Efficacy and tolerability balance of oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol in chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component: a blinded end point analysis of randomly selected routine data from 12-week prospective open-label observations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit-risk profile (BRP) of oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) and tapentadol (TAP) in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) with a neuropathic component (NC) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS: This was a blinded end point analysis of randomly selected 12-week routine/open-label data of the German Pain Registry on adult patients with cLBP-NC who initiated an index treatment in compliance with the current German prescribing information between 1st January and 31st October 2015 (OXN/TAP, n=128/133). Primary end point was defined as a composite of three efficacy components (≥30% improvement of pain, pain-related disability, and quality of life each at the end of observation vs baseline) and three tolerability components (normal bowel function, absence of either central nervous system side effects, and treatment-emergent adverse event [TEAE]-related treatment discontinuation during the observation period) adopted to reflect BRP assessments under real-life conditions.

RESULTS: Demographic as well as baseline and pretreatment characteristics were comparable for the randomly selected data sets of both index groups without any indicators for critical selection biases. Treatment with OXN resulted formally in a BRP noninferior to that of TAP and showed a significantly higher primary end point response vs TAP (39.8% vs 25.6%, odds ratio: 1.93; P =0.014), due to superior analgesic effects. Between-group differences increased with stricter response definitions for all three efficacy components in favor of OXN: ≥30%/≥50%/≥70% response rates for OXN vs TAP were seen for pain intensity in 85.2%/67.2%/39.1% vs 83.5%/54.1%/15.8% ( P = ns/0.031/<0.001), for pain-related disability in 78.1%/64.8%/43.8% vs 66.9%/50.4%/24.8% ( P =0.043/0.018/0.001), and for quality of life in 76.6%/68.0%/50.0% vs 63.9%/54.1%/34.6% ( P =0.026/0.022/0.017). Overall, OXN vs TAP treatments were well tolerated, and proportions of patients who either maintained a normal bowel function (68.0% vs 72.2%), reported no central nervous system side effects (91.4% vs 89.5%), or completed the 12-week evaluation period without any TEAE-related treatment discontinuations (93.0% vs 92.5%) were similar for both index medications ( P = ns for each comparison).

CONCLUSION: In daily practice, the BRP of OXN proved to be noninferior to that of TAP in patients with cLBP-NC, but showed a superior efficacy if stricter analgesic response definitions were evaluated.