nach oben

Pain and Therapy

Erschienen in:

Open Access 20.10.2023 | ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Combined Efficacy of Systemically Acting Diclofenac Sodium Patch and Alpha-2-Delta Calcium Channel Ligand in Chronic Low Back Pain: Subanalysis of a Phase III Study

verfasst von: Shigeki Yamaguchi, Takaaki Terahara, Koji Okawa, Hiroshi Inakura

Erschienen in: Pain and Therapy | Ausgabe 6/2023

Abstract

Introduction

Chronic low back pain often comprises mixed pain types and involves multiple factors. Therefore, we hypothesized that the systemic transdermal formulation of diclofenac sodium (DF systemic patch), which is effective for nociceptive pain, and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand, which is effective for neuropathic pain, would have additive effects in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Methods

From among participants in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of DF systemic patch (75 or 150 mg) applied once daily for 2 weeks in patients with chronic low back pain, we performed a subpopulation analysis of those who were concomitantly treated with an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand during the study period. The efficacy endpoint was pain intensity score on a visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The difference (95% confidence interval) in the least square mean pain VAS score between patients in the 150-mg combination group, who were treated with 150-mg DF systemic patch and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand (n = 11), and those in the non-combination group, who were treated with placebo patch and α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand (n = 22), was − 15.09 mm (− 26.45, − 3.73). Because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was less than zero, this result indicates that the pain VAS score improved more in the 150-mg combination group than in the non-combination group (placebo group).

Conclusions

The combination of the DF systemic patch and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand may be more effective than α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand monotherapy for controlling chronic low back pain.

Trial registration numbers: JPRN-JapicCTI-205134 and jRCT2080225040.

Key Summary Points

Why carry out this study?

Chronic low back pain is one of the most common chronic pain disorders and often comprises mixed pain types.

We hypothesized that combining a systemic transdermal patch containing the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac sodium (DF systemic patch), which is effective for nociceptive pain, with an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand, which is effective for neuropathic pain, would have additive effects in patients with chronic low back pain.

What was learned from the study?

In patients with chronic low back pain, the combination of the DF systemic patch and α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand appears to have additive effects, as shown by improvement in pain visual analog scale scores in the 150-mg combination group than in the α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand monotherapy (placebo group) placebo patch group.

The population evaluated in this report did not experience gastrointestinal adverse events, which are typical adverse effects of NSAIDs, or lightheadedness or dizziness, which are commonly observed with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands.

Introduction

In Japan, low back pain is one of the most frequent conditions in terms of both symptomatic prevalence and consultation rates and is also one of the most common reasons for visits to healthcare facilities in Europe and the US [1]. Chronic low back pain is a highly common chronic pain disorder and is defined as “low back pain that has persisted for more than 3 months” [2]. Chronic pain is classified as nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain, but it is rare for chronic pain to be attributed to any one of these three factors, and it often involves mixed pain [3]. Similarly, chronic low back pain, which involves a variety of pathologies, may be due to nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, or both [4, 5].

In general, the recommended pharmacological therapies for chronic low back pain include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Europe [6]; NSAIDs, tramadol, and duloxetine in the US [7]; and weak opioids, NSAIDs, and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) [1] in Japan. Although α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands (e.g., pregabalin and mirogabalin) have demonstrated efficacy in controlling neuropathic pain, they are not currently recommended for the treatment of chronic low back pain because of the poor level of evidence, e.g., [8]. However, a systematic review indicated that neuropathic pain was present in 16.7–54.4% of patients with chronic low back pain [9], and studies reported that NSAIDs and α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands have additive effects in the treatment of chronic low back pain [10, 11]. Consequently, the addition of α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands to standard therapy may be expected to have an additive effect in chronic pain patients with neuropathic pain.

Diclofenac sodium is one of the most widely used NSAIDs in clinical practice [12]. The once-daily systemic transdermal patch of diclofenac sodium (DF systemic patch) was newly developed and approved. In Japan, it is indicated for “analgesia and anti-inflammation in low back pain, humeroscapular peri arthritis, cervico-omo-brachial syndrome and tenosynovitis” and “analgesia in various cancers.” To receive the approval for low back pain, we studied a matrix-type formulation of the DF systemic patch containing 75 mg of diclofenac sodium per 70 cm² (7 × 10 cm) patch in a phase II study (randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group comparison; unpublished data) and a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparative study in patients with chronic low back pain [13]. When we performed a post hoc analysis in the subgroup of patients in the phase II study who were concomitantly treated with pregabalin, one of the α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands, the results suggested that efficacy (i.e., change in pain visual analog scale [VAS] score) was better in the combination group (DF systemic patch + pregabalin) than in the non-combination group (placebo patch + pregabalin). This finding suggested that the subpopulation analysis in the phase II study might reveal an additive effect of the combination of DF systemic patches and α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands in chronic low back pain, although the pain classification of chronic low back pain has not been determined.

To test this hypothesis, we performed an exploratory subpopulation analysis of participants from the phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparative study [13] who continued to use an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand throughout the study period, i.e., we compared the combination groups, which received 75 or 150 mg DF systemic patch plus an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand, with the non-combination group, which received the placebo patch plus an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand.

Methods

The analysis was performed in the subpopulation of participants in the phase III study who received concomitant α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands. The phase III study was conducted as a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study at 75 Japanese sites [13]. It was performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The 75 participating institutions acquired approval of the protocol from one of the following institutional review boards: Shinagawa East One Medical Clinic Institutional Review Board; Sugiura Clinic Institutional Review Board; and Jimbo Orthopedics Institutional Review Board. Prior to enrollment, all participating patients provided written informed consent to participate in the study. The study was registered with the Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN-JapicCTI-205134) and the Japan Registry for Clinical Trials (jRCT2080225040).

The phase III study was performed in Japanese patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with chronic low back pain and had been receiving pain control treatment with NSAIDs or acetaminophen for a minimum of 4 weeks. Patients were excluded if they had symptoms that may have affected the clinical assessment, e.g., radiating pain, numbness, or paralysis extending to the knees. After a 1-week wash-out period, patients underwent a 1-week single-blind placebo patch application (1-week placebo run-in period), after which placebo responders or patients with unstable pain status were excluded. Subsequently, eligible patients (e.g., those with a mean pain VAS score ≥ 40 mm in the 3 days immediately preceding enrollment in the double-blind treatment period) were enrolled in the 2-week double-blind treatment period. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:2 ratio to the 75-mg DF systemic patch group (one active drug patch, one placebo patch), 150-mg group (two active drug patches), or placebo group (two placebo patches). The efficacy and safety of the DF systemic patch (75 or 150 mg) were compared with that of the placebo.

With regard to pre-treatment and concomitant medications and therapies, treatment with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands, SNRIs, and analgesic adjuncts (e.g., anxiolytics, muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants) or with physiotherapy (e.g., heat therapy, traction therapy, lumbar braces) or alternative therapies (e.g., acupuncture, osteopathy) for low back pain was permitted provided that the dose was not modified and treatment was not initiated from at least 4 weeks prior to the wash-out period and throughout the study period (i.e., the wash-out period, placebo run-in period, and double-blind treatment period). However, pharmacologic treatments, such as opioids, vaccinia virus-inoculated rabbit inflammatory skin extract, and corticosteroids, and surgical treatments that may have affected pain assessment, e.g., lumbar trigger point injections and percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, were not permitted during the study period.

A total of 538 patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled in the study and randomly allocated to the 75-mg group (n = 136), 150-mg group (n = 135), or placebo group (n = 267). At the end of each day throughout the study period (i.e., the wash-out period, placebo run-in period, and double-blind treatment period), patients rated the average degree of pain at the site of interest (lower back) by using a 100-mm VAS and recorded the value in a patient diary [13].

Patients

All 538 patients enrolled in the study were included in the efficacy and safety analysis [13]. In the overall population (full analysis set; FAS), 47 patients were taking concomitant α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands (pregabalin and mirogabalin) and were included in the present subpopulation analysis (75-mg group, n = 14 patients; 150-mg group, n = 11; and placebo group, n = 22).

In the FAS, 114 out of 538 patients took concomitant medications other than α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands for the treatment of chronic low back pain throughout the study period (i.e., the wash-out period, placebo run-in period, and double-blind treatment period). The concomitant medications included muscle relaxants (e.g., eperisone; 48 cases), prostaglandin E1 derivatives (43 cases), vitamin preparations (21 cases), SNRIs (16 cases), Chinese herbal preparations (five cases), and a prostaglandin I2 derivative (one case), whereby some patients took more than one concomitant medication.

Statistical analyses

The subpopulation analysis included patients in the FAS who were concomitantly treated with an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand. Although this subpopulation analysis was pre-planned, it was positioned as an exploratory analysis. Tabulation of demographic and baseline characteristics and adverse events (AEs) of the subpopulation were performed post hoc. To evaluate efficacy, in each group (i.e., the 75-mg and 150-mg combination groups and placebo group) the results of the pain VAS scores were used to calculate the least square mean, standard error, and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the change from baseline (i.e., the start of the double-blind treatment period) in the mean 3-day pain VAS score after 2 weeks of treatment and the between-group difference in the least square means of the active treatment combination group (75-mg and 150-mg groups) relative to the placebo group and its 95% CI. The mean 3-day pain VAS score was calculated from the pain VAS scores on the 3 days immediately preceding each specified hospital visit (e.g., the mean 3-day pain VAS score at baseline was the mean of the pain VAS scores on the 3 days immediately preceding the start of the double-blind treatment period). In case of premature discontinuation of participants, the mean of the pain VAS scores on the 3 days immediately preceding the end of the wash-out period were used. SAS® version 9.4 was used for statistical analysis. The subpopulation analysis described in this article was performed for exploratory purposes, so no sample size was determined for the subpopulation analysis and no statistical comparisons were performed between groups.

The subpopulation safety analysis included patients in the safety analysis set (SAF; i.e., those who received the study drug) who were concomitantly treated with the α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand. The incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs; i.e., AEs for which a causal relationship could not be ruled out) were tabulated for each group in the subpopulation. Event names of AEs were coded with system organ classes and preferred terms according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 23.1.

Results

Patient Disposition and Baseline Characteristics

Demographic and baseline characteristics of patients in the subpopulation and the overall population (FAS) are shown in Table 1. Although age and disease duration tended to be higher in the subpopulation placebo group than in the two subpopulation combination treatment groups and the overall population, the values were generally similar.

Table 1

Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics

Characteristic	Subpopulation (concomitant treatment with alpha-2-delta calcium channel ligand)			Overall study population (FAS)
Characteristic	75-mg combination (N = 14)	150-mg combination (N = 11)	Placebo (N = 22)	75 mg (N = 136)	150 mg (N = 135)	Placebo (N = 267)
Sex, n (%)
Male	6 (42.9)	5 (45.5)	12 (54.5)	55 (40.4)	56 (41.5)	125 (46.8)
Female	8 (57.1)	6 (54.5)	10 (45.5)	81 (59.6)	79 (58.5)	142 (53.2)
Age, years
Mean ± SD	66.2 ± 9.3	66.4 ± 17.1	72.3 ± 9.3	64.1 ± 14.0	63.0 ± 15.0	63.8 ± 13.5
Minimum	51	37	47	27	27	20
Maximum	82	81	84	89	85	87
Body weight, kg
Mean ± SD	67.21 ± 13.25	66.62 ± 13.65	67.16 ± 12.59	62.88 ± 13.15	63.28 ± 13.57	63.59 ± 12.43
Minimum	47.4	50.4	44.0	32.7	38.3	37.3
Maximum	96.2	92.3	90.5	98.9	110.3	111.0
Mean 3-day VAS pain score at baseline, mm
Mean ± SD	66.69 ± 13.26	59.15 ± 12.10	60.80 ± 15.23	61.87 ± 12.92	61.48 ± 12.45	61.32 ± 13.13
Minimum	40.3	41.3	40.3	40.3	40.3	40.3
Maximum	81.3	84.3	90.0	96.0	93.0	99.0
Duration of disease, years
Mean ± SD	4.52 ± 5.25	5.04 ± 6.39	8.19 ± 10.00	5.31 ± 5.42	6.19 ± 5.87	5.82 ± 7.34
Minimum	0.4	0.7	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.3
Maximum	20.0	19.0	41.0	30.0	30.0	49.0

FAS full analysis set, SD standard deviation, VAS visual analog scale

Patient-specific background information and the daily dose and purpose of use of the concomitant α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand used in each patient are shown in Table 2; almost all of the 47 patients received pregabalin (n = 43), and the remaining four patients received mirogabalin. During the study period (i.e., the wash-out period, placebo run-in period, and double-blind treatment period), the dosage of the concomitant α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand was not modified and treatment with these drugs was not initiated in any patients.

Table 2

Background information of individual patients and concomitant alpha-2-delta calcium channel ligand (subpopulation)

No.	Group	Underlying disorder of low back pain	Duration of treatment, days	Pain VAS score, mm			Alpha-2-delta calcium channel ligand
No.	Group	Underlying disorder of low back pain	Duration of treatment, days	Baseline^a	After 2 weeks of treatment^b	Change	Concomitant drug	Daily dose, mg	Purpose of use
1	150 mg	Back pain	14	84.3	75.3	− 9.0	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
2	150 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis	16	52.7	14.3	− 38.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain Right femoral greater trochanteric pain Right hip arthropathy
3	150 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis	14	49.7	27.3	− 22.3	Oral pregabalin	25	Low back pain
4	150 mg	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	59.3	10.0	− 49.3	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
5	150 mg	Spondylolisthesis	14	59.0	51.7	− 7.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Numbness associated with underlying disorder causing low back pain
6	150 mg	Intervertebral disc protrusion, intervertebral disc disorder	14	69.7	69.0	− 0.7	Oral pregabalin	150	Low back pain
7	150 mg	Back pain	14	59.7	45.7	− 14.0	Oral pregabalin	75	Low back pain
8	150 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc protrusion	14	41.3	28.0	− 13.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Low back pain Right lower extremity radicular sciatica
9	150 mg	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	64.0	43.7	− 20.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Sciatica
10	150 mg	Intervertebral disc protrusion	14	66.0	40.3	− 25.7	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
11	150 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis	14	45.0	20.0	− 25.0	Oral pregabalin	150	Peripheral neuropathy
12	75 mg	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	74.0	62.7	− 11.3	Oral mirogabalin	30	Low back pain
13	75 mg	Intervertebral disc disorder	14	74.7	78.0	3.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain
14	75 mg	Intervertebral disc protrusion	16	74.0	65.0	− 9.0	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
15	75 mg	Intervertebral disc protrusion	12	73.3	57.0	− 16.3	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
16	75 mg	Myofascial pain syndrome	12	51.3	26.0	− 25.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Cervical disc herniation
17	75 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc protrusion, intervertebral disc disorder	11^c	70.3	NA	− 7.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain
18	75 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis	14	61.7	51.3	− 10.3	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
19	75 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, Spondylolisthesis	14	43.7	35.0	− 8.7	Oral pregabalin	75	Low back pain
20	75 mg	Intervertebral disc protrusion	14	61.3	38.7	− 22.7	Oral pregabalin	525	Left sciatica
21	75 mg	Spinal osteoarthritis	12	40.3	37.3	− 3.0	Oral pregabalin	75	Neuropathic pain
22	75 mg	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	77.7	9.3	− 68.3	Oral pregabalin	75	Peripheral neuropathy
23	75 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc protrusion	14	69.0	56.3	− 12.7	Oral pregabalin	75	Neuropathic pain
24	75 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc protrusion	14	81.3	44.0	− 37.3	Oral pregabalin	75	Low back pain
25	75 mg	Lumbar spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc protrusion	14	81.0	71.7	− 9.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Low back pain
26	Placebo	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	79.0	60.3	− 18.7	Oral mirogabalin	30	Low back pain Peripheral neuropathic pain
27	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal osteoarthritis, spondylolisthesis	15	61.7	57.3	− 4.3	Oral mirogabalin	5	Low back pain
28	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	15	47.7	45.7	− 2.0	Oral mirogabalin	10	Low back pain
29	Placebo	Spinal osteoarthritis	16	90.0	50.0	− 40.0	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain
30	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	14	52.3	50.0	− 2.3	Oral pregabalin	100	Neuropathic pain
31	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal osteoarthritis	14	54.3	31.7	− 22.7	Oral pregabalin	50	Neuropathic pain
32	Placebo	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	76.7	58.0	− 18.7	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain
33	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	2 ^c	57.0	NA	12.0	Oral pregabalin	100	Low back pain
34	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc protrusion	15	41.0	47.3	6.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Peripheral neuropathy
35	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	14	84.3	86.7	2.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Low back pain
36	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal osteoarthritis, spondylolisthesis, spinal instability	14	40.7	45.0	4.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Neuropathic pain
37	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	7 ^c	79.7	NA	7.0	Oral pregabalin	300	Neuropathic pain
38	Placebo	Intervertebral disc protrusion	14	60.7	48.3	− 12.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Neuropathic pain
39	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc protrusion, intervertebral disc disorder	15	56.3	57.0	0.7	Oral pregabalin	375	Peripheral neuropathy
40	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal osteoarthritis	14	65.7	67.7	2.0	Oral pregabalin	150	Peripheral neuropathic pain
41	Placebo	Spinal osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc disorder	14	49.7	50.7	1.0	Oral pregabalin	75	Low back pain Bilateral knee osteoarthritis
42	Placebo	Spinal osteoarthritis	14	59.7	17.0	− 42.7	Oral pregabalin	50	Peripheral neuropathy
43	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	14	71.7	68.3	− 3.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain
44	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	14	40.3	39.0	− 1.3	Oral pregabalin	50	Low back pain
45	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis	15	50.0	53.7	3.7	Oral pregabalin	150	Low back pain
46	Placebo	Osteoporosis, scoliosis	14	77.0	75.0	− 2.0	Oral pregabalin	150	Lumbar spinal stenosis
47	Placebo	Lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal osteoarthritis	14	42.3	45.7	3.3	Oral pregabalin	150	Peripheral neuropathy

NA missing values, VAS visual analog scale

^aMean pain visual analog scale score for the 3 days immediately preceding enrollment in the double-blind treatment period

^bMean 3-day pain visual analog scale score 2 weeks after treatment

^cDiscontinuation case of the clinical study

Efficacy

The results of the subpopulation analysis are shown in Fig. 1, and the results of the analysis in the subpopulation and FAS in the original phase III study are shown in Table 3. At 2 weeks after treatment, the change from baseline in pain VAS scores was greater in both the 150-mg and 75-mg combination groups than in the placebo group. In particular, the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference in the change between the 150-mg combination group and the placebo group was less than zero, indicating improvement in pain VAS scores in the 150-mg combination group compared with the placebo group.

Table 3

Summary of efficacy outcomes

Population	Group	Number of cases	Change in mean 3-day pain VAS score from baseline to week 2, LS mean, mm	Between-group difference in change from baseline in 3-day mean (95% CI) pain VAS score (vs. placebo), mm	P value (vs. placebo)
Overall study population (FAS)	75 mg	136	− 18.52	− 5.68, (− 9.34, − 2.01)	0.0024^a
	150 mg	135	− 18.52	− 5.67, (− 9.34, − 2.00)	0.0025^a
	Placebo	267	− 12.85
Subpopulation (participants with concomitant alpha-2-delta calcium channel ligand)	75 mg combination	14	− 15.91	− 9.77, (− 20.45, 0.92)	NA
	150 mg combination	11	− 21.23	− 15.09, (− 26.45, − 3.73)	NA
	Placebo	22	− 6.14

CI confidence interval, FAS full analysis set, LS least squares, NA not analyzed, VAS visual analog scale

^aAnalyzed by analysis of covariance with treatment group and 3-day mean pain visual analog scale score at the start of the double-blind treatment period as explanatory variables

Safety

The incidence rates of AEs and ADRs in the subpopulation are shown in Table 4. The AE incidence rate was highest in the 75-mg combination group but lower and similar in the 150-mg combination and placebo groups. The same pattern was seen in the incidence rate of ADRs. With the exception of the incidence rate of AEs in the 150-mg combination group, which tended to be lower than in the overall population, the incidence rates were generally similar to those in the overall population (SAF; AE incidence rates in the overall population were 27.2% in the 75-mg group, 29.6% in the 150-mg group, and 28.1% in the placebo group, and ADR incidence rates were 14.0% in the 75-mg group, 12.6% in the 150-mg group, and 19.1% in the placebo group) [13]. The subpopulation showed no gastrointestinal tract disturbances or AEs considered to be associated with such disturbances, which are commonly observed with NSAIDs, no AEs such as lightheadedness or dizziness which are commonly observed with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands, and no serious AEs. The case of interstitial lung disease reported in the placebo group was present before the start of the study, but the investigator judged it to be an AE because at the time of the tests conducted during the study period it had worsened from the state prior to the start of placebo patch application.

Table 4

Incidence rate of adverse events and adverse drug reactions in the subpopulation of patients who received concomitant treatment with an alpha-2-delta calcium channel ligand and 75 or 150 mg transdermal systemic diclofenac sodium patch or placebo in a phase III clinical trial

	Adverse events			Adverse drug reactions (adverse events for which a causal relationship cannot be ruled out)
	75-mg combination (N = 14)	150-mg combination (N = 11)	Placebo (N = 22)	75-mg combination (N = 14)	150-mg combination (N = 11)	Placebo (N = 22)
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Any AE	5 (35.7)	2 (18.2)	4 (18.2)	3 (21.4)	1 (9.1)	2 (9.1)
AEs (MedDRA SOC, PT)^a
Cardiac disorders	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Tachycardia	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
General disorders and administration site conditions	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)
Application site erythema	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Application site pruritus	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)
Hepatobiliary disorders	1 (7.1)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (7.1)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)
Hepatic function abnormal	0 (0.0)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)
Hepatic steatosis	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Investigations	4 (28.6)	2 (18.2)	2 (9.1)	2 (14.3)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)
Alanine aminotransferase increased	0 (0.0)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Blood creatine phosphokinase increased	0 (0.0)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (9.1)	0 (0.0)
Blood bilirubin increased	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Blood pressure increased	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Neutrophil percentage decreased	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Neutrophil percentage increased	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Monocyte percentage increased	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	2 (9.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)
Interstitial lung disease	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.5)

AE adverse event, MedDRA Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, PT preferred terms, SOC system organ class

^aAdverse events were coded by using the system organ classes and preferred terms of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 23.1. Judgment criteria for causal relationship: A causal relationship with the study drug was judged at four levels: “definitely related,” “probably related,” “possibly related,” and “not related.” Adverse events for which a causal relationship with the study drug could not be completely ruled out (i.e., adverse events corresponding to those judged as “definitely related,” “probably related,” or “possibly related”) were treated as adverse drug reactions

Discussion

This report presents the results of a subpopulation analysis of patients who were continuously treated with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands throughout a phase III study performed to assess the efficacy of a DF systemic patch (75 and 150 mg) in patients with chronic low back pain [13]. In this subpopulation analysis, the 75-mg and 150-mg combination groups (i.e., the group of patients treated with the active DF systemic patch and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand) were defined as combination groups and the placebo group (i.e., the group of patients treated with placebo patch and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand) was defined as the non-combination group. The subpopulation analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of concomitant treatment with DF systemic patch and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand by comparing the combination groups with the non-combination group.

In the subpopulation analysis, no restrictions were placed on the reason for using the α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands. As such, although some patients were taking the α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand for reasons other than treating low back pain, the intended use in these patients was primarily for low back pain-related disorders or for neuropathic pain associated with low back pain (Table 2). The 150-mg combination group showed improvement in the 3-day mean pain VAS score after 2 weeks of treatment compared with the non-combination group (placebo group). In addition, a comparison of differences between each of the combination groups and the non-combination group (placebo group) in the subpopulation and between the 75-mg and 150-mg groups and the placebo group in the overall population (FAS) showed greater differences in the subpopulation than in the overall population (Table 3). These results support our hypothesis of an additive effect of the DF systemic patch and α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands in patients with chronic low back pain.

In patients taking α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands to treat chronic low back pain, neuropathic pain is assumed to be a contributing factor to their chronic pain. It is conceivable that in this patient group, the combination with diclofenac sodium, which suppresses nociceptive pain, may have resulted in additional pain improvement compared with the non-combination group (placebo group), resulting in a greater change in pain VAS scores. Furthermore, one study reported that the addition of the α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand mirogabalin in patients treated with NSAIDs for lumbar spinal canal stenosis with peripheral neuropathic pain significantly improved the change in pain VAS scores compared with patients treated with NSAIDs alone [14], and another found that the combination of celecoxib and pregabalin was more effective than monotherapy [10]. Although these reports do not directly support an additive effect of the DF systemic patch itself with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands, the positive effects of the concomitant use of NSAIDs and α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands indicate that the DF systemic patch may also be highly likely to have an additive effect in controlling chronic pain, such as that associated with the mixed pain of chronic low back pain.

With respect to safety, the incidence rates of AEs and ADRs tended to be higher in the 75-mg combination group than in the placebo group, but this was considered to be due to the limited number of cases in this subpopulation analysis. In support of this, the incidence rates of AEs and ADRs in the 150-mg combination group were similar to those in the placebo group, indicating that there was no dose-related increase in the incidence rates of AEs and ADRs. In addition, AEs such as gastrointestinal disturbance-related AEs, which are commonly observed with NSAIDs, and lightheadedness and dizziness, which are commonly observed with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands, were not observed in any of the groups. These results suggest that the concomitant use of a DF systemic patch with an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand is as safe as the administration of an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand alone. The efficacy and safety of the long-term administration of the DF systemic patch have been confirmed [15]. With the DF systemic patch, the AEs associated with the upper gastrointestinal mucosa (a clinically relevant effect of NSAIDs) tend to be less frequent than with oral agents [16]. Taken together, findings indicate that the DF systemic patch may potentially become a viable option for the long-term administration of NSAIDs in addition to α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligands for pain control in chronic low back pain.

This subpopulation analysis has some limitations. First, the results are limited in terms of generalizability: Because the phase III study included patients whose pain was controlled by treatment with NSAIDs or acetaminophen, it may have been biased towards a population with a high responsiveness to these drugs. Second, the subpopulation analysis was exploratory, and the pain classification of chronic low back pain was not determined, so a future prospective study needs to test the hypothesis in a larger population of patients with a definite pain classification of chronic low back pain.

Conclusions

The combination of DF systemic patch and an α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand may have greater efficacy in the treatment of chronic low back pain than monotherapy with α2δ Ca²⁺ channel ligand.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all of the patients, investigators, and site staff involved in the study.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Shigeki Yamaguchi received medical consultant fees from Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. Shigeki Yamaguchi received honoraria from The Nakatomi Foundation. Takaaki Terahara, Koji Okawa, and Hiroshi Inakura are employees of Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

Ethical Approval

The phase III study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964 and its later amendments and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The 75 participating institutions acquired approval of the protocol from one of the following institutional review boards: Shinagawa East One Medical Clinic Institutional Review Board, Sugiura Clinic Institutional Review Board, and Jimbo Orthopedics Institutional Review Board. Prior to enrollment, all participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study. Throughout the study period, no ethical problems or medical malpractice occurred, and the participants’ identities were kept confidential. The phase III study was registered with the Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN) as JPRN-JapicCTI-205134 and the Japan Registry for Clinical Trials (jRCT) as jRCT2080225040.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA). Clinical practice guidelines on the management of low back pain. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Nankodo Co. Ltd.; 2019.

Snelgrove S, Liossi C. Living with chronic low back pain: a metasynthesis of qualitative research. Chronic Illn. 2013;9(4):283–301.CrossRefPubMed

Health, Labour and Welfare Policy Research Grants (Research on chronic pain) in Japan: Research for the Uniform Accessibility to Chronic Pain Management Systems and Improved Healthcare Utilizing Pain Center Treatment Databases. Clinical practice guideline for the management chronic pain. 1st ed. Tokyo: Shinko Trading Co., Ltd.; 2021.

Morlion B. The relevance of neuropathic components in chronic back pain. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(10):2067–8.CrossRefPubMed

Kaki AM, El-Yaski AZ, Youseif E. Identifying neuropathic pain among patients with chronic low-back pain: use of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2005;30(5):422–8.PubMed

National Guideline Centre (UK). Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management. 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK401577/. Accessed 14 April July 2023.

Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, et al. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(7):514. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2367.CrossRefPubMed

Koes BW, van Tulder M, Lin CW, Macedo LG, McAuley J, Maher C. An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(12):2075–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fishbain DA, Cole B, Lewis JE, Gao J. What is the evidence that neuropathic pain is present in chronic low back pain and soft tissue syndromes? An evidence-based structured review. Pain Med. 2014;15(1):4–15.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Romanò CL, Romanò D, Bonora C, Mineo G. Pregabalin, celecoxib, and their combination for treatment of chronic low-back pain. J Orthop Traumatol. 2009;10(4):185–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Yeole AB, Lakshmi GSR, Selvakumar CJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of pregabalin prolonged release-etoricoxib combination compared to etoricoxib for chronic low back pain: phase 3, randomized study. Pain Ther. 2022;11(4):1451–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Gan TJ. Diclofenac: an update on its mechanism of action and safety profile. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(7):1715–31.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Taguchi T, Yamaguchi S, Terahara T, Okawa K, Inakura H. Systemically acting diclofenac sodium patch for control of low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japan. Pain Ther. 2023;12(2):529–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Nikaido T, Takatsuna H, Tabata S, Shiosakai K, Nakatani T, Konno SI. Efficacy and safety of add-on mirogabalin to NSAIDs in lumbar spinal stenosis with peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized, open-label study. Pain Ther. 2022;11(4):1195–214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Taguchi T, Yamaguchi S, Terahara T, Okawa K, Inakura H, Nohara Y. Safety of long-term administration of a systemic-acting diclofenac sodium patch (HP-3150) in Japanese patients with low back pain. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2022;50(2):213–27.

16.

Fukase H, Futagami S, Yamamoto T, et al. An endoscopic study of the influence of a systemic patch containing diclofenac sodium on the upper gastrointestinal mucosa in healthy middle-aged and elderly men and women—a randomized controlled trial with patent drug control. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2023;51(3):341–50 (translated from Japanese).

Titel: Combined Efficacy of Systemically Acting Diclofenac Sodium Patch and Alpha-2-Delta Calcium Channel Ligand in Chronic Low Back Pain: Subanalysis of a Phase III Study
verfasst von: Shigeki Yamaguchi
Takaaki Terahara
Koji Okawa
Hiroshi Inakura
Publikationsdatum: 20.10.2023
Verlag: Springer Healthcare
Erschienen in: Pain and Therapy / Ausgabe 6/2023
Print ISSN: 2193-8237
Elektronische ISSN: 2193-651X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-023-00558-2

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

17.05.2024 Plötzlicher Herztod Nachrichten

Ein signifikanter Anteil der Fälle von plötzlichem Herztod ist genetisch bedingt. Um ihre Verwandten vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren, sollten jüngere Personen, die plötzlich unerwartet versterben, ausnahmslos einer Autopsie unterzogen werden.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

17.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Nicht nur ein vergrößerter, sondern auch ein kleiner linker Ventrikel ist bei Vorhofflimmern mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate assoziiert. Der Zusammenhang besteht nach Daten aus China unabhängig von anderen Risikofaktoren.

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

17.05.2024 Herzinsuffizienz Nachrichten

Bei adipösen Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz des HFpEF-Phänotyps ist Semaglutid von symptomatischem Nutzen. Resultiert dieser Benefit allein aus der Gewichtsreduktion oder auch aus spezifischen Effekten auf die Herzinsuffizienz-Pathogenese? Eine neue Analyse gibt Aufschluss.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Patients

Statistical analyses

Results

Patient Disposition and Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Safety

Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ethical Approval

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2023

Pain Management with Inhalation of Methoxyflurane Administrated by Non-Medical Ski Patrol: A Quality Assessment Study

A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding “Deep Neuromuscular Block Attenuates Chronic Postsurgical Pain and Enhances Long-Term Postoperative Recovery After Spinal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial”

Promising Subjective and Objective Benefits of Modified Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Training for Chinese Adults with Chronic Pain: A Pilot Randomized Control Study

Do Electrical Stimulation Devices Reduce Pain and Improve Function?—A Comparative Review

“I’m Not the Same Person Anymore”: Thematic Analysis Exploring Experiences of Dependence to Prescribed Analgesics in Patients with Chronic Pain in the UK

Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation as Treatment for Chronic Pain

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

Update Innere Medizin