Adding ultralow-dose naltrexone to oxycodone enhances and prolongs analgesia: a randomized, controlled trial of Oxytrex.

UNLABELLED: Oxytrex is a novel drug that combines oxycodone with ultralow-dose naltrexone, an opioid antagonist. Ultralow-dose opioid antagonists have been demonstrated to enhance and prolong opiate analgesia and alleviate opioid tolerance and withdrawal in rodents. This 3-week, Phase II clinical trial assessed safety and analgesic efficacy of Oxytrex in patients with moderate to severe pain from osteoarthritis. Patients with a pain score > or =5 received placebo, oxycodone 4 times a day (qid), Oxytrex qid, or Oxytrex twice a day (bid). All active treatment groups received the same total daily dose and dose escalation of oxycodone starting at 10 and ending at 40 mg/day. Importantly, the Oxytrex bid group received a lower daily dose of naltrexone than Oxytrex qid (0.002 vs 0.004 mg/day). Oxytrex bid produced a 39% reduction in pain intensity, which was significantly greater than that of placebo (P < .001), oxycodone qid (P = .006), and Oxytrex qid (P = .003). Oxytrex bid was also superior to placebo in quality of analgesia (P = .002), duration of pain control each day (P = .05), patients' global assessments (P = .04), and the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score (P = .03). The incidence of side effects was comparable between active treatments. In this Phase II dose-ranging study, Oxytrex bid demonstrated greater pain relief with a more convenient dosing schedule compared to oxycodone qid. PERSPECTIVE: Preclinical data have shown ultralow-dose opioid antagonists to enhance and prolong opioid analgesia while reducing analgesic tolerance and physical dependence. Recent molecular pharmacology data show a mechanism of action to be the prevention of aberrant G protein coupling by opioid receptors that underlies opioid tolerance and dependence.

Measuring survival rates from sudden cardiac arrest: the elusive definition.

BACKGROUND: Measuring survival from sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) is often used as a benchmark of the quality of a community's emergency medical service (EMS) system. The definition of OOH-CA survival rates depends both upon the numerator (surviving cases) and the denominator (all cases). PURPOSE: The purpose of the public access defibrillation (PAD) trial was to measure the impact on survival of adding an automated external defibrillator (AED) to a volunteer response system trained in CPR. This paper reports the definition of OOH-CA developed by the PAD trial investigators, and it evaluates alternative statistical methods used to assess differences in reported "survival." METHODS: Case surveillance was limited to the prospectively determined geographic boundaries of the participating trial units. The numerator in calculating a survival rate should include only those patients who survived an event but who otherwise would have died except for the application of some facet of emergency medical care-in this trial a defibrillatory shock. Among denominators considered were: total population of the study unit, all deaths within the study unit, and documented ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrests. The PAD classification focused upon cases that might have benefited from the early use of an AED, in addition to the likely benefit from early recognition of OOH-CA, early access of EMS, and early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Results of this classification system were used to evaluate the impact of the PAD definition on the distribution of cardiac arrest case types between CPR only and CPR + AED units. RESULTS: Potential OOH-CA episodes were classified into one of four groups: definite, probable, uncertain, or not an OOH-CA. About half of cardiac arrests in the PAD units were judged to be definite OOH-CA events and therefore potentially treatable with an AED. However, events that occurred in CPR-only units were less likely to be classified as definite or probable OOH-CA events than those in CPR + AED units (43% versus 55%, odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.07). The study retained sufficient power to permit a statistical analysis of the alternative hypothesis that the CPR + AED method results in twice as many survivors as a CPR-only approach. The result is critically dependent on the denominator used for calculating survival rates; but the analysis does not require a denominator as the numerators will have identical Poisson distributions (counts for rare events) under the null hypothesis since randomization distributes the risk of cardiac arrest evenly between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Reported OOH-CA rates and survival rates vary widely, depending upon the definitions applied to events. Rigorous assessment of treatments applied to improve survival can be obscured by inappropriate definitions. Large-scale randomized interventions designed to improve survival from OOH-CA can be evaluated based upon the absolute numbers of patients surviving, rather than a change in the proportion surviving.

Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience.

BACKGROUND: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). OBJECTIVE: To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted. METHODS: The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington. RESULTS: The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity. CONCLUSION: The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.