DOCSLIB.ORG

Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependance National Institute on Drug Abuse RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependance U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1 • Public2 Health Service8 • National Institutes of Health Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependence Editor: Ram B. Jain, Ph.D. NIDA Research Monograph 128 1992 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration National Institute on Drug Abuse 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This monograph is based on the papers and discussions from a technical review on “Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependence” held on December 2-3, 1991, in Bethesda, MD. The technical review was sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). COPYRIGHT STATUS NIDA has obtained permission from the copyright holders to reproduce certain previously published material as noted in the text. Further reproduction of this copyrighted material is permitted only as part of a reprinting of the entire publication or chapter. For any other use, the copyright holder’s permission is required. All other material in this volume except quoted passages from copyrighted sources is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced without permission from the Institute or the authors. Citation of the source is appreciated. Opinions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policy of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or any other part of the US. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. Government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial product or company. Trade, proprietary, or company names appearing in this publication are used only because they are considered essential in the context of the studies reported herein. NIDA Research Monographs are indexed in the “Index Medicus.” They are selectively included in the coverage of “American Statistics Index,” “BioSciences Information Service,” “Chemical Abstracts,” “Current Contents,” “Psychological Abstracts,” and “Psychopharmacology Abstracts.” DHHS publication number (ADM)92-1947 Printed 1992 ii Contents Page Introduction 1 Ram B. Jain Drug Dependence (Addiction) and Its Treatment 6 Frank J. Vocci, Jerome H. Jaffe, and Ram B. Jain Background and Design of a Controlled Clinical Trial (ARC 090) for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence 14 Rolley E. Johnson and Paul J. Fudala Clinical Endpoints: Discussion Session 25 Ram B. Jain Design of Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependence: What Is Missing? 29 Ram B. Jain Comments 37 Sudhir C. Gupta Rejoinder 42 Ram B. Jain Summary of Discussion 44 Ram B. Jain iii Efficacy of Urinalysis in Monitoring Heroin and Cocaine Abuse Patterns: Implications in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Drug Dependence 46 Edward J. Cone and Sandra L. Dickerson Comments 59 Nancy L. Geller Summary of Discussion 62 Ram B. Jain Open/Panel Discussion: Design Issues 64 Ram B. Jain A Bayesian Nonparametric Approach to Analysis of Treatment for Drug Dependence Data 70 Ram C. Tiwari Three Estimators of the Probability of Opiate Use From Incomplete Data 82 Alan J. Gross Summary of Discussion 95 Ram B. Jain Issues in the Analysis of Clinical Trials for Opiate Dependence 97 Dean Follmann, Margaret Wu, and Nancy Geller Summary of Discussion 114 Ram B. Jain Analysis of Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependence: What Are the Possibilities? 116 Ram B. Jain Summary of Discussion 135 Ram B. Jain Toward a Dynamic Analysis of Disease-State Transition Monitored by Serial Clinical Laboratory Tests 137 T.S. Weng iv Summary of Discussion 158 Alan J. Gross A Markov Model for NIDA Data on Treatment of Opiate Dependence 160 Mei-Ling Ting Lee Summary of Discussion 168 Alan J. Gross Open/Panel Discussion: Analysis Issues 170 Ram B. Jain Open/Panel Discussion: General Issues 176 Ram B. Jain List of Participants 182 List of NIDA Research Monographs 186 v Introduction Ram B. Jain The Medications Development Division (MDD) of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) came into existence in August 1990. Its mandate from the U.S. Congress is to develop medications for the treatment of drug dependence, primarily heroin and cocaine dependence. The organizational structure of MDD allows for five branches, one of which is the Biometrics Branch. I happened to be the first one to join the Biometrics Branch, and it was and still is a great learning opportunity for me. I found: Drug dependence is not a disease in the traditional sense that cancer or heart disease is; its treatment is not a treatment in the traditional sense-drug dependence is not treated the way a cancer or an infection is treated; and the characteristics of the data generated by clinical studies in drug abuse area are unique, not seen in other branches of medicine-a more than 50- percent dropout rate! The data generated by these studies are the product of a continuous dynamic interaction between the pharmacological effect of the therapeutic agent, the effect of nonpharmacological services provided as part of the total treatment, and most importantly, the drug-seeking behavior of the addict, which is shaped and influenced by the environmental stimuli around him or her. How does one statistically adjust for this multidimensional “noise”? What is being treated here is not quite obvious-Is it a medical condition, a mental disorder, a behavioral abnormality, or all of them at the same time? Between September 1988 and May 1990, Drs. Rolley E. Johnson and Paul J. Fudala conducted a randomized double blind, “double dummy” clinical trial (ARC 090) to evaluate the efficacy of 8 mg sublingual doses of buprenorphine compared with 20 mg and 60 mg oral doses of methadone in 162 patients. This study was conducted at NIDA’s Addiction Research Center (ARC). These data were provided to me for analysis. The primary data consisted of binary (positive vs. negative) data points obtained by assaying the urine samples for the presence of opiates. Since the urine samples were obtained three times a week from each patient in this 25-week study, each patient could provide up to 75 data points. Many endpoints could be defined and clinically defended using these data (e.g., percent-positive samples; a drug-free period of, say, 28 days or more), and several different statistical methods could be used to analyze them. After spending several months with these data, finding 1 myself more informed every day than the day before, I determined that more could be learned—I could use expert opinion from outside. During the summer of 1991, I began planning for a workshop (a NIDA technical review) in design and analysis of clinical trials in the treatment of opiate dependence. Many well-known statisticians, including those who had many years of experience in managing and analyzing clinical trials, were contacted and asked if they would like to write and present research papers on the design and analysis of clinical trials in the treatment of opiate dependence and/or participate in this workshop. Commitments were obtained for five research papers. Each paper was to present the results of analyzing a part of the ARC 090 data. I also decided to present two papers-one on design, one on analysis. The statisticians who agreed to write research papers and/or participate (and finally came to the workshop) included Drs. Joseph Collins (Veterans’ Administration Medical Center), Lloyd D. Fisher (University of Washington), Dean Follmann (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [NHLBI]), Nancy L. Geller (NHLBI), Albert J. Getson (Merck Sharp & Dohme), Joel B. Greenhouse (Carnegie-Mellon University), Alan J. Gross (Medical University of South Carolina), Sudhir C. Gupta (Northern Illinois University), A.S. Hedayat (University of Illinois), Nicholas P. Jewell (University of California at Berkeley), Peter A. Lachenbruch (University of California, Los Angeles), Jack C. Lee (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD]), Mei-Ling Ting Lee (Boston University), Shou-Hua Li (National Institute of Dental Research), Taesung Park (NICHD), Carol K. Redmond (University of Pittsburgh), Saul Rosenberg (NIDA), Vincent Shu (Abbott Laboratories), Richard Stein (Food and Drug Administration [FDA]), Ram C. Tiwari (University of North Carolina), L.J. Wei (Harvard School of Public Health), T.S. Weng (FDA), and Margaret Wu (NHLBI). Without the presence, interaction, guidance, and advice of clinicians working in the drug abuse area, talking about designing and analyzing clinical trials for treatment of drug dependence would have been an exercise in futility, and therefore we requested participation from well-known clinicians in government, industry, and academia. Those who agreed to participate (and came to the workshop) included Jack D. Blaine (NIDA), Robert J. Chiarello (NIDA), Edward J. Cone (ARC), Paul J. Fudala (University of Pennsylvania), Harold Gordon (NIDA), David A. Gorelick (ARC), Charles W. Gorodetzky (CIBA-Geigy Corporation), Charles V. Grudzinskas (NIDA), John Hyde (FDA), Donald R. Jasinski (Johns Hopkins University), Rolley E. Johnson (Johns Hopkins University), Michael Murphy (Hoechst Roussel Pharmaceutical, Inc.), Frank J. Vocci (NIDA), and Curtis Wright (FDA). 2 The NIDA technical review on “Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials for Treatment of Opiate Dependence” took place on December 2-3, 1991, at the Bethesda Marriott, Bethesda, MD. It consisted of four sessions: a Clinical Session, a Design Session chaired by Dr. Gross, a two-part Analysis Session chaired by Drs. Wei and Fisher, respectively, and a General Issues Session cochaired by Drs. Lachenbruch and Jack C. Lee. Drs. Vocci and Johnson presented papers during the Clinical Session; Dr. Cone (with Sandra L. Dickerson) and I presented papers during the Design Session; and Drs. Follmann (with Drs. Geller and Wu), Gross, Gupta, Mei-Ling Ting Lee, Weng, and I presented papers during the Analysis Session.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Methadone Hydrochloride Tablets, USP) 5 Mg, 10 Mg Rx Only
    ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC. Columbus, OH 43216 DOLOPHINE® HYDROCHLORIDE CII (Methadone Hydrochloride Tablets, USP) 5 mg, 10 mg Rx Only Deaths, cardiac and respiratory, have been reported during initiation and conversion of pain patients to methadone treatment from treatment with other opioid agonists. It is critical to understand the pharmacokinetics of methadone when converting patients from other opioids (see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION). Particular vigilance is necessary during treatment initiation, during conversion from one opioid to another, and during dose titration. Respiratory depression is the chief hazard associated with methadone hydrochloride administration. Methadone's peak respiratory depressant effects typically occur later, and persist longer than its peak analgesic effects, particularly in the early dosing period. These characteristics can contribute to cases of iatrogenic overdose, particularly during treatment initiation and dose titration. In addition, cases of QT interval prolongation and serious arrhythmia (torsades de pointes) have been observed during treatment with methadone. Most cases involve patients being treated for pain with large, multiple daily doses of methadone, although cases have been reported in patients receiving doses commonly used for maintenance treatment of opioid addiction. Methadone treatment for analgesic therapy in patients with acute or chronic pain should only be initiated if the potential analgesic or palliative care benefit of treatment with methadone is considered and outweighs the risks. Conditions For Distribution And Use Of Methadone Products For The Treatment Of Opioid Addiction Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Sec 8 Methadone products when used for the treatment of opioid addiction in detoxification or maintenance programs, shall be dispensed only by opioid treatment programs (and agencies, practitioners or institutions by formal agreement with the program sponsor) certified by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and approved by the designated state authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Medications to Treat Opioid Use Disorder Research Report
    Research Report Revised Junio 2018 Medications to Treat Opioid Use Disorder Research Report Table of Contents Medications to Treat Opioid Use Disorder Research Report Overview How do medications to treat opioid use disorder work? How effective are medications to treat opioid use disorder? What are misconceptions about maintenance treatment? What is the treatment need versus the diversion risk for opioid use disorder treatment? What is the impact of medication for opioid use disorder treatment on HIV/HCV outcomes? How is opioid use disorder treated in the criminal justice system? Is medication to treat opioid use disorder available in the military? What treatment is available for pregnant mothers and their babies? How much does opioid treatment cost? Is naloxone accessible? References Page 1 Medications to Treat Opioid Use Disorder Research Report Discusses effective medications used to treat opioid use disorders: methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Overview An estimated 1.4 million people in the United States had a substance use disorder related to prescription opioids in 2019.1 However, only a fraction of people with prescription opioid use disorders receive tailored treatment (22 percent in 2019).1 Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids more than quadrupled from 1999 through 2016 followed by significant declines reported in both 2018 and 2019.2,3 Besides overdose, consequences of the opioid crisis include a rising incidence of infants born dependent on opioids because their mothers used these substances during pregnancy4,5 and increased spread of infectious diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C (HCV), as was seen in 2015 in southern Indiana.6 Effective prevention and treatment strategies exist for opioid misuse and use disorder but are highly underutilized across the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Opioid Epidemic: What Labs Have to Do with It?
    The Opioid Epidemic: What labs have to do with it? Ewa King, Ph.D. Associate Director of Health RIDOH State Health Laboratories Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Overview • Overdose trends • Opioids and their effects • Analytical testing approaches • Toxicology laboratories Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Opioid overdose crisis 1 Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Opioid overdose crisis 2 Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Opiates and Opioids • Opiates vs. Opioids • Opiates: Naturally occurring, derived from the poppy plant • Opioids: “Opiate-like” drugs in effects, not chemical structure Includes opiates • Narcotic analgesics • CNS depressants • DEA Schedule I or II controlled substances • Additive effect with other CNS depressant drugs Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Efficacy of Opioids • How do opioids work? • Bind with opioid receptors • Brain, spinal cord, GI tract, and throughout the body • Pain, emotion, breathing, movement, and digestion Opioid Receptor Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Effects of Opioids Physiological Psychological • Pain relief • Drowsiness/ sedation • Cough suppression • Mental confusion • GI motility • Loss of memory • Respiratory depression • Lethargy/ apathy • Pupillary constriction • Euphoria/ tranquility • Itching • Mood swings • Constipation • Depression • Dependence • Withdrawal • Dependence Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Opiates 1 Opiates • Naturally occurring alkaloids Opium • Latex from the opium poppy plant Codeine: • Mild to moderate pain • Antitussive Morphine: • Severe pain • Metabolite of codeine and heroin Analysis. Answers. Action. www.aphl.org Opiates 2 Semi-synthetic Opiates: • Synthesized from a natural opiate Heroin: • Schedule I narcotic Hydrocodone (Vicodin): • Mild to moderate pain • Metabolizes to hydromorphone (Dilaudid) Oxycodone (Oxycontin/Percocet): • Moderate to severe pain • Metabolizes to oxymorphone (Opana) Analysis. Answers. Action.
    [Show full text]
  • Opiate/ Heroin Working Group Final Report
    OPIATE/ HEROIN WORKING GROUP FINAL REPORT United States Attorney’s Offices For the Southern and Northern Districts of Mississippi February 28. 2017 HEROIN/OPIATE WORKING GROUP FINAL REPORT Law Enforcement and Data Group Recommendation No. 1: Implement a comprehensive data collection and dissemination program Recommendation No. 2: Heroin (Opiate) Involved Death Investigation Task Force Recommendation No. 3: Greater distribution and training on use of Naloxone Recommendation No. 4: Mandate greater reporting of overdoses and naloxone administration Recommendation No. 5: Expand and advertise availability of the dropbox program Medical Issues Group Recommendation No. 1: Adopt CDC Guidelines Recommendation No. 2: Continuing Medical Education Recommendation No. 3: Upgrades to the Prescription Monitoring Program Recommendation No. 4: Addiction Treatment Education Recommendation No. 5: Review Funding Issues for Alternative Treatments Recommendation No. 6: Limitations on Prescriptions Recommendation No. 7: Mandate increased use of PMP Recommendation No. 8: Change the definition of Pain Management Clinic Recommendation No. 9: IDs for Controlled Substance Prescriptions Treatment and Overdose Prevention Group Recommendation No. 1: More Funding for Treatment Recommendation No. 2: Youth/Juvenile Detention Systems Recommendation No. 3: Expand the availability and use of Vivitrol Recommendation No. 4: Drug Courts and Rentry programs Recommendation No. 5: Public Education and Awareness HEROIN/OPIATE WORKING GROUP FINAL REPORT The United States Attorney’s Offices for the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi convened an Opiate/Heroin Working Group in June 2016. At the initial meeting at the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (“MBN”) Headquarters, representatives from the medical, pharmaceutical, mental health, law enforcement, judiciary and many other specialties attended a full day symposium to begin the discussion about a comprehensive approach to the opiate and heroin crisis in the nation and in our state.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Class Review Long-Acting Opioid Analgesics
    Drug Class Review Long-Acting Opioid Analgesics 28:08.08 Opiate Agonists Transdermal Buprenorphine transdermal system (Butrans®) Fentanyl transdermal system (Duragesic®) Oral Buprenorphine oral buccal film (Belbuca®) Hydrocodone ER (Zohydro ER®, Hysingla ER®) Hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets (Exalgo®) Methadone tablets (Dolophine®) Morphine sulfate controlled-release tablets (MS Contin®, MorphaBond®) Morphine sulfate extended-release capsules (Kadian®) Oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release tablets (OxyContin®) Oxymorphone hydrochloride extended-release (Opana ER®) Tapentadol extended-release oral tablets (Nucynta ER®) Tramadol hydrochloride extended-release capsule (Conzip, others) Tramadol hydrochloride extended-release tablet (biphasic) (Ultram ER, others) Combination Products Morphine sulfate and naltrexone extended-release capsules (Embeda®) Oxycodone ER/acetaminophen (Xartemis XR®) Final Report March 2016 Review prepared by: Vicki Frydrych, Clinical Pharmacist Melissa Archer, Clinical Pharmacist Justin Tran, PharmD Student Ryan Marcum, PharmD Student University of Utah College of Pharmacy Copyright © 2016 by University of Utah College of Pharmacy Salt Lake City, Utah. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 1. Comparison
    [Show full text]
  • Download an Information Sheet on Opiate Use During Pregnancy
    PARENT/FAMILY EDUCATION OPIATE USE DURING PREGNANCY childrensMN.org OPIATES Medications or drugs known as opiates (or narcotics) are commonly prescribed OPIATE USE DURING for pain. The most common names of these drugs include OxyContin, Percocet, PREGNANCY: HOW DOES IT Vicodin, morphine and methadone. Use of opiates during pregnancy often causes AFFECT MOTHERS AND BABIES? complications for mothers as well as complications for babies exposed to opiates in the womb. Illegal opiates like heroin also cause risks for mother and baby. During pregnancy, everything you eat or drink can have an effect on Prescription opiates can be used illegally, or taken at higher doses than prescribed. your unborn baby. This includes Use of any form of opiate can lead to dependency which has been observed medications, drugs, alcohol and in the rapidly increasing number of young women that have developed opiate tobacco. Certain substances are dependency in the past 10 years. Many people who have become dependent on not safe during pregnancy and you prescription opiates are also at risk of using heroin. should review any medications, drugs (over the counter, prescribed The newborn baby exposed to opiates in the womb may have withdrawal and illegal), supplements, or herbs symptoms after being born. When babies have symptoms of withdrawal, they often that you are taking with your need to stay in the hospital longer and may not be able to stay in their mother’s doctor or midwife. By informing room. Instead, they may need the close observation and care that is given in a your care team about ALL drugs special care nursery.
    [Show full text]
  • Heterodimerization of Μ and Δ Opioid Receptors: a Role in Opiate Synergy
    The Journal of Neuroscience, 2000, Vol. 20 RC110 1of5 Heterodimerization of ␮ and ␦ Opioid Receptors: A Role in Opiate Synergy I. Gomes, B. A. Jordan, A. Gupta, N. Trapaidze, V. Nagy, and L. A. Devi Departments of Pharmacology and Anesthesiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016 Opiate analgesics are widely used in the treatment of severe ␮-selective ligands results in a significant increase in the bind- pain. Because of their importance in therapy, different strate- ing of a ␦ receptor agonist. This robust increase is also seen in gies have been considered for making opiates more effective SKNSH cells that endogenously express both ␮ and ␦ recep- while curbing their liability to be abused. Although most opiates tors. Furthermore, we find that a ␦ receptor antagonist en- exert their analgesic effects primarily via ␮ opioid receptors, a hances both the potency and efficacy of the ␮ receptor signal- number of studies have shown that ␦ receptor-selective drugs ing; likewise a ␮ antagonist enhances the potency and efficacy can enhance their potency. The molecular basis for these find- of the ␦ receptor signaling. A combination of agonists (␮ and ␦ ings has not been elucidated previously. In the present study, receptor selective) also synergistically binds and potentiates we examined whether heterodimerization of ␮ and ␦ receptors signaling by activating the ␮–␦ heterodimer. Taken together, could account for the cross-modulation previously observed these studies show that heterodimers exhibit distinct ligand between these two receptors. We find that co-expression of ␮ binding and signaling characteristics. These findings have im- and ␦ receptors in heterologous cells followed by selective portant clinical ramifications and may provide new foundations immunoprecipitation results in the isolation of ␮–␦ het- for more effective therapies.
    [Show full text]
  • (D-Ala*)Deltorphin II: D,-Dependent Stereotypies and Stimulation of Dopamine Release in the Nucleus Accumbens
    The Journal of Neuroscience, June 1991, 17(6): 1565-l 576 (D-Ala*)Deltorphin II: D,-dependent Stereotypies and Stimulation of Dopamine Release in the Nucleus Accumbens R. Longoni,’ L. Spina,’ A. Mulas,’ E. Carboni,’ L. Garau,’ P. Melchiorri,2 and G. Di Chiaral ‘Institute of Experimental Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy and 21nstitute of Medical Pharmacology, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” 00185 Rome, Italy In order to investigate the relative role of central 6- and has been implicated in the stimulant actions of systemic opiates. F-opioid receptors in behavior, the effects of (D- Morphine-like opiates stimulate DA release preferentially in the Ala*)cleltorphin II, a natural Gopioid peptide, and PL017, nucleus accumbens (Di Chiara and Imperato, 1988a) and elicit a beta-casomorphin derivative specific for mu receptors, hypermotility sensitive to blockade by the DA D, receptor an- were compared after local intracerebral and intraventricular tagonist SCH 23390 (Longoni et al., 1987a). Intra-accumbens administration. lntracerebral infusion of the two peptides was infusion of opioid peptides elicits motor stimulation, but this done bilaterally in the limbic nucleus accumbens and in the action seems independent from DA, being resistant to classic ventral and dorsal caudate putamen of freely moving rats DA-receptor antagonists (neuroleptics; Pert and Sivit, 1977; Ka- through chronic intracerebral cannulas. After intra-accum- livas et al., 1983). Moreover, the syndrome elicited by intra- bens infusion, the two peptides elicited marked but opposite accumbens opiates is biphasic, as motor stimulation is typically behavioral effects: while (o-Ala2)deltorphin II evoked dose- preceded by motor inhibition and catalepsy (Costa11et al., 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Depodur (Morphine Sulfate Extended-Release Liposome Injection)
    DepoDur® (morphine sulfate extended-release liposome injection) CII Rx Only DESCRIPTION DepoDur (morphine sulfate extended-release liposome injection) is a sterile suspension of multivesicular liposomes containing morphine sulfate, intended for epidural administration. Chemically, morphine sulfate is 7, 8-didehydro-4, 5α-epoxy-17-methylmorphinan-3, 6α -diol sulfate (2:1) (salt) pentahydrate with a molecular weight of 758. Morphine sulfate pentahydrate has the following structural formula: Morphine base has a pKa of 7.9, with an octanol/water partition coefficient of 1.42 at physiologic pH 7.4. At this pH, morphine’s tertiary amino group is mostly ionized, making the molecule water-soluble. DepoDur is a sterile, non-pyrogenic, white to off-white, preservative-free suspension of multivesicular lipid-based particles containing Morphine Sulfate, USP. The median diameter of the liposome particles is in the range of 17 to 23 μm. The liposomes are suspended in a 0.9% sodium chloride solution. Each vial contains morphine sulfate (expressed as the pentahydrate) at a nominal concentration of 10 mg/mL. Inactive ingredients and their approximate concentrations are: 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC), 4.2 mg/mL; cholesterol, 3.3 mg/mL; 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-rac-(1-glycerol) (DPPG), 0.9 mg/mL; tricaprylin, 0.3 mg/mL; and triolein, 0.1 mg/mL. The pH of DepoDur is in the range of 5.0 to 8.0. After the administration of DepoDur into the epidural space, morphine sulfate is released from the multivesicular liposomes over a period of time. Liposomal encapsulation or incorporation in a lipid complex can substantially affect a drug’s functional properties relative to those of the unencapsulated or nonlipid- associated drug.
    [Show full text]
  • Urine Drug Toxicology and Pain Management Testing
    Urine Drug Toxicology and Pain Management Testing Kara Lynch, PhD, DABCC University of California San Francisco San Francisco, CA Learning Objectives • Describe what chronic pain is, who is affected and how they are commonly treated • Explain the common methodologies used in pain management testing • Interpret urine drug testing results • Create protocols to minimize the occurrence of false positive or false negative results Pain – definition and types • Pain - an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage • Chronic pain - pain that extends beyond the expected period of healing • Nociceptive Pain – Pain caused by tissue injury – Stimulus-evoked, high intensity – Opioid sensitive • Neuropathic Pain – Caused by nerve injury – Spontaneous activity – Develops in days or month – Opioid insensitive Chronic Pain Patients • Arthritis • Fibromyalgia – Osteoarthritis • Headaches – Rheumatoid arthritis – Migraine – Gout – Tension • Cancer – Cluster • Chronic non-cancer pain • Myofascial pain • Central pain syndrome • Neuropathic pain – CNS damage – Diabetic Peripheral – Multiple Sclerosis Neuropathy – Parkinson’s disease – Postherpetic neuralgia • Chronic abnominal pain • Neck and Back Pain – Intestinal obstructions Chronic Pain Medications • Opiates • Synthetic opioids – Codeine – Fentanyl – Morphine – Methadone • Semi-synthetic opioids – Meperidine – Oxymorphone – Tramadol – Oxycodone – Propoxyphene – Hydromorphone – Levorphanol – Hydrocodone – Tapentadol – Buprenorphine • Anticonvulsant • Muscle
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Oral Modified-Release Opioid Products for the Management of Chronic Pain
    Pain Management Overview of Oral Modified-Release Opioid Products for the Management of Chronic Pain Celene M Amabile and Bill J Bowman OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pharmaceutical and pharmacotherapeutic differences in oral opioid modified-release products used in the management of chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE (1966–May 2006) and an extensive review of peer reviewed journals were conducted using the key search terms opioid, morphine, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Supplemental information was gathered through the American Pain Society, and limited but relevant information was obtained from manufacturers’ labeling. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated. Information deemed relevant was included for this review if it introduced new or well supported concepts or clarified clinical practice issues. DATA SYNTHESIS: The recognition and treatment of pain has become a major focus of healthcare professionals. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations mandates compliance with recommended standards, outcome measures, and other initiatives. A general review of pain management and pharmacokinetic parameters are included. CONCLUSIONS: Oral modified-release products have enabled patients to better maintain pain control due to convenient dosing intervals and sustained blood concentrations. The differences between available oral modified-release products are half-life, cost, and formulation (excipients and drug-release properties). KEY WORDS: hydromorphone, morphine, opioid, oxycodone. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40:1327-35. Published Online, 25 Jul 2006, www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1G259 THIS ARTICLE IS APPROVED FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT ACPE UNIVERSAL PROGRAM NUMBER: 407-000-06-017-H01 he recognition and treatment of pain have become a fewest adverse drug effects (ADEs).1,2 However, this dos- Tmajor focus of healthcare professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphine and Heroin Differentially Modulate in Vivo Hippocampal LTP in Opiate-Dependent Rat
    Neuropsychopharmacology (2007) 32, 1738–1749 & 2007 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0893-133X/07 $30.00 www.neuropsychopharmacology.org Morphine and Heroin Differentially Modulate In Vivo Hippocampal LTP in Opiate-Dependent Rat 1,3 2,3 2,3 1,3 1 1 2 ,1 Guobin Bao , Lin Kang , Haohong Li , Yuting Li ,LuPu, Peng Xia , Lan Ma and Gang Pei* 1 Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of 2 Sciences, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; Pharmacology Research Center, Shanghai Medical College and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China Addictive drugs have been shown to severely influence many neuronal functions, which are considered as the underlying mechanisms for physiological and psychological dependences. We previously showed that in vivo LTP in rat hippocampal CA1 region is significantly reduced during withdrawal following chronic opiates treatment, and the reduced LTP can be restored by re-exposure of animals to corresponding drugs. Here, we further demonstrated that during opiates withdrawal, the re-exposure of morphine either systemically (subcutaneously) or locally (intracerebroventricularly) could restore the reduced LTP in heroin-dependent rats, but heroin could not restore the reduced LTP, in morphine-dependent rats, indicating differential modulations of hippocampal functions by those two opiates. In contrast, DAMGO, a mu-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist, could restore the reduced LTP, and CTOP, a MOR antagonist, could block the restoration in rats dependent on both opiates, showing that MOR is functional under such conditions. However, the upregulation of hippocampal PKA activity during morphine withdrawal could be suppressed by re-exposure of morphine but not that of heroin, suggesting a likely underlying mechanism of the differential modulation of LTP by two opiates.
    [Show full text]