potential role of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in the management of acute moderate-to-severe pain by synthesizing the available preclinical and clinical data, with emphasis on phase 3 trials. METHODS: A non-systematic literature review was performed using a targeted PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2000, and May 2, 2023; all publication types were permitted, and selected articles were limited to those published in English. Search results were manually reviewed to identify references based on their preclinical and clinical relevance to CTC and management of acute moderate-to-severe pain. RESULTS: The crystalline structure of CTC alters the physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib, modifying their pharmacokinetics. If taken in a free combination, tramadol reduces absorption of celecoxib. Conversely, administration of CTC slows tramadol absorption and lowers its maximum plasma concentration, while increasing celecoxib plasma concentration through its enhanced release. In clinical studies across models of acute moderate-to-severe pain, CTC demonstrated an early onset of analgesia, with improved efficacy and lower rescue medication use, compared with either agent alone. CTC's safety profile was in line with that expected for the individual components; no additive effects were observed. CTC exhibited tramadol-sparing effects, with efficacy seen at lower daily/cumulative opioid doses vs. tramadol alone. CONCLUSIONS: Results from phase 3 trials suggest that the modified physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib in CTC translate into an improved clinical benefit-risk profile, including fewer opioid-related adverse effects due to lower overall opioid dosing.

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) is a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal of celecoxib and racemic tramadol with an improved pharmacologic profile, conferred by the co-crystal structure, compared with its active constituents administered alone/concomitantly. AIM: We evaluated CTC in moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT03108482) was conducted at 6 US clinical research centers. Adults with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy were randomized to oral CTC (200 mg [112 mg celecoxib/88 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride] every 12 h), tramadol (50 mg every 6 h), celecoxib (100 mg every 12 h), or placebo for 48 h. Patients, investigators, and personnel were blinded to assignment. The primary endpoint was the 0-48 h sum of pain intensity differences (SPID0-48) in all randomized patients. Pain intensity was assessed on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Safety was analyzed in patients who received study medication. Funded by ESTEVE Pharmaceuticals. RESULTS: In 2017 (March to November), 1323 patients were screened and 637 randomized to CTC (n = 184), tramadol (n = 183), celecoxib (n = 181), or placebo (n = 89). Mean baseline NRS was 6.7 in all active groups. CTC had a significantly greater effect on SPID0-48 (least-squares mean: -139.1 [95% confidence interval: -151.8, -126.5]) than tramadol (-109.1 [-121.7, -96.4]; p < 0.001), celecoxib (-103.7 [-116.4, -91.0]; p < 0.001), or placebo (-74.6 [-92.5, -56.6]; p < 0.001). Total treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 358 for CTC and 394 for tramadol. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 37.7% patients in the CTC group, compared with 48.6% in the tramadol group. There were no serious TEAEs/deaths. CONCLUSION: CTC provided greater analgesia than comparable daily doses of tramadol and celecoxib, with similar tolerability to tramadol. CTC is approved in the United States.

Efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (STARDOM2).

BACKGROUND: STARDOM2 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC)-a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal comprising racemic tramadol hydrochloride and celecoxib in a supramolecular network that modifies their pharmacokinetic properties-for the management of acute postoperative pain (NCT03062644; EudraCT:2016-000593-38). METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominal hysterectomy were randomized 2:2:2:2:2:1 to oral CTC 100 mg (rac-tramadol hydrochloride 44 mg/celecoxib 56 mg) twice daily (BID); CTC 150 mg (66/84 mg) BID; CTC 200 mg (88/112 mg) BID; immediate-release tramadol 100 mg four times daily (QID); celecoxib 100 mg BID; or placebo, for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0-4 h (SPID0-4 ). Key secondary endpoints were rescue medication use within 4 h, 50% response rate at 4 h, and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Of 1355 patients enrolled, 1138 were randomized (full analysis set) and 1136 treated (safety analysis set). In the prespecified gatekeeping analysis of SPID0-4 , CTC 200 mg was not superior to tramadol but showed non-inferior efficacy (p < 0.001) that was sustained throughout the 120-h period, despite a 5-day cumulative tramadol administration of 880 mg with CTC 200 mg BID versus 2000 mg with tramadol 100 mg QID. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and severe TEAEs were less common with CTC 200 mg versus tramadol. Treatment-related TEAEs were 14.4% with CTC 200 mg and 23.6% with tramadol. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, CTC 200 mg showed a clinically relevant improvement in overall benefit/risk profile versus tramadol alone, with considerably lower cumulative opioid exposure. SIGNIFICANCE: In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 STARDOM2 trial-in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy-the novel co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) 200 mg BID was superior to placebo and non-inferior to tramadol 100 mg QID. Although superiority to tramadol was not reached, CTC 200 mg BID exposed patients to lower cumulative opioid (tramadol) doses than tramadol (100 mg QID) alone, with fewer treatment-emergent adverse events. CTC 200 mg thus has a clinically relevant improved benefit/risk profile compared with tramadol alone.

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal: A Randomized 4-Way Crossover Comparative Bioavailability Study.

PURPOSE: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) is a first-in-class co-crystal of celecoxib and racemic tramadol. This Phase 1 bioavailability study compared single-dose pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of CTC with those of the individual reference products from the United States, immediate-release celecoxib and tramadol, taken alone and simultaneously to determine their systemic exposure. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, single-dose, open-label, 4-period, 4-sequence, crossover study conducted in healthy subjects between October and December 2016. Study treatments included 200-mg CTC (equivalent to 112-mg celecoxib and 88-mg tramadol; Treatment-1); 100-mg tramadol (Treatment-2); 100-mg celecoxib (Treatment-3); and 100-mg celecoxib plus 100-mg tramadol (Treatment-4). The PK parameters of interest were Cmax, AUC0-T, and AUC0-∞, which were also calculated normalized to the dose. Tmax was only considered as supportive. The statistical analysis was based on a parametric analysis of variance model of the PK parameters; the two-sided 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean values for the Cmax, AUC0-T, and AUC0-∞ was based on ln-transformed data, and Tmax was rank-transformed. FINDINGS: Thirty-six subjects aged 18 to 55 years (21 male subjects, 15 female subjects; mean age, 35 years) participated in the study. Celecoxib from CTC presented a lower Cmax, reduced AUCs, and a faster Tmax. The interference in celecoxib absorption when celecoxib and tramadol are administered together was minimized with the CTC. For Treatment-1, -3, and -4, celecoxib PK parameters were 259, 318, and 165 ng/mL (Cmax), respectively; 1930, 2348, and 1929 ng • h/mL (AUC0-T); and 1.5, 3.0, and 2.5 hours (Tmax). Tramadol and its active metabolite O-desmethyl tramadol from CTC presented lower Cmax and AUCs as well as a longer Tmax. Tramadol/O-desmethyl tramadol PK parameters for Treatment-1, -2, and -4 were 214/55, 305/78, and 312/78 ng/mL for Cmax; 2507/846, 2709/965, and 2888/1010 ng • h/mL for AUC0-T; and 3.0/4.0, 2.0/2.5, and 1.9/2.5 hours for Tmax. Reported adverse events (none unexpected) occurred more frequently with Treatment-2 and Treatment-4. IMPLICATIONS: The aim of this study was to compare the PK profile of the US-marketed tramadol and celecoxib products with CTC to determine their systemic exposure and to validate the dosing regimen for a subsequent pivotal factorial Phase 3study. PK parameters of each active component in CTC were favorably modified by co-crystallization and did not result in higher systemic exposure compared with US-marketed celecoxib, tramadol, and their concomitant administration. © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Pharmacokinetic dose proportionality between two strengths (12.5 mg and 25 mg) of doxylamine hydrogen succinate film-coated tablets in fasting state: a single-dose, randomized, two-period crossover study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Doxylamine succinate, an ethanolamine-based antihistamine, is used in the short-term management of insomnia because of its sedative effects. No data on the dose proportionality of the pharmacokinetics of doxylamine are available, although this drug has been marketed in European countries for more than 50 years. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the dose proportionality between two marketed strengths (12.5 mg and 25 mg) of doxylamine hydrogen succinate after a single oral dose administration under fasting conditions in healthy human subjects. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center, randomized, single dose, laboratory-blinded, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. SETTING: The study was conducted in a phase I clinical unit. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A single oral dose of doxylamine hydrogen succinate of 12.5 mg (equivalent to 8.7 mg of doxylamine base) or 25 mg (equivalent to 17.4 mg of doxylamine base) was administered to healthy volunteers under fasting conditions in each study period. The drug administrations were separated by a wash-out period of 7 calendar days. Blood samples were collected for up to 60 h post-dose, and plasma doxylamine levels were determined by an ultra high-performance liquid chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using non-compartmental analysis. Dose proportionality was assessed based on the parameter area under the concentration-time curve (AUCt normalized). Safety was evaluated through assessment of adverse events, standard laboratory evaluations, vital signs and 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). RESULTS: In total, 12 healthy volunteers (3 male; 9 female) were included in the study. Mean maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to time t (AUCt ) of doxylamine hydrogen succinate 12.5 mg and 25 mg tablets increased linearly and dose-dependently [12.5 mg: mean Cmax 61.94 ng/mL, coefficient of variation (CV) 23.2%; mean AUCt 817.33 ng·h/mL, CV 27.4%; and 25 mg: mean Cmax 124.91 ng/mL, CV 18.7%; mean AUCt 1630.85 ng·h/mL, CV 22.8%]. Mean AUCt normalized was 815.43 ng·h/mL, CV 22.8% for 25 mg. The dose-normalized geometric mean ratio (%, 12.5 mg/25 mg) of AUCt was 98.92 (90% CI: 92.46, 105.83). The most common adverse event was somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to doxylamine was proportional over the therapeutic dose range of 12.5-25 mg in healthy volunteers. Based on the results, a predictable and linear increase in systemic exposure can be expected. Doxylamine hydrogen succinate was safe and well tolerated.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two oral formulations of quetiapine fumarate in healthy volunteers.

One bioequivalence study was carried out in healthy volunteers in order to compare the rate and extent of absorption of two oral formulations of quetiapine fumarate (CAS 111974-72-2) 25 mg film-coated tablet. Thirty subjects were administered quetiapine fumarate film-coated tablet of test and reference formulation in an open-label, randomised, fasting, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. Blood samples were taken before and within 48 h after drug administration. Plasma concentrations were determined by LC/MS/MS. Log-transformed AUC and Cmax values were tested for bioequivalence based on the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference). Tmax was analysed nonparametrically. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean values for the test/reference ratios for AUCo-t, and Cmax were within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. It may be therefore concluded that the test formulation of quetiapine fumarate 25 mg film-coated tablet is bioequivalent to the reference product and can be prescribed interchangeably.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two dosage forms of olanzapine 10 mg formulations in healthy volunteers.

Two bioequivalence studies were carried out in healthy volunteers in order to compare the rate and extent of absorption of two dosage forms (film-coated tablet and orodispersible tablet) of oral olanzapine (CAS 132539-06-1) 10 mg test formulations and the respective brand formulations as reference. Twenty and twenty-six subjects were administered olanzapine film-coated tablet or orodispersible tablet of test and reference formulations in an open-label, randomised, fasting, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. Blood samples were taken before and within 240 h after drug administration. Plasma concentrations were determined by LC/MS/MS. Log-transformed AUC and Cmax values were tested for bioequivalence based on the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference). tmax was analysed nonparametrically. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean values for the test/reference ratios for AUC(0-t) and Cmax were within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. It may be therefore concluded that the test formulations of olanzapine 10 mg film-coated tablet and orodispersible tablet are bioequivalent to the reference products and can be prescribed interchangeably.

Comparative bioavailability study of triflusal oral solution vs. triflusal capsules in healthy subjects. A single, randomized, two-way cross-over, open-label phase I study.

Triflusal (CAS 322-79-2) is an antiplatelet agent that irreversibly acetylates cyclooxygenase isoform 1 (COX-1) and therefore inhibits thromboxane biosynthesis. The main metabolite of triflusal, 2-hydroxy-4-trifluoromethyl benzoic acid (HTB), possesses also antiaggregant activity. Recently a new oral 600 mg (10 ml) solution form of triflusal has been developed. The purpose of this clinical trial was to study the relative bioavailability of the new oral solution of triflusal versus the capsules formulation, both administered as a single dose. This was a randomized, two-way, cross-over, open-label, single-site phase I clinical trial, in 24 healthy volunteers who received triflusal as 600 mg oral solution and as two 300 mg capsules in a single administration separated by a washout period of at least 17 days. Blood samples were collected and plasma concentrations of HTB were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters used for bioequivalence assessment included AUC(0-t), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax. The formulations were considered bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratios of AUC(0-t), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax were within the predetermined equivalence range (80% to 125%). Tolerability was based on the recording of adverse events (AEs), physical examination, electrocardiogram (ECG) and laboratory tests. The parameters for bioequivalence, mean [SD] values were as follows: AUC(0-t) (microg x h/ml): 3574.08 [628.17] for triflusal oral solution and 3901.78 [698.43] for triflusal capsules; AUC(0-infinity) (microg x h/ml): 4089.21 [842.54] for triflusal oral solution and 4471.33 [905.93] for triflusal capsules; Cmax, (microg/ml): 91.24 [12.88] for triflusal oral solution and 88.61 [13.46] for triflusal capsules; Cmax/AUC(0-infinity) (h(-1)): 0.03 (0.00) for triflusal oral solution and 0.02 (0.00) for triflusal capsules. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio experimental/control by analysis of variance after log transformed AUC(0-infinity), AUC(0-t), and Cmax were within 80% to 125%. Similar results were found for the data without log transformation. All adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity and all subjects recovered. Nine and 12 subjects reported at least one adverse event during treatment with triflusal oral solution and with triflusal capsules, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache and dizziness. It was concluded that the 600-mg solution of triflusal appeared to be bioequivalent to the reference formulation capsules. Both formulations were well tolerated.